According to cosmic indications, Bush is the only one who has a decent chance to beat Hillary.

Sometime I hope we get a thread on this topic with a less pessimistic title. 2016 might not be awful. It's a toss-up.

I know, both dynasties are a bummer, yadda yadda....

George W. Bush should have been removed when he did not take effective action after 9/11. A Restorationist policy would involve carpet bombing of enemy forces followed by pacification of the enemy by specialized units. If insurgents ambush US troops or kill US POWs, those acts would be responded by reprisals against the enemy population and Enemy POWS. Let other potential enemies cough "RUSSIA" cough "CHINA" know that any hostile acts will be responded in kind, if war breaks out any violation on their side of the rules of war and Geneva convention will be returned hundredfold. Take the gloves off have "100 to 1" reprisal policy against the enemy. Let any enemy know that the new version of the American eagle has no qualms about soaking its claws in blood. If an enemy seeks strategic advantage by launching let say, an attack on targets on the US mainland. A Restorationist America would respond to any attack on America with massive "cleansing" strategic bombardments of enemy population centers and homelands. Implement the Restorationist social and educational reforms which will impress future generations of Americans about the importance and glory of ruling others and having dominance over vast regions, The new American mindset would be similar to the roman mindset of ancient times or the holy roman mindset of the high middle ages, Or the Tang or Ming Mindset of medieval china, or more recently at various times Germany and Russia at their respective military heights.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

George W. Bush should have been removed when he did not take effective action after 9/11. A Restorationist policy would involve carpet bombing of enemy forces followed by pacification of the enemy by specialized units. If insurgents ambush US troops or kill US POWs, those acts would be responded by reprisals against the enemy population and Enemy POWS. Take the gloves off have "100 to 1" reprisal policy against the enemy. If an enemy seeks strategic advantage by launching let say, an attack on targets on the US mainland. A Restorationist America would respond to any attack on America with massive "cleansing" strategic bombardments of enemy population centers and homelands.

The initial response after 911 was OK. But we should not have occupied Afghanistan and we should not have invaded Iraq. I have no problem with effective retaliation, but there was no way to repond to 911 with bombs.
I do think that we failed to make any effective response to Iran when they held US hostages.

- that reside amongst us.

Very well said -

http://www.bluevirginia.us/showDiary...?diaryId=12851

Addressing the "Not a Dimes Worth of Difference Crowd"

They look at how politicians of both parties are feeding from the same trough, and say they are serving the same masters, and that there is no real difference between the parties, and what's more there's no real battle going on between them. It's like professional wrestling-- they are following a script that they agreed on together.

I think that is a serious error-- an error serious enough to make those who look at things that way essentially irrelevant to the best likely strategies for restoring any degree of political health to this nation.

Yes, there are evils they share, but that is not what's important in this situation. The differences are crucial to the rescuing of this nation.

Here I'll just make one point as part of what could be a long and comprehensive argument -- including arguing that as deficient as the Democratic Party is, it is superior to today's Republican Party in vital ways, moral and spiritual ways that bear upon the question: "Are you trying to make things better or worse?"

We have one party that is basically constructive, and that makes efforts to address our national problems (climate change, immigration, universal background checks, and so on through all the issues).

And we have another party that makes things worse in virtually everything it decides to do. Can you point to a single issue on which the Republicans have not made things worse? (It was not always thus-- the unprecedented should get our attention.)

The differences between today's Democratic and Republican Parties are real and large and of vital importance. It is an error to focus on what's the same that's bad about them both.

The point I want to make, a propos of the professional wrestlers' script notion, is that such an arrangement is vanishingly improbable. I doubt anyway can name a single instance in which a bunch of politicians conspired to generate a scenario that leaves them out of office.

What happened to the Democrats in 2010 and 2014 -- pathetic Democratic strategies in both -- should be acknowledged as pretty conclusive proof that the Democrats are failing to accomplish what they want to accomplish.

