Forums | MacLife

resedit wrote:

I didn't read any "right wing" sites with respect to Nancy.
What was she authorized to negotiate?

Following their customs can have advantages. Funny though that it isn't a two way street.

She wasn't there to "negotiate," as far as I know.

Do you believe that it is wrong for American women such as Pelosi, Condi Rice, and Laura Bush to cover their heads when entering islamic holy sites?

resedit wrote:

Do you think the way they repress their women is acceptable?

"They" being the Syrian dictatorship, which represses their whole population ?



Why don't female politicans wear miniskirts when meeting Americans ?

bratboy wrote:

resedit wrote:

I didn't read any "right wing" sites with respect to Nancy.
What was she authorized to negotiate?

Following their customs can have advantages. Funny though that it isn't a two way street.

She wasn't there to "negotiate," as far as I know.

What exactly did she accomplish?

Do you believe that it is wrong for American women such as Pelosi, Condi Rice, and Laura Bush to cover their heads when entering islamic holy sites?

No. It is not wrong for them to do so.
It does however send a message that can be used to fuel propaganda - and their presence at such sites also pisses off certain Islamic factions who believe only muslims should tread at those places.

resedit wrote:

What exactly did she accomplish?

A step towards creating open dialog?

No. It is not wrong for them to do so.

Okay, then.  It sorta sounded like you had a problem with it when just Pelosi was being discussed.

Tread one way, and you piss off the islamists. Tread another, and you piss off the homeland security types. smurf it. I'm not going to change my life just to please the brainless masses.

resedit wrote:

It does however send a message that can be used to fuel propaganda - and their presence at such sites also pisses off certain Islamic factions who believe only muslims should tread at those places.

Here's a newsflash, resedit:  the propagandists don't need any more fuel. We've given them enough to last our lifetime.  There's a point at which our leaders have to step up and lead, instead of being worried about what our actions might make the foreigners do. We're in a smurfy situation. It's going to get smurf. What are we going to do about it?

Every option that we have, even the option of doing nothing, presents us with little chance for success. But that doesn't mean that new, more promising options won't present themselves. We need leaders who will seek out possibilities, by talking with our friends as well as our enemies.

resedit wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

resedit wrote:

Whatever.

So - now that we are there, we should pull out even if it means a marked exponential increase in violence, because no, not killing, you don't think of it as killing. I mean - it's all the way on the other side of the world, and the media will leave, so we won't have to see it and stuff.

But isn't one of your justifications for the war the idea that Iraq was doomed to plunge into chaos anyway?

Quite likely - yes.

And that's pretty damn outrageous for you to accuse me of not caring about killing that takes place on the other side of the world. You and your pro-war brethren haven't shown any interest in the slaughter happening in countless countries across the planet, just Iraq and only Iraq, and interest is fading even on that score.

If you can call me "pro-war" - can I call abortionists "pro-death"?

I don't see how they compare. We're not talking about war in general, war as a concept -- we're talking about this war, the Iraq war.

I'm not pro war. I do believe it is sometimes necessary.

Congratulations, so do I, despite your apparent attempt to characterize me as a pacifist.

And that's what this all boils down to - you (and many on the left) are so haughty that they are the only ones with a correct point of view - so in their arrogant haughtiness they must demonize us as not being capable of grasping the moral and "legal" consequences of war.

Had the supporter of this war (the topic of conversation, remember) had a firmer grasp of what the war could lead to, had they understood how solemn a decision it is to go to war, they might have actually decided the risks were far too great, the odds of success far too low, to warrant the colossal gamble of starting a war with insufficient forces and without international support, much less without planning for likely contingencies.

Of course there are consequences of war. There are also consequences of pacifism. Not to invoke Godwin - but the League of Nations decided nothing military should be done about Germany massing arms again.

