Last Throes

[andyfox]

Dick Cheney last month said that the Iraq insurgency was in its "last throes."

Don Rumsfeld told the Senate Armed Services Committee, "I didn't use them [the words "last throes"] and I might not use them," saying the insurgency could "go on for four, eight, ten, twelve, fifteen years, whatever . . . We don't know."

Again today, Rumsfeld said it may take as long as twelve years to defeat Iraqi insurgents and that Iraqi security forces will finish the job because U.S. and foreign troops will have left the country.

That being the case, what is the problem with setting a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. forces? The administration has maintained that setting a timetable would embolden the insurgents. But if the insurgency is going to continue anyway, why not say when we're pulling out?

Rumsfeld said, "We're not going to win against the insurgency. The Iraqi people are going to win against the insurgency. That insurgency could go on for any number of years. Insurgencies tend to go on five, six, eight, ten, twelve years.

"Coalition forces, foreign forces are not going to repress that insurgency," he said on "Fox News Sunday."

Rumsfeld, in interviews on the Sunday news shows, warned that the insurgency could grow through the year as Iraqi leaders develop a constitution for a democratic government.

At the same time, Rumsfeld defended Vice President Dick Cheney's description of the insurgency as being in its "last throes." Rumsfeld said the U.S. commander in the Middle East did not contradict Cheney when he told the Senate last week that the insurgency was as strong as it was six months ago.

"If you look up 'last throes,' it can mean a violent last throe," Rumsfeld said on ABC's "This Week."

He must have a dictionary of which I am unaware.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
"If you look up 'last throes,' it can mean a violent last throe," Rumsfeld said on ABC's "This Week."

He must have a dictionary of which I am unaware.

[/ QUOTE ]

Some dying persons, said to be in their "death throes", may undergo violent spasms, contortions or convulsions.

One common meaning of "throe" = spasm

[andyfox]

I don't doubt that a throe can be violent. I'm wondering about Rummy's definition of the word "last."

C'mon, just this week Rumsfeld criticized Cheney's remark. ["I didn't use them, and I might not use them."] When Republican Senator Chuck Hagel heard what Cheney said he said that the White House was "completely disconnected from reality." That's why Rummy made the talk show circuit today to emphasize that Cheney's remakr was WRONG. The insrugency is not only not in its "last throes," it will, according to Rumsfeld go on for years and we won't defeat it, it will be for the Iraqis themselves to beat it, we'll be long gone before it's defeated.

But of course he couldn't just say the VP was wrong, he had to put the best face on it he could. Nobody quite manipulates the language like Rummy does (unless it is the character in Alice in Wonderland who asserts that words don't have a definitive meaning, rather they mean what she says they mean), hence he was the perfect man for the job. Thus he tried to show why the insurgency being in its "last throes" is not different from it continuing for another twelve years.

But for those of us for whom English is our mother tongue, it is.

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
He must have a dictionary of which I am unaware.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's the unwritten political dictionary. It’s a ghostly and diaphanous work known only to our elected or appointed government officials.

Speaking of Rummy, I read an article about him in the recent Esquire, a magazine I somehow acquired at a coffee shop through sanguine means that can only be described as questionable. The more I read about this man; the more I like him.

'Last Throes'? Not even close. The timeline for all this goes back at least 5,000 years and will continue at least 5,000 years into the future, if we are still around in 7005 that is.

-Zeno

[MMMMMM]

"Last" might be wrong, although it is possible that the insurgency is now in one great big "last throe" which may linger on for years.

Come to think of it, that must be what Rumsfeld meant, no?;-)

[slamdunkpro]

If we treated Iraq like we did Oakanowa and Iwo, the insurgents would be gone in short order.

[shots]

Instead of arguing semantics I would like to address the general point of your post. Why not set a timetable to leave if we know we won't ever totally wipe out the insurgents? Well mainly that it just doesn't make sense we have to keep reassesing the situation as we go along and when the job is done we can leave there's no magic day when this will be.Of course we won't completely wipe out the insurggents but we have to make sure that there's realative security and stability before we leave.

[MMMMMM]

We are far too "kid glove" oriented over there, in my opinion.

We need to kick the crap out of the insurgents, line them up and shoot them in the village squares, and lock down any trouble spots with curfews and armored coloumns, and disarm the hot spots entirely via man-to-man and house-to-house searches.

And if they hide out in a mosque and shoot at us from there, flatten it.

We should a message of "Enough with this bulls*t"--and mean it. And it IS bullsh*t.

This is still war, and civilian rules of conduct do not and should not apply. And civilians caught trying to sabotage military or reconstructive efforts may be summarily executed--just as in our own Civil War.

[slamdunkpro]

"Time to take out the trash" (thanks Zeno)

That’s the biggest difference I see between Republicans and Democrats – Most Republicans see this as a war and if they are unhappy with the way the administration is handling it is because we aren’t treating it like a war. A lot of Democrats (in congress) want to treat this as a criminal investigation and prosecution applying domestic standards to an international event. They are upset because the administration is going beyond domestic criminal case protocols.

Paraphrasing John Wayne in the Green Berets “In a war due process is a bullet.”

[slamdunkpro]

It would be interesting to see what would happen if you could muck with time and all this occurred on Reagan’s watch.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
It would be interesting to see what would happen if you could muck with time and all this occurred on Reagan’s watch.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, it would.

I suspect the initial war would have gone more slowly, but the occupation more smoothly. For one thing, we had a FAR larger Army back then and would have had the manpower to do a more thorough job of controlling post-war Iraq.

I'm too busy at the moment (or too lazy;-)) to look up just what our military manpower was back then, but maybe someone knows approximately how it compares with our slimmer military of today and would care to comment.

[PorscheNGuns]

We had slightly over 2 million troops deployed worldwide throughout the 1980's.

Currently we have slightly over 1 million deployed worldwide.

Of course, neither of these figures are remotely close to the number of troops the United States has and potentially could deploy in the future.

-Matt

[slamdunkpro]

After some though – I don’t think it would have happened. After Libya, most of the third world was afraid of Reagan’s US. He would have flattened them after the first WTC bombing.

Sometimes I miss the Soviet Union, (I know, I know really really bad guys) but they knew how to deal with terrorists back in the 70’s and 80’s.

It’s little known or under reported, but when the Iranians stormed the US embassy in Iran they also stormed the Soviet’s. Why was there no “Soviet hostage crisis”? Because their embassy guards responded with live ammo. Problem solved.

When the three Soviet diplomats were abducted in the same period the KGB did a little looking and found out the identity of one of the terrorists. They then paid a visit to his brother and sent the terrorist his thumb as a calling card promising more later if the diplomats weren’t released - 3 days later 3 free diplomats.

