This takes depressing news to a new level.

Bush himself didn't know until a month or so before the war started. And jackass neocons like Bill Kristol and Paul Wolfowitz thought that Iraq had never had any history of religious divisions that could flare up into a civil war.

I cannot believe that anyone would take these people seriously, much less elect them to public office and entrust them with our national security. Our troops deserve better.

We Are Governed By Idiots

We are governed? Who knew?

And let's not forget this:

A year after his “Axis of Evil” speech before the U.S. Congress, President Bush met with three Iraqi Americans, one of whom became postwar Iraq’s first representative to the United States. The three described what they thought would be the political situation after the fall of Saddam Hussein. During their conversation with the President, Galbraith claims, it became apparent to them that Bush was unfamiliar with the distinction between Sunnis and Shiites.

Galbraith reports that the three of them spent some time explaining to Bush that there are two different sects in Islam--to which the President allegedly responded, “I thought the Iraqis were Muslims!”

Who is surprised?

I hope Kevin's reaction is only mock surprise.

Not that this is news -- a whole book could be filled with comparable revelations, such as:

William Jennings Bryan, shortly after being appointed Secretary of State by Pres. Woodrow Wilson, asking a fellow train passenger what the Balkans were.

William Clark, after being appointed President Reagan's National Security Advisor, confessing during his confirmation hearings that he didn't know who the prime ministers of South Africa and Zimbabwe were (despite which he was easily confirmed).

Rep. Ron Wyden (D-OR), during his 1997 campaign in a special election for U.S. Senator, being unable to find Bosnia on a map (despite which he won the election).

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), member of the House Committee on Science, visiting JPL and asking whether the Mars Pathfinder could photograph Neil Armstrong's footprints.

Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-IL) appearing on "Jeopardy" in 1998, being asked for the "Final Jeopardy" question: "Who is the Prime Minister of Yugoslavia?", and replying "Mladovich Sladovich".

Thank God the Founders designed the US to function even if run by idiots, because that's been pretty much the story ever since. Maybe Caligula wasn't so off-base to appoint his horse as Proconsul.

That government officials didn't know the difference before we went to war was inexcusable.

That they still don't know, 3 years later, when the answer to that question is critical to our getting out of Iraq, is a sign of willful and shameless ignorance.

What is all this business about Catholics? Never heard of them.

The truly sad thing is -
Sunni/Sufi is an oversimplification.

(cue CLounsbury stopping in to drop the turd-bomb of telling us what ignorant morons we all are).

There's also a Sufi subgroup, and among the Sunnis there are Salafists and Wahhabists - and for each of these is a mix-n-match of ethnic groups of arab, persian, turkmen, kurdish, etc.

And then there used to be a sizable group of Christians in Iraq as well - a denomination older than the Catholic church. These were a sheltered minority under Saddam (Tariq Aziz; Saddam's mouthpiece was a Christian), but under the new "regime" (if that's what you want to call it - I call it "Anarchy") they're persecuted, and being murdered by Shiite death squads, and forced from their homes.

Yes - it's a really complicated clusterfuck - and to say that our leadership didn't understand any of it going into this war does a gross disservice to the fact that. . . it's not that they didn't know - it's that they didn't CARE, because their goal was to spread chaos and destruction, so they could manipulate the oil market, and engage in the most lucrative war profiteering in the history of our species.

Jesus f*****g Christ! Not anything we didn't already suspect, but this degree of irresponsible and wilfull ignorance has life-breaking repurcussions around the world.

From the hegemon and moral example to the world!!

And this written by the man who was worrying about how much US history they teach in Europe!

Iran and Iraq are two different countries? I thought they were just alternate spellings.

Many people today in October 2006 don't realize that there are many sects that exist in Islam. A church member I know thought it was a unified religion, because to him "there are no episcopal Muslims or baptist Muslims." Before he was going to go further to make this silly statement, the music director and I definitely disagreed and there are different sects. My old encyclopedia lists several different sects.

