Political Potpourri V - Continued from previous

BWhite · 2005-05-25 09:46:17

*America is in grave danger of becoming like that which it hates.
It's already happened. On numerous occasions.
Slavery, income tax, pre-emptive war, socialism, standing armies. . . the idea of America has always been different from the reality. A little internal crusade by self-righteous nuts; wouldn't be the first time.
*Hi Bill. Thanks for posting that bit about Bob Jones. I can't wait for 4 years from now, when the pendulum swings the other way...

One problem we will likely face are a number of innocent people swept up and held in the War on Terror that we cannot now release without grave embarassment to our current Administration.

Yet the longer they are detained, the worse it will get. Therefore I predict pardons being issued by the bushel basket come December 2008.

= = =

Amnesty International has a new report - - it will hit google and yahoo soon, if not already.

srmeaney · 2005-05-25 09:59:02

If we wanted to send in more troops (as in kill, destroy, torture), where would we get them? We can barely meet rotation schedules as is, and that is after extending tours, raiding Korean forces, over taxing Reserves, and brow beating allies for whatever mess cook they can spare.

"Will fight for food and oil!"

One question though: Would you rather ship your kids off to Astronaut training and have them become the citizens of the Mars Commonwealth or become soldiers in one long war on Earth?

clark · 2005-05-25 10:57:51

One question though: Would you rather ship your kids off to Astronaut training and have them become the citizens of the Mars Commonwealth or become soldiers in one long war on Earth?

I would rather them not do either. Your Commonwealth is silly, and I wouldn't send my kids off to Astronaut training to do silly things.

BWhite · 2005-05-25 14:19:01

http://www.andrewsullivan.com/index.php … 4355]Koran abuse from official affidavits prepared by US military.

Throwing it on the floor and stepping on it appears to be part of a disapproved but quietly supported process known as "Pride and Ego Down"

If we learn later that Korans actually were flushed does Newsweek deserve an apology?

= = =

More from Andrew Sullivan:

In this case, though, the Bush administration may have gone one step too far. The White House's high profile attack on Newsweek is a good strategy if the underlying story is untrue and will not be verified by future reporting. But if the story is true - and no one has denied it outright - then it will surely come out. No one doubts that there were serious issues about handling the Koran at Guantanamo Bay. A January 2003 memo was created to correct such abuses. Four British Guantanamo former inmates, released without charge, claim abuse of the Koran in a pending lawsuit. A book is due out soon from a former interrogator, spilling more beans. The military has already conceded that some interrogators smeared fake menstrual blood on detainees to offend their Muslim sensibilities, that one Muslim was forcibly wrapped in an Israeli flag and that one soldier brandished a Star of David at a Muslim detainee. Given that these anti-Muslim incidents have been confirmed, why should anyone trust the Gitmo leadership's denial of any wrong-doing?

Edited By BWhite on 1117052589

Grypd · 2005-05-26 08:35:50

You could say that the Union is a federal type goverment with a weak head of state. Currently in one of the two chambers of the EU goverment is a post called the president of the European commission. He or she is really in charge of the European Beauracracy and is nothing like as powerful as for an example the head of state of one of the countries that make up the EU.

But in the constitution there would have been created an elected head of the European state. Add to this Europe as a whole taking its place on the world table like at the security council and the G8 group and soon rather than later there would have been a Federal Europe.

Palomar · 2005-05-26 09:39:50

*Grypd wrote:

It is also thought of by people in France as making Europe more like that of Britain and the USA and would reduce there social infrastructures. Incidentally the constitution is likely to recieve a No from Britain when it comes to a vote as people here think it would make Britain more like Europe and force on us legislation that would impair our society.

I've seen comments in news articles wherein Britain is called "America's Poodle" by folks on the European continent.

What is the British reaction to this charge?

Don't care what others think? Try to make amends and be conciliatory to other European nations? Try to hold a "middle of the road" stance?

In my mind, I always separate Britain from Europe...but probably on the basis of language and shared history (American Colonies, etc.).

--Cindy

P.S.: I've also recently (within 6 months) read that you Scottish folks are the least inclined to consider yourselves European and are more "nationalist" regarding Scotland (as compared to other folks in the British Isles). That was based on interviews done for a Scotland tourist magazine. Is this true, in your opinion?

BWhite · 2005-05-26 11:26:44

Is Bob Novak a http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak/cs … ml]traitor?

