The Europeans can’t get their entertainment if the fight is one nation with nukes against another without, so.

We have nuclear weapons, we’ve used them and know the damage they can do so we’d like to see to it that no more countries have them. Many of the countries that want them the most are run by thugs, madmen, fanatics or tyrants. This is called reality and self-preservation, not patty-cake.

Both. If the strong-arm play works, great, we’ve found a way to effectively fend off the terrorists. If not, we’ve gotten rid of Moore. It’s a win-win situation.

Incidentally, the “word” it gave me to verify for this message resembles your name.

Sounds like an excellent time to try out the “10 al Qaeda prisoners executed for each hostage killed” tactic. We should be so lucky.

Justin, do you mean lucky that we get to try out the tactic or lucky Moore is the hostage?

Papa still hasn’t defended why the Islamic rapist and murderer is justified in talking to the US policeman securing peace and order as if the US was a little kid. Maybe brad’s arguments arguments, are easier for papa to rail against than the strong force.

The idea that Muslim cultire is not American culture, so anything goes is a little bit… evil. Just a little bit.

I posted the Democracy Now interview just as an offering from the left. Take it or leave it.

Also, re. the thread topic, the problem isn’t so much Bush, or Republicans, it’s Americans. As much as I look forward to you yanks kicking the bastards out of power, I have no illusions that your culture will suddenly transform itself.

Our people are decided in the opinion that it is necessary for us to take a share in the occupation of the ocean … and that line of policy be pursued which will render the use of that element as great as possible to them. … But what will be the consequence? Frequent wars without a doubt. … Our commerce on the ocean and in othe countries must be paid for by frequent war.
- Thomas Jefferson to John Jay, 1785

The national guard has even enlisted an army of 500 Indians to defend the country with poison-tipped arrows, Chavez said recently, adding: “If they had to take a good shot at any invader, you’d be done for in 30 seconds, my dear gringo.” Source

“Like I said name calling is the work habits of the weak.
…
Second, I have eloquently proven you wrong and all I get is a child like name calling.
…
Brad just remembers sticks & stones… sticks & stones you
neo-con douche bag LOL”

Speaks for itself.

Like I said name calling is the work habits of the weak.

*Granted I need to read my responses before I submit. ><

“You lack logic, eloquence, or even a semblance of lucidity”

First, instead of passing judgment on my lack of logic take a look in the mirror because you may not like what you find.

Second, I have eloquently proven you wrong and all I get is a child like name calling.

Lastly, I’m perhaps the only lucid person on this entire site LOL.

Brad just remembers sticks & stones… sticks & stones you
neo-con douche bag LOL

Sounds like an excellent time to try out the “10 al Qaeda prisoners executed for each hostage killed” tactic. We should be so lucky.

A choice between the ugly American and the beautiful Brit? Hmmmm. . . first off, it’s obvious the terrorists are playing their own game, trying to create discord between Britain and America.

Refuse to play their game. Play your own game. Yes, the first responsibility is to the American citizen, but we also don’t want to alienate the British.

The American president stalls for as much time as he can, even hints at punishing Israel, giving the terrorists’ sponsor government more cash—anything he can, to string them along.

All the while he’s doing this, he’s also talking to the British government, and to our troops in the area, and laying his own plans. . .

ideally, the situation will be resolved with special forces rescuing both the British, and the American hostage, killing the terrorists in the process. Then, everybody can jeer, “SUCKEEEERRRRRS!” at the terrorists—who will certainly not be in any hurry to do anything like this again, any time soon.

Another tactic might be to start putting some pressure on the sponsor government—and there’s always a sponsor government behind these things. Explain to them that, if they want to keep their capital city all nice and pristine, and unbombed, it might behoove them to hunt down the terrorists themselves.

Basic rule of thumb—don’t play their game, play yours.

(Of course, life being the way it is, these things are never as tidy as they are in these game questions. In reality, the British hostage would probably be Red Ken Livingstone, who went over there to show his solidarity with the terrorists, and the American one would be Michael Moore, who went there to make a movie about the courageous terrorist “Minutemen”.

In which case—why bother rescuing either one?)

Oh, you know how things go with bureaucracy. The government is having enough trouble disposing of its chemical weapons stockpiles in time for the 2012 deadline (12,300 tons down, 19,200 tons to go).

