What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

Bill White · 2004-05-12 10:51:46

Does anybody find it strange that Nick Berg was held by Iraqi police for thirteen days, released and abducted the same day by "terrorists", and then his body was found by Iraqi police?
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=ni … ...+Search

Strange? Nah, not unless you believe there is a silent majority of Iraqis who really want us to be there.

Cobra talks about "our guys" in Iraq. Our big problem is that we ain't got no "our guys" in Iraq, except the exile community who have spent the last 20 years in London and have close ties with Iran.

The closest we get to "our guys" are the Kurds, who IMHO are saying - - "Hey you all fight if you want, but leave us alone."

Cobra Commander · 2004-05-12 10:52:22

Who is talking about quitting? Kerry supports the actions, and he will continue the same agenda in Iraq, which is one of ostenibably setting them on a path to democracy and returning our troops as soon as possible.

That's my concern, that the focus will shift to 'democracy and getting out as soon as possible' rather than finishing the job. Bush is already taking it too fast, any more acceleration and we'll crash the whole effort into a wall.

We can change this situation by changing leaders. America is the same, but someone else is at the helm, in front of the camera's. We're in a war, so let's make a war time decision, sack our leader, and put someone else in to finish the job.

I'd be more than happy to, if I had another choice that would finish the job. Yes, Kerry has said he'd stay the course. He's said alot of things that didn't turn out to be much tied with reality.

If the Dems sack Kerry as their nominee and pick someone consistent and rational (Lieberman, perhaps) then maybe sacking Bush makes sense for the war effort. With the current options, it doesn't.

Bill White · 2004-05-12 10:55:36

Who is talking about quitting? Kerry supports the actions, and he will continue the same agenda in Iraq, which is one of ostenibably setting them on a path to democracy and returning our troops as soon as possible.
That's my concern, that the focus will shift to 'democracy and getting out as soon as possible' rather than finishing the job. Bush is already taking it too fast, any more acceleration and we'll crash the whole effort into a wall.
We can change this situation by changing leaders. America is the same, but someone else is at the helm, in front of the camera's. We're in a war, so let's make a war time decision, sack our leader, and put someone else in to finish the job.
I'd be more than happy to, if I had another choice that would finish the job. Yes, Kerry has said he'd stay the course. He's said alot of things that didn't turn out to be much tied with reality.
If the Dems sack Kerry as their nominee and pick someone consistent and rational (Lieberman, perhaps) then maybe sacking Bush makes sense for the war effort. With the current options, it doesn't.

Define "finish the job"

Cobra Commander · 2004-05-12 10:56:43

Cobra talks about "our guys" in Iraq. Our big problem is that we ain't got no "our guys" in Iraq, except the exile community who have spent the last 20 years in London and have close ties with Iran.

Most of the Iraqis want to be left alone. They want it over. If we stay, they'll resent us for occupying their country. If we leave before we're finished, they'll hate us for leaving them to whatever tyrant struggles to the top of the pile.

One way they look back twenty years down the road and say "you know, maybe those Americans weren't so bad." The other way we have to deal with Iraq again.

EDIT:

By "Finish the job" I mean getting the country to a point where its borders are secure, its economy is reasonably stable, and its government is a representative, moderately pro-American entity with reasonably widespread popular support.

clark · 2004-05-12 10:59:25

Ah, excellent. I've been waiting for this opening Cobra:

I'd be more than happy to, if I had another choice that would finish the job.

Kerry will finish the job becuase if he dosen't, then the Democrats get crucified on being weak on defense. Kerry will go full bore because a success means the Republican party FUBAR'ed the situation, and then the Democrats come and save the day (hello 2008).

In the mean time, we still have a Republican congress, with a democratic minority. Bush has yet to use a single veto by the way- Kerry in the office means the checks and balances will work a little bit more (they have effectively been warped beyond recognition ebcuase of the two party system, but that is a digression).

