New Mars Forums

I believe she would be alive if we had sent 250,000 - 300,000 soldiers like General Shineski called for; and if Paul Bremer had not FUBAR-ed the first 12 months of the occupation playing economics professor.

But no, Rumsfeld had an ideological point to win.

Her murderers are NOT Iraqis, they are foreigners who very much desire to see Iraq remain in chaos. And we went in too weakly to stop them. Therefore they are very grateful for the opportunity to slaughter this woman.

= = =

Go back and read MY posts from before the invasion. Right here at NewMars. I said whacking Saddam's army would be easy.

Building a safe stable Iraq would be hard. Round #2 would require far more investment of troops and money than GWB and his Administration believed.

Hate to say it, but go into the archives. Folks, I told you so.

= = =

Shaun and Cindy - - I am tired of calls to FIGHT the war on terror. I want to WIN the war on terror.

Shaun, who killed Maraget Hassan? Which group? Which sub-group? Is every group that opposes the US presence in Iraq responsible for her death?

Is John Kerry responsible for her death?

A great many Iraqis share a common outrage at her murder yet also strongly desire that American troops leave sooner rather than later.

Outrage at Hassan's murder therefore "stay the Bush course" is a NOT logically mandated conclusion.

Please build bridges rather than seeking to batter your political opponents into singing "Hail, Bush" at risk of being tarred (by you) as a lover of terror.

= = =

And who is sweeping Sudan under the rug? The current US administration.

= = =

Bottom line, al Qaeda wants the US in Iraq and it wants the war to be US vs Islam.

My outrage is at Rumsfeld for not sending enough soldiers to establish security and protect the Margaret Hassans of Iraq.

Here is the official document.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.pdf]h … sc/nss.pdf

Please google for yourself to be certain I have not been "trolled" - - I will look for quotes

= = =

Read the opening letter from President Bush in the above document. How we define the word "freedom" becomes rather important.  The meaning of the letter can change 180 degrees depending on how we choose to understand "what freedom is"

Maybe by truly staying home and actually minding our own business?

Remember this: the Swiss have won the America's Cup and the world's best golfer is black, etc. . .

George W. Bush is not "Right" to anyone who has read history.

He is following a voice from God. In America, followers of Milton Friedman are considered right or conservative.

State supported monopoly is "free enterprise"

= = =

One commentator has described Bush and the neo-cons as "Mao-ist" meaning theory overrules experience and common sense. The dismantling of Iraq's civil service is an example. The textbooks say a small bureaucracy is better so we fire all the Iraqi bureaucrats.

I read a very funny article (sad funny) about how automobile traffic laws in Baghdad are completely screwed up. The civil service has been terminated meaning no automobile registations. Therefore stolen Mercedes and BMWs from all over Europe are sold in Iraq for big profits.

Like I said, American policy in Iraq is "Mao-ist" - - follow the theory not the facts.

= = =

Labels are dangerous in America as my people read far too little history. I read history, enough to know that you and DomPanic (and others) have read far more history than me.

:;):

Gennaro, surely you must realize that the world revolves around the US of A. 

We are the center of everything!

= = =

More seriously, I find little to argue with in your coments.

I agree that Europe will not coalesce into a powerful unified entity unless you perceive a threat to your cultural uniqueness coming from the United States.

Therefore, for the US to offer that threat is profoundly foolish, from a selfish US-ian point of view.

Yet can " I " even exist without " others " to define who I am?

Describe what or who "Cindy" is without making comparisons to "others" - - IMHO this cannot be done. My very existence depends upon relationships to define who I am.

We seek to be "free" from others yet we cannot exist without others.

That which captivates us sets us free?

If we create the other to create ourselves, isn't that like a tautology?

Dude.

Hey Cobra, your buddy have extra, ahem, plant material?

In "European Dream" one of the stronger points (in an uneven and not always cogent book) is a section on how US-ians and EU-ians might define the word "freedom" in very different ways.

Rivkin says Americans cannot conceive of freedom without a strong component of autonomy. The ability to be alone, independent of others.

He also says Europeans are more likely to conceive of freedom as arising from a web of social relationships that allow us to accomplish things we cannot do alone.

Thoughts?

How would you define freedom?

Emerson, Whitman and to a lesser extent Thoreau may be relevant here.

Indeed

And of course, we cannot change political leadership until this nebulous war is won, in say 80 years. . . ???

True.

Yet for the leaders of the American nation-state to choose sides in that larger cultural war will harm the interest of that nation-state. The American government needs to keep a foot in every camp and not chose sides.

Or better still find ways for the western cultural warriors (gay rights, abortion, women's rights, prayer in school) to co-exist and cooperate on issues like fighting Islamo-fascism.

1/6 of America believes Jesus will return in our lifetime.

How many of those people voted for Kerry? Maybe 2 or 3. Not percent, 2 or 3 people.  :;):

That means between 25% and 30% of the Bush electoral base believes in Left Behind.

= = =

Is Europe always right? Of course not.

Is America right on 85% of the issues and the EU on 15%?

Or is it USA 90% and EU 10%?  or

How about 60% and 40%

What do you guys think?