Discussion:
Article by Pat Buchanan
(too old to reply)
Walter Karmazyn
2004-04-15 01:16:40 UTC
Permalink
I'm not a big fan of Pat Buchanan, but that doesn't prevent me from reading
him, or posting something he's written, when I find it of interest. I think
he poses a legit question here, and, like him, I believe we are reaching of
point of no return in getting out anytime soon. Now of course I've been
saying we should get about for about a year now, and that ain't gonna
change. However, we are in that period where things are going from bad to
worse, it's only the 14th of the month and already, at this moment, there
are 87 dead Americans this month, that # might've risen since I last looked
earlier today. Anybody with a long memory can remember back to 91, or last
year, when Iraqis complained they couldn't fight Americans in the air, they
should come on the ground. And that's where we are now, and that's what is
happening, and will continue to happen, esp since we are losing the favor of
more Iraqis daily. I could go through this article sentence by sentence
with agreements, disagreements and comments, but I'll leave it to a couple
of
things, one of them Sadr. Buchanan describes to the mess we are in on how
to deal with him. Last fall in a discussion with Neil K, I mentioned Sadr,
in the context that he at the time was less popular than Saddam with the
Iraqi people, coming in with only 1% support. Now of course that is a
quarter million people, but my argument was that continued US presence could
well increase his popularity, and imo, it has, a bit, and might still even
more so. The biggest mistake would be to send the military into Najaf to
hunt out Sadr, if that were to happen today, by Saturday it would be evident
to even the biggest defender of this war that we've just lost the support
of 60 % of the population. I think we've already lost some of that support,
and imo, what is left will erode even more in the coming months. My other
comment deals with the last sentence, so there you'll find it.



DO WE GO IN DEEPER OR CUT OUR LOSSES?

By Pat Buchanan

This is ``George Bush's Vietnam,'' railed Sen. Ted Kennedy last week in a
charge that angered Sen. John McCain.

And by any traditional measure of war, McCain is right.

While Vietnam lasted a decade and took 58,000 U.S. lives, Iraq has lasted a
year and cost 650 U.S. dead. Even the Filipino insurrection of 1899-1902 was
a far bloodier affair. But one comparison is valid. A U.S. defeat in Iraq
would be a far greater strategic disaster than the loss of South Vietnam.

For what is on the line here is not only the Bush presidency, but the myth
of American invincibility, the ``democratic revolution'' the president has
been preaching, Tony Blair, the U.S. position in the oil-rich Persian Gulf
and Arab world, and our standing as the world's last superpower. For it is
the definition of a superpower that when it goes to war, it prevails.

All is now riding on Bush's commitment to create a pro-Western, democratic
Iraq and not be forced out in a humiliating retreat and defeat by the
burgeoning insurrection. And as in Vietnam around 1963, we have come to a
turning point. The critical question before us: Do we go in deeper, or do we
cut our losses and look for the nearest exit?

With the battles for Fallujah and Ramadi, the seizure by the Mahdi Army of
Sheik Muqtada Al-Sadr of Kut, Karbala and Najaf, the fighting in Sadr City,
the recurring attacks on aid workers, the abandonment of their posts by
Iraqi police, the refusal to fight of one of four Iraqi battalions we
trained, it is clear: We do not have sufficient forces on the ground to
crush and snuff out the resistance.

So we must decide. How much blood and treasure are we willing to invest in
democracy in Baghdad, and for how long? Is a democratic Iraq vital to our
security? What assurances are there that we can win this war?

Finally, how lasting will any victory be? Lest we forget: When U.S. troops
and POWs came home from Vietnam in 1973, America appeared to have won the
war. Not until the spring of 1975 did a North Vietnamese invasion overrun
the South and Saigon.

President Bush faces three options. He can continue to draw down troops and
transfer power to the Iraq Governing Council on June 30, and risk a collapse
in chaos or civil war. He can hold to present U.S. force levels and accept a
war of attrition of indefinite duration, a war on which his countrymen have
begun to sour.

Or he can send in more troops and unleash U.S. power to crush all
resistance, while declaring our resolve to ``pay any price'' and fight on to
victory, even if it takes two, five or 10 years. The problem with playing
Churchill is that, as in Vietnam, it is hard to see the light at the end of
the tunnel.

The incidence of attacks on our troops, aid workers and Iraqi allies is
rising. The more fiercely we fight back, the higher the casualties we
inflict on insurgent and civilian alike, and the greater the hostility grows
to our war and our presence. Indeed, if our occupation itself is the cause
of the insurgency, how do we win the war by extending and deepening it?

The fragile ``truce'' of the last two days notwithstanding, the Shiite
regions are now inflamed to a degree they were not just two weeks ago. Where
Muqtada Al-Sadr was then a thuggish and receding figure, by his killing of
U.S. troops he has made himself an adversary to whom our enemies are
rallying.

In dealing with him, we have three options. Kill him and make him a dead
martyr, which could ignite the Shiite population, compelling even Ayatollah
Sistani to condemn us. Arrest him and make him a living martyr. But if
arresting his deputy ignited the present uprising, imagine the hell that
will break loose if we take the sheik to Baghdad airport.

Or leave him alone. But then he will have shown Iraqis that one can kill
U.S. soldiers with impunity, even when Americans control your country. Not a
good message to send. Like Vietnam, Iraq, too, has porous borders. There is
no way to halt the trickle of foreign fighters slipping in.

Then there are the January elections. If militant Shiites and Sunnis run on
a pledge to expel the Americans, what do we do if they win?

Americans supported Bush's war because we were persuaded that the malignancy
of Iraq's leader and the horrific nature of the weapons he had or was
seeking meant we must destroy his regime or our country was in mortal peril.

With that threat gone, what we are fighting for? Democracy in Iraq? Or is it
now just to avoid defeat in Iraq?

**************

Imo, I think it's at this point to avoid defeat. I don't think it was ever
for democracy, as most Americans define it, but freedom for US interests to
turn a profit, and one of the largest oil reserves to be under our control
(which also spells profit). This is the worst reason to fight a war. No
matter what, the Iraqi people will decide this all for themselves, in all
likelihood after we've left. The longer we stay and mess with their
internal affairs, the less the chance that what appears in the end will be
friendly towards the US. And in the meantime, are we ready to get involved
for an unknown # of years, investing an unknown figure in the hundreds of
billions of dollars and an unknown # of American lives, which will most
defiantly reach 4 figures, maybe 5 if we prolong this.

W
JimK
2004-04-15 04:10:36 UTC
Permalink
Bush has, indeed, gotten us into a fine pickle. We're at the point now
where if the thunder doesn't get us, the lightning will. It looks like
only a miracle will now get us out of Iraq with any of our dignity
left. I'd like to believe that Kerry, if he wins, could turn the
trick. But the only hope, slim at best, seems to be
internationalization, and I'm not sure anyone can rebuild the bridges
that Bush has burned.

JimK
DGDevin
2004-04-15 04:49:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by JimK
I'd like to believe that Kerry, if he wins, could turn the
trick.
How? What miracle could he possibly pull out of his hat? I wish it were
so, but I just can't see him doing anything other than just pulling out,
leaving a bloody civil war behind him.
Walter Karmazyn
2004-04-15 05:41:18 UTC
Permalink
DGDevin wrote in message ...
Post by DGDevin
Post by JimK
I'd like to believe that Kerry, if he wins, could turn the
trick.
How? What miracle could he possibly pull out of his hat? I wish it were
so, but I just can't see him doing anything other than just pulling out,
leaving a bloody civil war behind him.
Pulling out is what we should be doing now, should've done months ago,
should've never gone there in the first place. As it is, we stand a very
good chance of being in the middle of a bloody civil war, if you haven't
noticed. And we can stay there another 10 years and get what we thought we
wanted, at the cost of thousands of US lives and many more Iraqis, to see it
most likely overturned after we leave at the cost of more blood. The bottom
line is that the Iraqis will decide what is best for Iraq, and of course
they won't all agree on what that is. The longer we stay there, the slimmer
the chances that what comes after will be friendly to the US, as we alienate
more Iraqis every day. My comments about Sadr to Neil last fall delt with
just how low the radical fringe was at the time, and how a DOMESTIC SOLUTION
would most likely play in our favor. That grows slimmer by the week.