The arrogance, to think you can tell who can and who can’t have nuke capability. No wonder the mullahs put this little roach in power. Middle East has been around lot longer then U.S. It’s like the kid telling his parents how much allowance they can get.

Technically, it’s the UN deciding that, in the case of Iran. Just like with Iraq and the chemical/biological weapons (which seem to be nonexistent). In both cases the US was never the one to give the verdict.

How typical; using the good old McCarthy tactic to label everyone who opposes their ideology red. Or should I say blue.

Okay… so you’re not a communist, you’re not a liberal, and you’re not a neo-con. That leaves what… a fascist?

cultures who have been on this plant lot longer then any of their forefathers.

Do be careful. Those mixed metaphors can bite.

“First, your society is formed in the country that you live in and not the whole planet. Get that through your thick skull. However you can be arrogant about it and say yes it is. At this point I would recognize you as a nimrod and move on.”

How odd. I never implied any universality to what I wrote; you, apparently, assumed it. You bad!!

“Second, rape, assault, murder are all words used by everyone in there propaganda massage for vanquishing evil.”

“…there propaganda massage …”!!!!!!!???!!!

And you suppose that you can refute an argument with grammar like that!!??!!

You are truly a sick puppy.

Sincerely,
Brad.

A perfect description of Islamic fundamentalism. LOL

Calling me names unfortunately doesn’t work with me. You born again conservatives remind me of the young Turks, full of ideas yet no actual plan to execute other then bloodshed.

“In our society, and others, if someone has commited rape, assault, or murder, they are locked up and even if released are not allowed to own arms.”

Brad:
First, your society is formed in the country that you live in and not the whole planet. Get that through your thick skull. Thus Middle East is NOT your society!! However you can be arrogant about it and say yes it is. At this point I would recognize you as a nimrod and move on.
Second, rape, assault, murder are all words used by everyone in there propaganda massage for vanquishing evil. The Mullahs are saying the same stuff about us, and its nothing but lame attempt of tossing mud in each others face.

FYI this country is no younger then 230 years old and has a whole history of Rape, assault, murder as well.

But I don’t judge because everyone deserves to reform and change their ways. No British Empire told us how to solve our problems. This country made that decision on its own; through civil war. When Slavery was abolished in England soon became an influence for us to do the same. But no Redcoat said lets have a regime changes now did they???

Lastly,
None of you douche bags know anything about Middle East or its history. Hell this president couldn’t even point Iraq on the world map during his first elected term.
But once again I believe he too can reform and so can you. You were born in a liberal era so it is understandable to feel rather then to think. But soon or later Rene Descartes and you must confront him about not using your brains for thinking.

The problem isn’t about reform in our “worldly society”, the problem is a group of righteous pricks who thinks they have a perfect society and must enforce it on everyone else including on cultures who have been on this plant lot longer then any of their forefathers.

Cheerio

While I admittedly don’t like completely disregarding an opposing argument that isn’t made by a troll, what kind of response, exactly, are you expecting to that article? The claims made are virtually unprovable, not to mention undisprovable (though if you think you can prove it, you’re welcome to try). So, you want us to discuss hypotheticals, then? Sounds more like a thought experiment than a debate, to me.

On the contrary, it’s a waste of time discussing an argument’s merits with somebody who won’t listen to the argument in the first place.

Anon, when merely Googling Perkins’ name reveals that he is either a liar or crazy or both, why should anyone believe anything Perkins says? It’s a waste of time reading such charlatans.

Perkins revealed his fondness for conspiracy theories during a January 10 presentation at a bookstore in Washington. At one point, he claimed, falsely, that the U.S. government had been involved in the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy, Senator Robert F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King Jr., former Beatle John Lennon, and several unnamed U.S. senators who had died in plane crashes.

How can you believe someone who claims that the US was involved in John Lennon’s murder or the other crap in the above quote? Are you that gullible?

In response to a question about the September 11, 2001, attacks, he[Perkins] cautioned that although he did not know much about this subject he thought that if a bank had been robbed, the police would investigate the possibility that it had been an “inside job,” implying that the U.S. government may have been involved in the 9/11 attacks. He also recommended a Web site that puts forward the false claim that no plane hit the Pentagon on September 11, 2001.

Amy Goodman & Democracy Now pimps terrorism & gives a platform to every America-hater & conspiracy theorist that she can locate.