Sometimes being the good guys sucks! /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[andyfox]

The argument for not setting a pull-out date has been that it will embolden the insurgents; all they have to do is bide their time and wait for us to leave. This assumes that the Iraqi forces that replace us will be less competent than us. When does Rumsfeld think they will be able to do the job: in one year? eight? twelve? never?

[andyfox]

Is Iraq a different place than Okinawa or Iwo?

[shots]

[ QUOTE ]
The argument for not setting a pull-out date has been that it will embolden the insurgents; all they have to do is bide their time and wait for us to leave. This assumes that the Iraqi forces that replace us will be less competent than us. When does Rumsfeld think they will be able to do the job: in one year? eight? twelve? never?

[/ QUOTE ]

The Iraqi forces that replace us will be less compatent we have the finest millitary in the world they won't be on par with us in a few years. Also there's the question of manpower even assuming the Iraqi forces are as competent as US forces they'll be way less people defending Iraq if we leave. We have to train them up to the point that they're good enough and have sufficient infrastructure in place. We also need to keep pounding on the insurgents and thin out their numbers and criple them logistacally. It's possible that this could be for the most part accomplished in a year it's possible that it takes 10 but again I must say that if you've decided you have to meat a certain standered before you leave then setting arbitrary dates makes no sense.

[ACPlayer]

I dont think Reagan would have gone into Iraq.

He understood.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He must have a dictionary of which I am unaware.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's the unwritten political dictionary. It’s a ghostly and diaphanous work known only to our elected or appointed government officials.

Speaking of Rummy, I read an article about him in the recent Esquire, a magazine I somehow acquired at a coffee shop through sanguine means that can only be described as questionable.


[/ QUOTE ]

Sanguine

adj 1: confidently optimistic and cheerful
2: inclined to a healthy reddish color often associated with outdoor life; "a ruddy complexion"; "Santa's rubicund cheeks";

WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University



hmmmm......

Do you have that lexicon too? Or am I just looking at the wrong one?

[slamdunkpro]

[ QUOTE ]
Is Iraq a different place than Okinawa or Iwo?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, this is a red herring but I'll play; Okinawa was different from Iwo, was different from North Africa, was different from Inchon...

[andyfox]

No red herring. Using the same strategy for different places in different eras under different condition usually works out badly.

[andyfox]

The date wouldn't be arbitrary. We could base it on setting goals and meeting them. It is something that is, by his own admission, anathema to Rumsfeld: planning.

[Zeno]

I was cheerfully confident of my means when I pinched the magazine.

Pinch (number 9 out of 11 possible verb usages), from the OED:

9 verb trans. a Steal (a thing); rob (a person) slang.

-Zeno

[slamdunkpro]

My point wasn't tactics but the will to win and the level of force being used. Treat it like a war – WIN.

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
anathema to Rumsfeld: planning.

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

From the OED:

Anathema 1. Something or someone accursed or assigned to damnation; something or someone detested. 2. The formal act or formula of consigning to damnation; the curse of God; the curse of the Church, excommunicating a person or denouncing a doctrine etc: a denunciation of alleged impiety, hersery, etc.: an imprecation.


I can hardly wait for a post to be titled "Last Throes of Armageddon".

Maranatha!

-Zeno

[wacki]

Well congrats. You've made me feel like an ass. So you're a sweet talking con. Good for you. For a second I wondered if you meant sanguinary but that would be a bit too much.

BTW, your location says Spitsbergen. Are you from there? Or is that where you were in that pic you posted? That is one hell of a remote location.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
It would be interesting to see what would happen if you could muck with time and all this [Iraqi insurgency] occurred on Reagan’s watch.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why not go by a real precedent ?

In 1983, United States President Ronald Reagan deployed the U.S. Marines in Lebanon, in an effort to help pacify the civil-war torn country. A suicide bomber's attack, carried out by a still unknown side in that civil war, hit the Marines' barracks killing in one go upwards of two hundred Americans. A visibly shaken President Reagan, went on national TV and stated his intention to resist those who would "drive us out of that area."

In short time, however, the American President had turned tail and ordered his troops to depart from Lebanon, admitting failure and allowing the ostensibly anti-western side to ultimately prevail in that conflict!

In other words, the Gipper made a poorly planned decision, caused the death of 241 Marines in one day (a record that George W Bush will not likely break) and then departed hastily - and without a post-departure plan either.

Hooray for the Gipper.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Some dying persons, said to be in their "death throes", may undergo violent spasms, contortions or convulsions. One common meaning of "throe" = spasm.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just knew that our eminent linguist MMMMMM would step in, sooner or later, to clarify the meaning of the vice president's wise words (http://edition.cnn.com/2005/US/05/30/cheney.iraq/index.html) !

So, according to Dick "Allah" Cheney, the all-merciful, the all-seeing, the all-knowing, as His words are interpreted and conveyd by His Prophet MMMMMM, peace be upon Him, a dying person who is said to be in "his last throes" can be having spasms for the next ten years (http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/06/27/iraq.main.intl/index.html) !

Ah, where is Terri Schiavo when we need 'er ?..

[MMMMMM]

Cyrus a lot goes over your head doesn't it?

/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ACPlayer]

Christianity is in its last (one great big) throe.
Neo-conism is in its last (one great big) throe.
Liberalism is in its last (one great big) throe.
Atheism is in its last (one great big) throe.
Good sense is in its last (one great big) throe.

[MMMMMM]

ACPlayer, both you and Cyrus have a strong tendency to miss partial tongue-in-cheek, don't you...even when it's made obvious by a ;-)

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
A lot goes over your head doesn't it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ann Coulter and her small brain doesn't, that's for sure -- unlike some parties I could mention.

/images/graemlins/cool.gif

[ACPlayer]

6M has the IQ of an idiot. ;-)

[MMMMMM]

Whatever...if you missed it you missed it.

[ACPlayer]

I guess some things go over your head, even when made obvious by a ;-)

Putting an emoticon on a post does not absolve you of the main content of the post -- specially when the body of your post is completely consistent with your political position across many, many posts.

[shots]

[ QUOTE ]
The date wouldn't be arbitrary. We could base it on setting goals and meeting them. It is something that is, by his own admission, anathema to Rumsfeld: planning.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is it possible that US government can see into the future? Because if not the best planning involves planning for all possible contingencies. We don't don't know what the insurgents will do next and therefore we don't know what we will have to do next we can plan for different possibilities but depending on what happens it may be wiser to pull out sooner and may be better to pull out later. The point is we can't just say that we'll do X number of things in the next 6 months and then pull out because we don't know what the enemy will do to stop us from doing those things, if it were that simple that would be great but it's not.

[MMMMMM]

You missed it--get over it.

[ACPlayer]

Lessons from Poker continued.

When you mnake a raise on the flop you do so with a plan. Of course you dont know what your opponents will do, you dont know what card will come next, but if you are like me you have a plan. A plan that usually includes an exit strategy, a weighing of various options, an understanding of tendencies of the opponents. Not having a plan reduces you to the play of the fish.