One silent thread for a loved one of the rmgd community is one more than
enough. If you want to shed American blood in a foreign civil war DG, then
enlist, or apply to Haliburton to be a truck driver. Take a crash course
from Scot in Carpentry. Or send your son, or neice or nephew in your stead.
And hopefully, we won't be having a silent thread for you or them here. Or
maybe we should start running a silent thread for each American killed over
there, by name with local obituary, to put a bit of a face to the name.
That would only be 87 in the last 2 weeks, and an avarage or nearly 2 a day
for the last year. We could really fill up a lot of bandwidth if we wanted
to start doing that with innocent bystanding Iraqis errently (or otherwise)
killed by the US, like those 15 kids in a house hit by US helicopters in
Fallujah last week. Wrong house, but you'll have as hard a time telling
that to Iraqis as you would to Americans, if it happened here. Sometimes
the national (in this case two nations) interest can best be served by
pulling out, both in the time it takes to end a dispute, lives lost, and how
those nations relate to each other once things have settled down.

Aside to Jim K.... I would like to think Kerry is going to win in November,
the US can't take 4 more years of the Project for A 4th Reich... I mean "New
American Century". Don't bet on him getting us out of there, however.

W
DGDevin
2004-04-16 03:59:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Walter Karmazyn
Pulling out is what we should be doing now, should've done months ago,
should've never gone there in the first place.
I go for Door Number Three, never should have invaded in the first place,
said so then, haven't changed my mind since.
Post by Walter Karmazyn
One silent thread for a loved one of the rmgd community is one more than
enough. If you want to shed American blood in a foreign civil war DG, then
enlist, or apply to Haliburton to be a truck driver.
Ya, quote me wanting to shed blood, American or Iraqi. Well, I take that
back, if they could have poisoned Saddam's breakfast coffee and got his foul
sons at the same time, that would have been fine with me.
Post by Walter Karmazyn
Aside to Jim K.... I would like to think Kerry is going to win in November,
the US can't take 4 more years of the Project for A 4th Reich... I mean "New
American Century". Don't bet on him getting us out of there, however.
If Kerry does win, and I'd say his chances are fifty-fifty at best, I'll
bet he does *not* pull out of Iraq.
DG
2004-04-15 06:12:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by DGDevin
Post by JimK
I'd like to believe that Kerry, if he wins, could turn the
trick.
How? What miracle could he possibly pull out of his hat? I wish it were
so, but I just can't see him doing anything other than just pulling out,
leaving a bloody civil war behind him.
I read today that Kerry would not "cut and run" in Iraq. I imagine
the reason is because all the elements for civil war have come
together. If the US leaves there is no doubt that the civil war
begins.
Walter Karmazyn
2004-04-15 06:40:31 UTC
Permalink
DG wrote in message ...
Post by DG
Post by DGDevin
Post by JimK
I'd like to believe that Kerry, if he wins, could turn the
trick.
How? What miracle could he possibly pull out of his hat? I wish it were
so, but I just can't see him doing anything other than just pulling out,
leaving a bloody civil war behind him.
I read today that Kerry would not "cut and run" in Iraq. I imagine
the reason is because all the elements for civil war have come
together. If the US leaves there is no doubt that the civil war
begins.
I think all the elements for civil war have been there since Saddam was in
power. The only elements coming together at this point is a growing
consensus that the US has got to go, so you see Shia and Sunni starting to
support each other's actions. I always talk about the Kurds, wait till they
start acting up, they're a big wildcard, as is Sistani, one word from him,
and its all over. Note that when he criticized Sadr last week, he also
criticized the US. The guy may be on our side, but it seems even he is
getting intolerant of us, and he never ruled out rebellion against us. That
would automatically put 60% of Iraq not supporting the US, add that to
whatever #'s are bandied about. I don't rule out that the US will wind up
involved in a civil war, I've said that for quite sometime, and it seems to
be getting closer. Assuming that diverse factions in Iraq (sunni, Shia,
Kurds, etc) join to throw off the invaders, then a civil war will happen, as
they decide how to put it back together. If it doesn't happen while we are
still there, it will once we leave, if that's a decade from now, unless we
impose or support a police-state like regime, a la Saddam.

W
Olompali4
2004-04-15 11:43:18 UTC
Permalink
From: "Walter Karmazyn"
DG wrote in message ...
Post by DG
Post by DGDevin
Post by JimK
I'd like to believe that Kerry, if he wins, could turn the
trick.
How? What miracle could he possibly pull out of his hat? I wish it were
so, but I just can't see him doing anything other than just pulling out,
leaving a bloody civil war behind him.
I read today that Kerry would not "cut and run" in Iraq. I imagine
the reason is because all the elements for civil war have come
together. If the US leaves there is no doubt that the civil war
begins.
Kerry will build and sustain a huge international coalition.

The American voter will prove to the world that our leaders can be wrong and
can be fired.
Walter Karmazyn
2004-04-15 16:05:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Olompali4
From: "Walter Karmazyn"
DG wrote in message ...
Post by DG
Post by DGDevin
Post by JimK
I'd like to believe that Kerry, if he wins, could turn the
trick.
How? What miracle could he possibly pull out of his hat? I wish it were
so, but I just can't see him doing anything other than just pulling out,
leaving a bloody civil war behind him.
I read today that Kerry would not "cut and run" in Iraq. I imagine
the reason is because all the elements for civil war have come
together. If the US leaves there is no doubt that the civil war
begins.
Kerry will build and sustain a huge international coalition.
The American voter will prove to the world that our leaders can be wrong and
can be fired.
Actually, I didn't say any of the above, but what Don mentions Kerry saying
yesterday, I just read. He also indicated he would also support any request
for more troops. He also said this:
****
Kerry, arguing that there are ``very real differences'' between him and Bush
on Iraq, said, ``I believe it is possible to reduce the cost and the burden
and the risk to American soldiers.''

``We shouldn't only be tough, we have to be smart. And there's a smarter way
to accomplish this mission than this president is pursuing,'' he told
reporters.
******
Maybe that can be interpreted as building an international coalition. Has
he been more specific?
Thing is, Kerry, should he win, won't take office for another 9 months,
about the time of the Iraqi elections, assuming everything goes to plan.
Imo, one of the first orders of business for the interim government should
they take control come July, would be to make clear just what kind of
international presence they want, if any, and what they expect of that
presence.. Let the government of Iraq decide what international forces they
want, and extend the invitation. As Buchanan pointed out in his article,
Iraq's borders are porous and I think we all have to agree that most of
those slipping in are coming to fight Americans, not that there is any lack
of Iraqis willing to do that. Buchanan also says something I've been saying
for ages, the more we fight Iraqis, the more Iraqis line up against us. If
the idea is that Iraq should choose their own government, and that that
government should want friendly relations with the US, then we should be
thinking about getting out, while there is still a chance of that
happening. It won't, if we are forced to leave by an uprising that will
drawf the current insurgency, which is what we seem to be heading for, imo.