The difference between them, combined with the fact that this consistently destructive force gets more power every time it defeats the Democrats, together should constitute our call to battle: We must find how to fortify the Democrats, and get them to fight as they should, in order to drive this atrocity away from the helm of our country.

Only the Democrats are in the arena where control of that helm is decided. If not them, who? No one. (This nation hasn't had a third party come to power in more than a century and a half. And we're not in that extraordinary situation that killed off parties in the 1850s.) Only the Democrats can take the power away from these disgraceful Republicans.

So the question should turn to where it ought to be: How do we change the Democrats so that they will prevail and take power away from the extraordinary atrocity that the Republican Party has become?

Originally Posted by radind

The initial response after 911 was OK. But we should not have occupied Afghanistan and we should not have invaded Iraq. I have no problem with effective retaliation, but there was no way to repond to 911 with bombs.
I do think that we failed to make any effective response to Iran when they held US hostages.

We should've formally declared war on Al Qaeda and radical Islam in general. Police Action's don't work when facing a hardened and determined enemy.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

We should've formally declared war on Al Qaeda and radical Islam in general.

It's news to me that al-Qaeda, let alone "radical Islam," is a nation-state. Since they're not, we can't "formally declare war" on either one.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

We should've formally declared war on Al Qaeda and radical Islam in general. Police Action's don't work when facing a hardened and determined enemy.

You are probably referring to how we fought WW2. While I do not doubt that if our country is forced into a fight in which a we are facing a perceived existential threat, that our leaders would have to resort to carpet bombing say an enemy infrastructure that is producing munitions that could kill American soldiers and civilians and that we have to carpet bomb those targets even if civilians happen to be present there. That would be a step in the right direction in terms of fighting the enemy but That is not what I'm referring to. What I am referring to is lets use a hypothetical situation: in a total war with a muslim caliphate the Islamists parade say a couple hundred American POWs captured over the course of the war and kill them in the style that ISIS is currently killing prisoners; A Restorationist America would respond by using Genghis khan tactics, terror against terror in retaliation, in order to impress deterrence upon our enemies and as warning that terror would be responded hundredfold. This would have to be far more thorough than mere strategic bombing strategies.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

We should've formally declared war on Al Qaeda and radical Islam in general. Police Action's don't work when facing a hardened and determined enemy.

You know Al Queda isn't a country, right?

Originally Posted by Kepi

You know Al Queda isn't a country, right?

The Apaches and the Barbary pirates weren't states either.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

We should've formally declared war on Al Qaeda and radical Islam in general. Police Action's don't work when facing a hardened and determined enemy.

al-Qaeda has no recognition and has never had any recognition as a State. It is simply a criminal organization. It's always open season on criminal syndicates. ISIS has been ridiculed as the un-Islamic non-State by Saudi Arabia and other Muslim countries.

As for "radical Islam" -- there could be a time in which radical reformers attempt to turn a predominantly-Muslim country into something both a radical breach from a recent past and altogether benign. "Democracy" remains a radical idea in much of the Islamic world.

Even the scary word Jihad can be used to describe a legitimate defense by Muslims against a murderous regime. For all practical purposes the Islamic resistance to ISIS qualifies as the "lesser" Jihad. The Greater Jihad is the purification of self of unrighteousness... and beyond any question the leadership of ISIS has never done that. The trials of major figures and individual war criminals of ISIS will be.... interesting.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

The Apaches and the Barbary pirates weren't states either.

The Apache Nation was not a criminal organization. The Barbary pirates demonstrate one of the hazards of weak states... Somalia is a prime example of a weak state.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

The trials of major figures and individual war criminals of ISIS will be.... interesting.