Rumsfeld/Cheney/Bush when they say they dont have a plan, then they plan to simply react to events (as they have done so far) and reduce themselves to the status of FISH.

I did some consulting work about 10 years ago for a technology venture capital company and while working with start ups would often be told by budding CEOs, how can I create a business plan when I dont know X and Y and Z. The answer is the same you create a plan with what you know, document the assumptions you make in creating the plan, start executing the plan and use the plan as a (flexible) guide to move forward. Planning is a must.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
You missed it--get over it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, it would help if you'd tell us what we missed exactly! I mean, it's really very simple: /images/graemlins/cool.gif

Do you side with Dick Cheney ?

Or with Donald Rumsfeld ?

Keep it short, please. And don't forget your emoticons...

[MMMMMM]

Neither, Cyrus.

Short enough for you?

[superleeds]

What scares me is what Dik, Rummey et al will do when they are in their last throes.

[andyfox]

Yes, we can see into the future. Allow for contingencies and plan. The essence of any good policy is planning, no? No plan is perfect. But the absence of a plan is a recipe for disaster. All of the contingencies of what post-invasion Iraq would be and look like were planned for by the government. Rumsfeld wouldn't let his people even attend the meetings to discuss the plans and, as as result, ignored much good advice (such as what to do about the looting [Rumsfeld's comment was that democracy is "messy" and that "stuff happens"], or the perils of disbanding the military right away). Set an outside date; if things go extremely well, we could pull out sooner; if things go extremely badly, we could extend the date.

The president is apparently looking to shore up support for the war; thus his upcoming speech. To have his Secretary of Defense saying we won't beat the insurgency and that it could go on for over a decade can't be the message he wants to get out. More and more people, according to the polls, are starting to see the situation as a quagmire with no end in sight. Certainly Rumsfeld doesn't see it as a quagmire, and he took pains to disagree vigorously with Senator Kennedy. But the "no end in sight" part he agrees with. And coming from a man who admits that planning for the future is not something he likes to do, that's troubling.

[shots]

[ QUOTE ]
Lessons from Poker continued.

When you mnake a raise on the flop you do so with a plan. Of course you dont know what your opponents will do, you dont know what card will come next, but if you are like me you have a plan. A plan that usually includes an exit strategy, a weighing of various options, an understanding of tendencies of the opponents. Not having a plan reduces you to the play of the fish.

Rumsfeld/Cheney/Bush when they say they dont have a plan, then they plan to simply react to events (as they have done so far) and reduce themselves to the status of FISH.

I did some consulting work about 10 years ago for a technology venture capital company and while working with start ups would often be told by budding CEOs, how can I create a business plan when I dont know X and Y and Z. The answer is the same you create a plan with what you know, document the assumptions you make in creating the plan, start executing the plan and use the plan as a (flexible) guide to move forward. Planning is a must.

[/ QUOTE ]

When you play poker and decide to raise or limp preflop do you say to yourself 'I'm going to showdown with this hand no matter what the texture of the flop is or what my opponent does' or 'I'm going to throw this hand away on the turn no matter what' of course not if you did it would reduce the level of your play to that of an idiot with little or no understanding of the game. That's why we don't set a date we have to see what flops and what our opponent does then we can react accordingly. Having a plan does not mean going foreward with blinders on, you have to react to changing situations.

[shots]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, we can see into the future. Allow for contingencies and plan. The essence of any good policy is planning, no? No plan is perfect. But the absence of a plan is a recipe for disaster. All of the contingencies of what post-invasion Iraq would be and look like were planned for by the government. Rumsfeld wouldn't let his people even attend the meetings to discuss the plans and, as as result, ignored much good advice (such as what to do about the looting [Rumsfeld's comment was that democracy is "messy" and that "stuff happens"], or the perils of disbanding the military right away). Set an outside date; if things go extremely well, we could pull out sooner; if things go extremely badly, we could extend the date.

The president is apparently looking to shore up support for the war; thus his upcoming speech. To have his Secretary of Defense saying we won't beat the insurgency and that it could go on for over a decade can't be the message he wants to get out. More and more people, according to the polls, are starting to see the situation as a quagmire with no end in sight. Certainly Rumsfeld doesn't see it as a quagmire, and he took pains to disagree vigorously with Senator Kennedy. But the "no end in sight" part he agrees with. And coming from a man who admits that planning for the future is not something he likes to do, that's troubling.

[/ QUOTE ]

If we set a date and then change it depending on the situation what was achieved by setting the date in the first place?

In the instant gratification culture we live in it doesn't surprise me that many people are so short sighted about Iraq. How many years did it take to get Japan back on track after WW2. As for resaults the long term resaults of the war in Iraq won't be known for decades, only then will we be able to look at the full picture of what was accomplished.

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
BTW, your location says Spitsbergen. Are you from there?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. Never been there. I chose that out of the way place as a joke, mainly to myself. It has to do with something I read in an essay by Bertrand Russell.

That pic I posted of myself was taken in the winter of 1989 on Harry's Ridge, near Mount St. Helens, Washington.

I, more or less, live somewhere in the SW U.S. I can't be more specific due to the questionable nature of my very existence and who I work for.

-Zeno

[andyfox]

I know where he lives. But I'm not telling.

And he works for me.

[andyfox]

A target date would give us something to shoot for, a goal, an end-date, which would give peace of mind to the American people, and probably some respite for the president who feels embattled just now.

People recognized World War II for the great conflagration and turning point in history that it was. They don't see Iraq in the same light, thus their more impatient attitude. While the instant gratification culture probably also figures in there, there is also much more information available to the public now than there was then. In many ways we simply had to accept what the government said in those days, whereas now we all feel we have some degree of expertise since there are so many alternate sources of news and "news." We also trusted our government then more than we do now.

[shots]

I don't accept a false "peace of mind" as a good reason to do anything.

You don't think that the possibility of a successfull democracy in the heart of the middle east to be a great turning point in history? If not then you've missed the point entirely.

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
And he works for me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can I have a raise?

-Zeno

[andyfox]

I don't think the majority of the American people see it that way. The war wasn't sold that way. The people see conradictory statements out of the administration.

As for me, I think it would be a great turning point, but I have my doubts that it's going to work out and even more doubts that the guys running the show know what they're doing. That other people have similar doubts is one reason why support for the occupation has diminished.

[andyfox]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050627/ap_on_re_mi_ea/britain_iraq_14

[andyfox]

No. Now get back to work.

[Zeno]

Insightful post. I especially enjoyed:

[ QUOTE ]
People recognized World War II for the great conflagration and turning point in history that it was. They don't see Iraq in the same light, thus their more impatient attitude.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I mentioned in a post long ago, and others no doubt mentioned it also, that this 'war on terror' is only partially a physical war. The mental, psycological, and abstract aspect of this whole experiment is much more important and a much harder concept to grasp or convey to the majority of people. The less concrete is always more difficult to keep before the public mind. There is also much more to this than can be gone into in a short post, in fact it would take up a very lengthy and detailed eassy, if not a complete book.

