 |
 |
   During a recession, should college presidents face the same pay cuts as CEOs?
 Forty years of writing from Taylor Branch, James Fallows, Katherine Boo, Marjorie Williams, Joshua Micah Marshall, and more.
 With help from Washington, the for-profit college industry is loading up millions of low-income students with debt they'll never pay off.
 The best recent memoir from republican Washington is a hoax. That should tell you something.
|
   |
|
|
November 27, 2006
By: BAKER/HAMILTON UPDATE....Jim Henley reads about the Baker/Hamilton commission so you don't have to. Click here for the 30-second summary. I think Jim has it about right. When push comes to shove, the commission members are going to have a hard time finding a consensus because (a) at least some of them will insist on an honest analysis, but (b) Baker will be unwilling to endorse a report that President Bush is likely to reject. There's not much middle ground there. In any case, the two proposals getting the most flagpole time at the moment include talks with Syria and Iran (opposed strenuously by Dick Cheney) and the temporary addition of 20,000 soldiers in Baghdad (pretty much dismissed by the military brass as either impossible or useless). The only other alternative is withdrawal, but virtually no one is willing to sign up to that since it would mean expulsion from the Sober Sensible Analyst club. It's just too hard for most of these guys to break ranks and admit in public that the fate of Iraq is no longer something we can control. So the Kabuki dance continues. —Kevin Drum 1:13 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (119)Comments
The fate of American troops lies not with a commission, but with a man who cannot, nor will not, allow his legacy be represented by a failed occupation. Unfortunately, that's what will happen. It's a matter of when. Also unfortunately, it's the troops who will pay the ultimate price. Posted by: bigcat on November 27, 2006 at 1:21 AM | PERMALINKAgainst stupidity even the Baker Commission itself struggles in vain. Posted by: Windhorse on November 27, 2006 at 1:28 AM | PERMALINKI have been noodling the idea that Dick Cheney is the single worst American to have lived in the last 100 years, and possibly ever. His lifelong dedication to enriching the few at the expense of the many, his unwavering support of the President as King model of government, and his total disdain for democracy, except as a polemical device, make him a clear frontrunner for this important honor. Plus, did you know his daughter is a lesbian? I mean, come on! Posted by: craigie on November 27, 2006 at 1:29 AM | PERMALINKReally: how many members do we think are actually interested in an honest report? And to answer craigie's question: Dick Cheney takes a back seat to nobody in betraying American values. Posted by: dj moonbat on November 27, 2006 at 1:34 AM | PERMALINKIn any case, the two proposals getting the most flagpole time at the moment include talks with Syria and Iran (opposed strenuously by Dick Cheney) And for good reason Cheney is opposing it. Syria and Syria's ally Iran just murdered the democratically elected Lebanese Christian leader Pierre Gemayel. To have talks with Syria and Iran now would be appeasing dictators who are doing everything possible to destroy the Democracy Project in the Middle East. America must stand by our allies in the Cedar Revolution in Lebanon to prevent the overthrow of Democracy in Lebanon and a return of Syrian/Iranian occupation of Lebanon. Posted by: Al on November 27, 2006 at 1:38 AM | PERMALINKThe thing I don't understand is why anyone thinks that Junior's naming a commission of his buddies enough Lieberman-class Democrats to apply a bipartisan sheen is going to say anything Bush doesn't want to hear. Of course, they DO have the problem that Bush doesn't want to hear reality, yet the commissioners are placing their reputations on the line - with Colin Powell's example before them as a grim warning of what happens when you "just say yes." I'm betting they advise boosting troop strength by 15-30,000 (10-20%) for one Friedman, followed by a slow withdrawal. Bush will want to drag it out until the 2008 elections, with the troop withdrawals scheduled to start about September-October of 2008. Unfortunately, I think the Bush League economy's real-estate-driven economy will collapse in mid-to-late 2007, forcing us to pull out of the Iraqi money pit. Bush'll try for more tax cuts to "stimulate the economy" so he can blame the Democrats in Congress for not passing it. The interesting thing will be if the Democrats pass a "pay-as-you-go" Iraq War funding mandate. Cutting up Junior's credit card and forcing him to support his expensive lifestyle from revenue will be interesting to watch. Posted by: RepubAnon on November 27, 2006 at 1:40 AM | PERMALINKBear in mind that the commission's actual brief - find a way to extricate Junior, at least cosmetically, from the worst catastrophe of his disastrous presidency - is basically impossible, even for a wizard like Jim Baker. Remember that when Baker was charged with another imperative task by the Bush family in '92 - get Poppy re-elected - he couldn't manage that either. Guy's only human. The dilemma is that any realistic proposals will be rejected by Deadeye and/or Junior, while anything that they will accept will be irrelevant and/or impossible to get even the tame establishment Democrat window dressing to sign off on. The fallback position is, if catastrophic failure can't be averted (and it can't), to draw in enough establishment Dem support so that blame can be spread. Joe Lieberman is doing his usual yoeman service in helping this to happen, as is the Gang of 500 as they wait breathlessly for Baker to descend from the mount with his engraved tablets. Anyone gainsaying the wisdom contained therein will be Cast Out and Deemed Unserious. Whether this last desperate gambit will actually work is hard to say. The midterm results suggests the groundlings aren't buying it. Like I said, the guy's only human, and Junior's specialty is creating messes so large even Jim Baker can't paper them over. He only just barely got it done in 2000, and there he had Scalia on his side to be Justice Ex Machina. Posted by: jimBOB on November 27, 2006 at 1:40 AM | PERMALINKEvents in Iraq may overtake "Sensible Analysis" by the Baker/Hamilton commission. The "wise men" often forget that what is going on is not primarily about us (the U.S.), and it is something we can at best influence rather than control. Posted by: nehoa on November 27, 2006 at 1:42 AM | PERMALINKSo Al, I guess you think that when we sat quietly by and allowed Israel to blow up the entire country of Lebanon that we were "helping" our good Lebanese buddies? It's a little early to say who's behnind this latest assasination, or why. I'd guess Hezbollah wants to parlay their victory into political power, but there are some tin-foil hat theorists claiming that the Israelis did it to keep Syria unpopular and generally promote instability. Posted by: RepubAnon on November 27, 2006 at 1:47 AM | PERMALINKDick Cheney is the single worst American to have lived in the last 100 years, and possibly ever. Al, as Craigie so succinctly put it, your hero is someone the U.S. should not be listening to! The topic is Iraq. Not Lebanon. Posted by: bigcat on November 27, 2006 at 1:48 AM | PERMALINKSadly, the Kabuki dance is a dance of death for thousands of innocent human lives. We have failed. It must end. Those, like Baker, who delay the inevitable for crass political purposes are simply evil. Those, like Bush and Cheney, who hide from reality in a state of pathological denial to protect themselves from the psychic pain of failure and humiliation are only loathsome are pitiable. We have been blessed in our history by leaders who have risen to the challenge of difficult times. This time we have been cursed by small people with weak minds and shriveled souls. aa Posted by: aaron aardvarka on November 27, 2006 at 1:52 AM | PERMALINKaaron aardvarka, I have to strongly disagree with you. Those, like Bush and Cheney, who hide from reality in a state of pathological denial to protect themselves from the psychic pain of failure and humiliation are only loathsome are pitiable. There is no pity here for the two SOBs. They are to be scorned. If they don't have a final report within a week, anything they say will already be moot. Plus Cheney spends the weekend drunk, with women not his wife, and shoots people. This, he calls "sport." Definitely the worst American ever. Posted by: craigie on November 27, 2006 at 2:20 AM | PERMALINKWhat exactly is talking to Syria and Iran supposed to accomplish? Is the idea that these two countries are somehow calling the shots right now and maintaining the conflict? Talking to people is always a good thing, but I have an idea that the administration (and perhaps the Baker/Hamilton commision) doesn't have a clue what motivates the insurgency. I suspect if Iran and Syria got too involved on the part of the US they would just end up seeing their interests explode also. Posted by: B on November 27, 2006 at 2:33 AM | PERMALINKYah--we've got the hot potato and we're looking for someone out there to take it from us. (The "Greater Fool" theory of international politics.) Fat chance, guys. Maybe we can hand the task off to North Korea. I can't think of anyone else crazy enough. Posted by: grumpy realist on November 27, 2006 at 2:47 AM | PERMALINKbigcat: Scorned works for me, too. But I think there's nothing worse than to be pitied - assuming that object of pity has the self awareness to realize it. aa Posted by: aaron aardvarka on November 27, 2006 at 2:49 AM | PERMALINKEven Jim Baker is too pessimistic for Al, who thinks every is going so wonderfully well over there, he's taking his next vacation in Baghdad. See ya! Posted by: Kenji on November 27, 2006 at 2:50 AM | PERMALINKjimBOB >"...Whether this last desperate gambit will actually work is hard to say. The midterm results suggests the groundlings aren't buying it..." Depends on what you think "...this last desperate gambit..." is actually about & what the goal is. I happen to think (and favorable evidence abounds on the record) it is about crafting a "we was stabbed in the back" story line so that in the near future it can be bandied about in the next several electoral cycles to continue the fight against the "Democraps" & their "fellow travelers" This IS a war of cultures (for instance R. M. Nixon layed it all out in "The Real War") and it will be fought to the death of at least one of them. History is indeed little more than the register of the crimes, follies and misfortunes of mankind. - Edward Gibbon Posted by: daCascadian on November 27, 2006 at 2:51 AM | PERMALINKWhich of these comments was made by a rational, insightful world leader? Well be greeted as liberators. Well bring democracy and lasting peace to Iraq. If they depose me, seven Americas wont be able to put the lid back on this country. The path is clear. Impeach the