TDL did a great segment on this last night. "It's not like President Bush expected them to great us as liberators or hand us flowers. Only an idiot would believe that."

What struck me about the 2004 campaign was how it seemed to be a referendum on the 60s.

And more and more I suspect that the next decade will remind me of the 70s.

The very essence of conservatism is the refusal to evolve and learn from past experiences. So this should be no surprise.

what was w expecting? a pro-israel demonstration? does this guy have a clue?

Le plus ca change, c'est plus la meme....

(Yeah, and that's FRENCH. Wanna make something of it?)

Saam, there's no way in hell I'm putting a cork and frosted mirror motif up on my living room wall.

what was w expecting? a pro-israel demonstration? does this guy have a clue?
Posted by: mudwall jackson on August 22, 2006 at 6:11 PM | PERMALINK

I'm as puzzled as our benevolent Leader.

I was expecting Iraq to volunteer to send 50,000 Iraqi peacekeepers (freshly-trained, hearts and minds won, by US troops!) to Southern Lebanon to usher in the new era of peace and prosperity in the Middle East.

I don't understand why this isn't a great idea!

Tst tst tsk, Dubya boy, the reason you're sad is because you have you forgotten all your civics. See, here's a quick refresher:

"No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law." - Third Amendment to the United States Constitution

Now, Dubya dear, have you ever wondered why those feisty founding fatherlings thought it necessary to put THAT in the U.S. constitution?

Stone's Trial of Socrates is a really good book, too. Reminds one that Socrates (and/or Plato) were really anti-democratic in the first democracy. I think it got reasonable reviews even from the classics establishment.

Stone, by the way, is the real predecessor of the bloggers, I've always thought. Except he was willing to do more real work, more digging into sources, than bloggers are as a rule.

McNamara said that when he met with the Vietnamese years after the war, the first question they asked him was whether any of us had ever read a history book.

IRAQ IS ARABIC FOR VIETNAM

Bumper sticker of the war.

Bob

Every country loves the US until the marines land.

The simple fact that occupying armies, whether allied or enemy, always become unpopular hardly ever figures in official calculation.

How did the Tet Offensive fail to be the huge success for the VC and NVA that was expected by them? Were the VC and NVA "occupying armies"?

Is the NVA army that occupies S. Vietnam unpopular?

Recall that I.F. Stone was one the people who, in 1966, drew a strong distinction between VC and NVA, and who wrote that, in view of Vietnamese history, there was no realistic prospect of N. Vietnam conquering S. Vietnam.

But Doug-E-Fresh, there's really no better way than a frosted mirror to reflect on high gasoline prices, stagflation, a corrupt presidency, and foreign policy impotence.

And nothing surpresses the clarity of it all more than faux dark-wood panelling.

McNamara said that when he met with the Vietnamese years after the war, the first question they asked him was whether any of us had ever read a history book.

Sure, some of us have. Just nobody in the actual government. That's why they get elected - because they don't come across all smart and stuff. Nobody likes a wise guy.

The sooner we stop electing a homecoming king, and start electing an actual president, the better off we'll all be.

Republicrat, if you know anything about Vietnamese history you will know that there really was no such thing as North Vietnam and South Vietnam. Those were political constructs of the 1954 Geneva accords, created to enable a short term cease fire following Bien Dien Phu. There was never an intention on the part of any parties to those accords to create 2 permanently separate states.

The simple fact that occupying armies, whether allied or enemy, always become unpopular hardly ever figures in official calculation.

Always? The American occupation armies of the Philippines, Japan, Germany, and S. Korea were not all that unpopular, were they? As I recall, the Germans are not that keen on the redeployment of American troops from Germany to different nations.

In fact, the accords themsleves stated that the division of the two parts of the country "should not in any way be interpreted as constituting a political or territorial boundary." In addition, the accords provided that general elections would be held in July 1956. Of course once Diem realized that he was going to be trounced by Ho Chi Minh in those general elections, he cancelled them and declared South Vietnam to be a separate state.

The American occupation armies of the Philippines, Japan, Germany, and S. Korea were not all that unpopular, were they?