Plus, with Kerry in the office, we will have an easier time of enlisting support abroad. Bush simply will not cut it, and he loses Powell after this election no matter what. Enlistign aid means we can get out of there sooner, with a better result. Bush will mean we go it alone, and spend the next ten years there... doing what?! Playing nationa building while terroists run amok, China grows unchecked, N. Korea and Iran proliferate, and Russia reverts to a totalitarian state to deal with the internal problems (there but for the grace of god goes the US).

Bill White · 2004-05-12 11:03:16

Kerry has called for John McCain to take the job as Secretary of Defense in a Kerry Administration.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtm … ...5120562

McCain soft on terror? Yeah, right.

= = =

If Bush was smart, he'd fire Rumsfeld today and ask McCain to take the job.

Bill White · 2004-05-12 11:08:28

By "Finish the job" I mean getting the country to a point where its borders are secure, its economy is reasonably stable, and its government is a representative, moderately pro-American entity with reasonably widespread popular support.

Appropriate a trillion dollars for Iraqi reconstruction aid and we can do it, maybe.

But we can't do the above AND cut taxes AND pretend we don't need 200,000 soldiers in Iraq AND give Europe the middle finger AND piss off liberals by aggressive judicial appointments all at the same time.

Do accomplish the above, we need America to be united which means GWB has to call a truce in the war between liberals and conservatives and reprimand Karl Rove for trying to use the war as an election platform.

You can never win an argument with your spouse when you start out by saying he/she is stupid.

Cobra Commander · 2004-05-12 11:14:02

Kerry will finish the job becuase if he dosen't, then the Democrats get crucified on being weak on defense. Kerry will go full bore because a success means the Republican party FUBAR'ed the situation, and then the Democrats come and save the day (hello 2008).

You're forgetting the vocal Democrat base, those nutbars that want us out, think we're worse than Saddam... Every faction within the Democrat Party has enough of them that any Democrat President has to pander to them. Based on what I have seen of the party, the candidate and their reactions to the situation I am absolutely certain that Kerry would make a big show about Iraqi elections, declare victory and claim whoever wins is a "moderate party for a Muslim country" and pull out. The Dems would get a big boost, "that idiot Bush got us into this but we saved it."

Meanwhile, Iraq slides into a terrorist breeding ground as our enemies see our weakness and the average Iraqi hates us for abandoning them to dictator X.

Plus, with Kerry in the office, we will have an easier time of enlisting support abroad.

I find it more likely that foreign leaders will get Kerry to do what they want rather the other way around. He does not appear to have gotten over his sixties anti-American rage. Unless I'm totally misreading him, he comes across as an opportunistic, elitist ultra-liberal internationalist loon.

If I'm wrong and he wins, I'll admit as much. But I don't see that contingency coming up.

Cobra Commander · 2004-05-12 11:22:11

Do accomplish the above, we need America to be united which means GWB has to call a truce in the war between liberals and conservatives and reprimand Karl Rove for trying to use the war as an election platform.

Bush has tried to call a truce, it's largely what his "compassionate conservatism" was about. He worked with Kennedy on the education bill, he tried to get the Dems on board with the medicare bill.

The Left doesn't want to be friends with the Right. The Left is terribly intolerant and the Right is too damn short-sighted and meek to see that.

You can never win an argument with your spouse when you start out by saying he/she is stupid.

Then the Dems have already lost.

Bill White · 2004-05-12 11:28:19

Do accomplish the above, we need America to be united which means GWB has to call a truce in the war between liberals and conservatives and reprimand Karl Rove for trying to use the war as an election platform.
Bush has tried to call a truce, it's largely what his "compassionate conservatism" was about. He worked with Kennedy on the education bill, he tried to get the Dems on board with the medicare bill.
The Left doesn't want to be friends with the Right. The Left is terribly intolerant and the Right is too damn short-sighted and meek to see that.
You can never win an argument with your spouse when you start out by saying he/she is stupid.
Then the Dems have already lost.

America needs a marriage counselor.

Medicare? Drugs? How to enrich Big Pharma contributors?

= = =

As for judges, my solution. Clinton's were filibustered. Bush's are being filibustered. Who did it worse? Waste of time to argue.