delusional two and bring the wiser one over here to fix things. I can hardly wait for the recommendations of the Hussein Commission. Posted by: James of DC on November 27, 2006 at 3:19 AM | PERMALINKdaCascadian The gambit is to spread around blame - "Stab in the back" is just a more colorful name for the same thing. Unquestionably the Al's of the world will buy it, as they'll buy anything that comes down the chain from Wurlitzer High Command. But will the great unwashed mass of swing voters buy it? Will they be willing to blame Dems enough over the next few election cycles to keep McCain (or whatever other sociopath they nominate in 08) viable? That's the question. I'm guessing probably not, though that may be wishful thinking. Posted by: jimBOB on November 27, 2006 at 3:25 AM | PERMALINKI think we have put too much pressure on the Iraqi government to form a 'natonal unity' government. All this Iraqi 'national unity' government has amounted to thus far is an obstructionist situation where nothing seems to get done. We need to allow the Iraqi government to take strong measures against the Sunni insurgency without imposing insurgent allied Sunni politicians on them to appease. IMHO, we should negotiate with Iran and Syria to secure some sort of compromise with Iraq, even if that may entail some minor concessions. We should also promote some sort form of Iraqi federalism, as that would go some ways in lessening the violence, and thus providing us with an opportunity to begin withdrawing. Just my two cents... Posted by: yessir on November 27, 2006 at 3:42 AM | PERMALINKyessir wrote: "IMHO, we should negotiate with Iran and Syria to secure some sort of compromise with Iraq, even if that may entail some minor concessions." This idea of negotiations with outside powers should be discussed a bit. Anyone who has participated in international talks will say that such things are difficult even with friends. What format should these talks take? Should they be bilateral or multilateral? Will the Iraqi government agree to such talks? Do we save a seat for the insurgents? (If so, which insurgents?) Having gotten some sort of talks scheduled, what should be the agenda? Who should chair the talks? Should it be limited to Iraq alone or should it include wider regional concerns? What are we willing to bring to the table to sweeten any deal(s)? What kind of deals are possible? Posted by: Trashhauler on November 27, 2006 at 4:49 AM | PERMALINKAnd for good reason Cheney is opposing it. Syria and Syria's ally Iran just murdered the democratically elected Lebanese Christian leader Pierre Gemayel. Are you sure about that, Al? Israel, with a great assist and backing of the U.S., destroyed Lebanon's infrastructure. The bombing of Lebanon back to the stone age is the doing of Bush, Cheney, Ohlmert, and let's not leave out Netanyahu. I don't believe a Goddamned thing that comes out of this administration. "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me -- you can't be fooled again." Posted by: Gene on November 27, 2006 at 5:19 AM | PERMALINKFrom the Belmont Club blog, a discussion of what should be considered in Iraq-related talks: http://fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/2006/11/to-be-scorned-and-shunned.html "Again we hear that it is not in any of the neighboring country's interests to destabilize Iraq. And on this premise we base the hopes of the conference. But that is not enough. It is almost as important to declare the process of "staying the course" dead. And here perhaps is the reason why the Iraqi government is given such short shrift. It is entirely the product of "staying the course", the end result of countinsurgence, elections, constitutional ratifications and parliamentary governance of the last three years. To include the Iraqi government in a conference would be to legitimize it, and by extension the Bush policy of the last 3 years. And that must on no account be done. In particular it would be awkward if talks with Iran and Syria were constrained by the provisions of the Iraqi constitution. What would be the point of convening an international meeting to decide the affairs of a nominally sovereign government unless it were possible to decide it? Berman puts a similar thought very eloquently. The regional version of realism which places the emphasis on an arrangement with neighboring states tends to minimize the significance of domestic Iraqi concerns: which is exactly why it involves dismissing "democracy." Instead of pursuing the establishment of domestic Iraqi institutions, this strategy implies ceding influence to Tehran and Damascus, in order to "solve" Baghdad. (As if the Yugoslav wars could have been solved by "talking" in Budapest and Athens.)" Posted by: Trashhauler on November 27, 2006 at 5:22 AM | PERMALINKgene wrote: "Israel, with a great assist and backing of the U.S., destroyed Lebanon's infrastructure. The bombing of Lebanon back to the stone age is the doing of Bush, Cheney, Ohlmert, and let's not leave out Netanyahu." Interestingly, the Lebanese infrastructure has somehow recovered rather quickly from being "bombed back to the Stone Age." From most accounts, they have apparently advanced back to using the wheel and even use electricity instead of burning torches for lighting. Darn those BDA analysts. Can't they get anything right? (If you think I'm heaping scorn on the use of the stupid phrase "bombed back to the Stone Age," you are correct.) Posted by: Trashhauler on November 27, 2006 at 5:38 AM | PERMALINKYeah! Don't you know only Republicans are allowed to use overblown hyperbole in discussing war and foriegn policy? Posted by: RobW on November 27, 2006 at 5:50 AM | PERMALINKIt's overuse of the same overblown hyperbole that is the problem, RobW. Anything used so often as "bombed back to the Stone Age" tends to confuse, rather than inform. It is used so often that no one can determine what it means - it often clearly means any bombing to which the person using it objects. Posted by: Trashhauler on November 27, 2006 at 6:11 AM | PERMALINKTrashhauler, You're right. Lebanon's infrastructure is recovering "rather quickly," as you mention -- thanks to Hezbollah. The problem with this Administration's foreign policy is that they consistently use the wrong tools for the job. Use guns, planes, bombs and tanks for killing people. Use foreign aid, teachers, economists, engineers, police, urban planners, etc. to re-build infrastructure. Soldiers' primary mission is to kill and destroy things, not rebuild. Rebuilding is called foreign aid. Foreign aid means (let me spell it out for you) S-T-A-T-E D-E-P-A-R-T-M-E-N-T, or U-S A-I-D, or (dare we utter the words?) U-N-I-T-E-D N-A-T-I-O-N-S. You will relieve an enormous amount of stress on the troops and the rest of us if you stop assigning godlike powers to our very brave young men and women simply because they wear uniforms and carry guns. You can't rebuild societies hunkered down behind barbed wire and jersey barriers. Rebuilding requires T-R-U-S-T, which America will not have in Iraq or the Middle East for a very, very long time thanks to President Bush. Posted by: pj in jesusland on November 27, 2006 at 6:46 AM | PERMALINKpj wrote: You're right. Lebanon's infrastructure is recovering "rather quickly," as you mention -- thanks to Hezbollah. The problem with this Administration's foreign policy is that they consistently use the wrong tools for the job. Use guns, planes, bombs and tanks for killing people. Use foreign aid, teachers, economists, engineers, police, urban planners, etc. to re-build infrastructure. Well, pj, I wasn't commenting on Hezbollah or even Lebanon specifically. My point was that use of the term "bombed back to the Stone Age" is misleading. It's a propaganda term and not meant to be an accurate description. But, since you mention it, I wasn't aware that Hezbollah was in charge of the several Lebanese government departments tasked to repair the infrastructure. For that matter (speaking about assigning godlike powers), Hezbollah's rolls are rather heavily filled by soldiers - you know, people who "kill and destroy things." But perhaps expecting logical consistency within a single post is a bit too much. Additionally, I shouldn't have to point out that foreign aid is not defined by who delivers it. A contract to rebuild a road or a power station or a medical clinic is no less welcome if it comes from the State Department or the Defense Department - or, dare I say it, NGOs. Certainly the recipients don't care. Finally, if you think my numerous comments about the military are too overly complimentary, perhaps it's because I attempt to describe real people, rather than the caricatures you are used to considering. Just think of it as my personal effort to remain "reality-based."
Al: "Democracy Project in the Middle East." Is that like Bush's Mission to Mars, which is well on its way to "Mission Accomplished"? The vast majority of the criticism of the military on this site has been directed at the leadership, not the individuals. The only exception is Abu Grahb - However, even there many said that the lower ranks and grades were scapegoats for policies directed from DoD. Perhaps, a couple of zealots have mis-directed their venom towards individuals in the ranks. They are, indeed, incorrect. However, it is the leadership, or lack thereof, that most attack - In VietNam, we were led by, supposedly, The Best and The Brightest, and to what end? The attack on the Taliban began exceptionally well. However, the leadership, since that time, has turned into The Worst and The Dumbest and to what end? Perhaps, what we now need is The Most Competent and the Wisest. Posted by: thethirdPaul on November 27, 2006 at 9:01 AM | PERMALINKKing Abdullah II was on ABCs This Week and told how the Iraq War was causing complete instability through out the Mideast, to which George Will thus announced taht King Abdullah was a liar, and it was really just too that bad Sam Donaldson wasnt there to smack old Will cross-eyed. Its just gotten so old that Repug pundits declares any topic they don't like as stupid or whatever. Its oh so clear, that the real stupid people, the only liars were the GOP members and their stupid pundits. Anyways, there is this one interesting paragraph from Jim Henley's link: Mr. Bushs nominee for secretary of defense, Robert M. Gates, resigned from the commission after his nomination this month, and was replaced by Lawrence S. Eagleburger, another Republican who once was secretary of state. Mr. Gates has said little about his thoughts on military strategy, other than to express amazement when he visited Iraq with the study group over Labor Day that the administration had let the situation spin so far out of control. Lawrence S. Eagleburger is one of daddy Bushs old team members, and this MUST mean for sure that Poppy is in full predispose mode of operation mop-up after junior. Look out Dick Cheney, cause everyone knows the VP is the mind control behind junior, Poppy Bush's impressionable, brainless offspring.