When they aren't raping little girls, they're pretty popular....

The West Germans were never too happy that the presence of US troops and missiles made them ground zero if the Cold War turned Hot.

repiblicrat -- Forces in those nations are there under a Status of Forces Agreement. They're not occupiers.

So much for a History major from Yale.

David from NY has it right--among other things, IF Stone was a precursor of the best of the blogs. I say this as a blogger myself (click on the link) and as the guy who edited The Best of IF Stone (no kidding). Believe me, it was fun reading (or rereading) Stone's brilliant journalism from the 40s through the 60s and seeing the many many parallels to today.

By the way, Stone was also a great prose stylist--every bit as good as George Orwell, as well as (for my money) more politically astute.

I hope lots of today's younger leftists will read this new collection--I think they'll find it inspiring.

Oops, there WAS no link to my blog. If you are interested for some reason, it's at www.worldwidewebers.net.

uh, oh....

It looks like Pluto may be toast.

Compare this to the attitude expressed by President Bush in a recent private meeting at the Pentagon:

More generally, the participants said, the president expressed frustration that Iraqis had not come to appreciate the sacrifices the United States had made in Iraq, and was puzzled as to how a recent anti-American rally in support of Hezbollah in Baghdad could draw such a large crowd. “I do think he was frustrated about why 10,000 Shiites would go into the streets and demonstrate against the United States,” said another person who attended.

We should give him a break. This is all new to Bush. He didn't go to Vietnam, how's he supposed to know this is what happens?

More generally, the participants said, the president expressed frustration that Iraqis had not come to appreciate the sacrifices the United States had made in Iraq, and was puzzled as to how a recent anti-American rally in support of Hezbollah in Baghdad could draw such a large crowd. “I do think he was frustrated about why 10,000 Shiites would go into the streets and demonstrate against the United States,” said another person who attended.

Well, he is George and Barbara's son -- the poor boy expected a thank you note....

And more and more I suspect that the next decade will remind me of the 70s.

I, for one, am looking forward to the cocaine-fueled orgies....

Stefan: I, for one, am looking forward to the cocaine-fueled orgies....

Those were largely a reaction to the ugly clothes. People felt they had no option but to remove them.

Always? The American occupation armies of the Philippines, Japan, Germany, and S. Korea were not all that unpopular, were they?

Some corrections: the US Army in South Korea was never an "occupying" army as we never invaded that country. The US armed forces in Germany and Japan began as occupying armies but, since the 1950s, have been stationed there as allied forces under Status of Forces Agreements. As to our occupying army in the Philippines, we were probably quite unpopular with the relatives of the 250,000 to 1,000,000 civilians we killed during our conquest of the islands.

As I recall, the Germans are not that keen on the redeployment of American troops from Germany to different nations.

That's for economic reasons, not for love -- the US forces are cash cows for the towns their bases are stationed in. No town likes to see its anchor business move away.

Not long ago I heard a Republican little old lady say, "You know, sometimes I think they just don't want us over there." One small step toward sanity.

Those were largely a reaction to the ugly clothes. People felt they had no option but to remove them.

Sound reasoning. I'm not looking forward to having to grow a moustache, though.

Those were largely a reaction to the ugly clothes. People felt they had no option but to remove them.

Huh. I always thought I looked pretty good in those tight bellbottoms. So good, in fact, that I was rarely encouraged to remove them.

I just picked up the Selective Service registration form for my son, who turns 18 in a couple of months. That brought back memories. His kid brother has an okay rendition of Joe and Barry's Fixin' to Die rag, which works in the magic word "Halliburton."

I don't like flashbacks, at least not ones like that.

I'm not looking forward to having to grow a moustache, though.

In the future we will all be forced to look like John Bolton.

Hey I haven't been streaking for awhile. I might enjoy that. It will probably make everone else sick but it could be okay for me.

We know Thomas1, we know.

Well, one of the beauties of High (in more ways than one) 70s coture is that if you took too much acid before the orgy got started and decided to jump out a third-story windwow -- you'd just hang-glide down gracefully on those enormous shirt collars and leisure suit jacket lapels ...