Shi'ites
Kharijites
Qadarites
Rationalists
Twelvers
Seveners
Druzes
Nusayris
Baha'is (of course, now considered a different religion altogether)
Ahmadiyah
Wahabis
Sufis
Senusi
Sunnis

I will write today about the Shi'ites.

The Shi'ite sect did not crystallize until the Umayyad period (661-750) but the underlyinmg issue goes back to the time of Mohammed. On his death the all important question arose as to who should succeed him. Those who later became known as Shi'ites (partisans of Ali) maintained from the beginning that such an important office could not be left to the whims and fancies of the people, and that God or Allah had designated through Muhammed a successor (khalifah, caliph) who was none other than Ali, husband of his only surviving daughter, Fatima. They further held that the office of successorship, caliphate, to which the Shi'ites prefer the term imimate, should be hereditary, limited to the progeny of Muhammed. The murder of Ali in 661 and of his two sons and successors al-Hasan, 669 and al-Husain, 680 did not dampen the zeal of their followers. the three were immediately raised into the rank of martyrs. In their deaths, they became more influential than in their lives.

In time the Shi'ites became more different than the Sunnis. They rejected the Sunnite book of tradition, the Hadith, differed in matters of laws and ceremonies, did not regard participation of public worship to be obligatory, and considered pilgrimage of Ali in Najaf, IRAQ, or to that of al-Husain in Karbala, IRAQ, a permissible substitute for a pilgrimage to Mecca; and to the formula "No god but Allah and Mohammed is the prophet of Allah," they added "and Ali is the vicegerent (wali) of Allah." Having always been a minority and often subjected to persecution, they came to believe that it was lawful for a Shi'ite in time of danger to deny his Shi'ism and profess the prevailing faith (taqiyah, dissimulation). Shi'ites also consider it lawful to practice temporary marriage (mu' tah) , which is frowned upon by Sunnis.

What you libs fail to understand is that when faced against the US, the Arabs are unified. It doesn't matter if theyre Persian, Turkish or Sunni, they all only want to hurt the US and Israel. That's why they hit us in New York and why they bombed us in Israel. Bush understands you have to carpetbomb the fuckers and it doesn't matter who they are. Learning these things just blurs the picture. Libs want to learn about our enemies who hate us for being Christian so they can go all native and hate America. The Republicans know that a bomb erases the differences between Sunnis and Shiites pretty quickly because they're then all dead.

Al hasn't shown his face yet, probably because he didn't know either. Plus it's an issue for which they haven't got around to distributing the talking points.

Let me suggest one.

"Well, it's better them having sects over there than letting them have sects over here."

"And jackass neocons like Bill Kristol and Paul Wolfowitz thought that Iraq had never had any history of religious divisions that could flare up into a civil war."

You know, I kinda doubt that. I think they just didn't give a rat's ass.

Fucking idiots.

I meant the real Al, of course. Pretty good parody, though, "Al".

...The Republicans know that a bomb erases the differences between Sunnis and Shiites pretty quickly because they're then all dead.

Posted by: Al on October 18, 2006 at 12:18 AM | PERMALINK

Talking about idiots.

You see! It could really be a lot worse.

I can remember back when RayGun sent troops to Lebanon and they were told that there were 14 different groups fighting each other in various combinations!

I meant the real Al, of course. Pretty good parody, though, "Al".
Posted by: Indy Jestion on October 18, 2006 at 12:24 AM | PERMALINK

I'm not Lee Seigel, you idiot!

...The Republicans know that a bomb erases the differences between Sunnis and Shiites pretty quickly because they're then all dead.

Posted by: Al on October 18, 2006 at 12:18 AM | PERMALINK

Talking about idiots.

You see! It could really be a lot worse.
Posted by: notthere on October 18, 2006 at 12:26 AM | PERMALINK

Shut up you pussy lib. You just want to see Israelis die because you hate Jews and love Hitler. Stupid libs don't get it.

That was a pretty funny fake Al or Sean Hannity's sock puppet.

I kind of find it hard to understand why Shia' are even considered Muslims considering that they kind of reject 3 of the 5 pillars of Islam.