Officials said that the draft of the section on diplomatic strategy, which was heavily influenced by Mr. Baker, seemed to reflect his public criticism of the administration for its unwillingness to talk with nations like Iran and Syria. But senior administration officials, including Stephen J. Hadley, the presidents national security adviser, have expressed skepticism that either of those nations would go along, especially while Iran is locked in a confrontation with the United States over its nuclear program. Talking isnt a strategy, he said in an interview in October. Certainly, we cant argue that talk, or diplomacy was EVER a strategy in Bushie's administration because Bush always reserved his juvenile right to NOT to talk to anyone if he didn't feel like it. Clearly I would say that Baker has already gone over Cheney/Bushs head, talking to Iran and Syria. It's not a pretty sight. So it looks like Bush is all out of options, Bush can either let dear old Daddy run the show OR he can listen to Senator Carl Levin. If Dick Cheney doesn't like it, those old conservatives will find a way to deal Dick a bad hand. I wonder how Dick's old pacemaker is holding out, now that nasty old coot finally has his back up against a wall. If Dick is smart, he fold his hand and consider retirement. Posted by: Cheryl on November 27, 2006 at 9:01 AM | PERMALINKThere is going to be hard, hard work involved in trying to resolve the chaos this administration has created. As a famous ad once said "There will be very hard work required; no MBA applicants need apply nor will be accepted." Posted by: stupid git on November 27, 2006 at 9:08 AM | PERMALINKFWIW, I think the Baker Commission is likely to state that "The United States will not be defeated in Iraq", rather than to talk about "victory". That will move the goalposts considerably. Remember, what Nixon and Kissinger finally settled for in Vietnam was "a decent interval" between when we left, and South Vietnam fell. (Remember, too, the last fiasco Rumsfeld got us into, in Lebanon in 1983: our Marines were "redeployed" to ships in the Mediterranean, while we liberated Grenada.) It's cynical and therefore wrong to imagine this is all about stab in the back politics afterwards, and it is ALSO a simple fact that when the North finally crushed the South, it wasn't the guerrilla insurgency stuff: it was a heavy armor invasion against an army we had trained and supplied and stood by for a generation, and whom we abandoned on the field, literally fighting to the last bullet. That's not an experience to repeat, is it? Progressives shouldn't be so quick to embrace it. So the Baker approach looks pretty clear, no? You heard it here first: Baker and Hamilton will recommend (and be followed) so"most" U.S. forces will be out of Iraq before a new President is inaugurated in January 2009. It will be done in phases, in massive force for each small operation. The key events will naturally be scheduled to be identified (e.g., through more elections and coalition-forming) before our 2008 elections, but implemented after: that way, the President gets to maintain control over his policies AND gives him one last crack at handing the mess in its true, boiling form over to his successor. If some fig leaf of an Iraqi central government cannot keep a lid on it, however flimsy, we will back the Kurds (who won't trust us), and arm the Shi'a (who won't keep their promise to keep Iran at arm's length) and promise to protect the Sunni (which no one will believe). The structural result will be an Iraq divided amongst bloodied factions, without that much to fight over since it will have all been divided: the Kurds will be equipped to fight, the Shi'a will have pretty much all they want, and the Sunni will be screwed. Most important (to us), we will be gone. Only the Sunni will have much of an incentive to keep us around, and we won't care much about that: thus we will leave. What else can we do? Posted by: theAmericanist on November 27, 2006 at 9:11 AM | PERMALINK"Most important (to us), we will be gone." I think I've heard this sentiment expressed before some thirty years ago, though perhaps with more justification. It didn't mean an end to struggle then and it won't now. Pray this time it doesn't make our future struggles more difficult. Doesn't any one have any comments about proposed talks with Iran and Syria? My earlier posts proposed them for discussion, but I got diverted by some minor stuff. Posted by: Trashhauler on November 27, 2006 at 9:28 AM | PERMALINKHow can bush / cheney / rove be expected to solve the problem of Iraq? Their MO is to use threats and force to gain agreement. When have they ever "negotiated" with anyone? They have lied and used every dirty political trick possible to get their way. Don't expect these cowards to change their tactics now. The "Iraq Study Group" is a ploy to delay dealing with this issue. Remember, this prez has already said that his successor will have to deal with the issue of getting the US out of Iraq. Bush / Cheney / Rove promised to deliver Iraq for big business and they have done so. That is the problem with pulling out now. They have to have another war to keep profits up. Posted by: SouthWest Bob on November 27, 2006 at 9:49 AM | PERMALINKPray this time it doesn't make our future struggles more difficult. Many of us were already praying this when the U.S. invaded Iraq without justification or even a basic understanding of its society and how it would necessarily devolve into chaos and infighting. In foreign policy matters, what tends to work better than praying for the right thing to happen is voting for the people with the right principles, judgment and character. Posted by: Windhorse on November 27, 2006 at 10:00 AM | PERMALINKSomeone name of trashhauler>
How does an administration with no credibility, a Secretary of State who is incompetent and lost, and a John Bolton at the UN hold talks with any adversary? It is good that they are planning to talk, but this administration says "we want to negotiate" and then walks in and throws an ultimatum on the table and walks out. If your idea of a diplomat is John Bolton, talking is about as useful as picking your nose at this point. Posted by: Captain Sensible on November 27, 2006 at 10:11 AM | PERMALINKbigcat: Scorned works for me, too. But I think there's nothing worse than to be pitied - assuming that object of pity has the self awareness to realize it. aa Sorry, Aaron. Went to sleep shortly after my post (something about Monday morning kept smacking me between the eyes). I will say that my impression is the two chief instigators fail your requirement of self awareness. Posted by: bigcat on November 27, 2006 at 10:15 AM | PERMALINKThree more US troops killed yesterday. And what is the mission again? Is it Al Davis's "Just Win, Baby"? Is it to install the Shiites and Kurds in power? Is it to eliminate the Sunnis? Or, is it to be able to control the spigots of oil in the Middle East as the voracious appetite of the Chinese brings us closer to Oil Wars? We really need to have your mission engraved on the many headstones of our troops. Posted by: thethirdPaul on November 27, 2006 at 10:17 AM | PERMALINKThe Americanist throws up an end-of-Vietnam-War analogy without even trying to make it fit the current situation in Iraq. ???? And his slow leak of a withdrawal plan will have the same result as an ASAP plan. That is, the Iraqis will have to wake up, get their poop together, put down the guns, learn to trust and start rebuilding. Why wait? Trash, I think it might be a little late to worry about how all this might affect the US's future struggles. And talks? Talks are good. But later. And they should be UN- rather than US-directed. The US, due to towering incompetency and general bad faith, has rendered itself an illegitimate actor and just needs to be gone. Is this all too starry-eyed? Posted by: exasperanto on November 27, 2006 at 10:17 AM | PERMALINKGen Curtis LeMay once said that he had been misquoted about bombing them back to the stone age - He said that his statement had been to "shove them back by Air Force and Naval Air power and not by ground forces to the stone age" Such a deeply compassionate man - Must shed one tear for the guy who led the fire bombing of Tokyo. He and Bomber Harris and Mike Cook were and are such sweethearts - "Nuke 'em all, nuke 'em all, nuke the long, the short and the tall" - Then "Let God and Allah sort them out." Posted by: thethirdPaul on November 27, 2006 at 10:33 AM | PERMALINKTrashhauler, Your casual intermingling of foreign and military aid is precisely the mind set that has corrupted the conduct of US foreign policy over the last six years. It is you, not me, who deals in military caricatures. I know, do business with, worship with and am related to current and retired members of the military. They are a lot clearer about their mission as soldiers than you are. Rumsfeld's quick strike, lean-and-mean military is designed for exactly what it was initially asked to do by President Bush, namely topple a government by quickly killing thousands of Iraqis and destroying their government and economic infrastructure. Any military construction of roads, bridges, clinics, etc. is designed to support the warfighter, not create sustainable national institutions. I'm surprised you don't know this. We all know soldiers are human beings, but you do them the worst disservice by asking them to perform second and third tours of duty to re-build what you asked them to destroy three years ago -- a huge, now impossible undertaking our brave men and women are not even trained to do. If humanizing the troops was really your goal you would drop your blinders, admit America's Iraq policy is a failure and bring them home to re-build their families, jobs and lives. But what you really seem to be doing is using this whole dispute to buy time for a disgraced President to save face and pretend to bring the troops home on "his terms," whatever the hell "his terms" are this week. Government commissions, whether about intelligence, detainee mistreatment or our options in Iraq, are all just meant to shift the focus away from the inept leaders who approved these foolish policies in the first place. And by the way, broaden your reading about foreign affairs. Hezbollah is one of two political parties representing the Shiites in Lebanon. Hezbollah has a political and militant wing. The political wing has seats in the Lebanese government, a TV and radio station as well as a program for social development. Apparently all *you* read about in the Washington Times and the New York Post is the activities of Hezbollah's military wing. Wake up! America is losing hearts and minds in the Middle East, just like we lost them in Vietnam. Posted by: pj in jesusland on November 27, 2006 at 10:49 AM | PERMALINK"2nd and 3rd deployments" How about 4th and 5th - This is becoming more and more a "Catch Twenty Two" event - Number of missions extended in order to go home. Troops being sent back into situation with non-combat experienced leadership. Perhaps Gates will firmly set the number of re-deployments at something "reasonable", such as TEN. Posted by: stupid git on November 27, 2006 at 11:04 AM | PERMALINKThen "Let God and Allah sort them out.">/i> Same Guy. Posted by: Wonderin on November 27, 2006 at 11:05 AM | PERMALINKDoesn't Baker look like a pro-active guy rather than Bush's non-active policy. So I don't see this as more of same, stay the course. The GOP needs something in their corner for the 2008 election, so Bushie just can't sit there with his thumb in his mouth. Hillary could seriously win if Republicans continue to look like the party of "stay the course" especially if Dems keep finding shocking evidence of GOP misdeeds. And Since sending Rove out to trash liberals/Dems is no longer a variably political strategy, and like I said, Rove was a one trick pony, and his ugly partisan attack was the only political card Rove ever had up his sleeve, WTF are Repugs going to do? This whole thing is based on Cheney's policy of don't do anything, don't say anything, don't make changes. Dick Cheney is the bad apple that is causing the rest of the barrel to putrefy, thus get rid of Dick and little Bushie, good little presidentail face that he is, will do whatever Baker recommends. I love this. Liberals are saying before the report is out that they won't agree with it. That's the open minded liberals we are all used to. How could 20,000 more "Charlie Rangel dumber than rocks" soldiers do any good when they are uneducated and stupid? Those dumb grunts can't solve anything - and if they are all such terribly torturous people why do so many care how many of them are being killed? Get real, the Baker report is a CYA for everyone. It is the Kaubuki dance for every politician in Washington. Now that the Democrats are in charge of the congress the blame shall fall on them. Posted by: Orwell on November 27, 2006 at 11:14 AM | PERMALINKOff thread, but ABC News said the Pope would be sorely tested on the handling of a tough crowd in Turkey. Reports are that the Vatican flew in Michael Richards for some needed pointers. Posted by: thethirdPaul on November 27, 2006 at 11:19 AM | PERMALINKThat's the open minded liberals we are all used to. Let's hear your open-minded, unvarnished opinions on what to do about the situation in Iraq, Orwell. Or would you rather wait for the Baker report to be published? I'm sure that it will be filled with lots of wonderful talking points. Posted by: Wonderin on November 27, 2006 at 11:21 AM | PERMALINKSomeone name of Orwell>