They must know when to kill, how to kill, why to kill. They must learn the weak points of the human body, and the different attack combos and tricks to use against a smaller/bigger person. They must also learn when it is the appropriate time to use such maneuvers, and when a word might prevent violence.

For the most fearsome of warmongers conserve their strength, they do not expend it as the fake liberals have in trying to conquer the world.

Fox News gave a good report about my homeland, China. Where the poor and destitute were having their homes crushed and sold for billions of dollars, while they get nothing but the shat spit upon them by the Chinese secret police. There were a lot of police pushing the Fox News reporters away from scenes of violence and despair, inflicted by the Communistic government of the People’s Republic of China.

China does not have the military nor the civics necessary to challenge the United States of America. Besides, we’ll have India on our side, and the Indians have short stakes. That’ll match anything the Chinese can bring to the field, eating cockroaches or not.

Those of you who spend hours of your time on this site playing war games; I hope you have the same amount of time for an actual one.

Dude, did you not freaking realize that several front line and most backline troops in the military, friends that I’ve known and talked to, actually play A LOT of games? What did you think they did in their down time, watch Abu Ghraib videos?

Frankly, from the way you write, I doubt this. You don’t write like a “winner,” and that’s what I expect from the marines. They are winners.

Prome, The Marines are too dumb to know when to quit. I know, cause the Marines get itchy if I tell them that they are “intellectual”. They tend to think it is an insult, those that I have known. One Marine Sergeant dropped out of the Naval Academy, because he couldn’t stand the Mickey Mouse necessary to get a commission. Okay, whatever.

But the Marine Corps, Prome, has a bunch of weird people in it. Look at Murtha for example. Heck, you should see the history of 101st Screaming Eagles. Some wack shit going there. Remember that dude who threw a grenade into the command tents? Most Marines are as the stereotype paints them, they would have to be to push through as shock troops. But not even the military is monolithic. There are Marines who don’t believe that the most dangerous weapon is a Marine Rifleman. Okay, but whatever.

So, steve is telling the truth. If a Marine can disbelieve the motto of the Marine Corps and the tradition and honor of the Corps, then steve can be pessimistic.

John Perkins proves that if he were running the NSA and CIA, that this is exactly what he would do to those countries.

I repeat: The United States is the most benign world power this planet has ever witnessed.

Perhaps it is time, grackle, for that Golden Age to end, in the best interests of the future of the world.

Snowonpine gives a very good rendition of the Fate of History, and its ever judgement upon mortals, Juggernaut and God alike. I’m going to save it on my blog.

Papa,

It is fake liberal, not liberal.

No, member of the islamic jihad, it is not the little US kid telling the parent MidEast what to do. It is the rapist, murderer, fascistic jihadist telling the compassionate and law abiding policeman to get out of his way. It takes real guts for a fascistic rapist to say to a policeman that he has rights and nobody else does. Real guts. But not a lot of guts for a propagandist like you to cover up for them in the islamic jihad.

Yes that’s right folks a liberal use of our best bombs. How about some of our non-tested bunker busters; is the first priority if we want to rattle that snake pit.

And after the destruction of enough “sites” we will send them the terms of their surrender and have a Fox news special coverage about the liberation of Iran from the Iranian regime. Next we shall replace the Iranian regime and have a Tasmanian regime who worships the very grounds the west walks. That’s right folks the new Iran will dream of becoming like the new Roman Empire.

The arrogance, to think you can tell who can and who can’t have nuke capability. No wonder the mullahs put this little roach in power. Middle East has been around lot longer then U.S. It’s like the kid telling his parents how much allowance they can get.

If U.S. truly wants to be the last bastion of democracy and peace, then how about disposing of some the piles of nukes we already have. How about telling everyone we don’t need them and neither do you. Instead we are playing favoritism and plan on building new modern warheads. Let’s face it, people are just tired. Neo-con’s, the Iranian regime and everone else are begging for war.

Have you watched the interview, or read the transcription?

Winning WWII without major attacks on U.S. soil and the long prosperity that followed has produced a citizenry that has, in many cases, become so insulated from the realities of history and most of the rest of the world that we almost can’t see the barbarians at the gates; we have not experienced the havoc they can wreak personally, so they are not real to us.