But that's just me... and well, about half a billion other people.

That Sean Hannity is one sexy man. It must be all of that construction work. They're all just so... manly.

Why does Al sound like a kid who can't get out of his play pen?

The best magazine out there is the New York Review of Books. Subscribe or pay $3 for the ariticle and learn what it means, politically, to be shi'a today.

Wonder how many Democratic leaders he asked the same question. Or why he didn't name any names of those who "easily handled" the question.

Of course, now that he's telegraphed the "gotcha" to the Democrats, you can bet Pelosi and a lot of others are now staying up late studying crib sheets. Be interesting to interview a few next week and see if they all give the same answer, word for word.

And Bush is so fucking incompetent, he couldn't even get them to unite against a common enemy. (us).

Wonder how many Democratic leaders he asked the same question. Or why he didn't name any names of those who "easily handled" the question.

Of course, now that he's telegraphed the "gotcha" to the Democrats, you can bet Pelosi and a lot of others are now staying up late studying crib sheets. Be interesting to interview a few next week and see if they all give the same answer, word for word.
Posted by: rnc on October 18, 2006 at 12:41 AM | PERMALINK

Yes, pointing out incompetence in a ruling party that took us to war is just playing politics. It's not like people lives are at stake or anything. But baseless accusations? That's responsible commentary.

Maybe so rnc, but the point you seem to miss is that Pelosi et al. didn't launch an illegal invasion that killed hundreds of thousands of civilians and inflicting real damage on your own armed forces. Before starting a war, knowing something about your enemy is sorta useful... don't you think?

Anyway, I think this is all bunk. I still think the war planners were well aware of the potential for explosive sectatian violence. Regardless, they chose to roll the dice.

There is absolutely nothing in the Bible about Sunnis and Shia, so it can't be important. Learning about that stuff is self-indulgent and arrogant, and puts one at risk of catching Islamishness, not to mention curiosity and even more dangerous conditions. It takes time away from reviewing what we already know, which is plenty, or there would have been more after Revelation.

rnc --

who's making all the (bad) decisions?

It's this administration that appoints or tries to appoint totally unqualified people to key positions. It's this administration that is led by the President with the least interest in details of any recent prez, and relies on feel-good, action oriented initiatives.

The "Decider" is being shown up not only by his own incompetence, but by the incompetence of those he has chosen to act for him.

Do you know what CLE means?

Speaking of idiots, how impressive do you think it is to watch commenters here arguing with cartoon stickmen they write themselves?

Herr Pelosi doesn't know anything. Do you really want that latte-sipping San Franciscanista making decisions about our troops? It doesn't matter if she knows what a Sunni is. She would just cut-and-run. Cut-and-run I say.

Speaking of idiots, how impressive is it that nobody can tell our real idiotic thoughts apart from the idiotic parodies of us? It makes me wish my check from Rush didn't bounce.

Arabs are unified. It doesn't matter if theyre Persian, Turkish or Sunni...

Better fake Al please. The real Al would have never called a Turks and Persians Arabs, after all.

I must have missed something. For quite a while now Democrats have been telling us that Iraq was a secular society that could not possibly have any relations to the religious fanatics that attacked us, and that the Muslim religion has little or no influence in Saddam's Iraq. What happened?

I must have missed something. For quite a while now Democrats have been telling us that Iraq was a secular society that could not possibly have any relations to the religious fanatics that attacked us, and that the Muslim religion has little or no influence in Saddam's Iraq. What happened?
Posted by: billw on October 18, 2006 at 1:01 AM | PERMALINK

I frankly cannot tell if this is supposed to be a parody or if this is an actual strawman. What Democrats said was the SADDAM was secular. When did Saddam = all of Iraq? Is this little difference a little too hard to grasp?

billw: Considering the topic of this thread, that is the funniest thing I've heard in ages.

Yes, you missed something.

No billw, it was *Saddam* and friends who were Stalinist. As such, the AQ fundies weren't gonna get much cooperation from his government. The civilians were irrelevant; don't you remember... the oppressed people of Iraq in need of liberation?

