Good posting Doug - Thanks and keep up the good work.
freedom watch. the guy was on hardball and he didn't even know the name of the soldier in the add. they are a bunch of israel firsters. watch this freedom, ari fleischer: END THE WAR NOW.
Lester ...
... yes, you have the freedom to say even the most imprudent and idiotic things.
... we have not only the freedom, but the RESPONSIBILITY to declare them idiotic, when fact and reason support that conclusion.
And ending the war now ... instead of letting the enemy end it by leaving the battlefield to us ... is as idiotic as it gets when the enemy is totalitarian in nature.
Just because we leave, doesn't mean it will end ... in fact, our departure has a good chance of turning this, over time, into a full-blown, nation-on-nation World War that will kill millions upon millions ... on both sides.
The INACTION you and others have fostered has killed enough, lester ...
... I, for one, will stand against you to make sure your folly will not kill orders of magnitude more.
We won't be fooled again ...
wow. it has the potential to turn into that big of a disaster?
if that isn't proof positive this war was a HORRIBLE idea i certainly don't know what would be do you?
"The INACTION you and others have fostered has killed enough, "
? the inaction. we've been war since right after 9/11/01.
I wish i could foster inaction, we never went to war with the soviets and it allowed us to not only defeat them, but we didn't have to mind the store after the regime fell like we are edoing in iraq. imagine if we had to occupy moscow?
and a republican using "humanitarian" reasons to continue this war is ironic indeed. how are you at all different from Clinton in somalia or kosovo?
this is where the neo cons have brought you.
yeah, i admit, this war has been managed wrong, but...even if it WAS a horrible idea...we're there NOW! we can NOT turn and run away, and leave the middle east at the mercy (haha) of ahmadinijad!! come on!! we're not going to bow down to a totalitarian! i'm not, anyway...maybe some want to...
Thanks for visiting, Paul!
Hi Rich: Thanks for your thoughtful comments!
No, Libby, we can't turn away from this war - we're doing better now, and the stakes are too high to cut-and-run!
Doug, thank you for the link, but more importantly thank you for spreading the word.
September 5th, I will be publishing my exclusive interview with Melanie Morgan, Chairman of Move America Forward on my blog and key excerpts will also be published in the Washington Times.
It is a fascinating 30+minute interview and I hope you will stop by to see it.
why can't we cut and run? what are "the stakes"?
the pre 9/11 paradigm? that we would support dictators to ensure stability and defned israel so as to let them all know that democracy was the way to go?
that's GONE. It was a lie. the PEOPLE of the middle east are not at all like their largely unelected leaders. They will never accept US hegemony or Israel no matter how modern or backward they are.
libby- do you think ahmednejad is the only one in the middle east who hates israel and the US? I mean seriously, do you think that is a unique, fringe position in the middle east? to hate the US and ISrael? from my experience it is pretty much universal there.
Why would I care if ahmendajad, who is up for reelection in 2 years, becoes a regional hegemon? i'm not an egyptian or a saudi. it means nothing to me.
nothing that happens of it's own accord in the middle east means anything to me in the least. the only things that matter are what the US and it's client states do and the potential of blowback from that.
the rest is fine. I realize not having wars puts alot of people out of a job and .or a hobby but really, is that a good reason to kill thousands of people? so you can feel as though you've influenced foreign policy? i don't think so.
Hi Spree: I'll try to visit your blog on the 5th!
Thank you for your work!
Don't worry about the leftists.
They'll be alright after we die defending them and their rights from Al Qaida and the Jihad.
lester ... you and your ilk fostered INACTION in the face of evil for most of my 48 years ...
... as in "unilateral disarmament" and "nuclear freeze" in the 1980's, as you derided Reagan as a "cowboy" who was supposedly going to start a war with the Russians ...
... when in fact, it was his confrontation of the Soviets ... including his threat to change the rules with SDI, that the Soviets thought credible and people like you thought crazy ... that finally got the Soviets serious about arms reductions, and making them realize they could not keep going the way they were. That is what led to the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the end of the Soviet state.
Had you and your ilk gotten your way, none of that would have happened ... and either we would still be embroiled in the Cold War AND the GWOT, or the Soviet Union would have collapsed in a less-controlled fashion ... possibly, in a neutron-blue-blaze-of-glory.
You need to be careful about the examples you pick, Lester.
Lester, you poor sod...