No, but thank you for trying to affix blame to the parties that are not responsible for the decisions made since the start of the war. The Bake Commission is a CYA for the son of the man that Baker owes his existence to; Bush the elder is the man behind the scenes trying to fix all of this mess and this is the Kabuki dance you should be paying attention to. Just so you understand--the Democratically controlled Congress isn't even sworn in yet. And you're now trying to blame them for the war in Iraq? Have you ever, in your life, been intellectually honest about anything ever? Posted by: Captain Sensible on November 27, 2006 at 11:24 AM | PERMALINKOrwell, You have mis-characterized "liberal" pre-reaction to the Baker Commission report, deliberately no doubt. It is actually Republicans who are already pre-eliminating options the report will discuss, like immediate, phased withdrawal. Just more straw dog crap from the Party With No Good Ideas, designed to foment mindless debate in order to buy time for President Bush's damage controllers. What's sad is that troops will continue to be killed all the while this discussion goes on. If the President were man enough to admit error many lives could be saved. Posted by: pj in jesusland on November 27, 2006 at 11:32 AM | PERMALINKSyria and Iran have a unified interest against us. If we remove ourselves from the region, they will have rival interests in Iraq, as they do in Lebanon. That's a recipe for either stability or conflict at a far lower level. Our presence can't provide either of those things. Posted by: cld on November 27, 2006 at 11:37 AM | PERMALINKI have been noodling the idea that Dick Cheney is the single worst American to have lived in the last 100 years, and possibly ever But what about rdw? Posted by: ckelly on November 27, 2006 at 11:46 AM | PERMALINKIt actually takes longer to safely withdraw a significant number of troops than folks seem to think -- getting all of ours out by January 2009 isn't exactly slow. (As I said before this started, wars really ARE easier to start than to finish.) "America is losing hearts and minds in the Middle East, just like we lost them in Vietnam...." This is the epitome of the misplaced Vietnam analog. It's why I noted that the South Vietnamese government did NOT collapse because it had lost the support of the people living in South Vietnam. (Maybe they had, but that's not how the government collapsed.) The South fell when the ARVN was over-run by a heavy armor assault from the North, in which the ARVN fought literally to the last bullet. It'd help if folks bothered to learn (if only to leaven your self-righteousness), that the better place to apply the real analogy with the facts of how Vietnam fell -- is on Baker and the first Bush, who urged Iraqis to do what we wouldn't, knock off Saddam in the first Gulf War, and then we bailed on 'em, just like we bailed on South Vietnam (not to mention the Kurds). The point isn't an accurate but inapt analogy to Vietnam that the Kurds or Shi'a factions are likely to roll tanks into Bagdad or Tikrit, the point is that we need a militarily achieveable objective (and the forces to achieve it), that suits our political goals. THAT is what the Baker Commission is looking for -- in part, anyway. So, you heard it here first: "America will not be defeated in Iraq." Then we pull our guys back, give the Iraqi factions the date we're gone (Inauguration Day), and make sure the ones who lose the most work with us BEFORE we leave -- cuz in the end, we WILL just leave. Puhleeze, folks, stop gloating over the good people who will die because we're not there to protect 'em -- because (again!) we encouraged 'em to believe in a better life, then bailed. It really doesn't matter as much as ya think (outside of US politics) that Bush was wrong to get us into the war. And it surely does matter more than all of you seem to think that folks around the world are learning once more that the United States cannot be relied upon. Posted by: theAmericanist on November 27, 2006 at 11:49 AM | PERMALINKThe fate of American troops lies not with a commission, but with a man who cannot, nor will not, allow his legacy be represented by a failed occupation Bush will keep the troops in Iraq to the end of his administration. Then the next guy can be blamed for the "cut and run." Posted by: tomeck on November 27, 2006 at 11:53 AM | PERMALINKAnd it surely does matter more than all of you seem to think that folks around the world are learning once more that the United States cannot be relied upon. I think that lesson was clear on March 19, 2003. Posted by: Wonderin on November 27, 2006 at 11:57 AM | PERMALINKIt's why I noted that the South Vietnamese government did NOT collapse because it had lost the support of the people living in South Vietnam. (Maybe they had, but that's not how the government collapsed.) The South fell when the ARVN was over-run by a heavy armor assault from the North, in which the ARVN fought literally to the last bullet. The South Vietnamese government never did have the support of people living in the South. And your image of the ARVN fighting to the last bullet is just wrong. They collapsed. They ran. They had no reason to fight for a corrupt government they didn't believe in. And yes, many died after the end, as in most revolutions and civil wars (our own being quite an exception). Posted by: tomeck on November 27, 2006 at 12:04 PM | PERMALINKCheney: yup, same Guy. The Hebrew word for God is Elohim. This is a plural of Eloh, either for extra respect or because of a polytheist background. Eloh is the same word etymologically as Ilah in Arabic. Al-Ilah or "the God" was elided to Allah. (Not my analysis, btw, but from an email sent to me by an Arabic-speaking scholar.) Posted by: Wonderin on November 27, 2006 at 12:06 PM | PERMALINKYou are exactly correct (assuming the next giy or girl "cuts and runs" -- this one will not -- that's my final answer. Delusional foreign policy is not good for any country, least of all ours. Staying the course for 2 more years simply to avoid having to admit you were wrong amounts to murder of our soldiers. You are as much to blame as the insurgents. Posted by: tomeck on November 27, 2006 at 12:10 PM | PERMALINKHold the phone you liberals, the Republicans lost the election. Democrats said they have a better way to end the war in Iraq. It is now your responsibility to actually come up with a plan to do so, not ask the Republicans what to do. This is the liberal way: Be good at blaming and nonexistant when it comes to actually solving problems. "Oh no we can't do anything until January..." "Oh we can't do anything until a new president is elected.." Excuses, excuses. Do you really think the Democratic congress and senate won't use the Baker report to cover themselves for the next election? Get a grip. Posted by: Orwell on November 27, 2006 at 12:13 PM | PERMALINKAmericanist, Your post above is obtuse and out of touch. Applying the "losing their hearts and minds" Vietnam-era lesson to Iraq is entirely apt. Here's why: In Vietnam we supported a government which the Vietnamese people, insurgents and neighbors viewed as illegitimate. Most Iraqi citizens, like the Vietnamese people, admit that America harms their country by staying. How long do you think the American-backed Talabani will last if America pulled out? Talabani himself is now negotiating directly with the anti-American Iranians. The lesson you want foreign governments to come away with in order to discredit Democrats -- that America can't be relied upon -- may be the lesson some foreign conservatives and right-wingers learn. An even bigger lesson, though, will be the limits of American military power to influence foreign domestic disputes and spread democracy. Just like in Vietnam. Posted by: pj in jesusland on November 27, 2006 at 12:16 PM | PERMALINKin which the ARVN fought literally to the last bullet. When you use the word "literally" here, you imply that the ARVN was beaten only after it ran out of ammunition. I never heard that version of events. If you mean that some ARVN personnel fought until they were out of ammunition, that is undoubtedly true. But all of them? I doubt it. Posted by: Wapiti on November 27, 2006 at 12:17 PM | PERMALINKThat was only because most Tories fled the new nation back to England. What, they all got tickets on the Concorde right after Yorkton? The Tories, though not numerous, did not have immediate access to transportation to England since shipping was rather limited. Some went to Canada, but that was still a long trek. Yes there were some reprisals against the Tories just as there were some reprisals against Confederates in 1865. But it was nowhere in the same league as what happened after the French Revolution only a few years later or in most other revolutions. Learn some history, man. It'll do you some good. Posted by: tomeck on November 27, 2006 at 12:19 PM | PERMALINKI find it interesting that the Iraquis we are fighting (Baathist Sunnis) are the same group that we fear will be overwhelmed by the majority Shi'a. We're killing them so others won't, I guess. The Baker Commission is a crock. It is long past time to give the Iraquis what they want: the US out of there. Posted by: Nat on November 27, 2006 at 12:19 PM | PERMALINKpj in jesusland: It is you, not me, who deals in military caricatures. I know, do business with, worship with and am related to current and retired members of the military. Just curious to know which branch of service you deal with. I think Trashhauler is USAF - and from my experience I think that there is a big disconnect between USAF and US Army thinking. Posted by: Wapiti on November 27, 2006 at 12:24 PM | PERMALINKHe "stayed the course" too. That's what we are going to do. a) no it's not b) if it were, it would be criminally stupid like you, because that's the only way to describe continuing to sacrifice American soldiers so Bush can save face. c) Really? What battalion are you with, Charlie? Posted by: GO ARMY on November 27, 2006 at 12:32 PM | PERMALINKcheney: It was the United Nations that was proven unreliable on March 19, 2003 -- the U.S. has to clean up every mess around the world. so why does the n.i.e. say that terror is worse after the u-s went into iraq? gop: sure, we had the house..the senate...and the white house....but remember...its always someone else's fault too funny... Posted by: mr. irony on November 27, 2006 at 12:33 PM | PERMALINK
"According to the latest polls, under 40% of Americans approve of the job Bush is doing. The White House now says Bush is now the president who represents minorities." Posted by: jay leno on November 27, 2006 at 12:45 PM | PERMALINKThe Iraqis aren't going to wait for the ISG to make recommendations. Events on the ground are already outpacing any recommendations they might make. This administration had already been rendered peripheral by much of the world before Democrats won the midterms. The election accelerated the process here in the States and Iraq, as well. The Iraqis met with the Iranians formally last week. Watch for the Syrians and Turkye to initiate diplomatic overtures before long. The game is out of the hands of the Bush administration. The ISG is all about rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic. Posted by: ExBrit on November 27, 2006 at 12:53 PM | PERMALINKcheney: It's called "war" for a reason, man.