Iraq had a large secular professional class, many of whom have fled. Religion filled the social vacuum, as it so often does.

Oddly, most of the large secular professional class was Sunni. As were most of the people who were doing well under Saddam. That sects meant nothing under Saddam is ridiculous.

billw, to add to the other responses to your comment:

It is precisely because Saddam's government was secular and was ruling over a religious population that Saddam and Al Qaeda were natural enemies of each other.

Oops sorry, the 1:09 comment signed "billw" was by me -- just typed in the wrong box.

JS, On my old computer, the one I finally took out on a country road and shot; if I clicked on someones name to send an email, it sometimes changed my name to the person I was emailing.

Oh no, the first computer to develop a sense of humor was taken out and shot?

Not shot, exactly. But it did get the old hard-drive scrubbed and now it's running Linux.

It's a very serious and sober machine now, concerned more with climate models than mocking the Mistress.

Considering how Bush Cultists reflexively reject anything that comes out of the mouth of a Democrat, I'm beginning to think that this whole Iraq mess could have been avoided with a Bugs and Daffy routine.

Are you sure it's truly reformed though? Hidden mischief in a climate model could be a lot more catastrophic than email identity change prank.

Maybe Caligula wasn't so off-base to appoint his horse as Proconsul.

Is the horse still alive? It really couldn't be worse than Rummy. Hell, even dead it couldn't be worse.

Oooh. Now I'm wondering if it is a cyber version of Eddie haskell and just what might ensue in the wake...

That sects meant nothing under Saddam is ridiculous.

So is phrasing the question in this either/or "sects meant nothing" vs. "sects meant everything" fashion.
Iraq under Saddam was a largely secular society. Now it's a religious sectarian free-for-all. The divides between Serbs and Bosnian Muslims didn't "mean nothing" in Titoite Yugoslavia, either, but they were a far cry from what happened in 1992.

"What you libs fail to understand is that when faced against the US, the Arabs are unified."

Yeah, with that kind of unity, who needs enemies? And an excellent basis for foreign policy.

Good thing we "libs" are unified when "faced against" you, Al,
in the knowledge that you are a complete idiot.

And of course, by that, I don't mean Fake Al, who is more of an incomplete idiot.

Although I've always known that Bush wasn't the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree, the truly scary moment for me was his administration's response to hurricane Katrina. If you can't prepare for a hurricane that you can see coming a week in advance, how in the hell do you prepare for a terrorist attack that could come at any time or place? Katrina scared the holy hell out of me.

I don't think this shows that they are idiots. It just shows that being well informed and educated is not a requirement for participating in the government. Government is about power, not education.

I am far from convinced that theology is the key here. The key is a power struggle as it exists today IMHO. Some groups striving for power in Iraq base their claim primarily on religion, others less so. The real problem is that these groups are ruthlessly striving for power.

I do agree that Americans didn't know as much about the Middle East as we ought to have. That criticism would apply to the CIA and State Dept. as well as Congress, not to mention our leading pundits.

Our dumbass politicians and bloggers would do well to study
how the British got bogged down in Iraq after WWI. People that don't understand history (e.g. George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, etc.) make the same mistakes again and again.

History always repeats itself – First as tragedy, then as farce…

The real problem is that these groups are ruthlessly striving for power.

As human beings have done every single day of the week for the last 2 million years, or longer, if chimp behavior is any guide. You propose to change this dynamic? With what? Lobotomies? Ecstasy in the water supply?

Power and the struggle for power are a fact of human social life. There are, however, different kinds of structures within which the exercise of power and the struggle for power may take place. Some are more violent, some less so. The botched, rapidly collapsing structure which we half-assedly threw together in Iraq has turned out to be one of the more violent ones, devolving into more and more violence as it disintegrates, much like Lebanon and Bosnia during their civil wars. That is the "problem", not the fact that Iraqis, like every other subset of the human race, seek to amass and exercise power.

That criticism would apply to the CIA and State Dept. as well as Congress, not to mention our leading pundits....

and ex-liberal opiners on blogs.