Bob

David in NY,

Stone's Trial of Socrates is a really good book, too. Reminds one that Socrates (and/or Plato) were really anti-democratic in the first democracy.

It's my favorite book of all time. What a classic!

I think it got reasonable reviews even from the classics establishment.

I had a cassette tape of a talk Stone gave after the book was published, and he addressed some of the--unfavorable--reviews. Turns out the classics people were rather affronted by Stone's temerity. That and getting caught with their pants down vis-a-vis actually having a full grasp of what Plato & Socrates really stood for.

Kevin, I like this post because it gives me the excuse to say something that I have always noticed.

My generation (call us the Vietnam generation) was ALWAYS split with regard to the Vietnam War. Some of us just supported the war no matter what. I’m not sure I can explain that position, but it has always been my very strong opinion that, for the most part, Vietnam War supporters were pretty damn ignorant when it came to such minor details as the following:

- Any knowledge at all with regard to Vietnam history
- Any knowledge at all with regard to the history of the region
- Why the domino theory would or would not make sense
- Why Vietnam communism would bear little resemblance to communism in other countries
- The utter poverty of Vietnam
- The utter lack of a Vietnamese threat to our security
- How the war supposedly started.
- How the war actually started, which became clear thanks to Ellsberg

Ok, I’m boring myself with this list, but my observation is that war supporters have NEVER, to this day, educated themselves with regard to these issues. Thus, they never had any chance of learning any lesson(s) from the war. They never really cared, they were just cheerleaders.

GWB is one of those people. He’s the kind of guy who, in the wake of Gulf War I, would say, “Man, Vietnam could have been like that!” I certainly heard that from all the same people who had supported Vietnam. They never miss a chance to display their ignorance.

So, yes things are the same for those who never comprehended Vietnam in the first place. How could it be otherwise?

MHR, you're wrong about Stone and the USSR. Stone opposed the Cold War--he hated the way it brought out the worst in America. And he didn't believe in demonizing any group or nation. But he certainly didn't defend the evils committed by the Soviet Union. When he visited the USSR in 1956 he summarized his conclusions--in italics--this way: "This is not a good society and it is not led by honest men." Lots of fellow travelers canceled their subscriptions to IF Stone's Weekly after he wrote that.

Doug E Fresh wrote:

"[T]here really was no such thing as North Vietnam and South Vietnam. Those were political constructs of the 1954 Geneva accords, created to enable a short term cease fire following Bien Dien Phu. There was never an intention on the part of any parties to those accords to create 2 permanently separate states."

That's certainly correct. It's also correct that a million+ people voted with their feet at the time of partition and went South. All dupes of their French masters, no doubt.

"He didn't go to Vietnam..."

As opposed to the many of us here who did go to Vietnam?

As opposed to the many of us here who did go to Vietnam?

No, as opposed to the many of GWB's generation who did go.

I was 10yo when the last helicoptor left the US embassy. What is GWB's excuse?

As opposed to the many of us here who did go to Vietnam?

None of us are the Preznit either. Although I'd apply if only to get my own C-I-C Members Only jacket. Which I suspect is probably why Bush wanted the job as well.

Well, he is George and Barbara's son -- the poor boy expected a thank you note....

Yeah, all he did was point out that "things are working out very well" for all those people in the horrordrome that is Baghdad. Those Iraqis are so touchy.

More generally, the participants said, the president expressed frustration that Iraqis had not come to appreciate the sacrifices the United States had made in Iraq

Yea, especially considering in general the lack of attempted terrorist attacks the Islamist Extremists have shown towards Spain after they withdrew from Iraq, peaceful Canada, France, and Germany...oh wait...never mind.

alex: Those were largely a reaction to the ugly clothes. People felt they had no option but to remove them.

Hilarious.

It's also correct that a million+ people voted with their feet at the time of partition and went South.

I don't know if that is true or not, but speaking of voting:

Our intervention in Southeast Asia, which killed 2 million or so Vietnamese in addition to 50K+ Americans was made "necessary" in the minds of Cold Warriors at home in order to prevent the national (North and South) elections called for in the Geneva conventions.