How did we miss this one: LA Times: Jonathan Chait: Bring back Saddam Hussein November 26, 2006
So allow me to propose the unthinkable: Maybe, just maybe, our best option is to restore Saddam Hussein to power. Hey Chait, is this before are after Saddam is hung for crimes against humanity? The TNR staff is simply hilarious. AND really, the only reason tricky Dicky took out Saddam in the first place was because Saddam had oil contracts with France, Russia, Germany and China BUT NONE with Western oil contactors. So it wasn't that Saddam was a brutal tyrant, but that he sat on the World's second largest oil resourses and he was stingy with oil contracts, and of course Cheney though Iraq would be easy pickings. If anything good comes of the Iraq war, it'll be that the Mideast finally figure out that Western oil contractors are most brutal of all tyrants. Posted by: Cheryl on November 27, 2006 at 1:10 PM | PERMALINKWhat do you think Bush's bottom line in Iraq is? Do you think any outcome which stops Iraqis from fighting includes allowing U.S. bases to remain? Posted by: Rosemary on November 27, 2006 at 1:10 PM | PERMALINKcheney: But I will spell it out for you: Bush meant to say "I NEVER said ...". now that's... funny... Posted by: mr. irony on November 27, 2006 at 1:12 PM | PERMALINKrosemary: What do you think Bush's bottom line in Iraq is? probably...a small file cabinet at his presidential library.. Posted by: mr. irony on November 27, 2006 at 1:14 PM | PERMALINKMr. 21% Approval:""Staying the course" worked for Reagan." Damn straight! Reagan stayed the course in Lebanon after those terrorists bombed our Marine barracks. . . . oh, wait, nervermind. But Reagan stood firm against those Iranian thugs who wanted arms for hostages. . . . oh, shoot, not that either. I really want to get behind your words. Could you please use a better analogy next time? Posted by: Clap Louder on November 27, 2006 at 1:29 PM | PERMALINKrosemary: What do you think Bush's bottom line in Iraq is? probably...a small file cabinet at his presidential library.. ha ha. No, really. If Bush says that it's up to "the next President" to withdraw the troops from Iraq, there's nothing that the Iraqis could do or could have done to satisfy Bush, and get him to pull out of Iraq. What then has been Bush's goal for Iraq? If there's nothing that the Iraqis can do to get Americans out of Iraq, the Baker plan isn't about ending the war in Iraq. It's about coming up with a palatable way to sell staying in Iraq to the American people. It's just another public relations campaign aimed at Americans, to support a continued U.S. military presence in Iraq and throughout the region. Can you think of any way that Bush or Baker would agree to abandoning bases in Iraq? Posted by: Rosemary on November 27, 2006 at 1:33 PM | PERMALINK"Cheney" is the handle that Jeffery/Charlie is back to using. Fuck off and die, Chuckles... Posted by: Advisory on November 27, 2006 at 1:44 PM | PERMALINKSomeone name of Orwell>
Silly fool. The Baker Commission is the Bush Administration's cover for the Bush legacy, not the next election. Do you really think yourself smart enough to spin this around? Are you trying to tell us that a commission helmed by the elder Bush's personal hatchet man and the man who led the legal effort to put the younger Bush in the White House by suppressing the Florida vote is the man who is going to give the Democrats cover? When they did not hold power when he was sent to Iraq and when they currently do not hold power at all? If it weren't for your delusions, you might have something there. Sadly, you do not. Posted by: Captain Sensible on November 27, 2006 at 1:52 PM | PERMALINKGee, "staying the course" didn't work too well for the Germans at Stalingrad, did it? And I don't think "staying the course" would have helped the British at Dunkirk. Sometimes withdrawl is the WISE thing to do. Posted by: Gary on November 27, 2006 at 1:54 PM | PERMALINKIf we don't stay the course, the course will take us where it wants and then well be up to our weewees in jihadis and up to our assess in madrasses. Tomeck and PJ: it REALLY would help if you guys acquired facts before you formed opinions. And it hurts the cause far more than you seem able to grasp that, in your world view, EVERYTHING tends to support the anti-American position, whatever it happens to be. If we supported a government, like South Vietnam, it MUST have been an illegitimate government, recognized as such by all righteous people... Oy. There are literally NO serious students of the war in Vietnam who don't recognize the endgame of the war was exactly as I described it: the 1972 Peace Accords were intended to provide a 'decent interval' between the end of America's role, and teh collapse of the South -- but of course that's not what they SAID. Oddly enough, what America says still counts for something. In 1972, we formally committed ourselves in very detailed language to forcibly supporting the government in the South, EXPLICITLY including resupplying the ARVN, especially when (as everybody expected) the North broke the deal by forcing the issue all over the demarcation lines. We didn't keep our word. Didn't you notice? Believe it or not, Tomeck and PJ, those folks in the ARVN, in the South Vietnamese government, the small businessmen, the ethnic Chinese -- they were all PEOPLE. They had lived for decades with American support, and for a century or so in modestly Westernized, even Catholic culture. Some of them just might have been stupid enough to believe us when we told 'em we'd stand by 'em. Go hang out with the surviving boat people; ask around how the war ended. Go visit an ethnic Chinese Vietnamese-language Catholic congregation. The last American combat unit left at the end of March, 1973. That fall, after Nixon crippled himself, Congress cut off ALL military operations in Southeast Asia after April 15th, 1974. By the end of the summer of 1974 and through the middle of 1975, ARVN forces throughout the Central Highlands were being driven from strong defensive positions WHICH WERE GUARANTEED BY THE SOLEMN OBLIGATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES, while we simply refused to send ammunition, weapons, or provide logistical support, much less air power. You might read up on the battle of Xuan Loc, folks. One ARVN division held up NINE NVA divisions -- with new tanks, and limitless ammunition, while the Vietnamese 18th division couldn't get spare parts, fuel or even extra arounds. I guess those folks don't count, huh? Note -- unlike you two knuckleheads -- I'm not arguing this was a good or bad, optional or inevitable thing. I'm just noting what it WAS. We're looking at a superficially alike situaiton in Iraq, with more differences than similarities -- but a couple essential elements are exactly the same. I said it before we went in: I want bad guys to BELIEVE American Presidents when they say "Joe Bad Guy has got to go." Don't you? Bush said Hussein had to go after 9-11, so that was that. (The idjiots who voted for Nader have only themselves to blame.) I went on to note that wars are easier to start than to finish: true 'dat. This is what it means, that wars are hard to finish: I stand by my prediction what Baker, et al, will recommend. But I'm sorely tempted to suggest that folks like you two, who never knew the earlier history except to mock it, are gonna make this one much worse. Posted by: theAmericanist on November 27, 2006 at 2:09 PM | PERMALINKSomeone name of Americanist>
You might also want to note that action in Vietnam was defunded by an act of the Congress and that--along with a fundamental lack of political will on the part of the Ford Administration--kept the US from supporting the South Vietnamese. This article in Harper's is a better persepective, and the whole article is worth reading:
We see the ideological heirs to this thinking, with their modified terms and their sly use of perjoratives operating today. Posted by: Captain Sensible on November 27, 2006 at 2:20 PM | PERMALINKGeneral audience> Captain Sensible wonders why this is not front page news and a source of condemnation from all sides of the political aisle:
If this were the children of any prominent Democrat, this would be front page news everywhere, and the evening news would lead with it. If any US Embassy anywhere in the world cannot influence people to leave the country when there is a security threat, how serious is this government about fighting terrorism? Why not celebrate their 25th birthday by visiting the troops in Anbar Province? Why not celebrate their 25th birthday by visiting the troops in Anbar Province? Dear God, haven't our brave boys over there suffered enough? Posted by: Jenna and Not Jenna on November 27, 2006 at 2:46 PM | PERMALINKWhat an illiterate the Captain is, writing "You might also want to note that action in Vietnam was defunded by an act of the Congress .." immediately after I posted "after Nixon crippled himself, Congress cut off ALL military operations in Southeast Asia after April 15th, 1974." But what can ya say about a guy who quotes an article that uses a word like "dolchstosslegende"? Sheesh. It's fucking politics 101 to blame the other guy. But folks with brains get past that. Of COURSE domestic dissension hurts a nation at war; the fact that one side points out something obvious doesn't mean the other side should DENY it. That sorta 'thinking', which is ever more typical of our politics on both sides, gets us noplace. Which is why Captain, Tomeck, and PJ are where they are on this one. Again: I think Kevin is wrong. The Baker Commission will come up with unanimous recommendations, to say that "America will not be defeated in Iraq", to give a date certain when all of our forces will be out (Inauguration Day), and to stack the deck for decisions to be made (immediately before the '08 elections), and implemented (immediately after). Ya heard it here first. Posted by: theAmericanist on November 27, 2006 at 3:47 PM | PERMALINKThe Americanist: "I said it before we went in: I want bad guys to BELIEVE American Presidents when they say "Joe Bad Guy has got to go." Don't you? Bush said Hussein had to go after 9-11, so that was that. (The idjiots who voted for Nader have only themselves to blame.)" I also want to see that the rest of the world can trust the U.S. But to me, that means that we must be much more careful in the future to make realistic promises and to take realistic measures. It was NOT OUR PLACE to invade a country which was no threat to us, to depose a dictator, even given that Saddam was nasty and brutish. I do not believe that the U.S. has some sort of sacred obligation to continue to futile attempt to "win" in Iraq (whatever that might actually mean), just because of any "promises" Bush might have made. He is an overgrown adolescent who has failed in just about everything he has done, and his word is worth NOTHING. His word is not sacred just because he is president. For our sake and that of the world, we MUST pull back from what he has done, which is to get us into a situation where there are no good answers. Sometimes you have no choice but to cut your losses. As for the poster who styles himself "Cheney", I think he is being a deliberate parody. If he actually believes the crap he's posting, God help him. Finally, kudos to "Captain Sensible". I LOVE your slapdowns of idiotic and counterfactual posts. Keep 'em coming! Posted by: Wolfdaughter on November 27, 2006 at 3:50 PM | PERMALINKAmericanist, Vietnam and now Iraq show us how difficult it is to use war as a political tool to build fledgling democracies. How often do you need to re-learn this lesson? Posted by: pj in jesusland on November 27, 2006 at 4:11 PM | PERMALINKPoor Americanist>
You missed this qualifer, which I think clearly speaks to your own lack of understanding of what really happened in 1975, long after Nixon left office:
I cannot see where you found the means by which to think me illiterate when you, yourself, couldn't properly quote what I had written. I believe the lack of political will on the part of the Ford Administration was a significant reason that allowed the North Vietnamese to overrun the south. Had there been any political will, would the Congress have stopped the Ford Administration from deploying assets to the region? At the time, we had troops in South Korea, Japan, Okinawa and the Phillipines, as well as Navy ships posted in the region. Those were NOT de-funded and were there to perform two other salient missions: keep the Korean peninsula stable and to prevent the Chinese from threatening Taiwan.