W
DG
2004-04-15 17:36:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Walter Karmazyn
Post by Olompali4
From: "Walter Karmazyn"
DG wrote in message ...
Post by DG
Post by DGDevin
Post by JimK
I'd like to believe that Kerry, if he wins, could turn the
trick.
How? What miracle could he possibly pull out of his hat? I wish it
were
Post by Olompali4
Post by DG
Post by DGDevin
so, but I just can't see him doing anything other than just pulling out,
leaving a bloody civil war behind him.
I read today that Kerry would not "cut and run" in Iraq. I imagine
the reason is because all the elements for civil war have come
together. If the US leaves there is no doubt that the civil war
begins.
Kerry will build and sustain a huge international coalition.
The American voter will prove to the world that our leaders can be wrong
and
Post by Olompali4
can be fired.
Actually, I didn't say any of the above, but what Don mentions Kerry saying
yesterday, I just read. He also indicated he would also support any request
****
Kerry, arguing that there are ``very real differences'' between him and Bush
on Iraq, said, ``I believe it is possible to reduce the cost and the burden
and the risk to American soldiers.''
``We shouldn't only be tough, we have to be smart. And there's a smarter way
to accomplish this mission than this president is pursuing,'' he told
reporters.
******
Maybe that can be interpreted as building an international coalition. Has
he been more specific?
Thing is, Kerry, should he win, won't take office for another 9 months,
about the time of the Iraqi elections, assuming everything goes to plan.
Imo, one of the first orders of business for the interim government should
they take control come July, would be to make clear just what kind of
international presence they want, if any, and what they expect of that
presence.. Let the government of Iraq decide what international forces they
want, and extend the invitation. As Buchanan pointed out in his article,
Iraq's borders are porous and I think we all have to agree that most of
those slipping in are coming to fight Americans, not that there is any lack
of Iraqis willing to do that. Buchanan also says something I've been saying
for ages, the more we fight Iraqis, the more Iraqis line up against us. If
the idea is that Iraq should choose their own government, and that that
government should want friendly relations with the US, then we should be
thinking about getting out, while there is still a chance of that
happening. It won't, if we are forced to leave by an uprising that will
drawf the current insurgency, which is what we seem to be heading for, imo.
Kerry said he would draw from the international community to help
Iraq. I don't doubt that the uprising will continue. They understand
our politics and will continue through the election.
Neil Krueger
2004-04-15 16:33:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Olompali4
From: "Walter Karmazyn"
DG wrote in message ...
Post by DG
Post by DGDevin
Post by JimK
I'd like to believe that Kerry, if he wins, could turn the
trick.
How? What miracle could he possibly pull out of his hat? I wish it were
so, but I just can't see him doing anything other than just pulling out,
leaving a bloody civil war behind him.
I read today that Kerry would not "cut and run" in Iraq. I imagine
the reason is because all the elements for civil war have come
together. If the US leaves there is no doubt that the civil war
begins.
Kerry will build and sustain a huge international coalition.
The American voter will prove to the world that our leaders can be wrong and
can be fired.
What's public opinion looking like out there in the heartland? Have you
seen any recent presidential polls for Illinois?

Peace,
Neil X.
DG
2004-04-15 17:34:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Walter Karmazyn
DG wrote in message ...
Post by DG
Post by DGDevin
Post by JimK
I'd like to believe that Kerry, if he wins, could turn the
trick.
How? What miracle could he possibly pull out of his hat? I wish it were
so, but I just can't see him doing anything other than just pulling out,
leaving a bloody civil war behind him.
I read today that Kerry would not "cut and run" in Iraq. I imagine
the reason is because all the elements for civil war have come
together. If the US leaves there is no doubt that the civil war
begins.
I think all the elements for civil war have been there since Saddam was in
power.
They've been there for hundreds of years.
Post by Walter Karmazyn
The only elements coming together at this point is a growing
consensus that the US has got to go, so you see Shia and Sunni starting to
support each other's actions. I always talk about the Kurds, wait till they
start acting up, they're a big wildcard, as is Sistani, one word from him,
and its all over. Note that when he criticized Sadr last week, he also
criticized the US. The guy may be on our side, but it seems even he is
getting intolerant of us, and he never ruled out rebellion against us. That
would automatically put 60% of Iraq not supporting the US, add that to
whatever #'s are bandied about. I don't rule out that the US will wind up
involved in a civil war, I've said that for quite sometime, and it seems to
be getting closer. Assuming that diverse factions in Iraq (sunni, Shia,
Kurds, etc) join to throw off the invaders, then a civil war will happen, as
they decide how to put it back together. If it doesn't happen while we are
still there, it will once we leave, if that's a decade from now, unless we
impose or support a police-state like regime, a la Saddam.
The police state model seems to be the one that Saddam, I mean Bush,
is going for.
JimK
2004-04-15 13:55:51 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 04:49:20 GMT, "DGDevin"
Post by DGDevin
Post by JimK
I'd like to believe that Kerry, if he wins, could turn the
trick.
How? What miracle could he possibly pull out of his hat? I wish it were
so, but I just can't see him doing anything other than just pulling out,
leaving a bloody civil war behind him.
Did you read the entire post? Since you apparently didn't, I'll post
it again:

" Bush has, indeed, gotten us into a fine pickle. We're at the point
now where if the thunder doesn't get us, the lightning will. It looks
like only a miracle will now get us out of Iraq with any of our
dignity left. I'd like to believe that Kerry, if he wins, could turn
the trick. But the only hope, slim at best, seems to be
internationalization, and I'm not sure anyone can rebuild the bridges
that Bush has burned.."

As you can see, while I did state that I'd like to think Kerry could
get us out of this pickle, I also made it pretty clear, I thought,
that there was little hope of anyone finding a satisfactory way out of
Iraq because of the irreparable damage done by Bush. As far as the
bloody civil war, that's likely to happen eventually, whether we pull
out sooner or later. If that's what they want, let them have it. If
they work it out peacefully, better yet. But Iraqis have to decide
what Iraq wants to be, not us.

JimK
GrtflMark
2004-04-15 05:32:09 UTC
Permalink
Subject: Re: Article by Pat Buchanan
Date: 4/15/2004 12:10 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Bush has, indeed, gotten us into a fine pickle.
....the courage and resolve of Bush's convictions against the Confederacy of
Dunces on the liberal left had prevented this country and the world from
suffering a much greater horiffic fate - but then, all you appeaser's in the
Neville Chamberlain club are smug and sanctimonious about how progessive and
right you all are.....just like Neville was until the bombs hit London....and
then he served his primary function in life - he died and began decomposing to
help fertilize the earth......
JimK
2004-04-15 13:59:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by GrtflMark
Subject: Re: Article by Pat Buchanan
Date: 4/15/2004 12:10 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Bush has, indeed, gotten us into a fine pickle.
....the courage and resolve of Bush's convictions against the Confederacy of
Dunces on the liberal left had prevented this country and the world from
suffering a much greater horiffic fate - but then, all you appeaser's in the
Neville Chamberlain club are smug and sanctimonious about how progessive and
right you all are.....just like Neville was until the bombs hit London....and
then he served his primary function in life - he died and began decomposing to
help fertilize the earth......
Please don't involve yourself in a discussion that requires rational
thought. Fuckin' dopes and lunatic ravers are not welcome here. Time
for your meds, Markey. Run along now.

JimK
Jonathan Miller
2004-04-15 16:26:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by GrtflMark
Subject: Re: Article by Pat Buchanan
Date: 4/15/2004 12:10 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Bush has, indeed, gotten us into a fine pickle.
....the courage and resolve of Bush's convictions against the Confederacy of
Dunces on the liberal left had prevented this country and the world from
suffering a much greater horiffic fate - but then, all you appeaser's in the
Neville Chamberlain club are smug and sanctimonious about how progessive and
right you all are.....just like Neville was until the bombs hit London....and
then he served his primary function in life - he died and began decomposing to
help fertilize the earth......
We've got the raw materials for a "Wingnut Bingo" card, here:

Top Left: Neville Chamberlain

Top Middle: Vague association of the war in Iraq with war on terror

Top Right: Bush's 'courage'

Middle Left: Critics of Bush are "appeaser"

Middle Middle: Free Space

Middle Right: Liberals are smug

Bottom Left: Bush's 'convictions'

Bottom Middle: Vague claim that Iraq war has prevented much worse fate
("better to fight them there than fight them here")

Bottom Right: Critics of the war are stupid.

