Originally Posted by Sabinus Invictus

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

Originally Posted by Milo

Originally Posted by Kiff 1961

GSAVE: the 2005 equivalent of New Coke.

I actually think that whatever the neoconservatives call their imperial project it is something like the new coke. What the neoconservatives want is a post-American America, where sovereignty, cultural integrity, and a fair deal for the middle class (the pillars of paleo-conservatism, or coke classic) give way to a trans-national, pseudo-democratic corporatist plutocracy under the protection of an American-led military imperium and global police state that imprisons, tortures, and murders dissenters. The American republic has been dying for sixty years, but at least we used to leave the torturing and murdering to thugs in client governments rather than forcing our own kids to get their hands dirty. But now America is a "homeland" not a country. The likes of DA and the other Bush cons I think either secretly support cultural liberalism and the globalist, corporatist kleptocracy or they're the stupidest, most deluded people in America.

I wouldn't go so far as to say our republic has been "dying" for the past sixty years, but I like the gist of your post.

True, Sean, about not going that far. I'd more likely say 'for the past 40 years'.

Care to try for twenty-five? Ever since January 20, 1981. But I don't think we're dead yet... and there's a better-than-even chance that we'll never be. Americans circa 1928-32 probably felt much the same as we do now... and we survived.

"Most Americans Say Iraq War Not Worth Fighting

(Angus Reid Global Scan) – Many adults in the United States believe their government should not have launched military action against Iraq, according to a poll by CBS News. 59 per cent of respondents believe the war was not worth the loss of American life and other costs."

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/inde...em/itemID/8386

Originally Posted by Mr. Robt. Higgs

We know a great deal about this matter already, merely from observing the conduct of U.S. politics. People are constantly being labeled extremists in the news media or in congressional proceedings. Even prominent, respectable men and women nominated for positions in the federal judiciary are routinely branded as extremists. Nothing is easier than calling someone whose views or actions go outside the 40-yard lines of American politics an extremist. Gone are the days when Barry Goldwater had the courage to stand before the world and declare that “extremism in defense of liberty is no vice.” Now the government seemingly seeks to equate extremism with terrorism. Nothing good can come of such a move. If the government can’t even identify unambiguously the persons it aims to destroy, then it has no proper business mounting attacks.

This is a Progressive Ploy, to wit:Ad Campaign Targets Roberts
Abortion rights group says nominee sided with violent extremists while in office. –Dan Balz in the WaPo


Who's NARAL's Ms. Karen Hughes? Progressive minds cant alike.

Originally Posted by Mr. Dan Balz

A prominent abortion rights group launched a television ad yesterday that accuses Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr. of siding with violent extremists and a convicted clinic bomber while serving in the solicitor general's office, an accusation that Roberts's supporters immediately condemned as a flagrant distortion.

The ad, sponsored by NARAL Pro-Choice America...

If you've been following guerrilla wars as long as I have, you have to laugh when you hear Army PR guys say that the Iraqi insurgents are just a teeny-tiny bad apple in a big barrel of shiny Red Delicious Iraqis.

Originally Posted by War Nerd

The most effective leaders will turn out to be the type who rises to the top in any insurgency: solid, intelligent, young-ish men. Guerrilla war is a young man's game. The leaders are usually in their 20s, early 30s. They're the cream of the neighborhood, the guys who always got respect -- homegrown Alpha-males with real standing in the clan and tribal networks that really run things in Iraq.

They'll turn out to be downright shy by Arab standards, coolheaded types. Guerrilla war kills off the glory-seekers pretty quickly. The leaders who last will be anonymous until the new regime gives them their medals when we finally give up on this mess.

Are these Mesopotamian Xers we're dealing (sic) with?

"In this third summer of war, the American project in Iraq has never seemed so wilted and sapped of life. It's not just the guerrillas, who are churning away at their relentless pace, attacking American forces about 65 times a day. It is most everything else, too.

Baghdad seems a city transported from the Middle Ages: a scattering of high-walled fortresses, each protected by a group of armed men. The area between the forts is a lawless no man's land, menaced by bandits and brigands.