Solution? Each party names one federal district court judge and they are voted up or down, together, as a pair.

Bill White · 2004-05-12 11:31:19

Kerry will finish the job becuase if he dosen't, then the Democrats get crucified on being weak on defense. Kerry will go full bore because a success means the Republican party FUBAR'ed the situation, and then the Democrats come and save the day (hello 2008).
You're forgetting the vocal Democrat base, those nutbars that want us out, think we're worse than Saddam... Every faction within the Democrat Party has enough of them that any Democrat President has to pander to them. Based on what I have seen of the party, the candidate and their reactions to the situation I am absolutely certain that Kerry would make a big show about Iraqi elections, declare victory and claim whoever wins is a "moderate party for a Muslim country" and pull out. The Dems would get a big boost, "that idiot Bush got us into this but we saved it."
Meanwhile, Iraq slides into a terrorist breeding ground as our enemies see our weakness and the average Iraqi hates us for abandoning them to dictator X.

Which is exactly why it was a bad idea to get played by Chalabi into removing Saddam.

Which is exactly why Bush 41 did not do it in 1990.

= = =

Now you are saying perpetual Republican government is necessary to win the War on Terror. Right?

Cobra Commander · 2004-05-12 11:32:54

Solution? Each party names one federal district court judge and they are voted up or down, together, as a pair.

Not a bad idea on the face of it, but there is no Constitutional grounds on which to do it.

Of course I make no secret of my own desire to have as few liberal judges on the bench as possible.

Now if we could convince Bush and the Senate to agree on Libertarian judges... That would be progress.

EDIT:

Now you are saying perpetual Republican government is necessary to win the War on Terror. Right?

Not necessarily. If today's Dems were more like those of previous generations we could be okay. Unfortunately the country has been on a steady leftward slide, today's Republican's are like the Democrats of old and today's Dems are just raving pinko kooks in large part.

If we use JFK as a marker, we don't have Republicans and Democrats anymore. We have Democrats with an ® and crazy old hippies in suits.

Bill White · 2004-05-12 11:34:53

Solution? Each party names one federal district court judge and they are voted up or down, together, as a pair.
Not a bad idea on the face of it, but there is no Constitutional grounds on which to do it.
Of course I make no secret of my own desire to have as few liberal judges on the bench as possible.
Now if we could convince Bush and the Senate to agree on Libertarian judges... That would be progress.

How to do it legally?

Okay vote one at a time after cloak room discussions. If either side reneges after one of their guys gets through?

Then the deals off - - and its back to filibuster.

= = =

Cannot do it now, but in January 2005? No matter who wins? Why not?

Palomar · 2004-05-12 11:38:08

Cindy, your link talks about a "cycle of violence" and a despair that they can never escape. We must defeat radical Islam, brutally, yet we cannot hate while we do it. (A very tall order, I know, but its the only way.)
If we are to win, we must prove http://www.quivis.com/mideast02.html]stuff like this is wrong and the jury is not America, the jury is the rest of the world.
= = =
With the Arab press spreading ideas like those found in the above link, photos of an American woman leading a naked Iraqi by a dog leash is the worst propaganda imaginable.

*Stop the world, I want to get off!

Yes, Bill, I see your point. But they -are- locked into a cycle of violence, no? It doesn't have to be escapeless, however (good luck, though).

As for the article you linked to, regarding Arab (Palestinian) frustration: "To be sure, Arab bus bombs and drive-by shootings have killed and injured Israeli civilians as well; but for the acts of the few, the entire Palestinian Arab population is made to suffer--a collective punishment reminiscent of the 'fines' the Nazis used to levy on Jewish communities in Germany."

It seems, however, that there's a too-silent majority in Palestine (and in the Arab world in general), regarding abuses perpetrated by Arabs. They are quick to speak out very strongly and critically about the U.S...yet how often do we hear them just as vocally protesting against Arab-perpetrated violence? Of course, we're at the "mercy" of the media to fill in the gaps (I don't live over there, thank god), etc.