That he's educated beyond your level, for one. Thank you, Wikipedia:
One would think that this term, and the historical context that goes with it, would be very apropo to describe the flip-flopping and the spin now being used by the Republican right in this country; sadly, you do not think so. It is exactly this "sabotage" which is being wrongly ascribed to the liberal left, who have done no sabotaging of the current policy whatsoever. What would be a good word? Beyond your term "sheesh?" theAmericanist: Of COURSE domestic dissension hurts a nation at war Would you be so kind as to give us a direct line of causation showing how street demonstrations at home got soldiers killed in Vietnam. Your statement works only as vicious propaganda; it cannot be justified as "fucking politics 101". As for the rest of your canard-chasing, circular logic defending the indefensible, I only have an occasional few minutes at a time to post. I will leave it to others to address the bulk of your nonsense. A little word of advice, though: Drop the superior tone, stop relying on your vaunted knowledge of history, and think a little more critically about the present situation as it actually exists and not through a cracked prism of political expediency. Posted by: exasperanto on November 27, 2006 at 4:44 PM | PERMALINKAs a rule, even for us uneducated folk, Cap'n, it is pedantry to the point of imbecility to use German words to hide what you don't understand in English. For one thing, you fucking idiot, "Dolchstolegend" did not refer to "the public" failing to support the war effort. It referred to JEWS, e.g., Rosa Luxembourg. Even for these threads, it is breathtakingly ignorant that you evidently didn't know that, which you might consider next time, BEFORE you advise us how much better educated you are. (Being as how a considerable chunk of the anti-war crowd borders on, or tips over into anti-Semitism when attacking neocons and PNAC, it is a mite tetchy -- a good word -- to jump up and down and DEMAND folks point out how ignorant you are, Cap'n.) For another, last I looked "lack of political will" was not an escape clause for our treaty obligations, f'r example, those barring torture under the Geneva Convention. Or are you arguing that because there was a "lack of political will" to meet our obligations in 1974-5, W is okay with waterboarding now? What good are treaties without public support, anyway? That's evidently Captain Sensible's view. The fact is, Cap'n, you're quite literally illiterate, as well as ignorant, in that you didn't understand the plain point of my posts and the thread as a whole: Kevin figures it will be difficult, if not impossible, for the Baker Commission to reach a consensus on much of anything, cuz there ain't any good options to get us out of Iraq. The latter may be true, but doesn't prove the former. In fact, it is BECAUSE there are no good options that we're about to get a damned solid consensus -- except, of course, for boneheads like the Cap'n. I've said three or four times now that there is a pretty solid consensus forming on what to do: 1) Announce that "America will not be defeated", which moves the goalposts from "victory" to "didn't lose"; 2) announce a date we're gone (I say Inauguration Day, 2009); 3) state specific events to achieve the first two, which will be staged before the '08 elections, and 4) ensure that those events aren't actually implemented until AFTER the elections. Besides that pretty specific prediction, all I've added to this is recounting the actual facts of how Vietnam fell -- which you first contradicted, then re-stated when correctly, only badly. We abandoned allies in South Vietnam that we had spent a decade growing. That's not an experience to repeat -- and, grimly, we're NOT repeating it in Iraq. But that's not because W hasn't been trying to find allies. It's because his Dad had lined up more than a few -- and abandoned THEM, 15 years ago. More than domestic US politics (see 1-4 above), THAT'S why the Baker Commission has a tough row to hoe: for lots of Iraqis, having Baker fix anything is the melancthon solution. Posted by: theAmericanist on November 27, 2006 at 5:25 PM | PERMALINKExaspertanto: Are you REALLY that stupid? For one thing, you're another illiterate. What I said (which you QUOTED, fercryinoutloud) was "Of COURSE domestic dissension hurts a nation at war.." This is not even remotely like saying "street demonstrations at home got soldiers killed in Vietnam." In person, I'd be inclined to kick your ass for claiming I said something so stupid: kindly apologize publicly, instead. Either you are that dumb that you missed the meaning -- or you deliberately changed what I said, cuz (evidently) you are that evil. Take yer pick, take responsibility: and apologize, publicly. Since the thread is political, Lord, did you think this would be DIFFICULT? It IS Politics 101: Perhaps you recall the vivid symbol of Jane Fonda, major Hollywood actress (sister to the star of Easy Rider, daughter of a Hollywood icon), posing with an anti-aircraft gun of the type that shot down several hundred American planes. Rather powerful rebuttal, that: the picture worth thousands of words. Wasn't she an anti-war protestor? Wasn't that a FUCKING ANTI AIRCRAFT GUN? But, hell, you don't even have to bring in new information: as I noted to Cap'n, Congress first legislated against any combat troops after March 1973, and then against ANY operations after April 1974. Which, as noted, the Cap'n regards as the magical "lack of political will" that abrogates all treaty obligations, not to mention moral responsibility. You might as well get a job as one of Bush's lawyers, Cap'n. Face it: YOU guys are the stab in the back argument incarnate. It's false -- and so are you. Posted by: theAmericanist on November 27, 2006 at 5:35 PM | PERMALINKrosemary: Can you think of any way that Bush or Baker would agree to abandoning bases in Iraq?
perhaps they will just stop calling them bases and start calling them... freedom parks! Posted by: mr. irony on November 27, 2006 at 5:42 PM | PERMALINK
If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else. Posted by: Yogi Berra on November 27, 2006 at 5:44 PM | PERMALINKHow sad when fools abound. None of that swill is even worth an attempt at responding; one has to accept basic concepts in order to debate and Americanist seems to change them at will and wander into the weeds, screaming everyone else is lost when he, himself is beyond finding what is was we were all talking about. Poor chap. Pity for the man who can't answer/debate/think or respond in kind, yes? Posted by: Captain Sensible on November 27, 2006 at 5:45 PM | PERMALINKcheney: "Some people call Satan 'God'" . . . some people....call bush a bold leader.. go figure.. Posted by: mr. irony on November 27, 2006 at 5:49 PM | PERMALINK
"De-funding" the war is not the same as "legislating against combat troops." The Commander in Chief does not have the power to declare war but can use US troops in an emergency; the precedent of Korea in 1950 would be the most appropriate. Posted by: Captain Sensible on November 27, 2006 at 5:58 PM | PERMALINKUm, Cap'n, not to extend your remedial education in public, but the 1973 Act of Congress which barred combat units in South Vietnam was an APPROPRIATIONS bill, which prohibited funding for 'em. Do you have ANYTHING useful to add? Posted by: theAmericanist on November 27, 2006 at 7:12 PM | PERMALINK
An appropriations bill would do nothing to restrict the Ford Administration from going to the aid of the South Vietnamese in 1975; I have pointed this out to you and because you have a predisposition to bellow at everyone that you are superior and that you are smarter than everyone, every word made in response to the silliness you post is somethng you cannot grasp; you are as dishonest as the disrupter troll and neither of you has anything to offer. How sad that someone who pretends to be smart would be no different than a pathetic disrupter troll. Sadder still, I've taken five minutes to answer you and that's more than either of you deserve. Posted by: Captain Sensible on November 27, 2006 at 8:46 PM | PERMALINKAmericanist, You responded to a long article detailing how the GOP vilified war opponents (aid&comfort,soldiers will die,etc.) by saying of COURSE dissent harms a nation. I disagree with that. You said it's politics 101. I called it slander. And now you want to kick my ass. Double sheesh. Tell you what. If you want to spring for the plane ticket, I'll be here waiting behind the gym. You know where that is, don't you? You're getting smacked around here pretty good so I promise I'll be gentle. Trashhauler wrote: "This idea of negotiations with outside powers should be discussed a bit. Anyone who has participated in international talks will say that such things are difficult even with friends. What format should these talks take? Should they be bilateral or multilateral? Will the Iraqi government agree to such talks? Do we save a seat for the insurgents? (If so, which insurgents?) Having gotten some sort of talks scheduled, what should be the agenda? Who should chair the talks? Should it be limited to Iraq alone or should it include wider regional concerns? What are we willing to bring to the table to sweeten any deal(s)? What kind of deals are possible?" _____________________________________________
The Iraqi government has actually been lobbying for such Iran-US talks. A few months ago, Abdul Aziz al Hakim (the head of the UIA, the Shia bloc in Parliament that makes up the bulk of the Iraqi government) publicly urged the leaders of Iran to open dialogue with the US for the sake of Iraq. There is a sense, especially among the Shia, that the growing Iran-US tensions are going to end up hurting the state of affairs in Iraq, so they're very eager to have the situation sealed to some extent. I would imagine that Iran would want regime security in exchange for any compromises made with us. In return, they would have to agree to do their part to stabilize the Iraqi situation in our favor, since Iran has tremendous influence in Iraq and they share a huge border with Iraq. This a simplified scenario, but it just gives an idea of what course the talks may take. Also, Iran and the US have a common enemy in the Sunni Arab terrorism. Iran may think it in its' interests to support the Sunni Arab terrorism in the short term, for the sake of keeping us bogged down in Iraq, but in the long term they know it isn't in their interests to support an ideology that propagates hatred towards Shia Islam. Posted by: yessir on November 27, 2006 at 10:12 PM | PERMALINKOne last comment on the Americanist>
Clearly, this poor fellow Americanist is a deranged and unhinged little fellow who has been treated badly in this life--nothing more than pity is needed for a person who blithely says "In person, I'd be inclined to kick your ass..." Well, the qualifier here is the modifier "in person" because there is simply no way the Americanist is ever going to go anywhere outside of the confines of his little hovel to engage any human being in anything. There is no courage or conviction in making threats on a blog thread and Captain Sensible laughs at the idea that either this fellow Americanist or the poor disrupter troll who keeps calling me by names that I have never used (only posted here for a week or so; doubt I have much history) are anything more than little men pounding their frustration into badly-used keyboards. Captain Sensible noticed the phrase "I'd be inclined." He has never heard anyone use that phrase who was anything other than a weak, feckless individual and exasperanto has nothing to fear from the Americanist.