....When the Americans smashed Saddam Hussein's regime two and half years ago, what lay revealed was a country with no agreement on the most basic questions of national identity. The Sunnis, a minority in charge here for five centuries, have not, for the most part, accepted that they will no longer control the country. The Shiites, the long-suppressed majority, want to set up a theocracy. The Kurds don't want to be part of Iraq at all. There is only so much that language can do to paper over such differences."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/14/we...pagewanted=all

"U.S. Lowers Sights On What Can Be Achieved in Iraq
Administration Is Shedding 'Unreality' That Dominated Invasion, Official Says

By Robin Wright and Ellen Knickmeyer
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, August 14, 2005; Page A01

The Bush administration is significantly lowering expectations of what can be achieved in Iraq, recognizing that the United States will have to settle for far less progress than originally envisioned during the transition due to end in four months, according to U.S. officials in Washington and Baghdad.

The United States no longer expects to see a model new democracy, a self-supporting oil industry or a society where the majority of people are free from serious security or economic challenges, U.S. officials say."

"The ferocious debate over a new constitution has particularly driven home the gap between the original U.S. goals and realities after almost 28 months. The U.S. decision to invade Iraq was justified in part by the goal of establishing a secular and modern Iraq that honors human rights and unites disparate ethnic and religious communities.

But whatever the outcome on specific disputes, the document on which Iraq's future is to be built will require laws to be compliant with Islam. Kurds and Shiites are expecting de facto long-term political privileges. And women's rights will not be as firmly entrenched as Washington has tried to insist, U.S. officials and Iraq analysts say."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...081300853.html

I don't know where else to put this post. Yesterday they sent off the local reserve. Thousands turned out. Many weeping wives and children.

Bush should be ashamed. He is taking advantage of these men's patriotism. These pudgy husbands and zitty college kids shouldn't be sent to sacrifice - especially when Mr Bush won't even tell us why we are there.

What would these wives say if you framed the choice: Live like the Amish, or send your husband/son off to war.

What makes me sad is that I am half afraid the average American would say "Well, we need the oil..." At least until it is their kid.

An Earlier Rebrand

The wealth of an enemy excites their cupidity, his poverty their lust of power.
East and West have failed to glut their maw. They are unique in being as violently tempted to attack the poor as the wealthy.
Robbery, butchery, rapine, with false names they call Empire; and they make a wilderness and call it peace.

Chapter 30, Life of Gnaeus Julius Agricola


Same as it ever was.

Barbers post signs saying they do not shave men, after months of barbers being killed by religious extremists.

The story is truly amazing, not just because of the depressing content, which is not all that surprising, but because Administration sources acknowledged it. I really wonder who they could possibly be.

(Following is tongue in cheek.)

What do you mean Bush hasn't told us why the troops are going? They're going to liberate the Iraqi people! To defeat terror so we won't have to fight the bad guys here! To prevent another 9/11!

It's not that he won't tell us, it's that his reasons don't make sense. But trust me, we may easily have 100,000 men still in Iraq on January 19, 2009.

David K '47

"Doubt on war grows in U.S.
Even supporters say the effort isn't worth loss of American lives
By Mark Silva and Mike Dorning, Tribune national correspondents. Mark Silva reported from Pennsylvania and Mike Dorning from South Carolina; Tribune national correspondents Tim Jones, Vincent J. Schod

August 14, 2005

CRANBERRY TOWNSHIP, Pa. -- As surely as sweet-corn stands and rolling farmland give way to the boxlike tract housing of new suburbs here, President Bush is losing ground on the battlefield of public opinion when it comes to the war in Iraq.

Even among Republicans who cheered the invasion of Iraq two years ago, and some who supported Bush's re-election and his exhortation to "stay the course," the ongoing loss of American life without a clear course for withdrawal is taking a toll.

Growing opposition to the conflict, as well as a diminishing sense that it is making Americans safer from terrorism at home, is reflected in an array of recent opinion polls.

It also resounds in a series of interviews with voters from the blossoming suburbs and withering steel-mill warrens outside Pittsburgh to the old cotton-mill country and military-minded precincts of South Carolina. Frustration and perplexity are voiced from Southern California to Terre Haute, Ind.

"Two or three years ago, when everything started, I thought it was a good idea," said Laura French, a Republican from Evan City, Pa. "But now I think enough is enough. It's time to come home."