I like it when people invoke historical comparisons, because I totally own history. So let's get at it. Why didn't anyone stop Hitler before he invaded Poland? There are several reasons, but the big ones can boil down to two: first, Britain and France were extremely weak militarily, and while Germany was weak too, there was just no way to attack Germany without adequate resources (sound familiar?). Furthermore, there was pretty much zero public support for attacking Germany. Sure, Hitler presented a potential threat, but that was just fears, predictions, worry ... there wasn't enough specific info, especially as Hitler kept talking about how much he hated war and didn't want to fight another one.

It was just not possible, militarily, politically or economically (Britain and France being in the throes of the Depression, after all) to start the war a few years early.

What would have happened in Iraq had we not gone in is not certain. I think it would have resulted in civil war at the death of Saddam, but it is of course speculation and it is possible it could have been held together. The perspective that we should not have gone in is valid and has merit.

You bet your ass it does, and it has nothing to do with being "pacifist," it's just a rational analysis of the facts. For instance there are no facts to support what might have happened when Saddam died, only guesses. Maybe Iraq would have collapsed on his death, maybe not. Assad's son took over Syria without much difficulty. And when would Saddam have died? He was pretty young, could easily have lived another 20 years. And since when does a hypothetical "what if" scenario justify a war? If it does, those soldiers better brace themselves, they're liable to be very busy for a very long time.

For instance, what happens when the House of Saud falls from power in Saudi Arabia? What happens when Mubarak dies in Egypt? How about Gadaffi? Saddle up, boys!

However, what will happen if we pull out of Iraq before it is stable is far more certain.

No. What happens after a pullout is not certain. What would have happened had the war not happened was not certain. Who can say what will happen? God, that's about it. Iraq is likely to fall apart, yes. But hasn't it already? It's likely to fall into sectarian slaughter, yes. But hasn't it already? In other words, hasn't Pandora's Box been opened?

We know it will result in a marked increase in violence and extensive slaughter as the factions fight and one becomes the winner. Yet this is exactly what you say we should do - pull out after having removed the government and allow it to self destruct with extensive bloodshed.

First of all I think a smart pullout could minimize the damage. A pullout in concert with neighbouring countries (including Iran) and the world community in general, perhaps work on a peace deal to end the civil war, and most of all finally get serious about an Arab-Israeli peace deal ... there are options. But none of them are being explored. It's just the status quo or nothing. Hell of a choice.

No one can see the future with any certainty. I'll tell you one thing I'm pretty confident of, however: continuing the American presence means more slaughter, more instability, more expense, all for nothing.

It says a lot that the main reason for staying in Iraq is no longer about bringing democracy or stability or even peace, it's about stopping genocide. My how low things have gone.

How can you have that position and claim to value human life?

Simple, there's no way forward that doesn't involve bloodshed or the risk of bloodshed. I do think that the status quo is completely untenable and has to end.

Argue that we need to try something different is fine. Maybe they aren't ready for democracy, maybe we should negotiate with terrorist factions in an attempt to build something stable even if it isn't a democracy. But to say we should pull out now when we know the result will be a signifigant increase in bloodshed is sick.

The pullout has to happen sooner or later. The administration has shown that it lacks the ability (or desire) to pursue anything but the military track. There are lots of options that leaders with skill and brains would be interested in pursuing, but this crew just doesn't have the equipment.

And like I said the status quo just can't be sustained. The way Bush is going about it, he'll hang on and hang on and hang on, keeping the war going as long as possible, hoping for victory (whatever that is), and finally the whole effort will collapse.

Even Nixon, recognizing the hopelessness of the Vietnam War, was able to contain the damage by negotiating with China and the Soviets, splitting the enemy camp.

It's not sick to want to end the war, res. It's simply reality that it will end, and soon, whether we want it to or not. It just can't go on.