I'm sensing they will never be brought to trial. What appears to be evolving is a scorched earth approach to dealing with ISIS. The somewhat sad irony is, by being in bold affront to the Geneva Convention, groups like ISIS, Al Qaeda, etc, have made nation states more likely to also chip away at the Geneva Convention. We are entering an age of brutality.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

You are probably referring to how we fought WW2. While I do not doubt that if our country is forced into a fight in which a we are facing a perceived existential threat, that our leaders would have to resort to carpet bombing say an enemy infrastructure that is producing munitions that could kill American soldiers and civilians and that we have to carpet bomb those targets even if civilians happen to be present there. That would be a step in the right direction in terms of fighting the enemy but That is not what I'm referring to. What I am referring to is lets use a hypothetical situation: in a total war with a muslim caliphate the Islamists parade say a couple hundred American POWs captured over the course of the war and kill them in the style that ISIS is currently killing prisoners; A Restorationist America would respond by using Genghis khan tactics, terror against terror in retaliation, in order to impress deterrence upon our enemies and as warning that terror would be responded hundredfold. This would have to be far more thorough than mere strategic bombing strategies.

I don't think Genghis Khan tactics would have a major impact on a group that is similar in tactic's that's comprised of religious fanatics who don't seem to care about what happens to themselves or anyone else.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

The Apache Nation was not a criminal organization. The Barbary pirates demonstrate one of the hazards of weak states... Somalia is a prime example of a weak state.

Do you view the Nazi's as simply a criminal organization and their rise to power as a demonstration of the hazards of a weak state too?

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

I don't think Genghis Khan tactics would have a major impact on a group that is similar in tactic's that's comprised of religious fanatics who don't seem to care about what happens to themselves or anyone else.

While the Suicide Bombers and terrorist forces themselves are unlikely to be deterred from wanting to kill and die for their insane cause. The Purpose is to deter those Islamist oriented Muslims who are not actively in the field against us from ever thinking about attacking us by using the principle of collective punishment. There is the added benefit of the fact that every Muslim casualty in these proposed pacification operations would be one less potential terrorist that we would have to worry about. Also the Terrorist Leaders who make the terrorist strategies would also be heavily deterred by the retaliatory effect of Genghis khan type tactics.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

I'm sensing they will never be brought to trial. What appears to be evolving is a scorched earth approach to dealing with ISIS. The somewhat sad irony is, by being in bold affront to the Geneva Convention, groups like ISIS, Al Qaeda, etc, have made nation states more likely to also chip away at the Geneva Convention. We are entering an age of brutality.

The Geneva Conventions do nothing to weaken the effectiveness of military machines. The Soviet Union blundered badly by failing to sign the Geneva Convention on the treatment of prisoners; the Nazis exploited that failure by treating Soviet POWs much more severely than those captured from the Western Allies. It is telling that the Nazis released Polish POWs quickly so that as civilians they had no protection from the full horrors of the SS. In the last years of the Soviet Union, George H W Bush (41) talked Mikhail Gorbachev into signing the protocols involving prisoners-of-war on the grounds that those protocols would make the Soviet military machine even more formidable in the event of war. German and Italian soldiers facing the US, British, Free French, and related forces knew that if they were captured that they would at least be treated humanely. On the Russian Front -- not so. German soldiers fought to the death against the Soviet Union. (The SS fought to the death against Allied armies everywhere because their formations had committed atrocities everywhere).

ISIS has no regular Army -- it has only SS-like war units.

This is a Crisis Era, and wars of a Crisis Era are particularly severe. ISIS apparently does not heed the Geneva Conventions, so it sets itself up for harsh judgment in the wake of defeat. Foot-soldiers may surrender, but the gangster leadership and outright criminals have every cause to go down killing. There is no Gorbachev in ISIS.

Major violations include genocide, plunder, rape, slavery, torture, and violations of military law. For individuals there might also be treason and perfidy. Trials of Axis, Yugoslav, and Ba'ath war criminals have set precedents relevant to ISIS.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

Do you view the Nazi's as simply a criminal organization (?)