Sometimes these discussions seem pointless. We're not there, we only get what the media tells us or first-hand accounts (I don't know many folks in this area who immigrated directly from "over there"), etc.

Of course, collective punishment (as outlined in that article) is always wrong. But it's a favored human tactic, or so it seems...and it also seems no one cares too much about it unless they're on the receiving end.

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2004-05-12 11:42:27

How to do it legally?
Okay vote one at a time after cloak room discussions. If either side reneges after one of their guys gets through?
Then the deals off - - and its back to filibuster.

So, for the record, are you saying that it's alright to willfully work around Constitutional limitations, however mildly, if it's for the "greater good?"

clark · 2004-05-12 11:44:01

You mean like having the Supreme Court choose who the President is?

Bill White · 2004-05-12 11:46:23

Cindy, your link talks about a "cycle of violence" and a despair that they can never escape. We must defeat radical Islam, brutally, yet we cannot hate while we do it. (A very tall order, I know, but its the only way.)
If we are to win, we must prove http://www.quivis.com/mideast02.html]stuff like this is wrong and the jury is not America, the jury is the rest of the world.
= = =
With the Arab press spreading ideas like those found in the above link, photos of an American woman leading a naked Iraqi by a dog leash is the worst propaganda imaginable.
*Stop the world, I want to get off!
Yes, Bill, I see your point. But they -are- locked into a cycle of violence, no? It doesn't have to be escapeless, however (good luck, though).
As for the article you linked to, regarding Arab (Palestinian) frustration: "To be sure, Arab bus bombs and drive-by shootings have killed and injured Israeli civilians as well; but for the acts of the few, the entire Palestinian Arab population is made to suffer--a collective punishment reminiscent of the 'fines' the Nazis used to levy on Jewish communities in Germany."
It seems, however, that there's a too-silent majority in Palestine (and in the Arab world in general), regarding abuses perpetrated by Arabs. They are quick to speak out very strongly and critically about the U.S...yet how often do we hear them just as vocally protesting against Arab-perpetrated violence? Of course, we're at the "mercy" of the media to fill in the gaps (I don't live over there, thank god), etc.
Sometimes these discussions seem pointless. We're not there, we only get what the media tells us or first-hand accounts (I don't know many folks in this area who immigrated directly from "over there"), etc.
Of course, collective punishment (as outlined in that article) is always wrong. But it's a favored human tactic, or so it seems...and it also seems no one cares too much about it unless they're on the receiving end.
--Cindy

And we are about to enter our own cycle of violence. Atrocities always justify a strong response which fuels the cycle.

Solution? IMHO? We in America need to escape petroleum dependence. Remove oil from the equation and we build a big fence around the bad guys and then ignore 'em.

Tax gasoline heavily and use all the revenue to head towards a hydrogen economy ASAP. Short term pain and long term benefit.

= = =

Radical Islamic atrocities are horrific, despicable theater done to play and manipulate our emotions - - to force reactions based on anger not reason. Building a fence around the Islamic world is our best option, but we cannot do that until we wean ourselves from their oil.

clark · 2004-05-12 11:50:53

Solution? IMHO? We in America need to escape petroleum dependence. Remove oil from the equation and we build a big fence around the bad guys and then ignore 'em.

Why don't we all just go off to Mars while we're at it? :laugh:

I thought the war in Iraq was related to "terror", not the fuel of choice. Oil dependance means we get involved, and the American populace goes along. No oil dependance means we can't get involved becuase it wouldn't be anyone's direct self interest to do so.

In other words, it becomes harder to "pre-empt" when we need to.

50 o 100 billion over ten years would go a long ways towards establishing a hydrogen economy though. Perhaps Humans to Mars can wait for that...

Bill White · 2004-05-12 11:54:19

How to do it legally?
Okay vote one at a time after cloak room discussions. If either side reneges after one of their guys gets through?
Then the deals off - - and its back to filibuster.
So, for the record, are you saying that it's alright to willfully work around Constitutional limitations, however mildly, if it's for the "greater good?"

How does it do that?