During this same post-WWII period the media, academia and the religious community also played their part in creating the confusion, hesitations and lack of confidence that characterize today’s anti-survival mindset. During WWII these elites, mainly conservative in viewpoint, were basically supportive of American culture as superior and they supported the government against outside threats. Now, these segments of society, overwhelmingly liberal, detest part or all of our culture and see the government as the threat; outside threats are downplayed or totally disbelieved.

Reading history, it is obvious how rare a democracy like ours is and how unique are our fortunate circumstances. It would not take much at all to destroy our dream.

The ideas, among many others, planted and nurtured by these elites, that American civilization is no better and, in fact, worse than mopst if not all others, the viewpoiint that our economic success is not the result of American’s hard work but is the result of our shameful plundering of the rest of the planet, the idea that we are false as opposed to the genuine people in the underdeveloped and Third World, have taken their toll on our “civilizational confidence.” It seems as if some of the proponents of such ideas believe that Americans should be ashamed to live at all. We’ve been taught that we should not “stigmatize”, “discriminate against” or “judge” but strive to “appreciate” and “understand” countries, movements and leaders who have clearly demonstrated or stated that they want to destroy us. We’ve been taught that war is wrong and the implication, given the ideas above, is that such shameful, inauthentic exploiters as we don’t really have any legitimate right of self-defense.

The barbarians are campted all around our walls, if you look you can see their many fires at night. They are preparing to use a battering ram to smash down our gates, invade and plunder our city, slaughter our citizens, enslave the women and children and then burn it to the ground. Yet many of us are sitting around arguing about whether they truly are barbarians. Some argue that when they say they want to kill us and take our land and women, they really don’t mean it, Others wonder if we shouldn’t open the gates to the more genuine barbarians who, after all, have legitimate grievences against us–we deserve whatever we get; it’s just their way of venting, surely they wouldn’t really hurt us. Some wonder if we should send out our daughters and treasury in the hopes of buying them off. Others are arguing that to take up arms against them is immoral and, in addition, might get us hurt.

You want to be destroyed, become just an illustration of folly in a history book, when books are ever written again, this is the way to do it.

Perkins has written some books:

Psychonavigation: “first hand accounts of how diverse tribal cultures travel beyond time and space by means of visions and dream wanderings;”

Shapeshifting: “shamanistic techniques for global and personal transformation;”

and The World Is As You Dream It: “shamanistic techniques from the Amazon and Andes.”

Obviously, Perkins’ hold on reality is tenuous. Perkins has zero credibility. I’m not surprised that Amy Goodman & Democracy Now is involved with him. They give a forum to every fantasy artist she can dig up.

I wonder if Anon noticed the 2005 G8 Summit at Gleneagles. It illustrated the real US economic policy:

Under the plan, 18 HIPC countries will be immediately eligible for … debt forgiveness: Benin, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guyana, Honduras, Madagascar, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Niger, Rwanda, Senegal, Tanzania, Uganda, and Zambia. The remaining HIPCs will also become eligible as they reach their HIPC Completion Point.

The total amount forgiven for the 18 HIPC completion point countries will be $40 billion in nominal terms …. The full application of the cancellation of existing debt repayments could amount to as much as $60 billion as countries complete the process.

http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2006/Feb/02-767147.html

Perkins is a nut-case. I’m not surprised that Amy Goodman & Democracy Now is involved with him. They give a forum to every fantasy artist she can find. I repeat: The United States is the most benign world power this planet has ever witnessed.

AMY GOODMAN: What does it mean to be an economic hit man?

JOHN PERKINS: Well, what we’ve done — we use many techniques, but probably the most common is that we’ll go to a country that has resources that our corporations covet, like oil, and we’ll arrange a huge loan to that country from an organization like the World Bank or one of its sisters, but almost all of the money goes to the U.S. corporations, not to the country itself, corporations like Bechtel and Halliburton, General Motors, General Electric, these types of organizations, and they build huge infrastructure projects in that country: power plants, highways, ports, industrial parks, things that serve the very rich and seldom even reach the poor. In fact, the poor suffer, because the loans have to be repaid, and they’re huge loans, and the repayment of them means that the poor won’t get education, health, and other social services, and the country is left holding a huge debt, by intention. We go back, we economic hit men, to this country and say, “Look, you owe us a lot of money. You can’t repay your debts, so give us a pound of flesh. Sell our oil companies your oil real cheap or vote with us at the next U.N. vote or send troops in support of ours to some place in the world such as Iraq.” And in that way, we’ve managed to build a world empire with very few people actually knowing that we’ve done this.