Here we see the truth--Americanist is confrontational and unhappy and uses the psychological method of projection to defend himself against any perceived attack. There really is no attack on Americanist; he is so used to being maligned, ignored or disregarded outright in his real life that he cannot separate the benign discussion here from a personally-charged and immediate need to hit out at the world, at any imagined assault on his identity or at the world in general. Truthfully, now--who is that thin-skinned and ridiculous in real life? Cannot Americanist tell the difference between discussion on a blog and a visceral need to engage in physical violence or cowardly boasting? No, of course not. At the end of the day, poor pitiful Americanist must project the notion of evil onto anyone who dares to push back against that frail, thin bubble of control he is trying to maintain. Well, that bubble has popped long ago and Americanist simply cannot function in polite society. Abuse is all he knows, abuse is all he wants and anything else is foreign and unwelcome to him. He must attack where there is no enemy and he must use projection and misplaced rage to connect with others. Definitely not a troll, just a sad, pathetic figure who won't find peace until he is acquainted with a good therapist who can unlock the mystery of why the Americanist is, to put it in the vernacular, an asshole. Posted by: Captain Sensible on November 27, 2006 at 11:39 PM | PERMALINKAmericanist I'd find your lecture on the history of the Vietnam War funny if I hadn't lived through it. I recognized back then that the South Vietnamese, like the North Vietnamese, were people. Many were killed on both sides. We killed a bunch of them. To what end? Did we ever have a chance to win that war? We couldn't go into the North because that would bring China in. We couldn't set up and protect a viable government in the South since most of the South was fighting us. You don't present a way that war could have been won by the South. Only a way that we could have prolonged the killing. So much for your concern about PEOPLE. My preference, unlike yours, would be that we not hand it back to the French after WWII, that we support the nationalist movement before it became a communist movement, that we not support the division of the country, that we not replace the French after they pulled out of an unwinable war. Bush says he learned the lesson of Vietnam, but he obviously hasn't. The lesson was: don't get involved in wars you don't have to fight. Posted by: tomeck on November 28, 2006 at 12:25 AM | PERMALINKBaker was brought in to save Bush's a--. We need to send President Bush, Laura Bush, the two Bush girls, Mr. Rumsfeld, Condi Rice, Mr. Cheney, Mr. Rove, maybe Denny Hastert and Joe Lieberman to the front lines, in appropriate early design bullet proof vests and ill-equipped Hummers, all to do what you're suggesting. I love the columnists who suggest we can't "cut and run" and suggest instead that we keep our young people in the military in harms way so they can be killed to correct those clowns mistakes. Maybe you, too, could join the crew I have named above of first rate idiots who, along with the neocons we could add like Wolfowitz & Co. to the newly created battalion, to rectify the situation. Remember, needlessly killing our young people isn't something we like to mention when proposing solutions about messes created by Bush & Co. like Iraq or Afghanistan; it's all lofty ideas and solutions. The alternative is to let the locals solve their own problems and for our government to work on real strategic solutions to existing problems, like learning how to act like diplomats and working out real strategic solutions that don't involve stupid loss of life. What's really behind all this, if you really think about it, is oil and nothing more; no one would care a fig for any of this if it weren't for the oil. Once we figure out how to divorce ourselves from using oil, these places will become minor players in world affairs. Posted by: OCPatriot on November 28, 2006 at 12:29 AM | PERMALINK裸体图片 美女自拍 激情图片 激情小电影 性感图片 性交图片 做爱图片 成人小说 偷拍走光 美眉图片 人体写真 性虐待电影 写真集 激情电影 免费影院 日本av电影 美少女贴图 性感美女图片 美女写真 漂亮妹妹图片 同志电影 性交姿势 美女走光 A片下载 毛片 偷窥图片 裸体视频聊天室 成人网站 成人论坛 性爱论坛 性变态图片 淫女 女大学生 美女下阴图 女性生殖器 操逼图片 激情论坛 两性生活 性教育片 两性知识 美腿图片 三级片 成人性爱电影 写真电影 美女阴图 美女乳房 性电影 成人电影下载 性爱视频 偷拍图片 泳装图片 性感内衣 性爱贴图 性生活图片 作爱图片 性交电影 做爱电影 性福 人体摄影 裸女图片 免费小电影 免费电影在线 免费影片 最新大片 看免费电影 情色电影 激情视频下载 明星露点图片 两性写真 阴部图片 乳房图片 全裸美女 美女脱衣电影 裸体美女 手淫图片 波霸美女 淫水图片 阴户阴毛图片 美女图库 美女口交图片 韩国电影 性知识 最新电影 经典电影 恐怖电影 人体艺术 美女图片 强奸图片 色情图片 黄色小说 黄色电影 强暴电影 乱伦图片 轮奸电影 迷奸电影 夜曲 为什么相爱的人不能在一起 约定 不得不爱 触电 秋天不回来 求佛 太美丽 发如雪 生日礼物 那年夏天 我想更懂你 手放开 香水有毒 Posted by: 手机图片 on November 28, 2006 at 5:23 AM | PERMALINKLOL -- Ex, that's my real email address; I'm not hard to find. My objection was that I had noted that dissent tends to weaken a nation at war, which is fucking obvious: a united nation is stronger than a divided one; which since you couldn't refute it, wouldn't engage it, you changed to the hideous notion that I must therefore have charged that anti-war protests in the US led directly to dead GIs in Vietnam. THAT's why I called you out -- and I stand by it. Email me if ya wanna keep that one going. I also noted that, as a political matter, your straw man is damned easy to set on fire, e.g., Tom Hayden's wife posing with the anti-aircraft gun. Or, if you want substance more than symbols, the famous conversation still used to sum up the war by the Army War College, when a colonel in the American Army belligerently told an NVA colonel that "You never beat us on the battlefield," to which he replied: "True, but irrelevant." THAT's why I posted here -- you guys are simply too fucking stupid and ignorant to use your analogies sensibly, e.g., "Did we ever have a chance to win that war? We couldn't go into the North because that would bring China in. We couldn't set up and protect a viable government in the South since most of the South was fighting us." Read Ellsberg's "The Quagmire Myth and the Stalemate Machine", asshole. Posted by: theAmericanist on November 28, 2006 at 7:45 AM | PERMALINK
Now that's a pathetic attempt at getting people to interact with you. One can hear him stammering this into the silence of the little room he sits in...and somehow, no one ever E-mails him...poor soul. Posted by: Captain Sensible on November 28, 2006 at 8:39 AM | PERMALINKthe picture worth thousands of words. Wasn't she an anti-war protestor? Wasn't that a FUCKING ANTI AIRCRAFT GUN? So the American Army was defeated by a picture of a bimbo with a gun? when a colonel in the American Army belligerently told an NVA colonel that "You never beat us on the battlefield," to which he replied: "True, but irrelevant." You miss his point. Both the NVA and the US Army understood that Vietnam was a war of attrition. The winner in that kind of war is the one can withstand the killing longer than the other one. The Vietnamese were fighting for their homeland, we were fighting for, what? Most people here didn't give a shit if Vietnam was communist or not. They had the motivation to accept the losses. We didn't. They won. One of the lessons of Vietnam that neither your nor Bush has learned is not to drag your country into a war they don't want to and don't have to fight. Your point is dissent caused the loss in Vietnam, my point is that the inability of Johnson and Nixon to give Americans a reason to die there made defeat inevitable. I'm not as sure as you seem to be that you HAVE a point, Tomeck. For one thing, although I said with reasonable clarity "dissent tends to weaken a nation at war, which is fucking obvious: a united nation is stronger than a divided one..." you continue to read it as "dissent caused the loss", which marks you as illiterate, stupid or false: take your pick. For another, on a couple occasions I talked to the late Harry Summers, the American colonel in the "true, but irrelevant" story: My take on what the guy meant, is Summers' take on it. Being as how Summers was the guy the NVA colonel said it TO, methinks my authority on the subject trumps yours, doncha agree? Look, folks, one of the basic techniques of both debate AND rhetoric, is knowing when you're distorting what the other guy said, so you don't fall into the trap (which Bush does, all the time) of thinking the other guy is as dumb as you SAY he is. (For some reason, you guys constantly immunize me from that failing here.) One of the marks of just how stooopid Tomeck, et al, are, is that you guys are self-fulfilling in your stoopidity. Take the notion Tomeck just stated as a 'lesson of Vietnam', "not to drag your country into a war they don't want to... fight". As it happens, both the escalation in Vietnam AND the invasion of Iraq were very popular... at first. Didn't you notice? That's why the Tonkin Gulf Resolution passed just Gruening and Morse opposed; it's why most Democrats voted for Bush's invasion. In a slightly different way, it's why so many cheerleaders for the war, like Perle and Adelman, are now insisting that THIS wasn't the war they wanted, but some other version of it. It helps, yanno, if you use FACTS to make arguments. Whatever else you can say about Vietnam (as noted, Ellsberg persuades me), you can't say it was a war America did NOT want, by the most effective yardstick: we voted for the guys who got us in, and took us deeper, both before, during, and after we knew what was going on. Being as how, in some versions of the Vietnam analogy, we're sorta around 1969-1970 in Iraq, with all the talk about adding more troops and getting more aggressive so we can get out earlier, it would help to, yanno, KNOW what actually happened in Vietnam? For another, Tomeck, except for your compulsion to distort what I said, there ain't much difference in YOUR distinction of Nixon and LBJ's failure to give Americans a reason to die in Vietnam, and your MISUNDERSTANDING both of what I said, and of the popularity of the war until quite late. After all, Nixon won in 1968; when there were a couple candidates handy who would have reversed course on the war, notably McCarthy; and he won DIRECTLY in 1972 by defeating a guy (a war hero, no less) who pledged to go to Hanoi on his knees to end the carnage. Bear in mind also that Nixon had gone into Cambodia (illegally, this was the first item on the impeachment agenda), and THEN won re-election handily. And no, Nixon didn't beat McGovern BECAUSE of Watergate, but despite it. You could argue that he would have lost if the public had known in August of 1972 what we knew by March of 1974, but that simply distracts from the point: the public KNEW Nixon was calling for "peace with honor", while McGovern was calling for "peace". The public made a choice. This sort of compulsive distortion not only of what smarter folks'n you say, but also of history itself, ill-serves the good guys when we look at what the hell to do about Iraq. It sets you up for EXACTLY what you claim to want to avoid -- but, like I said: you ARE the stab in the back hallucination, incarnate, and you probably won't be happy until you get it, if you have to make it up yourself, as you've done with me. BTW -- the single best short explanation of what happened in Vietnam, are the 200 words Maxwell Taylor wrote about it, in a letter to the editor of the Washington Star not long before he died. Perhaps you guys should read it before you decide, to, oooh! share your opinions again. Posted by: theAmericanist on November 28, 2006 at 12:22 PM | PERMALINKNixon won in 1968 claiming to have a plan to END the war, not continue it. He beat the guy who would not repudiate Lyndon Johnson's conduct of the war. Of course, Nixon was lying about his "secret plan to end the war" just as he lied about not being a crook. Being as how Summers was the guy the NVA colonel said it TO, methinks my authority on the subject trumps yours, doncha agree? Yes, definitely. I always bow to the higher authority of someone who writes "doncha." As to your point about the 18th ARVN division, can you explain how the ARVN was able to fight so bravely with no supplies from their former allies when the ARVN was a joke of a force when we had 500,000 troops in their country? The 18th ARVN fought a good fight, no doubt about it, but that was not typical of the ARVN, it was the exception. Tell me, what prevented the ARVN from routing the NVA when they had all the supplies they could want? But do me a favor, use spell check and cut the insults or don't bother to answer, ok? Posted by: tomeck on November 28, 2006 at 1:50 PM | PERMALINKLOL -- I see you didn't read the Maxwell Taylor letter. (I oughta charge you tuition -- beginning with the lesson that when ya know what you're talking about, you don't have to use big words: if jargon impresses you, you need other lessons.) The Maxwell Taylor letter (if anybody can find it online, let me know): After he came back from being