According to the beliefs you purport to embrace, you seem like one of those guys who could be slapped across the face by another guy in front of your woman (or whomever), and either head for the tall timber or beg for mercy rather than defend yourself.
I have no problem with some guys being like that (it takes all kinds...), but wishing it on our country is a little much.
uhh I am a libertarian not a leftist. i'm to the right of reagan on economic issues. and he didn't confront the soviets militarily. we beat the soviet union because central planning stinks and free markets rule.
and if you and YOUR ilk had gotten your way we wold have had a nuclear showdown with the old soviet union and be living in falout shelters if we were living at all. Reagan rejected the hawks and the appeasers and stoof up for AMERICA FIRST
Seth- try again. that was pathetic
shoprat- you're so tough you're here and not baghdad.
Surrender and defeat would have huge blowback; not only for America, but for the world.
It's mindboggling that so many of the anti-war critics are either so invested and entrenched in their partisan position, that they crave a George Bush defeat more than they care for an American victory.
And many are stuck using yesterday's arguments to justify today's problems, and where we are out now. It's not 2003, 2004, 2005, or 2006. Iraq has been a mixed bag of ups and downs. It hasn't been all one way.
Now that the successes of the military surge has been undeniable- so much so that Democrats can no longer call for withdrawal the way they were doing before the full surge was underway and after the Senate unanimously promoted General Petraeus to command our forces- all they can harp on now, is the difficulties of the political process. These things take time, patience, and hard work. Prepare for more setbacks to occur. They happen all the time, right up until the time when success is achieved. We can't even get our own congress to pass legislation in a timely manner...and we're demanding it of the Iraqis? What political pomposity. Iraqis are fighting and dying at the hands of extremists and saboteurs to make this work; and because there are difficulties and complexities, some of you want to just "give up" and pull defeat out of the jaws of victory, giving al-Qaeda a freebee victory over the U.S. And will a perceived U.S. defeat make us safer? Will it end the suffering in Iraq?
Lester ... what part of the following don't you understand?
"Evil Empire".
Pershing II's in Europe.
"Ash heap of history".
SDI.
"We start the bombing in five minutes" (in jest).
Walking away at Rejkavik.
"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall".
All that is CONFRONTATION ... not the lying-in-formal-wear of 20th-Century, State-Department-endorsed diplomacy ... but a CREDIBLE confrontation of one's adversary, whose CREDIBILTY made possible success without firing a shot ...
... something that you refuse to support regarding the present enemy we face, who is far less rational, and therefore less susceptible to rational persuasion, than the Soviet Union.
In other words, shots are sometimes required with such as these ... especially when you want to stop them BEFORE they can implement the worst-case scenario I detailed earlier?
Again, you should pick your examples better. Reagan succeed because the Soviets thought he might just shoot.
Difference is, Saddam didn't think we would shoot. There was a quote attributed to one of his sons as OIF started, to the effect that "Bush is not Clinton ... this is serious".
Today, why should Ahmedinijad believe that we will shoot, even if he shoots first, with people like you whining so much?
That makes him more likely to shoot ... and if he shoots first at the most probable target for him, the Israelis will shoot back ... and a blue-glowing Hell will break loose all over the MidEast, which will set civilization back decades ... and may require our intervention AGAIN, to put a stop to it.
Is that really in America's interest? Not even in the minds of those mired in 20th Century conventional wisdom, or paleocon realpolitik like you.
Nice post, Donald. It is important that people read and know about these events.
Sept 15 is going to be the big day for the protests. The communists of International ANSWER will be there, but will be countered by Gathering of Eagles just like last March.
I'll of course be with the GOE folks, and strongly encourage all supporters to join us that day if there is any way you can make it.
Thanks Shoprat! Good to see you visiting over here! I'll check your blog later!
Have a great weekend!
Hi Rich: I first studies international security as an undergrate in the 1980s. Boy, did I read a lot on the Soviet Union, and not to mention nuclear arms control.
The Reagan administration did well for the U.S. in our relations with Moscow. Good thing we had the Gipper!
Hi Seth: I don't think you'll have a problem smacking down old Lester.
Thanks for your comments, in any case!
Wordsmith: Very astute comments, my friend. I appreciate your visits!
Tom the Redhunter: Thanks for commenting. I'll be posting more on the events. I hope there will be a good turnout for the counter-demonstrations.
"Americans know the war in Iraq is not lost. Our continued support for the troops is essential."