Take care,

Jon
John Hanson
2004-04-15 17:46:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by GrtflMark
Subject: Re: Article by Pat Buchanan
Date: 4/15/2004 12:10 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Bush has, indeed, gotten us into a fine pickle.
....the courage and resolve of Bush's convictions against the Confederacy of
Dunces on the liberal left had prevented this country and the world from
suffering a much greater horiffic fate - but then, all you appeaser's in the
Neville Chamberlain club are smug and sanctimonious about how progessive and
right you all are.....just like Neville was until the bombs hit London....and
then he served his primary function in life - he died and began decomposing to
help fertilize the earth......
Your history and as a result your analogy are somewhat off here.
Chamberlain acquiesced to Mussolini's invasion of Ethiopia and
Hitler's annexation of Austria and the Sudetenland at a time when
Britain probably didn't have the military strength to prevent either.
Although many still consider him the poster boy for appeasment, a
review of his career indicates he wasn't a "peace at any price" kind
of guy. In fact, some historians now consider the Munich agreement a
shrewd and necessary move, buying Britain some badly needed time. As
evidence, they note that during this period, Chamberlain, a member of
the Conservative party BTW, oversaw a massive military buildup which,
once Poland was invaded and war began, probably allowed Britain to
survive until the U.S. got in.

As to the analogy, in current times Iraq hadn't invaded anybody since
the Gulf War, and wasn't threatening to do so. Not going to war in
Iraq wasn't appeasement, since Saddam wasn't bullying anyone except
his own people (like dozens of other despots currently around the
world). So, what "horrific fate" did invading Iraq protect us from?
Terrorists? Even though Iraq seems like a haven for terrorists now,
it wasn't prior to the invasion. WMD? They haven't been found and
nothing indicates they will be. I've heard V.P. Cheney say the world
is better off without Saddam, but we can say that about a lot of
people whose countries we haven't invaded, and the world certainly
isn't better off without the 600 or so young Americans his removal has
cost us so far. It seems to me like we've further destabilized an
already unstable area and negated the benefits of having eliminated
the terrorists' safe-haven in Afghanistan by creating a new one in
Iraq. So, what horrific fate, exactly, did invading Iraq protect us
from? Step up and support your position.

John H.
Neil Krueger
2004-04-15 04:26:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Walter Karmazyn
Imo, I think it's at this point to avoid defeat. I don't think it was ever
for democracy, as most Americans define it, but freedom for US interests to
turn a profit, and one of the largest oil reserves to be under our control
(which also spells profit). This is the worst reason to fight a war. No
matter what, the Iraqi people will decide this all for themselves, in all
likelihood after we've left. The longer we stay and mess with their
internal affairs, the less the chance that what appears in the end will be
friendly towards the US. And in the meantime, are we ready to get involved
for an unknown # of years, investing an unknown figure in the hundreds of
billions of dollars and an unknown # of American lives, which will most
defiantly reach 4 figures, maybe 5 if we prolong this.
W
History is quickly proving the most radical of the anti-war activists to be
correct.

The massive turnabout in public opinion about this war in such a short
period of time is nothing short of stunning. It was just under one year ago
when Bush unfurled the "Mission Accomplished" banner on an aircraft carrier,
and right wing pundits nationwide sneered at the reservations of anti-war
liberals about the prudence of our national Iraqi adventure. But now, even
many of the most conservative among us are decrying the untenability of our
situation in Iraq. It is patently obvious that the administration had no
plan whatsoever about what to do after the blitzkrieg deposed the Hussein
regime. Well, they did have a plan, which was to bask in the adoration of a
gratefully liberated Iraqi populace, and accept their thanks for a job well
done. When that didn't happen, a stunned and perplexed Pentagon had no
backup plan, no clue about what to do next. Shockingly short-sighted.

On this newsgroup, I read Stev Lenon's confident assurances that weapons of
mass destruction would eventually be found, and absorbed his scoldings about
excessive impatience when it was suggested that such weapons did not exist.
And I argued with Don through most of last summer about WMD, the Bush
administration's justifications for the war, and Bush's steady drumbeat
about them. More recently, Don has also come to the conclusion that the
Bush administration must go.

And last winter, when Walter stated that we need to leave Iraq immediately,
not months or years in the future, I strongly disagreed with him, saying
that, while the invasion was a tragic mistake, leaving now would infinitely
exacerbate the damage. But the current situation is deteriorating so
rapidly that it is difficult to imagine that our withdrawal last winter
would have had a worse result for either Iraq or American interests.

History is quickly proving the most radical of the anti-war activists to be
correct.

Peace,
Neil X.
GrtflMark
2004-04-15 05:33:14 UTC
Permalink
Subject: Re: Article by Pat Buchanan
Date: 4/15/2004 12:26 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Post by Walter Karmazyn
Imo, I think it's at this point to avoid defeat. I don't think it was ever
for democracy, as most Americans define it, but freedom for US interests to
turn a profit, and one of the largest oil reserves to be under our control
(which also spells profit). This is the worst reason to fight a war. No
matter what, the Iraqi people will decide this all for themselves, in all
likelihood after we've left. The longer we stay and mess with their
internal affairs, the less the chance that what appears in the end will be
friendly towards the US. And in the meantime, are we ready to get involved
for an unknown # of years, investing an unknown figure in the hundreds of
billions of dollars and an unknown # of American lives, which will most
defiantly reach 4 figures, maybe 5 if we prolong this.
W
History is quickly proving the most radical of the anti-war activists to be
correct.
.....that has NEVER happened - and certainly never will.....the "most radical"
are always just that - the "most radical" and the most wrong.......
EShaw10542
2004-04-15 07:39:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by GrtflMark
.....that has NEVER happened - and certainly never will.....the "most radical"
are always just that - the "most radical" and the most wrong.......
It's funny to read such a comment from the usually Christian right. After all,
Jesus and the early Christians were one of if not the most radical group in
history, and you all claim they are right.
JimK
2004-04-15 14:03:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Neil Krueger
History is quickly proving the most radical of the anti-war activists to be
correct.
The massive turnabout in public opinion about this war in such a short
period of time is nothing short of stunning. It was just under one year ago
when Bush unfurled the "Mission Accomplished" banner on an aircraft carrier,
and right wing pundits nationwide sneered at the reservations of anti-war
liberals about the prudence of our national Iraqi adventure.
<snip>

Ah, yes......the "Mission Accomplished" fiasco, which will surely come
back to bite Bush. You can bet (I hope) that Kerry will make good use
of Bush's faux pas at an appropriate time in the campaign.