No - not for Valerie Plame. For this:

''Army recruiting is in a death spiral, through no fault of the Army,'' Krohn told me. Always defending uniformed personnel, he resents hard-pressed recruiters being attacked for offering unauthorized benefits to make quotas. In a recent e-mail sent to friends (mostly retired military), Krohn complained that the ''Army is having to compensate for a problem of national scope.''
The Army's dilemma is maintaining an all-volunteer service when volunteering means going in harm's way in Iraq. The dilemma extends to national policy. How can the United States maintain its global credibility against the Islamists, if military ranks cannot be filled by volunteers and there is no public will for a draft?
Krohn's e-mail describes the problem: ''Consider the implications of being unable to find sufficient volunteers, as seen by our adversaries. Has the United States lost its will to survive? What's happened to the Great Satan when so few are willing to fight to defend the country? Surely bin Laden et al are making this argument, telling supporters victory is just around the corner if they are a bit more patient. And if they're successful, the energy sources in the Mideast may be within their grasp.''

Who is winning the war of attrition in Iraq?

Cobra Commander · 2005-05-26 11:41:16

Who is winning the war of attrition in Iraq?

No one is ever winning a war of attrition in any meaningful sense. Both sides think they can win if they just hang on, the mutual bloddying continues. Anything less wouldn't be "attrition".

That said, they're getting just as bad as they're giving. And then only because of American self-restraint.

In our zeal to be seen as "liberators" and not offend or stir up the locals we may have shot ourselves in the foot. Perhaps it would have been better to let them whip up into a frenzy, drop a few things into the mix to help the will to meet the Great Satan on the field of battle bubble over. Then roll in, flatten a lot more, kill alot more, grip alot tighter. Instead we left too many enemies alive, annoyed the army by firing them and gave a general sense of weakness by being too accomodating to the desires of local and tribal leaders. Now we've got a bunch of yahoos running around fighting a desperate guerrilla campaign and all these people we're trying to not to piss off running around. We're trying to win hearts and minds and we're coming off as armor-plated wussies. When you take over a country you don't start asking the local mayor how to run the place, you tell 'em.

By correcting a few recurring errors, we will be winning the war without question. Stop insulating ourselves from the population but don't try to be their buddy. We aren't there to build schools, that's a byproduct. When it comes time to hit, hit hard and don't hesitate. If you start to take Fallujah, take Fallujah.

Edited By Cobra Commander on 1117129323

clark · 2005-05-26 11:44:53

Perhaps behave as Saddam did in order to maintain security and control of Iraq... but then that would justify another country coming in, since we went in to stop the human rights absue... :laugh:

Oh, we've lost. It's just a matter of how badly at this point.

Cobra Commander · 2005-05-26 11:54:36

Perhaps behave as Saddam did in order to maintain security and control of Iraq... but then that would justify another country coming in, since we went in to stop the human rights absue...

You can be firm and strong without being a monster.

Oh, we've lost. It's just a matter of how badly at this point.

That's what I like about you, that boundless optimism and can-do spirit.

Crap, someone's still fighting us! They've got exploding cars, it's all over!

BWhite · 2005-05-26 11:58:25

Perhaps behave as Saddam did in order to maintain security and control of Iraq... but then that would justify another country coming in, since we went in to stop the human rights absue...
You can be firm and strong without being a monster.
Oh, we've lost. It's just a matter of how badly at this point.
That's what I like about you, that boundless optimism and can-do spirit.
Crap, someone's still fighting us! They've got exploding cars, it's all over!

Which Iraqi groups are really on our side?

clark · 2005-05-26 12:01:11

Dude, GI's are still dying, and Congress argues over the role of women in the military.

Define the "win". By all measures, we have already lost.

We can stabilize the place, but we still lose because the final cost will be more than what its worth.

Cobra Commander · 2005-05-26 12:05:07

We can stabilize the place, but we still lose because the final cost will be more than what its worth.

Unless it becomes a focalpoint for changing the entire region for the better. By no means guaranteed, but stranger things have happened.

BWhite · 2005-05-26 12:09:53

We can stabilize the place, but we still lose because the final cost will be more than what its worth.
Unless it becomes a focalpoint for changing the entire region for the better. By no means guaranteed, but stranger things have happened.

There are no local tribes that are on "our side" in the long run except the Kurds and they don't want to run all Iraq they just want Kirkuk and to be left alone.

To "win" we need to force the Shia and the Sunni to become friends, and not friends via killing Yanks. How long did the Brits need to solve Ireland?