The Allies determined through their postwar trials of war criminals that the Nazi Party and subsidiary organizations including the Gestapo, SS, and SA were "criminal organizations". The Nazi Party can be understood as much as a criminal syndicate as a political party... and the trials of Nazi war criminals were modeled heavily upon American prosecutions of gangsters like Lepke Buchalter.

and their rise to power as a demonstration of the hazards of a weak state too?

Weimar Germany had serious weaknesses, and the Nazis did their share to weaken the Weimar Republic with both corruption of the system and street violence that a strong state would never tolerate.

A State must be strong enough to enforce laws, collect taxes, aid the helpless, defend civil liberties, administer sanctions for civil torts, and judge and punish criminals lest the system break down quickly. A weak state has lynchings, easy evasion of taxes, grossly-inadequate public services, pervasive corruption, and safe havens for criminal syndicates. Consider the early Middle Ages in France, Germany, the Low Countries, and England; as a rule there was no strong central government. There was no centralized government capable of repairing roads (let alone trying and executing highwaymen), wiping out pirates, or maintaining the aqueducts as there had been under Roman rule. Commerce practically disappeared. Those were known as the Dark Ages -- and not because the sun shined less.

What is insufferable is the State that uses brutal means to enforce the will of elites. That's where Constitutional government makes the difference. A Bill of Rights comprises ethical restraints upon a government and in practice does not gut its authority. Where lawlessness prevails, human rights do not exist.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

While the Suicide Bombers and terrorist forces themselves are unlikely to be deterred from wanting to kill and die for their insane cause. The Purpose is to deter those Islamist oriented Muslims who are not actively in the field against us from ever thinking about attacking us by using the principle of collective punishment. There is the added benefit of the fact that every Muslim casualty in these proposed pacification operations would be one less potential terrorist that we would have to worry about. Also the Terrorist Leaders who make the terrorist strategies would also be heavily deterred by the retaliatory effect of Genghis khan type tactics.

Collective punishment of innocent people is wrong. We Americans stay true to our humane traditions lest we lose all credibility. Such is especially true when the people that we conquer or the soldiers that we capture have big differences of culture or religion.

The Nazis used the word that translates as "pacification" to describe what they did to the Poles. To be sure, the Nazis were among the worst offenders of all times as liars, turning practically every word for an abstract concept into a lie.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LTI_%E...Tertii_Imperii

It's not chest-pumping nationalism on my part to suggest that I prefer George Catlett Marshall to Genghis Khan. When Marshall got his way, the killings (except of war criminals) stopped.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

While the Suicide Bombers and terrorist forces themselves are unlikely to be deterred from wanting to kill and die for their insane cause. The Purpose is to deter those Islamist oriented Muslims who are not actively in the field against us from ever thinking about attacking us by using the principle of collective punishment. There is the added benefit of the fact that every Muslim casualty in these proposed pacification operations would be one less potential terrorist that we would have to worry about. Also the Terrorist Leaders who make the terrorist strategies would also be heavily deterred by the retaliatory effect of Genghis khan type tactics.

I think the same thing can be accomplished by completely pummeling ISIS.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

2016 - bring on the Millies (for real).

Yesterday was the last election where Xers and Boomers will completely dominate the field of candidates. While they will still be around in 2016, by then, we will see many more Millie candidates. The sea change will then commence.

If more Millennials come in the 115th Congress of 2017-2018, that will be the key to the regeneracy.

Originally Posted by A.LOS79

If more Millennials come in the 115th Congress of 2017-2018, that will be the key to the regeneracy.

I really don't think we're going to see -that- many more Millennials in 2017. We only have 2 now and the oldest of this generation is 33. Boomers are finding their way out of leadership a bit..slower than past generations. Youngest boomers are 55 and this generation still makes up 58% of all leadership posts (compared to 40% of Silents when youngest was 55 in 1997, and 34% of GIs when youngest was 55 in 1979). In addition not seeing a big wave of retirements for 2016. Yet.

If I were to project the 115th Congress, I'd guess it to be 5% Silents, 53% Boomers, 40% Xrs, and 2% Millennials. So not the change some are hoping for. Probably not until the early to mid 20s.