JimK
Walter Karmazyn
2004-04-15 22:05:28 UTC
Permalink
Neil Krueger wrote in message ...
<snip>
Post by Neil Krueger
History is quickly proving the most radical of the anti-war activists to be
correct.
The massive turnabout in public opinion about this war in such a short
period of time is nothing short of stunning. It was just under one year ago
when Bush unfurled the "Mission Accomplished" banner on an aircraft carrier,
and right wing pundits nationwide sneered at the reservations of anti-war
liberals about the prudence of our national Iraqi adventure.
Well, I'm certainly not a liberal, a little to the left of that. It would
also be wrong to think anti-war belonged to just liberals or the left. There
were traditional conservatives and libertarians who had reservations a year
and more ago. Out here in SF, a group of hardcore libertarians I'm familiar
with have been at all the demonstrations, one of a couple groups I noticed.
On the UC campus where I work, the campus libertarian group has an info
board (behind glass) on the main plaza whose centerpiece is a "bring the
troops home" button. If I have time, I ought to find the conservative
anti-warsite that had a great discussion last year about whether or not to
go to the big demonstrations sponsored by Answer, because of how they felt
about that group. It was decided it was OK, and there were a couple of
followups from people who went and had a pleasant time. As far as Bush
goes, I posted a link to an article from American Conservative, Buchanan's
magazine last fall describing the possibility of Bush losing the traditional
Conservative and libertarian vote this fall. These are the ones who vote
for a republican because they feel it would be better than having a
democrat, because a republican would be a little closer to their beliefs.
These folks feel betrayed by the current foreign policy, the patriot act,
continuing support for trade agreements like NAFTA, and also feel that the
current administration spends as bad as the democrats. I posted a link to a
report by the CATO Institute, by no means a bastion of liberalism, going
into detail about this last summer. Anyway, some of these folks are ready
to vote Libertarian, natural law or some other minor party that has no
chance than vote for Bush, who they feel betrayed by. That could make a
difference, if the race is tight in November. Anyway, while the left is
probably more noticed, they aren't the only ones calling for an end to our
occupation of Iraq, the Patriot Act, NAFTA, WTO, or the Bush Presidency.
Post by Neil Krueger
And last winter, when Walter stated that we need to leave Iraq
immediately,
Post by Neil Krueger
not months or years in the future, I strongly disagreed with him, saying
that, while the invasion was a tragic mistake, leaving now would infinitely
exacerbate the damage. But the current situation is deteriorating so
rapidly that it is difficult to imagine that our withdrawal last winter
would have had a worse result for either Iraq or American interests.
Uh... Neil, I know the seasons change a little quicker back there in New
England, but that was last October, that we had our disagreement;-)
Post by Neil Krueger
History is quickly proving the most radical of the anti-war activists to be
correct.
Yeah, but in all fairness, we're all not liberal or from the left.

W
Post by Neil Krueger
Peace,
Neil X.
Jonathan Miller
2004-04-16 16:23:15 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 15:05:28 -0700, "Walter Karmazyn"
Post by Walter Karmazyn
As far as Bush
goes, I posted a link to an article from American Conservative, Buchanan's
magazine last fall describing the possibility of Bush losing the traditional
Conservative and libertarian vote this fall. These are the ones who vote
for a republican because they feel it would be better than having a
democrat, because a republican would be a little closer to their beliefs.
These folks feel betrayed by the current foreign policy, the patriot act,
continuing support for trade agreements like NAFTA, and also feel that the
current administration spends as bad as the democrats.
Wouldn't surprise me in the least. I don't agree with conservatives
like Pat Buchanan, but I can respect their views because they're
sincere, principled and well-argued. (you have to sit and think a
while before you can disagree with George Will, for example).
Conservatives like Buchanan don't have to rely on sophists like Jonah
Goldberg or Sean Hannity to argue for them.

The Bush Administration doesn't stick to principles that I can see.
They're in favor of free trade, except when it comes to swing states
like Pennsylvania, where they like tariffs. They're against stem cell
research because it destroys embryos, but they support in vitro
fertilization which destroys thousands of them every year. They favor
government secrecy, but classified documents get declassified the
minute they're needed to smear an opponent.

As a Democrat, I'm glad to see the campaign going as negative as it
is. When both candidates run negative, the effect is to decrease
voter turnout. I know lots of Democrats who can't wait to go out and
vote against Bush. If I was a conservative, I wouldn't be to excited
to run out and vote for Bush

Jon
Neil Krueger
2004-04-16 16:36:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jonathan Miller
On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 15:05:28 -0700, "Walter Karmazyn"
Post by Walter Karmazyn
As far as Bush
goes, I posted a link to an article from American Conservative, Buchanan's
magazine last fall describing the possibility of Bush losing the traditional
Conservative and libertarian vote this fall. These are the ones who vote
for a republican because they feel it would be better than having a
democrat, because a republican would be a little closer to their beliefs.
These folks feel betrayed by the current foreign policy, the patriot act,
continuing support for trade agreements like NAFTA, and also feel that the
current administration spends as bad as the democrats.
Wouldn't surprise me in the least. I don't agree with conservatives
like Pat Buchanan, but I can respect their views because they're
sincere, principled and well-argued. (you have to sit and think a
while before you can disagree with George Will, for example).
Damn, man, I've never been able to figure out why George Will has such a
good reputation. He uses big words sometimes, but his logic is usually
sophomoric beyond belief.
Post by Jonathan Miller
As a Democrat, I'm glad to see the campaign going as negative as it
is. When both candidates run negative, the effect is to decrease
voter turnout. I know lots of Democrats who can't wait to go out and
vote against Bush. If I was a conservative, I wouldn't be to excited
to run out and vote for Bush
Traditionally, low turnout favors Republicans and incumbents. There have
been exceptions, but it is a political truism that the bigger the turnout,
the bigger the win for the Democrats.

Peace,
Neil X.
Tim Donohoe
2004-04-16 23:35:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Neil Krueger
Post by Jonathan Miller
On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 15:05:28 -0700, "Walter Karmazyn"
Post by Walter Karmazyn
As far as Bush
goes, I posted a link to an article from American Conservative, Buchanan's
magazine last fall describing the possibility of Bush losing the traditional
Conservative and libertarian vote this fall. These are the ones who vote
for a republican because they feel it would be better than having a
democrat, because a republican would be a little closer to their beliefs.
These folks feel betrayed by the current foreign policy, the patriot act,
continuing support for trade agreements like NAFTA, and also feel that the
current administration spends as bad as the democrats.
Wouldn't surprise me in the least. I don't agree with conservatives
like Pat Buchanan, but I can respect their views because they're
sincere, principled and well-argued. (you have to sit and think a
while before you can disagree with George Will, for example).
Damn, man, I've never been able to figure out why George Will has such a
good reputation. He uses big words sometimes, but his logic is usually
sophomoric beyond belief.
Post by Jonathan Miller
As a Democrat, I'm glad to see the campaign going as negative as it
is. When both candidates run negative, the effect is to decrease
voter turnout. I know lots of Democrats who can't wait to go out and
vote against Bush. If I was a conservative, I wouldn't be to excited
to run out and vote for Bush
Traditionally, low turnout favors Republicans and incumbents. There have
been exceptions, but it is a political truism that the bigger the turnout,
the bigger the win for the Democrats.
Peace,
Neil X.
Do a google search for the 1 time I quoted Michael Moore. That excerpt
from his book was one thing I read that I would say I agree with 95%.
The disagreement I have with you is that most people are not democrats,
they are liberals, and by the standards of the Rep - Dem parties they
are total radicals.
Neil Krueger
2004-04-17 20:46:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim Donohoe
Do a google search for the 1 time I quoted Michael Moore. That excerpt
from his book was one thing I read that I would say I agree with 95%.
The disagreement I have with you is that most people are not democrats,
they are liberals, and by the standards of the Rep - Dem parties they
are total radicals.
I'm not really understanding what you're saying here. You think most
Americans are more liberal than the Democratic party??? That is completely
the opposite of my impression.....

Peace,
Neil X.
Tim Donohoe
2004-04-17 22:19:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Neil Krueger
Post by Tim Donohoe
Do a google search for the 1 time I quoted Michael Moore. That excerpt
from his book was one thing I read that I would say I agree with 95%.
The disagreement I have with you is that most people are not democrats,
they are liberals, and by the standards of the Rep - Dem parties they
are total radicals.
I'm not really understanding what you're saying here. You think most
Americans are more liberal than the Democratic party??? That is completely
the opposite of my impression.....
Peace,
Neil X.
I think politics and political parties screw people up, they vote
against things they really believe are right in support of a political
party.

This is the quote I am referring to and except for the part about guns
I think he is right on.

From "Dude, Where's My Country?"

THERE IS A COUNTRY I would like to tell you about. It is a country like no
other on the planet. Many of you, I am certain, would love to live there.