Hold a straw vote in advance and then trust the other side one judge at a time. Its like any legislative trading.

In a country divided essentially 50/50, it best assures power sharing in the judicial branch. I believe the Founding Fathers would approve whole heartedly.

Bill White · 2004-05-12 11:56:33

Solution? IMHO? We in America need to escape petroleum dependence. Remove oil from the equation and we build a big fence around the bad guys and then ignore 'em.
Why don't we all just go off to Mars while we're at it? :laugh:
I thought the war in Iraq was related to "terror", not the fuel of choice. Oil dependance means we get involved, and the American populace goes along. No oil dependance means we can't get involved becuase it wouldn't be anyone's direct self interest to do so.
In other words, it becomes harder to "pre-empt" when we need to.
50 o 100 billion over ten years would go a long ways towards establishing a hydrogen economy though. Perhaps Humans to Mars can wait for that...

The neo-con plan IIRC is to use Iraq as a bridgehead to westernize the Islamic world, thereby stabilizing our oil supplies.

= = =

Edit: Without oil revenue, being rulers of Saudi Arabia is no longer any big deal. Arab nations without oil are the most democratic, tolerant of the lot.

= = =

Edit #2: Doing Mars doesn't really need tax revenues. Just the ability to buy heavy lift and access to nuclear power. The global economy can be tapped at other places to accomplish Mars, if national secuirty concerns can come off the table

clark · 2004-05-12 12:00:47

Stabilize?! Ha.

More like "secure and ensure".

China has a big appettite and OPEC has always been a thorn in our side. We give up on cheap energy (becuase Hydrogen ain't cheap), and all the other nations get cheaper oil, and can grow faster. Putting a wall around the oil fields contain us, not them.

Edit: No, the rulers will still have oil to sell, and there will still be buyers to buy. Norway has some of the largest reserves, and it hasn't hurt their democracy either. Small meaningless point I have there.

Bill White · 2004-05-12 12:07:54

China has a big appettite and OPEC has always been a thorn in our side. We give up on cheap energy (becuase Hydrogen ain't cheap), and all the other nations get cheaper oil, and can grow faster. Putting a wall around the oil fields contain us, not them.

Had we gone with the Kyoto Protocol (and even left out China for now) then after our hydrogen economy is rolling we ally with Europe to drop the Kyoto shoe on China.

= = =

In Illinois a few decades back all the gasoline stations were screaming at the top of their lungs about new requirements for double walled tanks and other expensive environmental protections.

Then out of the blue the big players switched sides and installed everything the Illinois EPA was looking for and supported the legislation In the blink of an eye every "Mom and Pop" gas station closed. They couldn't afford the upgrades.

We US-ians could use Kyoto and conversion to a hydrogen economy to do the same thing to China.

= = =

Once we have a hydrogen economy, denial of oil to China would be a piece of cake, under the cover of environmentalism.

Palomar · 2004-05-12 12:14:28

And we are about to enter our own cycle of violence. Atrocities always justify a strong response which fuels the cycle.
Solution? IMHO? We in America need to escape petroleum dependence. Remove oil from the equation and we build a big fence around the bad guys and then ignore 'em.
Tax gasoline heavily and use all the revenue to head towards a hydrogen economy ASAP. Short term pain and long term benefit.
= = =
Radical Islamic atrocities are horrific, despicable theater done to play and manipulate our emotions - - to force reactions based on anger not reason. Building a fence around the Islamic world is our best option, but we cannot do that until we wean ourselves from their oil.

*Yeah, I agree wholeheartedly about the oil dependence thing. Now how do we pry Americans out of their much-cherished SUVs and half-ton dually-wheeled pickup trucks?

Manipulating/playing on feelings to force reactions based on anger and not reason. Yes, some people like to play those sorts of games. How best to deal with them? Especially when they just -won't- stop no matter what? It seems unscrupulous people who use whatever low-handed/dirty-fighting tactic they can always "win" some way or another: Fight them (even if not using their same tactics against them, but trying to maintain a morally superior standard) and be accused of "being no better." Try and take the high road? Be accused of being a coward or ineffective, etc.