It is not only the growing death toll that has eroded American support for the war, according to those interviewed, but also the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. And it's the failure to capture Osama bin Laden, mastermind of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks."

http://fairuse.1accesshost.com/news2/trib004.html

"US concedes ground to Islamists on Iraqi law
Sat Aug 20, 2005 5:49 PM GMT

By Luke Baker and Michael Georgy

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - U.S. diplomats have conceded ground to Islamists on the role of religion in Iraq, negotiators said on Saturday as they raced to meet a 48-hour deadline to draft a constitution under intense U.S. pressure.

U.S. diplomats, who have insisted the constitution must enshrine ideals of equal rights and democracy, declined comment.

Shi'ite, Sunni and Kurdish negotiators all said there was accord on a bigger role for Islamic law than Iraq had before.

But a secular Kurdish politician said Kurds opposed making Islam "the", not "a", main source of law -- changing current wording -- and subjecting all legislation to a religious test.

"We understand the Americans have sided with the Shi'ites," he said. "It's shocking. It doesn't fit American values. They have spent so much blood and money here, only to back the creation of an Islamist state ... I can't believe that's what the Americans really want or what the American people want.""

http://za.today.reuters.com/news/New...Q-20050820.XML

1st Cav soldier discusses "the real deal" in Iraq and calls for an end to the occupation.

Hagel Says Iraq War Looking Like Vietnam

Does anyone recall that little war in Iraq?

It seems the constitution negotiations have failed.

I can't find a transcript of Bush's "very awful" speech from last week - the one where he talks about the war in Iraq being necessary to secure oil so that catastrophes like Katrina won't hurt our petrol addiction...paraphrasing of course. Anyone have a copy of that speech? Or was I just dreaming it?

J'accuse.

Encore!


:arrow: :arrow: :arrow:

C.A.R.R.H.A.E.

Originally Posted by Sen. Neil Kinnock, D-Delaware

It's also the best way to leave Iraq with our most fundamental security interests intact.

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

C.A.R.R.H.A.E.

Originally Posted by Sen. Neil Kinnock, D-Delaware

It's also the best way to leave Iraq with our most fundamental security interests intact.

What a mess.

This Year, Bush Takes a Different Tone With the U.N.

Originally Posted by Glenn Kessler of the Washington Post

Bush used his speech to explain why, in his view, democracy thwarts the growth of terrorism. "Democratic nations uphold the rule of law, impose limits on the power of the state, treat women and minorities as full citizens," he said. "Democratic nations protect private property, free speech and religious expression."

Writing in the current issue of Foreign Affairs, F. Gregory Gause III said that a review of academic literature and statistics finds little evidence that democracy stops terrorism. Gause, a political science professor at the University of Vermont, noted that the State Department's records show that, between 2000 and 2003, India, the world's most populous democracy, had 203 terrorist attacks while, China, the world's most populous authoritarian state, had none. One study cited by Gause found that "most terrorist incidents occur in democracies and that generally both the victims and the perpetrators are citizens of democracies."

I said something similar to Professor Gause a while back. Saddam Hussein was free to use methods that could pacify Iraq. George Bush isn't. Bush is learning. As the full article above points out, he intends to attack economic issues as well as attempt democracy. Still, one is tempted to suggest that democratic government has difficulty enforcing the peace in places lacking democratic traditions, while autocratic government has difficulty establishing a competitive economy. It is just going to be hard.

When Bush ran for office in 2000, he was against nation building, rejected how Clinton had over used the military, and vowed to only use military force to protect vital American interests. After rejecting the UN to walk his own path a few years back, he is trying to woo it again, today. On the Bush = Hoover thread, it has been suggested that Bush is stubbornly refusing to alter his approach, that Bush, like Hoover, is sticking to bad policy. To me, this doesn't seem entirely true. He is learning from his mistakes. As time goes by, he is becoming more and more Clintonesque in his foreign policy.

But if Bush is learning from his mistakes, he has given himself too many opportunities to learn. While he is starting to move towards policies that might work, without admitting mistakes, he is losing the political capital needed to push his newer approaches hard. As we're still too close to the 3T side of the cusp, it seems more important to exploit his political vulnerability than to apply any lessons learned. I'm talking of other world leaders as well as his domestic political rivals.