It is a very, very liberal, liberated, and free-thinking country. Its people
hate the thought of going to war. The vast majority of its men have never
served in any kind of military and they aren't rushing to sign up now. They
abhor guns and support any and all efforts to restrict the usage of personal
firearms. Its citizens are strong supporters of labor unions and workers'
rights. They believe that corporations are up to no good and should not be
trusted.

The majority of its residents strongly believe in equal rights for women and
oppose any attempt by the government or religious groups who would seek to
control their reproductive organs. In overwhelming numbers, the people of
this country I speak of believe that gay and lesbian people should have the
same opportunities as straight people and they should not be discriminated
against in any way.

In this country nearly everyone wants to have the strongest protections
necessary to ensure a clean environment. And they take personal
responsibility by doing a number of things every single day to cut down on
pollution and waste.

This country is so far to the left that 80 percent of its people believe in
universal health care and racial diversity on college campuses.

This country I know of is so hippy-dippy-free-love and all that jazz that
only a quarter of its people believe that drug users should go straight to
jail-perhaps because, as their president has, 41 percent of the citizens
have admitted to using illegal drugs themselves! And when it comes to holy
matrimony, the number of people who live together and don't get married is
up 72 percent in the past decade, and 43 percent of them have children.

I'm telling you, this country is so commie-pinko-weirdo, its conservative
party can never get more than 25 percent of its recurring voters to join it,
while the vast majority of its citizens define themselves as either members
of the liberal party, or worse-independent or anarchist (the latter just
simply refusing ever to vote!).

So, where is this utopia I write about, this land of liberal-lefty, peacenik
tree-huggers (and how soon can you and I move there)?

Is it Sweden?

Tibet?

The Moon?

No! You don't have to go to the moon because . . . you're already there!
This Land O' Left paradise I speak of is none other than . . . the United
States of America!

Surprised? Don't believe it? Finally convinced my last screw has come loose?
I don't blame you. It's hard to think of the U.S. of A. as anything but a
country that is ruled by a conservative majority, a nation whose moral
agenda seems set by the Christian Coalition, a people who appear to be cut
from the cloth of their Puritan ancestors. After all, look who's in charge
at the White House! And look at the approval ratings he gets!

But the cold bitter truth-and the best kept political secret of our time-is
that Americans are more liberal than ever when it comes to both the
lifestyles they lead and the positions they take on the great social and
political issues of the day. And you don't have to take my word for it-it's
all there in the polls, just the facts and nothing but.

Now, say this to any liberal and they won't just snicker (liberals stopped
laughing a long time ago, which is part of the problem), they'll shake their
heads and repeat the mantra they've learned from a media with a vested
interest in making them believe they're on the losing side every miserable
day of their lives: "America has gone conservative!" Ask any liberal-leaning
person to describe this country and you'll hear a series of invectives about
how we live in a nation of pickup trucks and gun racks and flags flying
everywhere. They will speak with a tone of defeat about how much worse
things are going to get, and resign themselves to four more years of
whatever crap we've been eating for the last four (or fourteen or forty)
years.

The right must rejoice every time they hear this surrender-and then they
reinforce it with whatever sledgehammer they can grab. Yes! America supports
the war! Yes! America loves its Leader! Yes! All of America was watching The
Bachelorette last night! So, if you are not part of All-of-America, then
just shut the fuck up and go crawl into that phone booth with the Noam
Chomsky fan club, you miserable loser!

The reason the right is so aggressive in trying to squash any and all
dissent is because they're in on the dirty little secret the left doesn't
get: that more Americans agree with the left than the right. The right knows
this because they look at the numbers, they read the reports, and they live
in the real world that has become increasingly liberal in the last decade or
so. And they hate it. So, in the tradition of all propagandists, they lie.
They create an opposite truth: AMERICA IS CONSERVATIVE. Then they pound away
with that false message so hard and so often that even their political
opponents come to believe that it's true.

I want everyone reading this book to stop repeating this Big Lie. And to
help you break this habit, I am going to give you the simple, indisputable
facts. What I am about to share with you is not information that comes from
liberal think tanks, the pages of the People's Daily or my handlers in
Havana (to whom I report on an hourly basis). It is from sources that are as
straight and mainstream as the Gallup Organization and as American as the
members of the National Rifle Association. The polls were taken by
organizations including the Harris Poll, The Washington Post, The Wall
Street Journal, USA Today, Harvard University, National Opinion Research
Center, PBS's NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, The Los Angeles Times, ABC News and,
yes, Fox News (for the complete list of poll sources, see Notes and
Sources).

Please, allow me to introduce you to your fellow Americans:
Neil Krueger
2004-04-18 06:26:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim Donohoe
Post by Neil Krueger
Post by Tim Donohoe
Do a google search for the 1 time I quoted Michael Moore. That excerpt
from his book was one thing I read that I would say I agree with 95%.
The disagreement I have with you is that most people are not democrats,
they are liberals, and by the standards of the Rep - Dem parties they
are total radicals.
I'm not really understanding what you're saying here. You think most
Americans are more liberal than the Democratic party??? That is completely
the opposite of my impression.....
Peace,
Neil X.
I think politics and political parties screw people up, they vote
against things they really believe are right in support of a political
party.
This is the quote I am referring to and except for the part about guns
I think he is right on.
<Michael Moore quotation snipped>
<ba ba booie>

Folks love their firearms.

</ba ba booie>

I don't know, Tim. I've never seen a poll that said 80% of the people
support universal health care, it's pretty disingenuous to lump independents
and all of those who don't vote in with the supporters of the Democratic
Party as one monolithic "vast majority", far more than 25% of registered
voters are Republicans, and the polls I've seen do not "overwhelmingly
support" gay rights.

That said, the reason that most folks vote Republican is not social
issues--it's because they believe Democrats will raise there taxes and
Republicans won't. Democrats win on social issues, but as my mama said to
me dozens of times, "Folks vote their pocketbooks." Unfortunately, they
don't vote their pocketbooks intelligently. The Bush tax cut ain't doing
squat for the middle class, and GOP tax cuts almost never do. The average
Joe would do far better under a Democratic economic agenda, but they just
don't believe it.

Peace,
Neil X.
Olompali4
2004-04-18 13:02:14 UTC
Permalink
Neil x writes:>The average
Post by Neil Krueger
Joe would do far better under a Democratic economic agenda, but they just
don't believe it.
The crux of the biscuit.
Frndthdevl
2004-04-18 18:13:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Olompali4
The crux of the biscuit.
is the apostrophe
Walter Karmazyn
2004-04-19 17:04:51 UTC
Permalink
Usual disclaimer about my not agreeing with everything Pat says, just as a
bit of it........ There's also a good article in today's NY Times, about
what I've been saying about a rift within conservatives, although that's
getting to be old news, there never has been much love lost between the
neonaz... I mean neocons and the more traditional "right". The article is
here:

http://tinyurl.com/2pt3u


And is well worth the read, perhaps I should've posted this one. I found
the bit where William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard, said he'd take
Bush over Kerry, but Kerry over Buchanan. Don't know who William Kristol
is? Google him, Weekly Standard, and, for the hell of it add Rupert
Murdoch to either or both.

W

**************

Thinking the unthinkable


© 2004 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

"I hope you got a sense of conviction about what we're doing," said the
president, as he ended his primetime press conference.

We certainly did. Indeed, listening Tuesday night, one must concede the
convictions, the earnestness and the resolve of the president that he is
doing what he believes best for America. And he has put his presidency on
the line behind those beliefs.

"The consequences of failure in Iraq would be unthinkable," he declared.
"Every friend of America would be betrayed to prison and murder as a new
tyranny arose. Every enemy of America would celebrate, proclaiming our
weakness and decadence, and using that victory to recruit a new generation
of killers."

There is truth here. Prison and murder were the fate of America's allies
when China fell in 1949 and Saigon in 1975. Millions who had declared
themselves on our side in the war against communism paid with their lives.
The president is also right that America's enemies will rejoice in any U.S.
defeat.