AMY GOODMAN: And you worked for?

JOHN PERKINS: I was recruited by the National Security Agency.

Excerpt from the top of the interview at Democracy Now.

We’re in the “next one,” Anon. It’s a war that started centuries ago. This era of the war has been fanned like a smoldering fire by the winds of technology. Civilizations can no longer avoid one another; television, the internet & global travel make cultural confrontation inevitable. The enemy is frightened by the change the West represents, change that has been deferred by isolation: Feminism, the relegation of religion into a private issue, freedom of expression in literature, periodicals, cinema, television & all forms of advertising. Freedom in all its fearsome aspects.

Foreigners will control their natural resources.

Anon, foreigners already “control their natural resources.” The US doesn’t “control” any other country’s natural resources(meaning, I suppose, oil) yet this belief is implicit in much sloganeering. What the US does, along with every other industrialized nation, is to buy oil, a transaction no more controlling than picking up a loaf of bread at the grocer.

OK, I will agree with you on this: if the executive power, in consultation with the legislative power, and even after the miscalculation over Iraqi WMD’s, decides that surgical strikes on Iran are necessary, then I will accept that, fine.

Then we’ll see what happens afterwards.

Thanks for your reply, Steve. Actually, I don’t think we are in agreement on certain assumptions inherent in your response. You see, for me there were several legitimate reasons to topple Saddam, looking for WMD in Iraq was at the bottom of the list – a very minor “miscalculation” that has been blown out of proportion.

I think the Iranians are quite safe from surgical strikes, all out war or even meaningful sanctions. Appeasement & isolationism is the order of the day & Iran will have its nukes before long. Other Islamic states will follow suit.

Then we’ll see what happens afterwards.

1. Let’s stop worrying about whether the Iranians are “little brown people.” They’re people, and we need to take them seriously.

2. Let’s be willing to “do what it takes” to end the threat of nukes from madmen Islamists. They should not be allowed to gain any more power. If this involves killing thousands, well…so be it. It’s them or us.

3. Let’s not get discouraged if the Iraqi project takes some time. As one poster pointed out, it was never clear from the very beginning just what the war expectations were. Why would anyone have thought that building democracy in Iraq would be an easy job? I sure didn’t. If it takes 50 or 100 years, that’s OK. Things take time. Americans tend to think that 5 years is a long time. That’s where I break from my people. I have a “historical” frame of reference. Three hundred years is nothing in the scheme of things. I could give many examples–but this is supposed to be a short post.

4. There’s no reason why we should be in a hurry. Anyone who has any info on Arab society would never expect simple and quick solutions. Only the naive would expect things to move along efficiently and quickly. Arab society is primitive, and needs to be brought up to speed to function in the modern world.

5. On the other hand, as one who has observed amazing changes among the Chinese in the past 50 years, I have no reason to despair of the changes possible among a dysfunctional group like the Arabs. As a group, they are quite primitive. Yet there are many scholarly and sophisticated people among them. There’s no reason to throw in the towel just because utopia hasn’t been achieve in Iraq in 3 years.

For doubters like Steve–get a grip! You say that you are an ex-marine. Frankly, from the way you write, I doubt this. You don’t write like a “winner,” and that’s what I expect from the marines. They are winners.

For the rest of you; you shall have your war(S). Not with Iran but with an equal opponent. Remember all large scale wars were started with little countries and the next one will be no different.

…you’re kidding, right? There isn’t a country in the world that could fight the US as an equal with conventional weapons. And if you want to talk nukes, then yes, key strokes are going to be exactly how the war is fought.

If you mean with biological or chemical weapons, well, then that’s my area of expertise. I’ll see you on the front lines (and by that I mean a military research lab); be there!

The neocon era had to close out someday; no one wins them all.

The 21 year old punk who runs his mouth needs to get ready for the front line so start practicing your aim and pushup’s cause key strokes doesn’t mean Jack.

For the rest of you; you shall have your war(S). Not with Iran but with an equal opponent. Remember all large scale wars were started with little countries and the next one will be no different.

Those of you who spend hours of your time on this site playing war games; I hope you have the same amount of time for an actual one.

So… asking people to give him solutions that he then says won’t happen, is his way of retaking control of American policies.