Gosh darn..which sect is anti-choice and anit-gay? Want to make sure we kill the right guys!

Matters not one centime to me whether the Lettres de Cachet I sign refer to either Shiites or Sunnis or secular humanists.

Viva le Monarchy

"Ex-liberal" wrote: The real problem is that these groups are ruthlessly striving for power.

No one could have predicted that removing Saddam would have created a power vacuum in which groups would be ruthlessly -- even violently -- striving for power.

Oh, wait -- Colin Powell and Bush the Elder did, back in 1991.

And, of course, "ex-liberal" remains resolutely loyal to the party of idiots that brought us this debacle.

Plus, what brooksfoe said.

Gregory,

You may also add Stormin' Norman, General Schwarznegger to that list. He was emphatic about the power vacuum.

I want all the apologists for the Right-establishment around here, and the likes of A. Coulter, to take back their griping about the rest of us labeling conservatards as "idiots" - it was true all along, and there has been much evidence for a long time (such as the study of Fox viewers that was discussed here last (?) year, etc.)

BruceMoomaw: the big difference between your examples of demmie dummies (not all...) and the current Sunni/Shia ignorance: the former was silly tripe that didn't cost thousands of lives, the latter is a political, military, and cultural disaster that is costing hundreds of thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars. Try that on for size, little snark boy.

Ted Rall said all of this early in 2002. I don't think he made it up then and just happened to be correct. Too bad these idiots, who believe their own nonsense, while they refuse to hear other points of view, aren't better educated.

mhr- Have the Dems always controlled the schools? I think if you look throughout our history you'll find that most Americans have had little or no interest in what goes on in other countries, or even in their own country's past.

Damn straight those Democrats who control local school boards have caused all of the problems.

Why, just here in Portland, OR, a former head of the school board, Ron Saxton, is running for Governor. During his tenure, public schools were failing with very nice golden parachutes provided for upper management.

Only problem with that scenario, is that Ron Saxton is a Republican. Always has been.

Next question.

This is what made me throw my telephone at my assistant in sheer frustation when I read it:

“Now that you’ve explained it to me,” he replied, “what occurs to me is that it makes what we’re doing over there extremely difficult, not only in Iraq but that whole area.”

NOW?!?! Over three and a half years since we attacked Iraq, and only NOW has someone explained it to him?!?! Just what the fuck has this slack-jawed goofball been doing with himself for that time that he's never asked someone to explain this to him -- forget about actually picking up a book and figuring it out for himself.

i did not know that

it does not matter which religion these Irag people practice, just practice duck and cover , we will all answer to the Creator someday, may you all have a wonderful life ,either here or in the next one ,hope to see you there . peace .

"It is so 'illogical' for those who question my Iraqi policy."

Wonder how many Democratic leaders he asked the same question. Or why he didn't name any names of those who "easily handled" the question.

He probably asked all the Democratic leaders who head House and Senate committees or work in high levels in the White House and Pentagon national security apparatus....i.e., zero.

NOW?!?! Over three and a half years since we attacked Iraq, and only NOW has someone explained it to him?!?!

Stefan -- the overall thrust of the article is no doubt justified, but I have a feeling that this particular line was a bit of a "gotcha" quote. I'd like to see what the guy said on either side of that statement.

Judging by the interviews I've seen, only a small minority of our legislators are actually complete idiots. Most of them have at least some kind of low cunning that gets them through the day.

The average American is completely uninterested in historical details. He is the product of the US public schools, which is owned and operated by the Democrat party and its subsidiaries, teacher unions.

Spoken like a true average American.

Stephen Colbert couldn't have written a tighter two-liner.

I swear to you during the first Gulf War c1990-91 I encountered people who said in effect, "We gotta stop Saddam before his army is landing in Florida (or California or Texas)." These people apparently thought Iraq was right next to Cuba or Nicaragua.

There is absolutely nothing in the Bible about Sunnis and Shia, so it can't be important.