We knew Ho would have won, and we didn't take kindly to that kind of democratic process.

It's also correct that a million+ people voted with their feet at the time of partition and went South…Trashhauler at 8:18 PM

Freedom of movement between the two areas was to be permitted for a period of 300 days, thereby facilitating the regroupment of Communist forces in the north and non-Communist forces in the south. During this period some 900,000 people, many of whom were Catholics or individuals fleeing the land reform program initiated by the Ho Chi Minh government, migrated south. The unification of the country under one government was to be effected through general elections, later scheduled for July, 1956. These elections, which were considered likely to favor the Communists, were never held...
No doubt at this time, George W. Bush was calling for Democracy in Vietnam while drunk in Alabama.

George W. Bush: Saving your ass whether you like it or not. Posted by: Thomas1

I think Charlie meant to write "fucking" instead of "saving."

No doubt at this time, George W. Bush was calling for Democracy in Vietnam while drunk in Alabama.

More likely he was dipping pigtails into inkwells and handing out wedgies.

Yeah, Red State Mike, Clinton's plan of going after the guys who attempted to take the WTC worked pretty well didn't it. No further terrorist attacks on American soil during the entire rest of his administration.

Oh, wait, you meant the clod in office now increasing the death count by tens of thousands, making Baghdad a hell-hole where the citizens are far less safe than they were under Hussein, and increasing terrorist activity world-wide. Wow, that's some record.

obscure -- The 50's Vietnam North to South migration was about 800-850K (most Catholics); the South to North migration was about 80-100K.

p.s. that's ancient memory at work, so my numbers may be off a bit, but IIRC it was very close to a 10-1 swap, with the total migration (both directions) just under 1M.

...expressed frustration that Iraqis had not come to appreciate the sacrifices the United States had made in Iraq...

How many more innocent Iraqis need to die before they are considered sufficiently thankful?

...the president expressed frustration that Iraqis had not come to appreciate the sacrifices the United States had made in Iraq...

That is because he does not adequately distinguish between intent and outcome (and someone should remind him that the road to hell is paved with good intentions). Wonder if this is on his iPod...

I'm just a soul whose intentions are good
Oh Lord, please dont let me be misunderstood

两性生活 性教育片 两性知识 性爱图片 激情电影 免费电影下载 免费在线电影 看免费电影 免费电影网站 韩国电影 免费影片 免费影院 最新大片 十八电影 美女写真 人体艺术 美女图片 美女走光 美腿图片 三级片 黄色电影 最新电影 性爱电影 免费小电影 性电影 免费成人电影 免费电影在线观看 宽带电影 经典电影 恐怖电影 裸露美少女 av美女 色情电影 同志图库 成人视频 美女漏点 两性写真视频 美女阴部 少女乳房 自拍裸照 强奸视频 裸体美女 美女自拍 黄色电影下载 色情图片下载 激情图片 激情小电影 性感写真 淫荡妹妹 做爱小电影 舒淇写真 美女脱衣视频 裸体女人图片 人体写真 美女手淫图片 波霸美女 淫水美女鲍鱼 阴户阴道阴毛屁股 美女图库 口交肛交图片 强暴图片 轮奸视频 性虐待电影 迷奸图片 妓女日记 汤加丽写真集 全裸美女 淫荡小说 淫乱小说 淫书金瓶梅 性爱文学 偷拍走光图 漂亮美眉图片 泳装写真 乳罩内裤图片 成人贴图 情趣内衣 性生活电影 作爱自拍 艳情图片 性交电影下载 做爱视频 性福电影 人体艺术 明星合成裸照 裸女贴图 黄色小说下载 成人小说下载 乱伦图片 七彩铃音 经典铃声 飞利浦手机铃声 西门子铃声 东信手机铃声 手机铃声图片 诺基亚手机铃声 qd铃声下载 手机彩铃 彩铃下载 移动彩铃 免费彩铃 手机炫铃下载 移动炫铃 联通手机彩铃 联通手机铃声 中国联通铃声 联通免费铃声 联通cdma铃声 联通手机炫铃 联通彩铃 中国联通彩铃 联通彩铃网站 联通炫铃 中国联通炫铃 联通炫铃网站

Kevin is admitting he doesn't care about the sacrifices our military personnel have made, either.