Originally Posted by Hutch74

I really don't think we're going to see -that- many more Millennials in 2017. We only have 2 now and the oldest of this generation is 33. Boomers are finding their way out of leadership a bit..slower than past generations. Youngest boomers are 55 and this generation still makes up 58% of all leadership posts (compared to 40% of Silents when youngest was 55 in 1997, and 34% of GIs when youngest was 55 in 1979). In addition not seeing a big wave of retirements for 2016. Yet.

If I were to project the 115th Congress, I'd guess it to be 5% Silents, 53% Boomers, 40% Xrs, and 2% Millennials. So not the change some are hoping for. Probably not until the early to mid 20s.

Repeating myself again: generational change in leadership is not the key to a regeneracy or any change. Change of party and ideology is the key.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Repeating myself again: generational change in leadership is not the key to a regeneracy or any change. Change of party and ideology is the key.

Right now, both parties are two sides of same coin. Change comes from within, and generational change is best for that sort of thing. You're hoping people will 'come to their senses' and vote Democrat (or green) next time around just out of the magic blue. Not going to happen. Both parties are bought and paid for..one just admits it better.

Originally Posted by Hutch74

Right now, both parties are two sides of same coin. Change comes from within, and generational change is best for that sort of thing. You're hoping people will 'come to their senses' and vote Democrat (or green) next time around just out of the magic blue. Not going to happen. Both parties are bought and paid for..one just admits it better.

A realistic look at the two parties refutes this popular assumption among young people today. Democrats have proposed and passed reforms to take money out of politics. Republicans have actively pushed as hard as possible to keep it in, and to maximize it further. Republican Supreme Court appointees voted for the Citizens United decision; Democratic appointees opposed it. QED.

We can always hope that younger people will bring fresh ideas and enthusiasm for change. But that is an ever-present situation. There are always younger folks around. We can hope that millennials will be more liberal, if that is your persuasion, or that they are less caught up in old arguments. But as they age they might become more like older folks to some extent; we don't know. In the 2020s millennials will have the largest voting bloc, but not yet the largest leadership bloc. But that is the decade in which things are likely to move forward, with the generations then in place.

It's not a matter of "out of the magic blue," it's a question of waking up and seeing the facts. Democrats want to move forward; Republicans want to move backward. Them's the facts. If people decide to move forward, they will elect real Democrats, and maybe Greens. If not, they will elect Republicans. If they are irresponsible and uncivic, they won't vote. The media and money can't be blamed for everything. At some point you have to point to the voter in the booth.

Will (s)he be deceived by libertarian trickle-down economics, or not? Will they vote in a knee-jerk fashion for the party that supports religious conservative values, or not? Will they vote based on fear of other peoples in some fashion, or not? Those are the questions, and they aren't generational issues. They've been the issues for decades now, and will remain the issues.

Here's what Scott Walker does for education in Wisconsin:



Contempt for humanistic ideas and the effort to turn colleges into training schools instead of places of inquiry into culture and the meaning of life is a characteristic of right-wing regimes. What right-wing regime needs people able to see through propaganda, to ask what is the meaning of life, to imagine cultural alternatives, and to think outside the prescribed limits of belief?

Oh, so it is "traditional values"? Big deal. An eight-year-old child can have very traditional values because he has found no means of challenging 'basic reality'. Absolute monarchy, slavery, peonage, authoritarian religion, and militarism used to be "traditional values". "Traditional values" of a country with a very different culture will invariably clash with the "traditional values" of another. An intelligent eighteen-year-old who must be 'taught' traditional values after learning that those are grossly inadequate has to be crushed psychologically.

Scott Walker and the Koch syndicate will not be fully happy with the educational system until it starts churning out college graduates well trained to be domestic servants, retail clerks, kitchen help, bed-changers, hospital orderlies, farm laborers, and the like -- and nothing else.

http://www.prwatch.org/news/2015/02/...versity-budget