Being in the Bible has nothing to do with it. For example, as Stephen Colbert as shown, many people who insist on posting the Ten Commandments in public places can't even name more than a few. Unfortunately, there is a reason that the "Dummies" and "Idiots" series of books are big sellers, and it doesn't bode well for our nation.

Qwerty - those are the same people who decry "secular humanism" and "moral relativism" as the bane of evil itself, and couldn't define them on a multiple choice quiz. Since humanists reject rite and ritual, and elevate ethics, justice and reason, I can only assume that those who reject humanism and embrace rite and ritual are actually rejecting reason, justice and ethics.

But moral relativism is the one they bater about that really makes them look foolish. For example: It says in the bible that we shouldn't kill. That means abortion is bad, no exceptions. then in the same breath they will defend the death penalty and pre-emptive war. Then killing is good. It is necessary, God-ordained even. This is the most glaring paradox of the moral relativism talking point, and it is a huge honkin' zit on the nose of the reich wing, and they can't see it.

It's really easy to control people with buzzwords they don't understand, uttered with just the right amount of tempered invective.

"can't even name more than a few"

Oh yeah, well at least I know, "Thou shalt not vote for a Democrat".

History teaches that all empires collapse from overspending on their military. So will it be with the U.S.

But if you literally don't know that there are different sects of Islam that form majorities in different regions, and that conflict between these sects is as defining as the conflict between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland — and you're the vice chairman of the House Intelligence committee — then we're doomed. As Attaturk says, we are governed by idiots.

That's a mischaracterization as there never was a recognized central authority in Islam, unlike how Christianity was ordered for some 1200 years until the Reformation or even how how the various Protestant denominations are structured today post-Reformation.

In Islam, however, there aren't even central authorities in the various sects. It seems that just about any guy can set himself up as an "iman" if he can assemble enough followers, not unlike non-denominational fundi "Christians" in the U.S. He (never she, of course) may be Shia or Sunni or which ever, but his realm of power is still his group, and typically doesn't extend into the sect as a whole. This is why the idea of "appealing to religious authorities" in the ME is pointless.

"Thou shalt not vote for any Democrat"

I believe, Git, that is the one just below,
"Thou shalt kill all Islamofascists"

or was that the Golden Rule, "Do unto Islamofascists before they can do it unto you"

Sounds a lot like the old code of the west.

As a former high school social studies teacher, this doesn't suprise me in the least. Why? To start with, many school districts do not teach Geography any more, which means the general geographic knowledge among the entire population is very low. Just look the results of the 2006 Geographic Literacy Survey of 18 to 24 year-olds conducted the National Geogrpahic Society. Only 37% could find Iraq on a map (this in 2006, after the war was three years old), and roughly half could not find the state of New York on a US map. Forty-eight percent thought that Islam was the majority religion in India.

Add to that a widespread disdain for history at all levels, and no wonder you end up with ignoranr politicians. Most kids couldn't care less about anything that happened more than a week ago and have little interest in history or current events. Because their brains are only beginning to develop the capacity for abstract thought, and thus the ability to understand the long-term perspective, the concept of learning from mistakes (which is one of the main reasons to study history) doesn't resonate with them. Of course, when these kids grow up to become voting adults, their knowledge of history is just as poor as it was when they were in high school. After all, I bet less than 20% of the US population could tell you even the most basic facts about Islam, such as what the Five Pillars are, or the difference between the various sects.

Underinvest in education and maintain low academic standards, and you get adults who know and care very little about the world outside the United States, politicians and government officials included.

The Conservative Deflator History teaches that all empires collapse from overspending on their military.

On the contrary, many empires collapsed from losing wars: Carthage, the 3rd Reich, Imperial Japan, South Vietnam. The British Empire was weakened by losing various wars. Chang Kai Chek's Nationalist China lost their empire when they lost a civil war. The Confederacy wasn't around long enough to qualify as an empire, but they too were erased due to losing a war.

Other empires persisted by not losing wars. The American empire wouldn't be what it is today, had we lost the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812 or the Civil War.

Underinvest in education and maintain low academic standards, and you get adults who know and care very little about the world outside the United States, politicians and government officials included.