Nothing to do with this except in a vaguely related literary sense, but "The Old Hotel" is a great book.

The neighbor made an excellent observation. “The very essence of conservatism is the refusal to evolve and learn from past experiences.”

Exactly. To the Judeo-Christian ethic, our understanding of who we are—what it means to be a human being—is eternally set. GWB and his boys' inability to accept evolution grows out of this understanding, or lack of it. It is their Achilles heel because it keeps them from adapting to new situations. As has happened to conservatives since the beginning of time, it will do them in.

Hey, we got us a rich, frat boy president who thinks fart jokes are real funny. What have we got to worry about?

Who cares if we are slaughtering ragheads by the thousands?

F-r-r-aa-aaa-aapppp.....

HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA....

In the 1750's the British army and navy fight a war against the French, with colonial militia's playing a small and ineffective role. The war is taxing on Britain and she want's the colonies to share the burden. The colonies basically tell Britain to fuck off and start pluging redcoats, declaring their freedom. Who were those ungrateful bastards anyway?.........and so it goes, and so it goes, and so it goes, where it leads nobody knows.........

It just isn't right that the stoner kid down the hall from me in college (who was often troubled by the prospect of having to complete whole sentences) should have a higher IQ than the president of the United States (Bush's IQ is apparently 119 on the Stanford-Binet as I understand it [would conservatives care to rethink their obsession with IQ yet?]).

disputo wrote:

"(Quoting me) 'As opposed to the many of us here who did go to Vietnam?'

No, as opposed to the many of GWB's generation who did go.

I was 10yo when the last helicoptor left the US embassy. What is GWB's excuse?"
___________________

Well, there were plenty of folks of all stripes who didn't go. I enlisted as a cadet in 1969, about the same time Bush did, and I never got to Vietnam, either.

Where did you finally see the elephant, disputo? Too young for Grenada, I'd imagine. Panama? Desert Storm?

George III could never figure out why those ingrates in the English Colonies in America wouldn't "see the light" and re-swear allegiance to him, either.

Well, there were plenty of folks of all stripes who didn't go.

Such as George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, John Ashcroft, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Newt Gingrich, Trent Lott, Tom DeLay, George Allen, Bill Frist, Dan Quayle...Heroes all, every single one of 'em.

See, the thing isn't necessarily whether you volunteered for Vietnam or not -- it's whether you loudly brayed that you supported Vietnam while not being willing to die for it yourself. It was OK for America to fight, as long as you yourself weren't the one actually fighting....

More generally, the participants said, the president expressed frustration that Iraqis had not come to appreciate the sacrifices the United States had made in Iraq

Joking aside, if he really does think this way he's in even more of a bubble than we thought, and even more disassociated from any normal human thought process or ability to reason. The President of the United States is an utter utter moron.

"Kevin is admitting he doesn't care about the sacrifices our military personnel have made, either."

You have a profound ability, FK, to cut right to the heart of a matter that has absolutely nothing to do with what's being discussed.

But while we're at it, who cares more about their sacrifices: the combat veteran (like Kerry or Murtha) willing to good, hard look at what are soldiers are doing in harm's way or some think-tank putz who slaps a yellow ribbon on his SUV and swallows everything the president says without question? Well?

"...by 1778 [Washington] had reached an elemental understanding of his military strategy; namely, that captured ground...was virtually meaningless. The strategic key was the Continental Army. If it remained intact as an effective fighting force, the American Revolution remained alive. The British Army could occupy Boston, New York, and Philadelphia, and it did. ... But as long as Washington held the Continental Army together, the British could not win the war, which in turn meant that they would eventually lose it."

Founding Brothers, Ellis, pp. 130-131.

"The percentage of Iraqis who said they would not want to have Americans as neighbors rose from 87 percent in 2004 to 90 percent in 2006. When asked what they thought were the three main reasons why the United States invaded Iraq, 76 percent gave "to control Iraqi oil" as their first choice."