That raises the question: Why did he risk such a defeat and humiliation?

Who failed to alert him as to what the consequences might be before he
invaded? Who told him this would be a "cakewalk"? Who said we would be
welcomed with flowers, that democracy would blossom in Iraq and across the
Middle East? Who led him up the garden path? And why are they still there?

President Bush's dilemma is this: Americans may agree that a defeat in Iraq
would be a disaster, but they are not convinced that democracy in Iraq is so
vital that Americans should bleed and die indefinitely to attain it.

And why should they be?

They signed on to a war to disarm and destroy a tyrant, not to decide what
kind of government Iraq has. The U.S. commitment to democracy in Iraq is a
classic case not only of mission creep, but of bait-and-switch.

In his opening statement, Bush gave five reasons why the "success of free
government in Iraq is vital." Not one justifies a war.

"A free Iraq is vital," he said, "because 25 million Iraqis have as much
right to live in freedom as we do." Fine. So do 17 million Syrians and 70
million Iranians. Is it our duty, also, to invade and fight for their
freedom? Or is that perhaps their job?

"A free Iraq will stand as an example to reformers in the Middle East." But
do these "reformers" really lack for examples of freedom? And if their
fathers could overthrow the old imperial powers themselves, why cannot the
sons rid themselves of their own miserable tyrants?

"A free Iraq will show that America is on the side of Muslims who wish to
live in peace, as we've already shown in Kuwait and Kosovo, Bosnia and
Afghanistan." But if we've already shown that in Kuwait, Kosovo, Bosnia and
Afghanistan, why in blazes do we have to show it again in Iraq? How much
proof do these people need that we are on the "side of Muslims who wish to
live in peace"?

"A free Iraq will confirm to the Muslim world that America's word, once
given, can be relied upon even in the toughest times."

Now, this is a crucial point. U.S. credibility is on the line. But who made
the rash judgment to put it there? And is President Bush now asking
Americans to support a wider war because he blundered in committing his
country to democracy in a land where it never existed and where thousands
are willing to fight to the death to resist our style of democracy?

"Above all, the defeat of violence and terror in Iraq is vital to the defeat
of violence and terror elsewhere, and vital, therefore, to the safety of the
American people."

Here we come to the great Wilsonian fallacy that may yet destroy the Bush
presidency. He has embraced the nonsense that unless Iraq is free, America
is unsafe. But Iraq has never been free – yet, America has almost always
been safe and secure.

The president calls failure in Iraq unthinkable. But the alternative may be
an open-ended war the American people never signed on to, and, if present
polls are any indication, may not be willing to support indefinitely.

Iraq is not Vietnam, but, for President Bush, there are troubling
similarities to other unhappy moments in American history. Truman's
presidency was broken by the "no-win war" in Korea. LBJ's presidency was
broken by his failure to "win or get out" of Vietnam.

What does a president do if he believes a war is just and necessary, but the
people come to believe it is the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong
time, with the wrong enemy?

We are not at that point yet, but we are getting there. And President Bush
had best begin to think the unthinkable.

Tim Donohoe
2004-04-18 13:02:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Neil Krueger
Post by Tim Donohoe
Post by Neil Krueger
Post by Tim Donohoe
Do a google search for the 1 time I quoted Michael Moore. That excerpt
from his book was one thing I read that I would say I agree with 95%.
The disagreement I have with you is that most people are not democrats,
they are liberals, and by the standards of the Rep - Dem parties they
are total radicals.
I'm not really understanding what you're saying here. You think most
Americans are more liberal than the Democratic party??? That is completely
the opposite of my impression.....
Peace,
Neil X.
I think politics and political parties screw people up, they vote
against things they really believe are right in support of a political
party.
This is the quote I am referring to and except for the part about guns
I think he is right on.
<Michael Moore quotation snipped>
<ba ba booie>
Folks love their firearms.
</ba ba booie>
I don't know, Tim. I've never seen a poll that said 80% of the people
support universal health care,
80% is pretty high, but in my experience a good number want something
closer to it than what we have now, those who don't necessarily want it,
would live with it. The few who are against changing it are just very
wealthy and vocal about it. As with everything Michael Moore does, the
numbers and % have nothing to do with reality but in this case I agree
with the general idea.

it's pretty disingenuous to lump independents
Post by Neil Krueger
and all of those who don't vote in with the supporters of the Democratic
Party as one monolithic "vast majority", far more than 25% of registered
voters are Republicans, and the polls I've seen do not "overwhelmingly
support" gay rights.
I think he meant that conservatives can't get more than 25% of the
people who vote conservative into their party, meaning IMO that every
time conservative politicians win they do so by winning over moderates
and liberals.
Post by Neil Krueger
That said, the reason that most folks vote Republican is not social
issues--it's because they believe Democrats will raise there taxes and
Republicans won't. Democrats win on social issues, but as my mama said to
me dozens of times, "Folks vote their pocketbooks." Unfortunately, they
don't vote their pocketbooks intelligently. The Bush tax cut ain't doing
squat for the middle class, and GOP tax cuts almost never do. The average
Joe would do far better under a Democratic economic agenda, but they just
don't believe it.
Democrats are trying to win on 1 issue this year "We aren't republicans"
People seem to vote for politicians that won't do a thing for them
just because they have been convinced somewhere along the way that you
have to hate the other guy, your union will be broken up if you don't
etc. If every vote was taken by asking general questions about issues, I
think liberal ideas would come out ahead. Instead of voting for things
that would benefit people directly, we are sold politicians like cars.

I doubt Michael Moore has ever been to Pat Robertson country where
people vote Republican because god told them to, but to a degree I would
bet his idea would be right in half the households down there.
Walter Karmazyn
2004-04-16 19:45:58 UTC
Permalink
Jonathan Miller > wrote in message ...
Post by Jonathan Miller
On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 15:05:28 -0700, "Walter Karmazyn"
Post by Walter Karmazyn
As far as Bush
goes, I posted a link to an article from American Conservative, Buchanan's
magazine last fall describing the possibility of Bush losing the traditional
Conservative and libertarian vote this fall. These are the ones who vote
for a republican because they feel it would be better than having a
democrat, because a republican would be a little closer to their beliefs.
These folks feel betrayed by the current foreign policy, the patriot act,
continuing support for trade agreements like NAFTA, and also feel that the
current administration spends as bad as the democrats.
Wouldn't surprise me in the least.
The CATO Institute report which I referenced showed that non-defense
discretionary budget spending went down by 0.7 % during the first three
years of Clinton, up 20.8% in Bush's first three years.


I don't agree with conservatives
Post by Jonathan Miller
like Pat Buchanan, but I can respect their views because they're
sincere, principled and well-argued. (you have to sit and think a
while before you can disagree with George Will, for example).
Conservatives like Buchanan don't have to rely on sophists like Jonah
Goldberg or Sean Hannity to argue for them.
I don't agree with Conservatives or for that matter, Libertarians on
numerous things. However I certainly am not going to change my POV on
things we have in common just because of the things we don't. Nor would I
ignore their presence. Ron Paul (who I mention every so often), a Texas
Republican/Libertarian is a guy I would love to vote against. I agree with
him in some places, don't in others, but the guy has my respect for what he
believes in and his willingness to work with others who don't neccessarily
tow the "party line" with him when they share something in common. He
co-sponsored the True Patriot Act with Dennis Kucinich, another person I
admire. These 2 guys would probably spend the afternoon arguing against
most other legislation that one of them introduced, but could overcome
differences to work together against something they both believe in. I said
I would love to vote against Paul, that's because I respect him and do have
some things in common with. I certainly won't be saying that about Bush,
when I vote against him this fall.
Post by Jonathan Miller
As a Democrat, I'm glad to see the campaign going as negative as it
is. When both candidates run negative, the effect is to decrease
voter turnout. I know lots of Democrats who can't wait to go out and
vote against Bush. If I was a conservative, I wouldn't be to excited
to run out and vote for Bush
From what I've been reading and hearing from friends who come from that
direction, Bush better not be counting on a lot of support from the
Conservative or Libertarian sector that would usually vote Republican, As
some people who consider themselves Green would vote Democrat.

