Who nose? 

Analog avatars 

Harbingery 

discuss

"...bumper sticker caught my eye: “Under Republicans, man exploits man. Under Democrats, it’s just the opposite.”

Ciao Chip

discuss

-- Iran is a Shia power. With the US out of the picture, Saudi Arabia and Egypt (Sunni powers) will feel compelled to get nukes for their own protection. The Shia and Sunni hate each other along the same lines as 17th century Protestants and Catholics. A 30 years war rerun with nukes isn't my idea of a good time

-- The Turks will watch the Kurds try to set up a separate Kurdistan, and invade northern Iraq, in order to stop their Kurds from trying to join in. It's come close to that with us there.

-- Hamas and Hezbollah will see a US withdrawal as a sign that it's time to make the final push on Israel - and Iran and Syria will agree. Oh boy - another regional conflict with nukes all around.

-- We'll end up having to bail from Afghanistan. You think Pakistan or any of the other border states will want (now seen as fickle) US troops using their country to enter Afghanistan?

End result: jihadists interpret Iraq (shortly followed by Afghanistan) as huge victories. This isn't like Ireland, where the IRA had limited objectives - It's more like 16th and 17th century Spain, where they want to stamp out apostasy and infidels wherever they can. Imagine a Spain that won against England in 1588; that's about where the jihadists will be after a US withdrawal.

The Democrat answer to all this is to plug their ears and chant "la la la", claiming that terrorism stems only from our entry into Iraq. if you believe that, feel free to explain:

-- the ongoing slaughter of Christians in Indonesia -- the large Islamic insurgency (thousands dead) in southern Thailand -- the current mess in France - attacks on police and fire every night, with some kind of riots that will eclipse last year's a near certainty

Look around the world - wherever there's a significant Muslim minority, there's a problem. You can't blame much of that on Iraq. This is why I - and I'm sure I'm not alone in this - can't pull the "D" lever on Tuesday.

Leaving all that aside, there's a simpler reason that has nothing to do with foreign policy. The Democrats have done a far better job of getting rid of my civil rights than the Republicans who supposedly yearn to do so. While Bush signed Campaign Finance "Reform", which party spent years advocating it? Why is it now illegal to do issue advocacy that names a candidate within 60 days of an election, unless you have the wherewithal to become a 527? Where do I go to get my first amendment rights back? I won't vote "D" solely on that issue, and I'll never vote for McCain, same reason.

discuss

Which branch of the service did you serve in? Did your combat experience include Vietnam? What commendations did you receive from your government for your service?

After you present your credentials, perhaps we will take you and other soft-bellied bellicose theorists seriously. Otherwise, we have to regard your theories the way entrepreneurs regard economists. Interesting, perhaps. Irrelevant, certainly.

You act as if the US has the power to change the course in Iraq. Sorry. It's over. There is no number of troops that can salvage Iraq, because we develop warriors who want to become civilians again, one at a time. The jihadists develop warriors a hundred at a time, and they don't care if they live or die.

You're right: There WILL be a Vietnam-style bloodbath. But the fact is that we can do nothing about it. Your fellow theorists have ensured that truth.

This isn't about Republicans vs. Democrats. It's about theorists vs. clear thinkers. That's why John Robb and I and Jim Webb and every General you might talk to off the record will tell you that we need to get out while we still have blood and treasure enough to do some good in areas where we can make a difference.

discuss

It may or may not have been a good idea to invade Iraq. I don't fault Bush for his idealistic motives, fear of WMDs, desire to protect the oil supply or whatever. But to sit there and say we have to return the faith-based Republican Party to office election after election in order to avoid problems in Iraq is to strain credulity beyond the breaking point.

Here's the secret: you're right that Iraq is going to be even more trouble in the future than it was under Saddam, but the problem is that the Republicans have no better idea about how to fix it than the Democrats do. And they never have had an idea of how to win this war, from the day the looting started to the present. They'd rather be resurrecting Terri Schiavo than bringing democracy to a bunch of foreigners.

We need some new ideas and a fresh perspective in Washington. "Stay the course" all the way to hell is no longer a compelling option.

discuss

I grew up in a hard-core Republican family. My father voted once for a Democrat, when he supported Roosevelt one time out of four, and always regretted it.

Pop was a proud soldier who hated war but believed sometimes you just needed to fight. Even though he'd already served, and couldn't stand Roosevelt, he re-enlisted in the army at age 36 to fight in WWII. And he wasn't alone. "The Greatest Generation" is no exaggeration.

We were Goldwater (as opposed to Rockefeller, for those old enough to remember the distinction) Republicans. I may still have an original copy of The Conscience of a Conservative around here somewhere.

My father and I didn't agree about the Vietnam War (which he believed we mismanaged after the Democrats got us into it... we agreed about that much), the death penalty, and a pile of other transient (and a few enduring) issues. But we shared a belief that government shouldn't do what business can do better, separation of church and state, the limitless power of individual liberty and a variety of other values that unite rather than divide a nation. This was what the Grand Old Party of Lincoln stood for back then. With the Bush Presidency many if not all these values have been traded away or abandoned. Goldwater would be appalled. I'm not sure Ronald Reagan would recognize what's become of the party he re-energized.

Bottom line: The GOP has its head up its ass. We need to kick both at once. Maybe then it will wake up.

discuss

And honestly, I voted for Regan (twice) and the elder Bush, but then Clinton seemed to have better ideas so I voted for him. Meanwhile, Bush Jr. became the cheif dickhead in Texas (I lived in Austin at the time). Very, very few of us living in Austin voted for the man in 2000, vastly prefering Ralph Nader to either Gore or Shrub.

Shrub carried the state, of course, and repeated in 2004.

I don't think the Democrats have a magic bullet to cure all that ills the country, but the current administration needs to be checked in its efforts toward monarchy, and the only mechanism we have as a populace, short of revolt and overthrow, is to elect a large majority of the opposing party to Congress and pray for stalemate duing the next two years.

discuss

discuss

I do not know if you know that feed is no longer working, but I did not see any notice that it was going away.

discuss