Anyway, while I still don't like Bush 43 to speak of, he is learning... but likely too little too late.

An examination of Ms. Hughes' recent expedition into the swirling sands

Originally Posted by Sid Vicious

Pape's (Robert) research
debunks the view that suicide terrorism is the natural byproduct of
Islamic fundamentalism or some "Islamo-fascist" ideological strain
independent of certain highly specific circumstances. "Of the key
conditions that lead to suicide terrorism in particular, there must be,
first, the presence of foreign combat forces on the territory that the
terrorists prize. The second condition is a religious difference
between the combat forces and the local community. The religious
difference matters in that it enables terrorist leaders to paint
foreign forces as being driven by religious goals. If you read Osama's
speeches, they begin with descriptions of the U.S. occupation of the
Arabian Peninsula, driven by our religious goals, and that it is our
religious purpose that must confronted. That argument is incredibly
powerful not only to religious Muslims but secular Muslims. Everything
Hughes says makes their case."

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

J'accuse.
Encore!

The Muslims actually do have a large number of traditions concerning governance, even good governance -- but three major walls stand in the way of tapping those traditions: the fascist wall, the Islamist wall, and the imperialist wall.

The fascist wall exists because of the influence of the Nazis on the Muslims. This led to the current anti-Semitism in the Mideast -- no one seems to remember that such outrageous anti-Semitism is a relatively new thing; the Muslims were once far more tolerant of Jews than the Christians. It also led to the Ba'ath Party in Syria and Iraq, and the Nasserite movement elsewhere. Until they reject utterly the entire idea of fascist governance, the Sunnis can't really adapt themselves to good governance.

The Islamist wall exists because of the cultural backlash against merging Islamic traditions with Western ones. I think we're all pretty familiar with this wall; our enemies describe it to us all the time. Until that wall comes down, they won't be able to use our thousand or so years of experience -- or the experience of the Greeks, Romans, or Byzantines, either.

Finally, the imperial wall exists because of memories of past empires. The Mideast is where "empire" was born; Islam became imperial very early in its history, and recent history includes the memories of the Ottoman, British, and French empires in the region. A lot of the trouble in the Mideast occurs because everyone dreams of restoring the empire on their terms. Once people start thinking in terms of getting their own house in order first and building the empire later, we'll be in business.

I **know** the Muslims can get their act together because they've done it before. The first caliphs were elected. Muslim scholars delved deeply into Greece and Rome centuries before we did. Muslim clerics worked tirelessly for justice, opposing the excesses of tyrants. Jews, Christians, and Muslims cooperated in peace for long ages.

If you want to complain about teachers, complain about the ignorance that pretends that the Muslims have always been ignorant racist bigots with a paranoid and distorted religion.

Originally Posted by catfishncod

Jews, Christians, and Muslims cooperated in peace for long ages.

The Top Three in my local Toastmasters District, covering about 130 clubs and about 2,500 Toastmasters are: Jewish (2nd VP), Muslim (1st VP), and Christian (Pres). They work quite well together.

I don't know how old these three men are; they may be Xers.

The Two Sides of C.A.R.R.H.A.E.

Originally Posted by Gen.(ret.) William E. Odom

So why is almost nobody advocating a pullout? I can only speculate. We face a strange situation today where few if any voices among Democrats in Congress will mention early withdrawal from Iraq, and even the one or two who do will not make a comprehensive case for withdrawal now. Why are the Democrats failing the public on this issue today? The biggest reason is because they weren't willing to raise that issue during the campaign. Howard Dean alone took a clear and consistent stand on Iraq, and the rest of the Democratic Party trashed him for it. Most of those in Congress voted for the war and let that vote shackle them later on. Now they are scared to death that the White House will smear them with lack of patriotism if they suggest pulling out.


Journalists can ask all the questions they like, but none will prompt a more serious debate as long as no political leaders create the context and force the issues into the open.

I don't believe anyone will be able to sustain a strong case in the short run without going back to the fundamental misjudgment of invading Iraq in the first place. Once the enormity of that error is grasped, the case for pulling out becomes easy to see.

Virgil, do you really mean 'Carrhae', or more like 'Adrianopolis' or 'Manzikert'?