= = =

http://www.juancole.com/2005/05/sometim … ]Sometimes you are just screwed

Note Juan Cole is NOT advocating just getting out.

f the US drew down its troop strength in Iraq too rapidly, the guerrillas would simply kill the new political class and stabilizing figures such as Grand Ayatollah Sistani. Although US forces have arguably done more harm than good in many Sunni Arab areas, they have prevented set-piece battles from being staged by ethnic militias, and they have prevented a number of attempted assassinations.
In an ideal world, the United States would relinquish Iraq to a United Nations military command, and the world would pony up the troops needed to establish order in the country in return for Iraqi good will in post-war contract bids. But that is not going to happen for many reasons. George W. Bush is a stubborn man and Iraq is his project, and he is not going to give up on it. And, by now the rest of the world knows what would await its troops in Iraq, and political leaders are not so stupid as to send their troops into a meat grinder.
Therefore, I conclude that the United States is stuck in Iraq for the medium term, and perhaps for the long term. The guerrilla war is likely to go on a decade to 15 years. Given the basic facts, of capable, trained and numerous guerrillas, public support for them from Sunnis, access to funding and munitions, increasing civil turmoil, and a relatively small and culturally poorly equipped US military force opposing them, led by a poorly informed and strategically clueless commander-in-chief who has made himself internationally unpopular, there is no near-term solution.

Edited By BWhite on 1117131315

clark · 2005-05-26 12:13:58

Unless it becomes a focalpoint for changing the entire region for the better. By no means guaranteed, but stranger things have happened.

For it to become better, we need more troops. See previous discussion.

I don't see the chimp doing that.

It's just a matter of not losing *badly*.

Come on, the generals are saying they can win militarily, but they are losing politicaly. The whole point was the politcal.

We can kill well, but that only goes so far. [shrug]

Grypd · 2005-05-26 12:26:17

*Grypd wrote:
It is also thought of by people in France as making Europe more like that of Britain and the USA and would reduce there social infrastructures. Incidentally the constitution is likely to recieve a No from Britain when it comes to a vote as people here think it would make Britain more like Europe and force on us legislation that would impair our society.
I've seen comments in news articles wherein Britain is called "America's Poodle" by folks on the European continent.
What is the British reaction to this charge?
Don't care what others think? Try to make amends and be conciliatory to other European nations? Try to hold a "middle of the road" stance?
In my mind, I always separate Britain from Europe...but probably on the basis of language and shared history (American Colonies, etc.).
--Cindy

It does seem that the charges that Britain and Tony Blair in particular are Americas poodle annoy a lot of people in Britain. Certainly it gets worse when the same charges are used by politicians in the UK as well. Unlike in the USA where the war in Iraq has reasonably broad support the population in the UK where not that enamoured of the idea of the war in the first place and the ones who did support it have quickly gone sour to it.
Anyone who has been paying attention will notice that Tony Blair is looking haggard even after having one the last election. This election was one where even without a credible opposition alternative the labour goverment recieved a vastly reduced majority and an almost unworkable goverment but for labour it could have been a lot worse except for belief. This is the popular belief is that Blair will step down and soon to allow his chancellor Gordon Brown to take over. For all intents Tony Blair is no longer ruling the goverment as Gordon Brown has as the almost annointed successor been the focus of the MPs and pressure groups that run the country. It is only a matter of when that Blair will step down and when would be best for the country and his party. Still for all intents the UK is considered the bad man of europe. First of all we tend to go our own way politically and would not join the Euro and are highly critical of the waste that is the beauracracy in brussels. Add to that that unlike europe we are being very effective economically and as such with a much stronger voice amongst the new states in europe. An example of problems between Europe and Britain is what is called the rebate. European countries put into europe about 1% of there gross income. But most countries recieve the majority of this back in grants to agricultural producers. The UK though does not due to the nature of the produce made and being an Island. Margaret Thatcher won back a rebate of the money as compensation and it has been a sore point with europe ever since as every year we get about £5 Billion back. Every time that Europe and in particular France tries to have it cancelled as Britains economy is so much stronger and getting stronger Britain warns it will simply use its veto.

When it comes down to europe most people in the UK look at it with major suspicion and there is even two political parties that are activally wanting Britain to withdraw from the whole buisness.

Grypd · 2005-05-26 14:50:19

Peer of the realm. a member of the house of lords. Nobility

What we do is we knight them or make them lords or ladies. Frankly a rather good idea if they can make fun of it they can run it, the country that is.

clark · 2005-05-26 14:51:42

but you're not allowed to joke about the Queen Mother? Weird.

BWhite · 2005-05-26 14:57:00

An old joke but here goes. Poor England. Boy George gives 'em two queens with poor taste in clothing.

Palomar · 2005-05-26 15:06:05

P.S.: I just recalled (unrelated to the current topic) a clip from a TV show you guys had in the 198/90s, with puppets, spoofing royals and political figures: Puppets of Queen Elizabeth and Margaret Thatcher fighting over a crown, yelling "Let go! It's mine!" "No, it's MINE!" :laugh: Sorry...it just came to mind, LOL. John Major was a "gray" puppet -- entirely GRAY.
Ah, spitting image do you know I can still sing some of the songs
Actually it shows another difference between the UK and the rest of europe. In the UK it is perfectly fair to take a shear ribbing out of your leaders and has been done for years, ever seen yes minister or the sequel yes Prime minister. Still this is not allowed on the continent and goverments there will instantly silence newspapers that run certain stories with lawsuits.