W
Post by Jonathan Miller
Jon
volkfolk
2004-04-16 23:41:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Walter Karmazyn
These 2 guys would probably spend the afternoon arguing against
most other legislation that one of them introduced, but could overcome
differences to work together against something they both believe in. I said
I would love to vote against Paul, that's because I respect him and do have
some things in common with.
Hell Walter,

I still think you and I would make a hell of a ticket......

Everyone write in Castle/Karmazyn this fall :^)

Scot
Walter Karmazyn
2004-04-19 16:09:26 UTC
Permalink
.
volkfolk wrote in message ...
Post by volkfolk
Post by Walter Karmazyn
These 2 guys would probably spend the afternoon arguing against
most other legislation that one of them introduced, but could overcome
differences to work together against something they both believe in. I
said
Post by Walter Karmazyn
I would love to vote against Paul, that's because I respect him and do
have
Post by Walter Karmazyn
some things in common with.
Hell Walter,
I still think you and I would make a hell of a ticket......
Everyone write in Castle/Karmazyn this fall :^)
Scot
OK, as long as you're agreeing to be president ;-).

W
Rich Morris
2004-04-15 04:41:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Walter Karmazyn
I'm not a big fan of Pat Buchanan, but that doesn't prevent me from reading
him, or posting something he's written, when I find it of interest. I think
he poses a legit question here, and, like him, I believe we are reaching of
point of no return in getting out anytime soon. Now of course I've been
saying we should get about for about a year now, and that ain't gonna
change. However, we are in that period where things are going from bad to
worse, it's only the 14th of the month and already, at this moment, there
are 87 dead Americans this month, that # might've risen since I last looked
earlier today. Anybody with a long memory can remember back to 91, or last
year, when Iraqis complained they couldn't fight Americans in the air, they
should come on the ground. And that's where we are now, and that's what is
happening, and will continue to happen, esp since we are losing the favor of
more Iraqis daily. I could go through this article sentence by sentence
with agreements, disagreements and comments, but I'll leave it to a couple
of
things, one of them Sadr. Buchanan describes to the mess we are in on how
to deal with him. Last fall in a discussion with Neil K, I mentioned Sadr,
in the context that he at the time was less popular than Saddam with the
Iraqi people, coming in with only 1% support. Now of course that is a
quarter million people, but my argument was that continued US presence could
well increase his popularity, and imo, it has, a bit, and might still even
more so. The biggest mistake would be to send the military into Najaf to
hunt out Sadr, if that were to happen today, by Saturday it would be evident
to even the biggest defender of this war that we've just lost the support
of 60 % of the population. I think we've already lost some of that support,
and imo, what is left will erode even more in the coming months. My other
comment deals with the last sentence, so there you'll find it.
DO WE GO IN DEEPER OR CUT OUR LOSSES?
By Pat Buchanan
This is ``George Bush's Vietnam,'' railed Sen. Ted Kennedy last week in a
charge that angered Sen. John McCain.
And by any traditional measure of war, McCain is right.
While Vietnam lasted a decade and took 58,000 U.S. lives, Iraq has lasted a
year and cost 650 U.S. dead. Even the Filipino insurrection of 1899-1902 was
a far bloodier affair. But one comparison is valid. A U.S. defeat in Iraq
would be a far greater strategic disaster than the loss of South Vietnam.
For what is on the line here is not only the Bush presidency, but the myth
of American invincibility, the ``democratic revolution'' the president has
been preaching, Tony Blair, the U.S. position in the oil-rich Persian Gulf
and Arab world, and our standing as the world's last superpower. For it is
the definition of a superpower that when it goes to war, it prevails.
All is now riding on Bush's commitment to create a pro-Western, democratic
Iraq and not be forced out in a humiliating retreat and defeat by the
burgeoning insurrection. And as in Vietnam around 1963, we have come to a
turning point. The critical question before us: Do we go in deeper, or do we
cut our losses and look for the nearest exit?
With the battles for Fallujah and Ramadi, the seizure by the Mahdi Army of
Sheik Muqtada Al-Sadr of Kut, Karbala and Najaf, the fighting in Sadr City,
the recurring attacks on aid workers, the abandonment of their posts by
Iraqi police, the refusal to fight of one of four Iraqi battalions we
trained, it is clear: We do not have sufficient forces on the ground to
crush and snuff out the resistance.
So we must decide. How much blood and treasure are we willing to invest in
democracy in Baghdad, and for how long? Is a democratic Iraq vital to our
security? What assurances are there that we can win this war?
Finally, how lasting will any victory be? Lest we forget: When U.S. troops
and POWs came home from Vietnam in 1973, America appeared to have won the
war. Not until the spring of 1975 did a North Vietnamese invasion overrun
the South and Saigon.
President Bush faces three options. He can continue to draw down troops and
transfer power to the Iraq Governing Council on June 30, and risk a collapse
in chaos or civil war. He can hold to present U.S. force levels and accept a
war of attrition of indefinite duration, a war on which his countrymen have
begun to sour.
Or he can send in more troops and unleash U.S. power to crush all
resistance, while declaring our resolve to ``pay any price'' and fight on to
victory, even if it takes two, five or 10 years. The problem with playing
Churchill is that, as in Vietnam, it is hard to see the light at the end of
the tunnel.
The incidence of attacks on our troops, aid workers and Iraqi allies is
rising. The more fiercely we fight back, the higher the casualties we
inflict on insurgent and civilian alike, and the greater the hostility grows
to our war and our presence. Indeed, if our occupation itself is the cause
of the insurgency, how do we win the war by extending and deepening it?
The fragile ``truce'' of the last two days notwithstanding, the Shiite
regions are now inflamed to a degree they were not just two weeks ago. Where
Muqtada Al-Sadr was then a thuggish and receding figure, by his killing of
U.S. troops he has made himself an adversary to whom our enemies are
rallying.
In dealing with him, we have three options. Kill him and make him a dead
martyr, which could ignite the Shiite population, compelling even Ayatollah
Sistani to condemn us. Arrest him and make him a living martyr. But if
arresting his deputy ignited the present uprising, imagine the hell that
will break loose if we take the sheik to Baghdad airport.
Or leave him alone. But then he will have shown Iraqis that one can kill
U.S. soldiers with impunity, even when Americans control your country. Not a
good message to send. Like Vietnam, Iraq, too, has porous borders. There is
no way to halt the trickle of foreign fighters slipping in.
Then there are the January elections. If militant Shiites and Sunnis run on
a pledge to expel the Americans, what do we do if they win?
Americans supported Bush's war because we were persuaded that the malignancy
of Iraq's leader and the horrific nature of the weapons he had or was
seeking meant we must destroy his regime or our country was in mortal peril.
With that threat gone, what we are fighting for? Democracy in Iraq? Or is it
now just to avoid defeat in Iraq?
**************
Imo, I think it's at this point to avoid defeat. I don't think it was ever
for democracy, as most Americans define it, but freedom for US interests to
turn a profit, and one of the largest oil reserves to be under our control
(which also spells profit). This is the worst reason to fight a war. No
matter what, the Iraqi people will decide this all for themselves, in all
likelihood after we've left. The longer we stay and mess with their
internal affairs, the less the chance that what appears in the end will be
friendly towards the US. And in the meantime, are we ready to get involved
for an unknown # of years, investing an unknown figure in the hundreds of
billions of dollars and an unknown # of American lives, which will most
defiantly reach 4 figures, maybe 5 if we prolong this.
W
A thoughtful post WK ... thanks.

Richard



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...