You speak for "Americans"?
Why not try a little straight talk. Some Americans...hope that some sort of result that can be called "victory" is possible in Iraq - even if it requires a radical redefinition of the term.
And what does this have to do with supporting the troops? What you are talking about is supporting the administration's war strategy. That is not at all necessarily the same thing as supporting the troops. To equate the two is pure propaganda - as a professor, I am sure you understand that.
Thanks for the crosslink Don, I enjoy the insightful posting here. I quit arguing with moonbats long ago , its a waste of time though it feels good to get some shots in, it does little good, no minds will change. I delete them and give them one less chance to spout their nonsense to the world. I refuse to let them use my site as a platform for their drivel eventhough it would drive my traffic ratings higher.
Umm, Lester, you sound like an uneducated hippy stuck in Woodstock mud to me and only worth that one comment.
Hi Goat: As long as commenters refrain from personal attacks, I'm always up for a good debate. I've even been persuaded away from my own position on occasion.
I do delete when necessary, so you raise a good point.
Thanks for visiting. Linking to you was my pleasure.
goat- thanks.
rich- whose point are you trying to make? reagan didn't attack moscow. he used other means. "tear down this wall" is exactlyt what I'M talking about. he didn't himself tear down the wall. If he had, we'd have had to occupy that city and hand out bread and blankets for the next decade. they are still scrambling to figure out what to do over there.
but it's not our problem. thank you ronald reagan.
My point, lester, is that it takes CREDIBLE confrontation to stop totalitarian expansion ... the willingness to not only draw a line in the sand, but actually ACT to defend it.
Reagan's willingness to act was credible in the eyes of the Soviets ... he basically told them "we will not let you win", and his ability to enforce that assertion was credible in their eyes -- in large part, because of what you described earlier; we could out-innovate and out-produce them thanks to our free-enterprise system.
The Soviets had learned, through the Cold War, how long American resolve could last when her people put their minds to it.
They also were rational people, with something to lose ... So once they were convinced that winning was beyond their reach, they came to their senses and changed their ways -- BEFORE shots had to be fired to prove our resolve.
OTOH, this present set of enemies is just as bent on totalitarian expansion as the Soviets were ... but their condition and experience with us is quite different than that of the Soviets:
>They are not as rational.
>They perceive themselves as having little to lose ... and in some cases, they see even losing as winning (i.e. 72 Virgins or the 12th Imam). Whether their people see things that way is another question entirely.
>Their systems of governance lack the checks-and-balances that maintained the rationality of the Soviets.
>They have a much different experience with us than the Soviets had ... instead of Cold War, they see their relationship to us in terms of the Hostage Crisis, Black Hawk Down, cruise missiles hitting aspirin factories, and the Palestinian peace circus ... in other words, they see America as lacking the interest and resolve to effectively combat the Great Jihad.
We are not a credible threat to their ultimate objectives in their eyes ... therefore, in order to prove otherwise and dissuade them from continuing down their totalitarian-expansionist path, shots must be fired.
Joe Citizen make sense to me on this subject. I was always opposed to the invasion of Iraq, but again, we cannot put the toothpaste back in the tube.
Rather invoking President Reagan or calling one another moonbats, I would like to hear a rational discussion about endgame in Iraq. I am talking about a roadmap, not "we hope that democarcy will flourish and everyone will get along."
To all who say the "war" is being won, I agree from a military perspective. I have no faith that the "war" can be won politically. I mean if this were the World Series, would you want Malaki as your ace? If it were the Super Bowl would you want him as your starting QB?
We have been told, and no one of whom I am aware has disagreed, that the surge is unsustainable. So, Quo vadis?
Meanwhile, is anyone hearing ggod news from Afghanistan that is not being offset by bad?
Regards.
To summarize, Lester:
We need to apply the same confrontational stance of Reagan to our present enemies ... for only through credible confrontation will we dissuade them from continuing to threaten civilization.
However, unlike the Soviets these enemies will require actual, lethal ACTION from us to convince them of our credibility.
Our current President is willing to engage in such confrontation.
His critics are not.
That is the difference.
That is why I support this President.
"this present set of enemies is just as bent on totalitarian expansion "
that's where you and i disagree. I know lots of muslims. most of them don't like us OR the jihadis. They just want us out of their countries, except the one afghani woman i know who wants more US troops there.