-Zeno

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
No. Now get back to work.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is precisely what I intend do. My lunch break has been too long.

-Zeno

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
If not then you've missed the point entirely.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought the point was to stop Saddam from exploding one of his many nukes over Kansas City and to make sure he couldn't launch his fleet of balsa wood flyers prepared to chemically attack anywhere in the world at any moment?

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
I think I mentioned in a post long ago, and others no doubt mentioned it also, that this 'war on terror' is only partially

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you're confusing your wars.

Afghanistan/Taliban = War on Terror
Iraq = Administration looking for ways to go in well before 9/11. Saddam NOT involved in terror.

[shots]

[ QUOTE ]

I thought the point was to stop Saddam from exploding one of his many nukes over Kansas City and to make sure he couldn't launch his fleet of balsa wood flyers prepared to chemically attack anywhere in the world at any moment?

[/ QUOTE ]

No one ever made the claim Saddam had nukes. And there were many reasons given for the invasion including WMDs (Which pretty much every intelligence agency in the world thaught he had) But as Zeno so thoughtfully pointed out the war on terror is more then just physical and creating a working democracy in Iraq will change the political landscape of the middle east forever. Of course the administration couldn't come out and say were going to do X and Y to change the middle east political climate so that terrorism is reduced in the future. If you want a marketing plan to fail all you have to do is tell the public what your plan is (in this case the public is the Arab street) but if you want it to succeed you just do it.

[shots]

I don't see how the article in your link proves any of your points but is good news that he thinks we can have them ready in two years.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
No one ever made the claim Saddam had nukes.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was trying to convey the general sense of fear that the Bush admn. pushed. They were so close to having the bomb. I believe there was a quote from Cheney or Rumsfeld that said if we didn't go after Saddam, then we would have a mushroom cloud over US cities.

I particularly liked the news of his fleet of biochemical airplanes. Those did a nice scare job!


[ QUOTE ]
But as Zeno so thoughtfully pointed out the war on terror

[/ QUOTE ]
Zeno seems to have missed that Iraq had nothing to do with the war on terror and it was planned before there even was a war on terror.

[shots]

[ QUOTE ]

Zeno seems to have missed that Iraq had nothing to do with the war on terror and it was planned before there even was a war on terror.

[/ QUOTE ]

Iraq has everything to do with the war on terror it's just that you have to look more at the big picture.

[andyfox]

Seems like perhaps the Iraqis are being pressured by the Americans and Brits to get on the ball. Bush is certainly feeling some presure, ergo his upcoming speech. One would think that, politically, the Bush administration, sooner or later, will have to come up with some timetable.

[andyfox]

"No one ever made the claim Saddam had nukes."

It was claimed that he had "reconstituted" his nuclear program and we were warned by the president that if we didn't act we might see a mushroom cloud.

[shots]

I'm not against a loose timetable for certain goals to be met but that's different then saying we'll start pulling troops out on X date.

[shots]

It was claimed that saddam wanted nukes and was seeking to develope them at a future date that's a far cry from saying he had nukes.

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
Seems like perhaps the Iraqis are being pressured by the Americans and Brits to get on the ball. Bush is certainly feeling some presure, ergo his upcoming speech. One would think that, politically, the Bush administration, sooner or later, will have to come up with some timetable.

[/ QUOTE ]

I doubt this very much. However it will be interesting and very telling if A) during the 2008 democratic primary, the candidates are all forced to declare some sort of timetable and B) if during the general election her Republican counter part follows suit.

I think A is likely and B..I don't know.

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
Zeno seems to have missed that Iraq had nothing to do with the war on terror and it was planned before there even was a war on terror.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. The Iraq war is directly related to the 'war on terror' for good or ill. And if the Iraq war really was pre-planned (there are mountains of pre-planned wars sitting in Pentagon, State Department, and other government agencies file cabinets) that is a cause for rejoicing, not censor. If attaching the 'war on terror' nametag to Bush's gangsterism after the fact bothers you, then you have no grasp of politics in practice.

The best part of the 'War on Terror' is that it is completely open-ended and can be used to justify everything from kidnapping potential enemies in complete disregard of international law and state sovereignty, to small-scale excursions to bitch slap some irksome fanatics, to wholesale nuclear slaughter of despotic and/or theocratic states. If you have no appreciation for the sheer genius of it all, then you need to hit the history books. Start with Herodotus and Thucydides and work forward.

-Zeno

[wacki]

what was your undergrad in and how do you know so much ancient history?

[TransientR]

[ QUOTE ]
What scares me is what Dik, Rummey et al will do when they are in their last throes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Their credibility is beyond "the last throes" and is completely DOA.

Frank

[MMMMMM]

^

[kurto]

I'm more bothered by how the right is ready to excuse a president who wanted to attack a nation for their own goals and excuse it with whatever reason the right attachs to it.

It really accentuates the worst qualities about the right these days.

[ QUOTE ]
The best part of the 'War on Terror' is that it is completely open-ended and can be used to justify everything from kidnapping potential enemies in complete disregard of international law and state sovereignty, to small-scale excursions to bitch slap some irksome fanatics, to wholesale nuclear slaughter of despotic and/or theocratic states.

[/ QUOTE ] Yeah, cool. Attack whoever we want, skirt International law and brush it all under the rug of "war on terror."

Sounds like even you guys admit the administration is a bunch of war mongering crooks.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
Iraq has everything to do with the war on terror it's just that you have to look more at the big picture.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess if you ignore the mountain loads of evidence that shows otherwise, then yeah... I guess you're right.

[shots]

If you don't even understand the point I'm making then you clearly are not looking at the big picture.

[MMMMMM]

The things you are worried about, Kurto, are of far less importance than the things Zeno mentions.

[ACPlayer]

A plan does not have to define and end date. In fact, I am not particularly keen on an end date definition.

A plan gives the executive a road map of how to move forward. To evaluate whether objectives are being met and if not how to reassess the situation. A plan does not commit one to an exact sequence of events.

In this case a plan that spells out a series of actionable objectives which define an end state would be helpful. That is we achieve these three measurable goals, we are done. At present there is no definition of success or failure.

[kurto]

Perhaps your point is based on completely erroneous information?

[kurto]

Seems an arbitrary reply.

Zeno is basically arguing we can attack whomever we choose and just write it off as 'the war on terror.'

The right's attitude; I don't care if the war was based on the lie, as long as we call it 'war on terror' we'll excuse anything. Baaaaa Baaaaa

[shots]

It seems we don't really disagree then. This whole debate started over the setting of an exit date which I thaught was ridiculous and which democrates have called for. A plan on the other hand is entirely different but if we do have a plan is it wise to make it public?

[ACPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
The best or perhaps worst part of the 'War on Terror' is that it is completely open-ended and can be used to justify everything from kidnapping potential enemies in complete disregard of international law and state sovereignty, to small-scale excursions to bitch slap some irksome fanatics, to wholesale nuclear slaughter of despotic and/or theocratic states, or any other activity we feel like calling terror.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

[ACPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
Sounds like even you guys admit the administration is a bunch of war mongering crooks.

[/ QUOTE ]

admit it, like it, vote for it, and want more of it.

[shots]

Your reply to my original post on Iraq being part of the war on terror indicated that you think I was talking about Iraq supporting terrorists (Which they did to some degree) But that's not what I was talking about, that's why I said BIG PICTURE Winning the war on terror will require more then just going after people that have already done stuff to us it will require preventing people from doing things to us in the future. And the way to do that is not through appeasement as most liberals suggest.

[shots]

[ QUOTE ]
Seems an arbitrary reply.

Zeno is basically arguing we can attack whomever we choose and just write it off as 'the war on terror.'

The right's attitude; I don't care if the war was based on the lie, as long as we call it 'war on terror' we'll excuse anything. Baaaaa Baaaaa

[/ QUOTE ]


The lefts attitude: We don't care if the war in Iraq is part of the war on terror in that it's part of a sound long term strategy......NO BLOOD FOR OIL!!!
We don't care if every major intelligence agency in the world thaught Saddam had WMD's......BUSH LIED!!!

[ACPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
but if we do have a plan is it wise to make it public?

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely, if the intent is to leave Iraq at some point. If the intent is to never leave Iraq then no end state plan is needed. It is wise politically as well as procedurally. There are a couple of thoughts:

1. The democratic process requires and good sense confirms that transparent decisions are best.
2. The ownership of the plan is then owned by the executive and legislature that should have oversight over it rather than just the executive.
3. The opponents know what are thinking is. Just as in poker it is often advisable to define your hand with bets so that the opponent can make rational decisions. In this case if the insurgents understood what our critiria was they can help meet the objectives so that one of their objectives (the departure of the US troops is met).

The insurgents, the AQ, the opponents of the President all want to know whether this is an open ended occupation for the next 30 years (or a new president) or if Bush et al WANT to stay forever regardless.

Without a plan, my assumption is that Bush et al, dont ever want to leave regardless of democracy or the absence there of in Iraq.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
Your reply to my original post on Iraq being part of the war on terror indicated that you think I was talking about Iraq supporting terrorists (Which they did to some degree)

[/ QUOTE ] The administration, to sell their war, continually said the Saddam was in bed with Al Queda. Now, Cheney denies he even said that... because there was no credible evidence to support it. It was BS.

[ QUOTE ]
But that's not what I was talking about, that's why I said BIG PICTURE Winning the war on terror will require more then just going after people that have already done stuff to us it will require preventing people from doing things to us in the future.

[/ QUOTE ] there is nothing to indicate Iraq was any threat in any way. Their is ample evidence that the people in the bush admin wanted to go to war with Iraq PRIOR TO BUSH EVER BEING IN OFFICE, and terrorism was no where mentioned in any of their reasons. But, why bother mentioning it. Clearly the THE OWN WORDS of the very people who advocated the war mean nothing to you.

[ QUOTE ]
And the way to do that is not through appeasement as most liberals suggest.

[/ QUOTE ] LOL Baaaa. Baaaaa. Another limbaugh lite writing meaningless platitudes.

[kurto]

Honestly... you're like a rambling 12 year old repeating endlessly whatever junk you hear within the slightest bit of inspection.

Just stop it. You actually HURT the case of the right. Let people like MMMMMMM try to make the case. He sounds like a rocket scientist next to you.

Last note: The world didn't want to go to war as Saddam allowed the inspectors in who had unfettered access to the entire country. They went everywhere the US said to go and came to the conclusion that Saddam had nothing.

Of course we really knew this beforehand. Since both Rice and Powell had given speeches prior to 9/11 and both said that Saddam was disarmed and harmless after the first war and subsequent actions. But I know it doesn't bother you when they say one thing and then contradict themselves when its convenient.

Which is why you should let MMMMMM speak. You actually hurt the argument of the right with your weak and uninformed responses.

[shots]

[ QUOTE ]

Absolutely, if the intent is to leave Iraq at some point. If the intent is to never leave Iraq then no end state plan is needed. It is wise politically as well as procedurally. There are a couple of thoughts:

1. The democratic process requires and good sense confirms that transparent decisions are best.

[/ QUOTE ]

In most policy matters you're right but when it comes to military planning you're dead wrong.

[ QUOTE ]
2. The ownership of the plan is then owned by the executive and legislature that should have oversight over it rather than just the executive.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oversight of these kinds of matters are the presidents job that's why he's called the commander and chief. He should seek good advice from his cabinet and generals but ultimatly the decisions should be his that's why we have a president.

[ QUOTE ]
3. The opponents know what are thinking is. Just as in poker it is often advisable to define your hand with bets so that the opponent can make rational decisions. In this case if the insurgents understood what our critiria was they can help meet the objectives so that one of their objectives (the departure of the US troops is met).

[/ QUOTE ]

That's what worries me we'll be playing right into their hands so they can launch an all out assault after we leave better to draw them out now so that by the time the time we leave they're too weekend to take on the Iraqis.

[ QUOTE ]
The insurgents, the AQ, the opponents of the President all want to know whether this is an open ended occupation for the next 30 years (or a new president) or if Bush et al WANT to stay forever regardless.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is just ridiculous the line of reasoning that Bush wants to stay forever is just crazy. Why would he?

[ QUOTE ]
Without a plan, my assumption is that Bush et al, dont ever want to leave regardless of democracy or the absence there of in Iraq.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again I ask why? what do we have to gain by staying any longer then we have to.

[US Conservative]

[ QUOTE ]
After Libya, most of the third world was afraid of Reagan’s US. He would have flattened them after the first WTC bombing.

[/ QUOTE ]
Darn right! But the libs won't let Bush put a Reagan-style ass-whipping on Iraq like he wants to do. The liberal media just makes it worse.

[ACPlayer]

1. THis is not military planning.

2. Not quite. Oversight is the job of the senate committees.

3. Sorry, we are not drawing them out. We are creating them. Look if our goal is to disengage and hand over, and one of the objectives of the insurgents is that we do just that, then lets put some of that on the table, rather than dodging the question with evasions.

I think there are some who would want to stay for ever and maintain a large military presence in that area. There are some benefits that I can think of, but I think the cons are much larger. The more slippery Bush etc are in answering this question, the more we must assume they are planning to stay on forever.

[shots]

I think we've finally gotten to the krux of the matter. You think that the US is responsible creating terrorists and if we were just nicer to everybody all the terrorists would go away. I on the other hand think that appeasement has never and will never work.