Iraqi Attitudes: Survey Documents Big Changes

I.F. Stone could be described as the grandpa of the nutroots movement. When the ACLU was writing their own blacklist he was one of the few defending Communists openly on free speech grounds. On the other hand, until he was in his eighties he was blind in the left eye politically, seeing the USA as the evil empire starting the Korean War [as noted above in this thread], or the Soviets as spurned misunderstood peaceniks. His evolution started in the late seventies, when he saw the impact of the new left on so many institutions he had taken for granted. When he wrote his book on Socrates he said he wanted to contrast the 200 years of Athenian liberty with the 200 years of American liberty and emphasize how easy it would be for the left to lose sight of our great gifts while wallowing in cynicism.

Stone said "how easy it would be for the left to lose sight of our great gifts while wallowing in cynicism."

Yeah, wonder what he would say today?

minion of rove: When he wrote his book on Socrates he said he wanted to contrast the 200 years of Athenian liberty with the 200 years of American liberty and emphasize how easy it would be for the left to lose sight of our great gifts while wallowing in cynicism.

If that is suppose to be an indictment of the "grandpa of the nutroots movement", it's a most flattering indictment--and lightyears ahead of anything on offer from the other side.

kenji wrote:

"But while we're at it, who cares more about their sacrifices: the combat veteran (like Kerry or Murtha) willing to good, hard look at what are soldiers are doing in harm's way or some think-tank putz who slaps a yellow ribbon on his SUV and swallows everything the president says without question? Well?"
_______________

That's kind of a false comparison, isn't it, kenji? I don't happen to have anything on my car, but many of the people driving onto the air force base where I work do have such things. That includes personnel of all Services, many of whom have deployed to Afghanistan or Iraq or both. My impression is that, mostly, the wives slap 'em on.

But, even using your comparison, what's your point? If you aren't a Senator or Congressman with an anti-Iraq war agenda, you shouldn't express your opinion at all?

Who cares more? It's impossible to know, isn't it? That putz ahead of you might have a brother, or cousin, or son deployed somewhere and he cares very deeply. Or he might be just a putz. He's still got the right to express himself and you've no evidence that he's swallowed anything without question.

That wasn't the comparison I was making: It was intended to be between sober critics of the war who know the real consequences of invasion, combat and occupation and mindless cheerleaders (like Al, Frequency Kenneth, and everyone at Fox News) who view every realistic caution as an embrace of America's enemies.

My real point, if pressed, is that conservatives and radicals have traded places in the United States, and hardly anyone realizes it even now, as the Bush drives the ship of state straight into the collapsing Greenland ice shield. Shouldn't real conservative and libertarians be alarmed by our own Taliban taking over?

On the other hand, until he was in his eighties he was blind in the left eye politically, seeing the USA as the evil empire starting the Korean War [as noted above in this thread], or the Soviets as spurned misunderstood peaceniks.

IIRC, we did start the Korean war.

Now, if you could provide a shred of evidence that Stone felt the Soviets were misunderstood peaceniks I'd love to see it.

Until then I'm betting you know fuck-all and are happy to tell us about it.

obscure,

Even given the inadvertent omission of Korea from a Dean Acheson speech, I cannot imagine how anyone can seriously state that we started the Korean War.

酷站推荐：月饼 十字绣 阳澄湖大闸蟹 反应釜 散热器 水处理 快速成型 沥青搅拌机 粉末涂料 光学镜片 微循环检查仪 玻璃瓶厂 日东工器

网站设计：广告设计 包装设计 样本设计 策划公司   搬场 搬家 公关策划

HAS407,

My point was anyone is capable of redemption if they live long enough. Who knows, maybe Michael Moore or even Kevin Drum might think their country had something to offer the world if they live long enough.

Excellent, simply excellent. I had the same book years (decades) ago and loved it. I.F. Stone was probably one of the first bloggers, if only he'd had some internets!

Trashauler,

Silly me, then.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it," George Santayana (1863–1952)

In fairness to Dubya, there is the possibility he was drunk through most of the Vietnam war, so he may have, you know, missed it.