You want to dump the neocons for getting us into this mess - fine, fire them on election day. But don't pretend those calling for withdrawal who voted for the war (IE Clinton) are any better. In fact, they are worse. They start things, wait till things are all smurfed up, and then bail. At least the neocons want to see it through and clean up the mess over there.

resedit wrote:

Had the supporter of this war (the topic of conversation, remember) had a firmer grasp of what the war could lead to, had they understood how solemn a decision it is to go to war, they might have actually decided the risks were far too great, the odds of success far too low, to warrant the colossal gamble of starting a war with insufficient forces and without international support, much less without planning for likely contingencies.

This possibility had been pointed out by many people before our (US, I don't know about you guys up north) voted to authorize the war.

Therefore, since they knew the risk and voted for war - don't you think it is a little chicken smurf of them to now call for backing out?

It's like marriage - either you commit to your mate or you don't. If you aren't ready to commit, you shouldn't get married - divorce should be extremely rare.

When they voted to authorize the action, they knew what could happen. It was clearly laid out by numerous sources. They voted to authorize it anyway - and now they want to take their marbles home? Do you not see the problem?

But instead of taking responsibility for their action, they want to leave things in a mess that they are responsible for by authorizing the action in the first place - just like all those dead beat dads who skip out of a marriage leaving the kids without a dad or financial support.

They who? Authorizing? Huh? You've lost me.

Let me just ask you this: do you see any actual hope that the war can be won militarily?

You mentioned the marriage metaphor. Guess what, people get married for all sorts of reasons. Maybe they understand the commitment maybe they don't; maybe they're all caught up in the heat of the moment and maybe they're not.

But sometimes in marriage it becomes clear that no matter what you do, no matter how hard you try, no matter how much more time you give it, the relationship just isn't going to work. Sometimes you just have to accept the hopelessness of the situation and call it a day, move forward, salvage as much as you can.

That's just life, my friend.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

They who? Authorizing? Huh? You've lost me.

They had a vote giving the President the green light before we put troops on the ground.

Let me just ask you this: do you see any actual hope that the war can be won militarily?

The purpose of the military now is not to win anything, but to keep the militants from destroying what is being built - a new nation with a new government.

Yes - that can be achieved. Not just by the military, but the military is a necessary component as there are these people there with guns that want to kill other people and prevent the government from stabalizing.

You mentioned the marriage metaphor. Guess what, people get married for all sorts of reasons. Maybe they understand the commitment maybe they don't; maybe they're all caught up in the heat of the moment and maybe they're not.

But sometimes in marriage it becomes clear that no matter what you do, no matter how hard you try, no matter how much more time you give it, the relationship just isn't going to work. Sometimes you just have to accept the hopelessness of the situation and call it a day, move forward, salvage as much as you can.

That's just life, my friend.

And all too often - marriage ends in divorce because no attempt is made to salvage it. The war in Iraq did not go as planned. The objective is still obtainable and it IS moving in that direction - despite what the pessimists would have you believe.

No - it's no utopia. Neither is Detroit.

What the Iraqis want is unclear. I suspect we have people discussing it with them. And I suspect public announcements by the Iraqi government very well may differ from what they are saying behind closed doors.

Saying you want us there until things are stable may end up getting you bumped up in priority as a target.

Report: White House officials furious at Republicans for leaking details of meeting

Sources said that Dan Meyer, Bush’s liaison to the House, confronted LaHood while White House political strategist Karl Rove rebuked Kirk. It is unclear if LaHood or Kirk were the originial sources for the stories, but LaHood was quoted in one of the articles.

Regardless, LaHood and Meyer got into a shouting match as emotions ran high and voices were raised yesterday morning in the White House while lawmakers were waiting to meet with first lady Laura Bush, according to two legislators who witnessed the exchange.

In a sign of how much the politics of Iraq have deteriorated for the GOP, Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (R-Mich.) – a member of House Republican leadership — compared Bush’s political problems to then President Truman’s in 1952. President Eisenhower subsequently won the presidency and Republicans captured the House.