[Zeno]

Kurto,

I have, perhaps, been unfair to you in my few responses to your posts. You are a recent poster on this forum and do a fine job of posting about politics, in my opinion. You also, I assume, take this forum as a serious place to discuss all things political. But you obviously do not know my 'history' in the politics forum. My reasons for posting are slightly more askew than the norm. I usually either slip in by the side door with a puzzling comment or knock the front door down and storm in with two shotguns blazing killing or destroying anything in my path. But mostly, I say very little. I assure you that I am not into converting or saving anyone or getting you to 'join my side'. That is the one thing I find truly revolting.

It is a fact that I voted for George Bush. I have my reasons, such as they are. But if you think I am ‘on the Right’ or a neo-con (whatever the Hell that is suppose to mean) or some die hard Republican Party Member slavishly following that simpleton Bush, then I can only state that you are mistaken. I have my own agenda and it isn’t pretty.

To touch somewhat on my post and the follow up of others: In my opinion, there is a larger framework and bigger picture to all this tomfoolery of Iraq and the ‘War on Terror’. My suggestion of tackling some History is a hint at what that could be, nothing more - Aside from the fact that reading History is a pleasurable pastime and good for the soul. Which is a strange thing for me to say, as I do not believe in a soul. But I have consciously shied away from almost all postings about current affairs that have everyone else so relied up and frantic. I only have so much time and I allot that time according to my own personal priorities.

Another thing to consider is that I am scientific by nature. That, possibly, could explain much, if you fully understand science and all that it entails, but possible not – it may only make my postings all the more confusing. Which is good. But this is getting too long and personal and I am reclusive by nature. I will end with what every good scientist tells himself almost everyday: I could be wrong.

An example I hope you will learn to follow.

-Zeno

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
I have, perhaps, been unfair to you in my few responses to your posts.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not aware you being unfair to me. You haven't stood out in my mind as being one of the more 'over the top' posters. I just thought your last posting about excusing any actions by labeling it 'the war on terror' seemed somewhat criminal. (not saying it, but to actually do what you suggest.)

[ QUOTE ]
neo-con (whatever the Hell that is suppose to mean)

[/ QUOTE ] If I'm remembering correctly, neocon was dubbed by William Krystal (spelling?). I think Neocon is generally used now to indicate the new direction of the current crop of Republicans. (As opposed to Republicans of a generation ago which were less oriented on social issues, more fiscally conservative, among other issues. My Father, for instance, is a lifetime Republican who finds himself completely at odds with the current GOP.)

[ QUOTE ]
or some die hard Republican Party Member slavishly following that simpleton Bush, then I can only state that you are mistaken.

[/ QUOTE ] LOL I apologize if I lumped you in with that group. Unfortunately, your statement is currently in line (in my eyes) with many of the die hard Republicans who are accepting pretty much any justification (no matter how often it changed) to justify Iraq.

[ QUOTE ]
I have my own agenda and it isn’t pretty.


[/ QUOTE ] Not sure what you mean here, but its intriguing. The fact that you warn that it isnt pretty makes me think I might be put off, but I'm sure it would be interesting at any rate.

[ QUOTE ]
In my opinion, there is a larger framework and bigger picture to all this tomfoolery of Iraq and the ‘War on Terror’.

[/ QUOTE ] Actually, I agree with you here. I'm just not certain I necessarily agree with the larger framework or agree with you on what it might really be about. And, If there is an alterior motive then what is said, I don't approve of having a government misprepresenting its actions especially when it involves thrusting our nation into war. Finally, I simply don't trust the people doing it. I don't trust their ability to execute larger plans, I don't trust their motivations, I don't trust their ability to think out the consequences of their actions.

[ QUOTE ]
I will end with what every good scientist tells himself almost everyday: I could be wrong.


[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, I'm wrong about quite a few things on a daily basis. And though I post frequently, I avoid quite a number of threads because I don't believe in getting involved in areas that I don't know much about. The few times I venture in areas well beyond my depth, I've started the thread indicating that I don't really know much and can only offer my ignorant observations.

Last... I'm not really sure how serious I take the forum. I really enjoy the occasional thread where people actually discuss a subject with opposing but well thought out viewpoints. I enjoy seeing people consider both sides and look to find common ground. More often then not though, its people like Broken Glass Can who to this day, I think is just having fun being ridiculously partisan. Its almost inconceivable to me that people can be as faithfully partisan as a lot of people seem to be on this board. In those threads, I enjoy them simply as 'mental masturbation'... bickering for fun.

Anyhoo... no need to take up more of your time. Until next time.

[ACPlayer]

Actually, even the military has admitted that there is a good chance that we are creating more insurgents then we are destroying.

[ACPlayer]

Having learned the Lebanon lesson, the Gipper would never have invaded Iraq.

He would have flattened them after the first WTC bombing.

Who would he have flattened? Iraq? Iraq had nothing to do with the first or second WTC bombing. After Bush's misadventure there it may actually have something to do with a next bombing of something.

[Zeno]

Too many questions /images/graemlins/tongue.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif

My undergrad degree was is Geology. No surprise in that.

I have since a very young age been an avid reader, something I learned by example from my parents. I have always been interested in a wide variety of subjects and have read widely and wildly. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

My parents owned (which I now have by their consent) a full set of Encyclopedia Britannica (1958 edition), which I still love to browse through from time to time.


History is a subject that is useful and enjoyable to read about. Every scientist should be well versed in at least basic Western History. You should spend some time and read some of those 'old dead white guys' and what they had to say, and how they said it, and why they said it the way they did, and other interesting facts and fantasies.


Anyway, it is my opinion that everyone should become more knowledgeable about a variety of subjects and not just a certain specialty. And I think this is especially true for all scientists. I will explain with an anecdote. A certain someone (not me I stopped at an MS) was giving his PhD thesis defense. These are usually arduous and long and difficult. And the committee can ask any questions they feel touches on any aspect of the defense no matter how broad or remote. A committee member started to ask the candidate about what magazines and books etc he read outside of science. The candidate was taken aback and started to protest. At which the committee member chastised him in no uncertain words (paraphrased somewhat): A good scientist is knowledgeable about more than just his specialty or about his own particular scientific field, he is always seeking and exploring and keeping up with current news and events and also about past events, where we come from, our society and culture, to better know how his work effects everyone around him and society as a whole. Science is not just about some narrow field of knowledge; it is about much more than that and you should recognize that fact.

I have no idea if the above is true.

-Zeno

[shots]

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, even the military has admitted that there is a good chance that we are creating more insurgents then we are destroying.

[/ QUOTE ]

Individuals may make this claim but I doubt they could back it up we've been backing down and compromising for a long time, we even went into bosnia to protect muslims and what was our reward, 9/11. Now it's time to start kicking ass I don't really care if they like us they'll never like us but right now they don't fear or respect us either they think we're cowards who will tuck tail and run if it gets to rough and that encourages them to commit attrocities we have to show them that they're wrong and that won't be easy to do after what Clinton did in Mogadishu.