*Interesting to "see" more from a first-hand account (yours). I wasn't aware of that, though it has seemed to me Europe is more "conservative" (I dislike using that word, because it's so "loaded" here in America) than Britain; but that was simply an impression.

Looks like a rather deep cultural divide in that regard.

--Cindy

BWhite · 2005-05-26 17:07:21

John Bolton cloture vote fails. Will Bush do a recess appointment?

Odds?

= = =

The Bolton vote delay is over a refusal to release documents.

What is Bush hiding?

Edited By BWhite on 1117152919

Cobra Commander · 2005-05-27 05:36:01

Ah, spitting image do you know I can still sing some of the songs

:laugh: I remember, used to watch that whenever I was in Canada. Of course I was both American and a kid so I only got about half the jokes, but still good stuff.

John Bolton cloture vote fails. Will Bush do a recess appointment?

No, because elected Republicans are spineless and overly accomodating to their adversaries.

Then again, I won't be surprised if Bush just says "f**k it" one day and has a mad spree of recess appointments and other Dem-shafting shenanigans. Or takes one of the three judicial nominees the "compromise" lets through and appoints them to the Supreme Court. Or recess appoints Robert Bork to something. :laugh:

American politics are boring, no one snaps anymore. Congress needs to throw chairs or have fistfights or something.

And real fillibusters!

clark · 2005-05-27 05:40:10

Okay, straw poll: Does anyone really care who our UN ambassador is?

Palomar · 2005-05-28 07:52:04

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u … r]Veterans protest unveiling of statue on Memorial Day

*I'm with them. The 18th century personage in question was loyal to and fought on the side of England. (According to the article, even England hasn't honored this man).

A year or two ago, a Mexican-American inquired on Bill O'Reilly why Mexican war heros can't be honored at The Alamo.

Why indeed? ???

Maybe one of our astronaut friends of the Archie Bunker persuasion will make a public statement on this issue.

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2005-05-28 10:07:06

*I'm with them. The 18th century personage in question was loyal to and fought on the side of England. (According to the article, even England hasn't honored this man).
A year or two ago, a Mexican-American inquired on Bill O'Reilly why Mexican war heros can't be honored at The Alamo.

I've always thought it was a bit odd that we honor Confederate heros, let alone foreign adversaries. What other country honors defeated rebels to the extent of this one?

It seems we're already very accomodating to the memory of fallen foes.

Not that Rogers shouldn't be remebered, but as some in the article point out, the timing isn't great.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2005-05-25 09:46:17

Re: Political Potpourri V - Continued from previous

#27 2005-05-25 09:59:02

Re: Political Potpourri V - Continued from previous

#28 2005-05-25 10:57:51

Re: Political Potpourri V - Continued from previous

#29 2005-05-25 14:19:01

Re: Political Potpourri V - Continued from previous

#30 2005-05-26 08:35:50

Re: Political Potpourri V - Continued from previous

#31 2005-05-26 09:39:50

Re: Political Potpourri V - Continued from previous

#32 2005-05-26 11:26:44

Re: Political Potpourri V - Continued from previous

#33 2005-05-26 11:41:16

Re: Political Potpourri V - Continued from previous

#34 2005-05-26 11:44:53

Re: Political Potpourri V - Continued from previous

#35 2005-05-26 11:54:36

Re: Political Potpourri V - Continued from previous

#36 2005-05-26 11:58:25

Re: Political Potpourri V - Continued from previous

#37 2005-05-26 12:01:11

Re: Political Potpourri V - Continued from previous

#38 2005-05-26 12:05:07

Re: Political Potpourri V - Continued from previous

#39 2005-05-26 12:09:53

Re: Political Potpourri V - Continued from previous

#40 2005-05-26 12:13:58

Re: Political Potpourri V - Continued from previous

#41 2005-05-26 12:26:17

Re: Political Potpourri V - Continued from previous

#42 2005-05-26 14:50:19

Re: Political Potpourri V - Continued from previous

#43 2005-05-26 14:51:42

Re: Political Potpourri V - Continued from previous

#44 2005-05-26 14:57:00

Re: Political Potpourri V - Continued from previous

#45 2005-05-26 15:06:05

Re: Political Potpourri V - Continued from previous

#46 2005-05-26 17:07:21

Re: Political Potpourri V - Continued from previous

#47 2005-05-27 05:36:01

Re: Political Potpourri V - Continued from previous

#48 2005-05-27 05:40:10

Re: Political Potpourri V - Continued from previous

#49 2005-05-28 07:52:04

Re: Political Potpourri V - Continued from previous

#50 2005-05-28 10:07:06

Re: Political Potpourri V - Continued from previous

Board footer