“We’re probably slightly behind where Truman was” with his Democratic Party in 1951 and 1952, McCotter said. “History has vindicated Truman…fortunately I don’t see a Democratic Eisenhower out there.”

I'd say that Truman comparison is pretty apt.

Lahood was on CSPAN Washington Journal this AM. Basically said, "Nothing to see here move along."

btw - the Nixonian "If it'll play in Peoria, it'll play anywhere." is apt. Part of Lahood's district is that city.

As for his views this morning, just visualize a Perle/Cheney clone with charm, and you're pretty close.

His son was statiioned in Iraq for over a year. State Department press liason.

He's no longer on the House Intel Committee. Maybe this has something to do with it:
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/10/20/lah … suspended/

LaHood Admits He Was ‘Playing Politics’ When He Asked For Intel Staffer To Be Suspended

This week, on the request of Rep. Ray LaHood (R-IL), Intelligence Chairman Pete Hoekstra (R-MI) suspended a Democratic staffer’s access to classified information. Hoekstra said the suspension would remain in place pending a review to determine if that staffer leaked a classified National Intelligence Estimate to the New York Times.

Today on Fox News, LaHood said, “I’ll tell you why I did it. The reason I did it was because Jane Harman released the Duke Cunningham — who sat on our Intelligence committee — report.” That report, which detailed the misconduct of Cunningham, who is now serving a jail term, was not classified.

A Fox anchor asked, “So, it’s payback?” LaHood responded, “There are some of us on the other side who can equally play politics, and I’m not afraid to do it.”

-------------
Now, about the comparison to Truman...was the nation as a whole already moving forward and looking for the election coming in '52 and Ike? IIRC, Ike was 'apolitical' and chose running as an R late, relative to the current landscape.

Obviously, there is only one Ike, and we were only a few years removed from V-J Day. What an amazing backstory:

The Campaign and Election of 1952

During an extraordinary military career, Dwight D. Eisenhower had done some things that few, if any, Americans had ever experienced. But he had not done something that was extremely common -- he had never voted. Eisenhower had stayed so far away from politics that he had not even entered a polling place. Yet in 1948, many Americans hoped that the general would cast his first ballot -- for himself as President. Even Harry S. Truman tried to interest Eisenhower in a run for the presidency. As the election year of 1948 approached, Truman, who became President when Franklin D. Roosevelt died, seemed to have little chance of winning a full term of his own. In a private meeting, Truman proposed that he and Eisenhower run together on the Democratic ticket, with Eisenhower as the presidential candidate and Truman in second position. Eisenhower rejected this astonishing offer and probably thought that he would never again have to consider the possibility of a run for the White House.

Truman won an upset victory in 1948, but during the Korean War, he became extremely unpopular. Truman’s decision to fire General Douglas MacArthur as commander of United Nations forces was an important cause for public disapproval of the President. So too was the deadlock in the fighting in Korea. Republicans expected victory in 1952, and Senator Robert A. Taft of Ohio became the leading candidate for the GOP nomination. But some prominent Republicans considered Taft an isolationist since he had opposed the formation of NATO and talked instead about building up defenses in the Western Hemisphere. They tried to interest Eisenhower in the Republican nomination, confident that his popularity would carry him to victory and certain that his internationalist policies were essential to success in the Cold War.

Massachusetts Senator Henry Cabot Lodge Jr. began an Eisenhower for President drive in the Republican Party. In public, Eisenhower said he had no interest in politics because he had to devote full attention to his duty as commander of NATO forces in Europe. But behind the scenes, Eisenhower began to offer encouragement to Lodge during the senator’s visits to NATO headquarters near Paris. Finally, in January 1952, Eisenhower announced that he was a Republican and that he would be willing to accept the call of the American people to serve as President.

Voters are aware there ain't no Ike around the corner, but one Ike-like jacket is worn by Mr. Albert Armold Gore, Jr..

Last edited by Beagle/Bro. (2007-05-11 10:33 am)