[ripdog]

I'm responding to wacki because I found the use of sanguine odd as well. I'm still wondering why wacki feels like an ass, though. I was going to change my location, but several posts in this thread have changed my mind. Still, I imagine that if Zeno were giving directions to his home, the instructions might read "go left when the road bifurcates". I offer Zeno a quote from Mr. Twain:

I notice that you use plain, simple language, short words and brief sentences. That is the way to write English--it is the modern way and the best way. Stick to it; don't let fluff and flowers and verbosity creep in. When you catch an adjective, kill it. No, I don't mean utterly, but kill most of them--then the rest will be valuable. They weaken when they are close together. They give strength when they are wide apart. An adjective habit, or a wordy, diffuse, flowery habit, once fastened upon a person, is as hard to get rid of as any other vice.
- Letter to D. W. Bowser, 3/20/1880

I'd have let sanguine slide if diaphanous had not occurred in the same paragraph. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[andyfox]

How exactly would the libs and lib press stop him?

[kurto]

Read all of this guy's posts. (there's only four of them)

They're all the same. I think its a joke.

[ripdog]

[ QUOTE ]
I think we've finally gotten to the krux of the matter. You think that the US is responsible creating terrorists and if we were just nicer to everybody all the terrorists would go away. I on the other hand think that appeasement has never and will never work.

[/ QUOTE ]

The krux of the matter? Not even close. If we only think about situations in their own little box with no historical perspective, then your argument here *might* hold water. What pisses everybody off is that we claim the moral high ground when we have no right to it. I agree that appeasement will never work. We ought to try common decency instead.

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm still wondering why wacki feels like an ass, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Me to. He shouldn't.

Thanks for the Mark Twain Quote. Always enjoyable to read the Great One. In return I will suggest two Mark Twain Gems: Fenimore Cooper's Literary Offences and Fenimore Cooper's Further Literary Offenses. Both are humorous and under that cloak Twain gives advice about how to write fit for the ages. Read and enjoy.

[ QUOTE ]
I'd have let sanguine slide if diaphanous had not occurred in the same paragraph.

[/ QUOTE ]

The undercurrent of certain word use in this thread is bordering on war. I used diaphanous as a tactical defense against Andy's use of anathema. A word he callously stole from me and now shamelessly abuses. That man must be watched. He has no morals at all and will flirt with and then steal and then toss away anything that catches his ear, like some street hussy with a John. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

-Zeno

[shots]

In what way are we not trying common decency? Countries by there very nature are self serving, they exist to serve the intrest of their citizens. America is less guilty of this then most, if you want historical perspective look through history at every country that has become a superpower and see how they used that power in comparisson to how we use it. Also the fundamental beliefs of what each person thinks is the right path to go down in terms of keeping this country safe does very much go to the krux of this matter.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm still wondering why wacki feels like an ass, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Me to. He shouldn't.


[/ QUOTE ]

My biggest problem is that I'm hyper critical of myself. It's a huge problem I have that is the result of overbearing and demanding parents. I'm working on it and so is my sister.

My thought process at the time was that the answer should of been obvious. Zeno was basically calling himself a sweet talking con and I couldn't figure it out even after some thought. To tell you the truth I'm still not happy I didn't figure it out. Oh well, what can you do.

[ripdog]

[ QUOTE ]
In what way are we not trying common decency? Countries by there very nature are self serving, they exist to serve the intrest of their citizens. America is less guilty of this then most, if you want historical perspective look through history at every country that has become a superpower and see how they used that power in comparisson to how we use it. Also the fundamental beliefs of what each person thinks is the right path to go down in terms of keeping this country safe does very much go to the krux of this matter.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was responding to your response to AC Player's response. I think that we ARE creating more terrorists and that appeasement won't work. This is where the little box comes in to play. You can't ignore the past actions of the USA and allow them to slide on by. If you do, then you fall into the trap of believing that we have done nothing to earn their hatred. Our government serves the interest of its citizens at the expense of other country's citizens. That we are less guilty than most other super powers does not comfort me at all. Less guilty like we raped them but didn't murder them? I'm not proud of my government's behavior, even if it isn't on the same level as Nazi Germany or the USSR. I'd rather we spoke softly and carried a big stick than scream madly and bitch-slap some insignificant country just to show everyone that we mean business. I could ramble on all night, so I'll stop here.

[shots]

I'm not sure what horrible attrocities we've commited that justify the level of hate from terrorists but the fact is that we have to serve our own intrests and their government should be serving theirs but they don't and that's the problem. The point of what's happening in Iraq is if we create a prosporus representitive republic and the people start doing better by virtue of the government serving their intrests other countries will start to wonder why there government isn't doing the same and then there'll be no turning back from the wave of change that will sweep the middle-east I'm not saying it will happen in a few years it's definetly a long term plan.

[US Conservative]

[ QUOTE ]
Read all of this guy's posts. (there's only four of them)

They're all the same. I think its a joke.

[/ QUOTE ]
Is freedom a joke? I don't think so. That is why I stand behind our President and his goal of spreading democracy to the middle east.

Remember, Bush is a "war time" President not a commie lib like Clinton. I can see through the lies and distortions of the liberal media.

[kurto]

LOL /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Carry on. I'm buying it now.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
If you have no appreciation for the sheer genius of it all, then you need to hit the history books. Start with Herodotus and Thucydides and work forward.

[/ QUOTE ]
Exkioozzmee, but the Peloponnesian Wars teach us nothing of the sort of diplomacy-as-gangsterism that you are implying. On the contrary, the afore-mentioned work should be required reading of world leaders, who should appreciate the Law of Unwanted Consequences therein described, along with a number of other Human Follies.


[ QUOTE ]
If attaching the 'war on terror' nametag to Bush's gangsterism after the fact bothers you, then you have no grasp of politics in practice.

[/ QUOTE ]
"Gangsterism" is correct.

And we are supposed to have moved away from gangsterism in world politics.

But if you think that a country can wage its political/military affairs in a gangster's way with some other countries and quite "properly" with others, then you should start reading about the concept of osmosis and work forward.

[shots]

Read up on Nixons tri-lateral diplomacy theories. They're quite ingenious.

[ripdog]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure what horrible attrocities we've commited that justify the level of hate from terrorists but the fact is that we have to serve our own intrests and their government should be serving theirs but they don't and that's the problem. The point of what's happening in Iraq is if we create a prosporus representitive republic and the people start doing better by virtue of the government serving their intrests other countries will start to wonder why there government isn't doing the same and then there'll be no turning back from the wave of change that will sweep the middle-east I'm not saying it will happen in a few years it's definetly a long term plan.