I've seen game-playing tactics by unscrupulous jerks first-hand in life. Their glee at their stupidity and unrelenting (sometimes nearly mentally ill in quality), continual barrages are something to behold. But yes, reason over emotion.

And yes...wean off oil dependence. And junk the SUV's, Hummers, and dually-wheeled half-ton pickup trucks. America is working against itself in this regard. On the one hand people whine and grumble about the price of gas and Saudi Arabia...but they want those big, heavy vehicles.

So now what?

--Cindy

clark · 2004-05-12 12:15:25

Better to let them develop further in the oil economy, then change over. Do it to soon, and they make the transisition easier, and are prepared for the future.

How do you deny oil to China if you can't influence the area where the oil comes from? We would build a wall, remember. We would have no direct need (other than for the environment now) to invade. (I can just see it, the coalition of the tree)

Middle east can't get funds, so they sell to anyone. They're not dependant on our hard cash cause we are hydrogen, not oil. China showed that the best way to defeat the enemy is to trade with them. Assimilate them, don't assault them.

Giving up oil for a wall and hydrogen limits us. It would be a good thing, don't get me wrong, but there is a cost.

Cobra Commander · 2004-05-12 12:17:50

You mean like having the Supreme Court choose who the President is?

I thought we'd been through this already...

Solution? IMHO? We in America need to escape petroleum dependence. Remove oil from the equation and we build a big fence around the bad guys and then ignore 'em.

Alright, I'm with ya.

Tax gasoline heavily and use all the revenue to head towards a hydrogen economy ASAP. Short term pain and long term benefit.

Well, hold on. So we tax the crap out of something people are already paying too much for, so that the government can use that money to entice/coerce/force the private sector to move toward hydrogen cars? And then the same has to apply to actually get people to buy the damn things. Just shut off their gas?

How 'bout this. We offer tax breaks as incentive. Start building the vehicles, outfitting gas stations etc, the income tax for the business gets cut in half for ten years.

Say Ford takes the deal, which they certainly would. They can either make something new (a little Hydrogen box) or a adapt their current line. Big ol' Hydrogen powered F-150's that people actually want.

In the meantime we open Alaska to drilling. Plenty of corporations want a piece, won't cost taxpayers a dime and it'll create jobs in the process.

Some people keep their old cars, still paying high prices for the partly domestic/partly imported gas. Many more say "screw this" and buy the Hydrogen cars. After fifteen years or so that's all that's left. Maybe ten the way they build cars these days.

How does it do that?
Hold a straw vote in advance and then trust the other side one judge at a time. Its like any legislative trading.

The implication is that a back-room deal works better than the legal foundation of the government. Usually it does, fine. But then it's reasonable to ask why don't we just change it, which won't happen.

Every time it happens it undermines the constitution in some small way. It makes it easier to take bigger steps.

Besides, if the two sides can be civil enough to make these deals for the good of the country they shouldn't have to.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2004-05-12 10:51:46

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#52 2004-05-12 10:52:22

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#53 2004-05-12 10:55:36

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#54 2004-05-12 10:56:43

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#55 2004-05-12 10:59:25

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#56 2004-05-12 11:03:16

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#57 2004-05-12 11:08:28

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#58 2004-05-12 11:14:02

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#59 2004-05-12 11:22:11

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#60 2004-05-12 11:28:19

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#61 2004-05-12 11:31:19

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#62 2004-05-12 11:32:54

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#63 2004-05-12 11:34:53

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#64 2004-05-12 11:38:08

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#65 2004-05-12 11:42:27

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#66 2004-05-12 11:44:01

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#67 2004-05-12 11:46:23

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#68 2004-05-12 11:50:53

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#69 2004-05-12 11:54:19

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#70 2004-05-12 11:56:33

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#71 2004-05-12 12:00:47

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#72 2004-05-12 12:07:54

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#73 2004-05-12 12:14:28

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#74 2004-05-12 12:15:25

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#75 2004-05-12 12:17:50

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

Board footer