Underinvest in education and you get an easily controlled and manipulated electorate. The nurse in my doctors office did not know if she was registered to vote or not.

1984 isn't a work of fiction to these people. It is an operations manual.

And the American Monarchy and Empire wouldn't be what it is today, if only we had not lost the VietNam War, fought Korea to an extremely costly, in terms of dead, tie and our current fiasco.

Tell me what were their names, boy, what were their names. Notwithstanding the tremendous loss of life of the civilians in Iraq. More background noise? Hmmmmm?

Carthage, the 3rd Reich, Imperial Japan, South Vietnam.

Like shootin' fish in a barrel. Real history buff, aren't you?

Carthage was a city-state, not an empire.

South Vietnam? How does one half of a very small country constitute an empire?

Japan and the Third Reich were defeated because they overstretched their military, which led to their defeats. Had Japan not attacked the U.S., the Chinese, British, French, etc., etc. certainly weren't going to push them out of Mainland and SE Asia.

Ditto for Germany. If they'd not invaded the Soviet Union and N. Africa, again, an example of imperial overstretch, there is no telling how long the Nazis could have controlled Europe. 1,000 years? Not likely. But most likley longer than five-and-a-half years as partisan resistance was modest, and the Brits certainly weren't going to do anything about it without the U.S. funding, equiping, and providing the overwhelming bulk of manpower for the invasion of Europe.

The British Empire was weakened by losing various wars.

Yes, dumbshit, because their military and economic power were overstretched. That's the primary reason you lose wars.

Chang Kai Chek's Nationalist China lost their empire when they lost a civil war.

Chang never controlled the whole of China, having lost most of Manchuria to Japan in the '30s, and the "emperor" had ceded control of Hong Kong and Shanghai to European powers in the 19th Century. China was never an empire.

The Confederacy wasn't around long enough to qualify as an empire, but they too were erased due to losing a war.Posted by: ex-liberal

Do you even know the definition of empire?

"Thou shalt not vote for any Democrat"

Here's another: Thou shalt blame Bill Clinton for thine own transgressions.

History teaches that all empires collapse from overspending on their military. So will it be with the U.S.

Money hasn't cured bad education. History textbooks hvae been deteriorating for 30 years. Per pupil spending in the public schools keeps going up, but students learn less and less actual history. It's sad.

Yes, ex-l, you have indeed proven your point time and again. You have learned less and less. Must have been either your "Demo" teachers or that home schooling back there under the rocks.

History teaches that all empires collapse from overspending on their military. So will it be with the U.S.

History teaches that all empires collapse from overspending on their military.

History teaches that all absolute generalizations are wrong. Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire, Qing China. The world is a complicated place.

The interesting things about education spending is that people talk like its a capital-intensive undertaking like making a truck. However, it is very labor intensive. Generally, students who get more positive attention - treated like they're smart (as opposed to "special needs") - the higher that students' test scores rise. This is labor intensive. You may get some help from computers, etc., but that only shifts the labor-capital ratio a small amount. With labor-intensive enterprises, you end up getting diminishing relative returns as spending goes up, but adding capital only alleviates this pressure somewhat. Your only real option is to continue to add money even if you don't get the same bang for your buck. This includes making class sizes smaller, maintaining schools and upkeep (many urban schools have malfunctioning air conditioning and heating units that create noise levels that are around 20-40 or more decibels higher than allows for optimal information retention and processing) and making teaching a more attractive career to our best and brightest. Why don't more people go into teaching in public schools? Because the pay is crap. We complain about teachers' unions, but until teaching becomes a more materially attractive profession with regard to compensation, we are going to get teachers who fall into one of two categories 1) those that do it for charity, love of it (which quickly is strangled), etc., which is sadly rare because it is so idealistic or 2) those who fail into it.

"I think a case can be made that faith is one of the world's great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate."
- Richard Dawkins

"These budget numbers are not just estimates; these are the actual results for the fiscal year that ended February the 30th."

President Bush - 10/11/06

federal government fiscal years don't end in february

and

there is no february 30th