[/ QUOTE ]

We don't have to actually commit atrocities to be culpable. I don't want to go into the excruciating minutia of every questionable act (or lack of action where there should have been one). Check out this link:

Discovery of Democracy (http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/nov2003-daily/17-11-2003/oped/o1.htm)

One paragraph that I think hits the nail on the head is:

There are, thus, too many contradictions between the real American objectives and its avowed good intentions for the latter to come to fruition. Not surprisingly, therefore, the democracy speech was dismissed by Robert Fisk as typical Bush-speak—undiluted hypocrisy, ignoring historical facts that all the present Middle Eastern borders were drawn by Western colonialists and its dictators supported by the US, including Gamal Nasser of Egypt, Qaddafi of Libya, the King of Jordan, his Hashemite cousin on the Iraqi throne, the Baath Party which overthrew him, the Shah of Iran, the Taliban in Afghanistan, even some Lebanese Hizbollah leaders. Fisk could have added many more infamous names.

[raisins]

[ QUOTE ]
Exkioozzmee, but the Peloponnesian Wars teach us nothing of the sort of diplomacy-as-gangsterism that you are implying.

[/ QUOTE ]

In the Melian dialogue the Athenians come across as a bunch of power hungry gangsters with no recognition of any higher authority or standard. Thucydides if not condoning the behavior does seem to be saying that it is the way of the world and that that is the way power and politics works.

None of this is to say that I'm a cheerleader for the War on Terror. Declaring war on abstractions sounds like a losing proposition to me and just a step away from Orwell's "War is Peace". Tragicomic.

"I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace." - George W. Bush

regards,

raisins

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]

"I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace." - George W. Bush

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the quote! He's like the Beatles: you think you must have heard it all by now, but every once in a while some new gem comes along.

-ptmusic

[shots]

Do you not agree that sometimes war is sometimes neccessary to achieve peace?

[kurto]

lol

You can always count of 'shots' to be jumping in and trying to defend the most ridiculous thing.

The more Orwellian, the more its sits right with him.

[shots]

I really don't know how anyone can make a logical argument against what I said Kurto seems to have already proven that he can't.

[Zeno]

I got people interested in something important to read and think about. So a success. The conclusions you or anyone else draws is not up to me to pass judgment on.

By the way, I really liked my post. One of my best efforts on the politics forum so far don't you think?

[ QUOTE ]
And we are supposed to have moved away from gangsterism in world politics.


[/ QUOTE ]

Who's this 'we'. Does it include Saddam? He was a ganster also, as you well know.

-Zeno

[bholdr]

[ QUOTE ]
The lefts attitude: We don't care if the war in Iraq is part of the war on terror in that it's part of a sound long term strategy......NO BLOOD FOR OIL!!!

[/ QUOTE ]

That's just the thing- many on the left (myself included) have from day one opposed the war- not because we deny that it is a component of the war on terror, but because we have had the foresight and willingness to see it for what it could and has become, an ugly morass of violent opposition that we cannot defeat, an invitation to the radical fundamentalists in the area to create MORE terror and terrorists, and an inneffective and misguided, and a criminal WASTE of american, coalition, and Iraqi civillian lives.

It is NOT a sound long term strategy- it is and was a shortsighted folly that has cost hundreds of billions of dollars in direct costs, perhape trillions more in long-term economic damage, thousands of american lives and tens of thousands of wounded, god-only-knows how many iraqi lives and wounded, american respect and prominance the world over, the exposure of the limits of our military, and so on and so forth. It was never about WMDs, it was only partly about oil (sadly, a war for oil would've at least been honest and made economic sense), it was mostly about spreading our ideology through force, plain and simple. For bush, The ends justified the means... and now we may not even get the desired end result, and are stuck with thousands of bodies for our troubles.

sound strategy indeed. cost > benifit

[ QUOTE ]
We don't care if every major intelligence agency in the world thaught Saddam had WMD's......BUSH LIED!!!

[/ QUOTE ]

Downing st memo. you have a talent for oversimplification- you'll fit right in with the cons on this forum.

[shots]

I don't have the time to repetedly explain these things to people who have no interst in listening so I'll just pose one question If the downing street memo is such a solid piece of evidence that Bush lied why don't the Democrats just impeach him based on this overwellming evidence?

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you not agree that sometimes war is sometimes neccessary to achieve peace?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course I agree, and we would probably agree that that is what GWB intended to say. But do you not agree that what he actually said was pretty foolish? I think it's funny, that's all. Nothing important here.... move on.

-ptmusic

[shots]

I agree the statement was foolish and Bush is constantly making stupid statements. There's no question he's not the greatest public speaker in the world. But I don't think this statement was any worse then the 'I voted for it before I voted against it' statement, that was hilarious, I mean he had to know how that would sound and be used in the media.

[bholdr]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't have the time to repetedly explain these things to people who have no interst in listening so I'll just pose one question If the downing street memo is such a solid piece of evidence that Bush lied why don't the Democrats just impeach him based on this overwellming evidence?

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you serious? you're joking, right? ...right?

jesus, for someone that jumps right out and starts their post like that... what are you, in high school? obviously haven't taken america gov yet...

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree the statement was foolish and Bush is constantly making stupid statements. There's no question he's not the greatest public speaker in the world. But I don't think this statement was any worse then the 'I voted for it before I voted against it' statement, that was hilarious, I mean he had to know how that would sound and be used in the media.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're going to bring up another foolish quote (and that one counts for sure), I will go heads up with you on a left vs. right stupid quotes challenge any day.

Bring yo A Game! Actually don't, I don't have enough time in this life to type all the Quayleisms. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

-ptmusic

[shots]

While impeachment would be difficult, if the evidence was solid that Bush lied it wouldn't be impossible. The fact is that the evidence isn't solid just ask John Kerry who was making a huge fuss about it one day and quickly shut up about it afterward. Why did he do this? Is it possible he knew it would hurt his credibility to go foreward with trumped up charges?

[shots]

Damnit you had to bring up Quail, fine I relent. Bush Misspeaks a lot but you could write a book on the stupid things Quail said.

[kurto]

I think if you see the thread where he claimed larger countries have higher gas usage because you have longer commutes... (I'm not kidding, he said this.) you'll get an idea of the kind of intellect you're dealing with.

I replied by making a joke that if I lived in Puerto Rico I would live in the copy room while russians average commute is 43 hours each way.

He said I was ignoring the facts.

So, of course I listed research on commute times and there's no correlation between the size of a country and the time the average person commutes. So, what he meant by ignoring the facts meant that I ignored his random made up claim.

And now he thinks the Democrats, the minority, can just impeach the president.

You might not be off with your High School comment.

[shots]

If you don't see the flaw in your logic in that tread you're truly a world class idiot.

[kurto]

One word: projection.

Seems that you get a common reception in a lot of the threads you post in.

Enough focusing on your babble. Later.