Ambassador to South Vietnam, Taylor did tours of college campuses where he would speak to anti-war groups who were often oddly changed when they realized that they had been about to jeer somebody who had bona fida WW2 hero credentials. So they would actually listen to Taylor -- who, to his credit, listened to them, too. In one of these campus meetings, Taylor was asked some mildly-insulting question along the lines of the 'argument' advanced above, that America had never wanted the war (even though the guys who won elections were for it), etc., so why should people like the guy asking the question have to fight in it? Taylor would point out that the guys he had led in France might have asked the same questions, and (letting the shame of they who mock scars that never felt a wound linger only a moment), he would say, gee, if we could only explain in 200 words why we went into Vietnam, how it went wrong, and how we get it back.. To which (to Taylor's credit), he related that some wise guy kid stood back up and said: Okay general, lay your 200 words on us. At the time, he couldn't do it -- which is why, at the end of his life, he wrote this letter to the editor of the old Washington Star. In it, Taylor explained that, from a purely military point of view, supporting a government is a different task from building one: the two jobs are actually in conflict much of the time. But from that purely military point of view, the mission when Diem was in power was coherent. [This is where Ellsberg's analysis is so potent -- not because it contradicts Taylor, but because it makes his insight so much more daming.] Once Diem was gone, Taylor pointed out, we had TWO often contradictory sets of military objectives -- first, to continue to defend against an NVA invasion AND a VC insurgency, and second, to build a South Vietnamese government that could take over both tasks. You can argue with Taylor if you like, I don't speak for him and he's gone anyway, but he argued that by the time (1971 or so) that the US military was ready to actually achieve both goals, the effort had lost the domestic support necessary to see it all through. That's why the ARVN was an active opponent of Diem, but under control until we gave Big Minh the green light; it's why it was most ineffective AFTER Diem was assassinated until Theiu -- and it's why it was damned effective, just when we abandoned people we had literally recruited into the fight -- the folks you dis, Tomeck. [Again, this is where Ellsberg's insights are so damning: it wasn't a 'quagmire' that we got into without seeing what it was -- our decisionmakers consciously built a stalemate machine, each time choosing the level of effort necessary NOT to lose before the next election, never choosing that level of effort that BY THEIR OWN ANALYSIS, was necessary to win. You don't have to agree victory was possible, the point is that the level of force their own analysis indicated was necessary was never sought.] That's what Summers' conversation with the NVA colonel was about -- and it is the lesson the War College has taken from Vietnam, in part. But the fact is, Tomeck: you are insulting a whole lot of folks when you sneer at the guys who went down fighting for freedom -- and that's exactly what they did -- as we bailed on Vietnam. It doesn't make the decisions Ellsberg and Taylor described right. But it DOES show the consequences of 'em -- consequences that, right now, you are damned eager to treble to please your own self-righteous soul. Get back to us when you've LEARNED something, k? Posted by: theAmericanist on November 28, 2006 at 3:12 PM | PERMALINK
Yes, won't you, poor Americanist? How far into the weeds did you have to go to pull that from your fourth point of contact? Posted by: Captain Sensible on November 28, 2006 at 3:21 PM | PERMALINKbut he argued that by the time (1971 or so) that the US military was ready to actually achieve both goals, the effort had lost the domestic support necessary to see it all through. If you want to believe that in 1971 we were about to achieve a stable government and military in South Vietnam then don't let me stop you. But from that purely military point of view, the mission when Diem was in power was coherent. Which is why we had him killed, or at least approved of having him killed. Once Diem was gone, Taylor pointed out, we had TWO often contradictory sets of military objectives -- first, to continue to defend against an NVA invasion AND a VC insurgency, and second, to build a South Vietnamese government that could take over both tasks. Those would seem to be complementary, not contradictory. Since no one ever said we'd stay in Vietnam forever, then protecting them while building up a stable government would be sound policy. What was contradictory was that we did neither. When "protecting them" became "we had to destroy that village in order to save it" it was clear we had no idea of what we were doing over there. But the fact is, Tomeck: you are insulting a whole lot of folks when you sneer at the guys who went down fighting for freedom So who am I insulting? Good men, poorly led and poorly trained will not become an effective fighting force. My disrespect is for a state that puts men into that position, not for the men themselves. My disrespect is for men like Kissinger who negotiate as if it were a game while people are dying in the meantime, not for the people who died. If you're really looking for sneers, re-read your last post. The Cap'n has nothing much to add (he doesn't even do insults well), but I'll give Tomeck this much: he is just beginning to show faint hints that he realizes at least that he doesn't know what he's talking about. He writes "The 18th ARVN fought a good fight, no doubt about it..." but then he can't help but add: "Good men, poorly led and poorly trained will not become an effective fighting force." So just exactly where did the 18th come from, Tomeck? They held off FOUR TIMES their #, in a far better equipped heavy armor assault. If you bothered even to take your own bloviations seriously, you'd realize that you just acknowledged that these were good men, well led AND well trained, who became an effective fighting force... Which the United States abandoned. My point is that this is not a good thing. If you had intellectual balls, you'd understand it -- and disagree. But you lack a pair. Look at how you responded: Pretending that it didn't happen, viz., your bizarre rationalizations, or that it wasn't important, or that it isn't relevant, aren't simply wrong. You also miss the point: it DID happen, exactly as I said it did in the first post. How come you didn't know you were wrong, before you even started to argue about it? The politically significant thing for all this, looking at Iraq, is that you knuckleheads wanted to ARGUE an ancillary point from ignorance, tossing about foreign terms you don't understand (e.g., the Capn's notion that the German stab in the back legend about WW1 damned 'the public', not JEWS, e.g. Rosa Luxembourg), and generally missing the desert for the sand in your eyes. There is limited utility in trying to make the decisions ahead of us in Iraq, by looking in the rear view mirror to see how SOME of us were right in the first place, so obviously we have no responsibilities at all -- especially since all you guys can see in your rear view of Vietnam, is the hallucinations of your own self-righteousness. I didn't say, and don't believe, the crap you attributed to me. Ask yourself why that is the ONLY reply you could make, to make up some bullshit -- why didn't you bother to READ what was plain on the screen in the first place? Posted by: theAmericanist on November 28, 2006 at 5:28 PM | PERMALINKI didn't say, and don't believe, the crap you attributed to me. You've got an even worse memory than intellect. The words I attributed to you were copied from your own post only two above mine. Look, sonny, why don't we just agree to finish this after you finish high school, ok? Bye. Posted by: tomeck on November 28, 2006 at 6:18 PM | PERMALINKAmericanist: So just exactly where did the 18th come from, Tomeck? They held off FOUR TIMES their #, in a far better equipped heavy armor assault. One division (out of an entire army) fought well and Americanist thinks he has a point to make. Did the Army of the Republic of Vietnam (ARVN) fight, as a whole, in a manner that prevented the North Vietnamese from conquering them? The answer is, initially, they fought very well and stopped the North Vietnamese in 1973. By 1975, they collapsed, and whether or not one division fought well is irrelevant. Donnelly, get some help and quit fucking embarrassing yourself in public. Good God, don't you have any friends who can help you get past your own insanity? Really, do we all need to keep handing your idiotic ass back to you? Can't you see how, more and more, you are resembling a blithering idiot as each day goes by? Order Generic drugs Buy Generic drugs without prescription You could get the following medicines at cheapest prices: attract women pheromones Prostate medication Prostate medication Prostate health Prostate health Prostate supplement Prostate supplement Prostate medicine Prostate medicine Prostate vitamin Prostate vitamin Natural sleeping aid Natural sleeping aid Natural pain relief Natural pain relief Colon cleansing Colon cleansing Colon cleanse Colon cleanse Colon cleanser Colon cleanser Natural colon cleansing Natural colon cleansing Natural colon cleanse Natural colon cleanse Natural colon cleanser Natural colon cleanser Super colon cleanse Super colon cleanse Best colon cleanser Best colon cleanser Colon cleansing treatment Colon cleansing treatment Colon cleansing recipe Colon cleansing recipe Natural Colon cleanse recipe Natural Colon cleanse recipe Ultimate Colon cleanse Ultimate Colon cleanse Ultimate Colon cleanse Ultimate Colon cleanse Prevent Hair Loss Prevent Hair loss Irritable Bowel Syndrome Irritable Bowel Syndrome Irritable Bowel Irritable Bowel Bowel Syndrome Bowel Syndrome Bowel Cleansing Bowel Cleansing Irritable Bowel Syndrone Irritable Bowel Syndrone Bowel Cleanse Bowel Cleanse Anti Wrinkle Treatment Anti Wrinkle Treatment Anti Wrinkle Cream Anti Wrinkle Cream Best Anti Wrinkle Cream Best Anti Wrinkle Cream Premature Ejaculation Cure Premature Ejaculation Cure Premature Ejaculation Premature Ejaculation Stop Premature Ejaculation Stop Premature Ejaculation Prevent Premature Ejaculation Prevent Premature Ejaculation End Premature Ejaculation End Premature Ejaculation Premature Ejaculation Pills Premature Ejaculation Pills Preventing Premature Ejaculation Preventing Premature Ejaculation Premature Ejaculation Solution Premature Ejaculation Solution Premature Ejaculation Remedy Premature Ejaculation Remedy Premature Ejackulation Premature Ejackulation Premature Ejactulation Premature Ejactulation Premature Ejeculation Premature Ejeculation Natural menopause relief Natural menopause relief Menopause treatment Menopause treatment Menopause natural remedy Menopause natural remedy Herb Menopause Herb Menopause Menopause relief Menopause relief Herbal menopause remedy Herbal menopause remedy Menopause remedy Menopause remedy Stretch mark cream Stretch mark cream Stretch mark removal Stretch mark removal Stretch mark treatment Stretch mark treatment Remove Stretch marks Remove Stretch marks Stretch mark remover Stretch mark remover Rid of Stretch marks Rid of Stretch marks How to get Rid of Stretch marks How to get Rid of Stretch marks Stretch mark prevention Stretch mark prevention Cellulite treatment Cellulite treatment Cellulite cream Cellulite cream How to get rid of cellulite How to get rid of cellulite Cellulite removal Cellulite removal Anti Cellulite Anti Cellulite Cellulite reduction Cellulite reduction Rid of cellulite Rid of cellulite Reduce cellulite Reduce cellulite Anti Cellulite Cream Anti Cellulite Cream Best Cellulite Cream Best Cellulite Cream Remove cellulite Remove cellulite Cellulite remedy Cellulite remedy Natural Cellulite remedy Natural Cellulite remedy Cellulite reducer Cellulite reducer Eliminate Cellulite Eliminate Cellulite Colon cleansing Colon cleansing Colon cleanse Colon cleanse Colon cleanser Colon cleanser Natural colon cleansing Natural colon cleansing Natural colon cleanse Natural colon cleanse Natural colon cleanser Natural colon cleanser Super colon cleanse Super colon cleanse Best colon cleanser Best colon cleanser Colon cleansing treatment Colon cleansing treatment Colon cleansing recipe Colon cleansing recipe Natural Colon cleanse recipe Natural Colon cleanse recipe Ultimate Colon cleanse Ultimate Colon cleanse Ultimate Colon cleanser Ultimate Colon cleanser Posted by: top on November 30, 2006 at 3:27 AM | PERMALINK 
November 2009
October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 December 2002 |
|
|
    |
|
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