I think in general us interference affects the natural evolution of society in , say, Iran. where the revolutionary guard and those guys are not the mainstream but become moreso as people get worried about war.
war is hell. all the stores are closed, food rots on the shelves, peole can't get to hospitals. and nationalism makes all that stuff seem meaningful.
I think we both agree that reagan handled the soviets correctly over the several decades he fought it. that we both interpret his actions differently is actually a testament to his greatness I think. He was a complex man and unlikie our current president (and like Bill Clinton actually) self-made.
also I post at shiachat.com come by anytime though it's been a little dead lately. all types of nuts over there
that's where you and i disagree. I know lots of muslims. most of them don't like us OR the jihadis.
Actually, you and I agree on that ... problem is, that majority are not in control of these nations ... the jihadis and their thug imitators are.
These relative few have control, not only because they have the guns ... but because these nations have neither the checks-and-balances to stop their hijacking ... nor the framework of rights-respecting governance and respect for free enterprise, that empowers people to live free and pursue happiness for themselves.
Instead, they end up submitting to the thugs and fanatics -- either those of the government, or the totalitarian terror groups who want to overthrow these governments in places like Egypt, Lebanon, and even Saudi Arabia -- just for Something Better than they have now.
The idea of so-called "neoconservative" foreign policy, is to stop the thugs and fanatics, work with the people in these nations to establish sustainable rights-respecting governance, and treat them as equals ... so we don't have to treat them as targets in the future.
Some say that such a transformation is beyond the ability of the so-called "brown people". They forget that it wasn't that long ago, that the same could be said for us ... while also forgetting that those inalienable rights are the proper purview of ALL men.
Not just us.
I’ve saved an unmentioned point for last. The Iraqi flag appeared on some of the slides. But the graphic showed an Iraqi flag without the traditional words “God is Great.” This was clearly a potential flash point. In fact, one of the Iraqi interpreters nearly recused himself from the conversation. LT David Wallach, whose native tongue is Arabic, told me after the meeting that Saddam had put “God is Great” on the flags so that Iraqis would stop grinding the flags into the dirt with their feet. He said that Iraqis would never trample on anything that had those words written on it.
But other than the interpreter’s sudden jitters, I detected no overt emotion among the Iraqis. In fact, they were all calm, professional, and very polite. An Iraqi Colonel was generous enough to offer that he believed it to be just a mistake that “God is Great” was left off the flag that was used on the slides. But the Iraqis all agreed that nobody was going to sign anything that displayed an Iraqi flag without the phrase “God is Great.”
This might seem ominous to us. “Allah u Akbar!” are, after all, words that we have become accustomed to hearing when someone is doing something bad, like burning an American flag, or blowing up Americans. But these issues are more like the intense legal and media battles over the words “In God We Trust” on the money in our pockets, or the ongoing furor in some sectors over the phrase “One Nation, Under God, Indivisible . . . ” in the Pledge of Allegiance. (Not to mention the dust storms kicked up by the Pledge itself.)
Seeing “God is Great” written on the Iraqi flag might provoke some to protest “Why did we come here just to stand up a country who would write such things on their flag?” But I sat there in that meeting, which was completely civil and professional, and I thought about another flag, the one flying over South Carolina. Some people call that flag “heritage,” while others call it “hateful,” “painful” and “demeaning.” And today in that meeting, I thought about the descendants of slaves who are now top military commanders in the American Army, and in that moment I knew that Iraq could make it.
... from "7 Rules: 1 Oath", by Michael Yon.
Emphasis added.
http://www.amconmag.com/2007/200...7/
buchanan.html
rich- have you ever seen "red dawn"?
Yes, I have ... and I don't want to have to go there.
That is why I support today's proactive stance. I don't want to see our backs against the wall.
And, while I have some respect for Pat Buchannan, I consider his viewpoints on this topic myopic (he conveniently doesn't mention the goal of the Caliphate) ... and he makes the same mistake as the moonbats, by considering theocracy and Sharia a trustworthy substitute for rights-respecting governance.
It doesn't have the checks and balances, or structural protection of inalienable rights, that are both necessary to prevent a nation from being hijacked to promote tyranny.
That is the recurrent, fundamental error of 20th-century conventional wisdom.
Some governments ... especially when modern technology can't be kept out of ANY of their hands ... are better than others.
We ignored -- and some still ignore -- that at our peril.
I'm just saying. if this were red dawn, WE are the russians
Commenting by HaloScan