The obverse did occur. Because steve recommended that the US go hide in their bases, and that didn’t seem like a good solution. And I mentioned how the helpless kitten like bunnies in the US Marines will hide in their bases and stop IEDs from killing them.

Because there are various ways to defend against enemy psychological attacks. You could play games I guess, but the best way to defend is a good offense. Take the fight to the enemy, obliterate them. Steve won’t accept that obliterate strategy, and thus steve prevents the only thing from shoring up his pain at American casualties. Bad deal, steve.

Consistent.

A correction Neo. I suspected this, but didn’t want to bring it up. But he wasn’t 21, Fox News reported him as 16. I tend to think the records “misreported” his age for some reason. Ya, reason, like propaganda reasons. I don’t know why JP coaborated with it, maybe they had the same wrong documents.

So either Fox is right or JP is right, but I favor Fox given that if I was a terrorist, I’d say my puppets are 21 as well. Nice even number.

I am no liberal, but that’s precisely why I can endorse a fullscale war against Iran. Not that that’s what’s going to happen.

Steve’s modus operandi is a variant of what Eric Berne, author of Games People Play, used to call “Why Don’t You, Yes, But.” All possible solutions are rejected as impossible, in steve’s case because they “won’t happen.” Why won’t they happen? Because we haven’t reached that point yet. And he admits of no incremental solutions possible (especially of the military sort) between what we are doing now and all-out conflagration.

Besides, we know the Israelis won’t do Carthage because they’ve already taken 150% casualties and they still won’t do it. So they just don’t have the will.

You don’t have the same situation for America.

I will say this: my comment about the use of force, which seems to be what started this ruckus, was keyed to what I consider a common-sensical idea of self-imposed limits on the use of force by Western nations. True, those limits were not always honored (see World War Two). But they are being honored now, and have been, for decades.

Furthermore, I did not mean to imply that our self-imposed limit on the use of force in Iraq was tied to our desire to facilitate democratic development, although I do think you are correct, such self-restraint probably helps. At least, I hope it does.

Ymar: Of course the Israelis will bulldoze houses, or olive groves, or what not. You may add that to the list of things they have already done. However, they aren’t going to pull a Carthage on the West Bank, and that’s what I thought SB was implying they might do.

I’ve noticed, and other people should have by now as well, that the only way steve says you are wrong is by saying your solutions suck arse cause it won’t happen. Not in those words of course, but if you count up the times steve has said “it is not going to happen” to solutions offered by other people, you’d spend a considerable amount of time compiling the list.

The only thing steve has said will happen, is either carrots or full scale invasion. Which is ironic, because steve’s carrots approach and his full scale invasion are the things that really won’t happen. Hrm. Remember the steyn recommendation that you can overthrow the regime of Iran and then go away without an occupation, which steve didn’t like? Steve said steyn was leaving the mess to be cleaned up by someone else, as if that was a bad thing to steve. When Steyn suggested that steve’s full war mobilization and occupation was not going to happen, steve didn’t like that. Perhaps because he knows steyn has a point, that steve’s policies are not going to happen.

I don’t think it matters if steve lives in the real world or not, because if steve thinks solutions mean only the things that steve thinks will happen, then solutions mean whatever steve wants them to mean. Which, I suppose, might be the point.

This reminds me of the Realism strategy of the Cold War in the Republican party for some reason. The realists didn’t see a lot of things in the future, because they didn’t believe it would happen. They didn’t believe the wall would come down, they didn’t believe the Soviets would collapse, they didn’t believe Islamic Fascism was a problem.

I objected to the Iraq war primarily for the same reason I objected to taking Baghdad in 1991: because I knew it would open a huge can of worms, and we’d be stuck for a long time. And, BTW, I was right.

Why does steve always keep saying he was right that starting a war in enemy territory was a dangerous project? You’d think that would be common sense.

I don’t really have a lot of uses for people who criticize but ain’t got nothing to replace the plan, steve. And neither does the President and the United States.

Maybe even bulldoze their village for good measure

Already doing that, doesn’t work because it does not hit psychological hard points enough in the media. For various reasons. When steve says that is not going to happen, steve is wrong because it already happened. For some reason, steve being wrong doesn’t surprise me.

http://www.spectacle.org/195/bulldoze.html

GC’s suggestions, I believe, won’t work because they aren’t subtle enough. First you have to localize the problems. Executing allies is counter-productive. Executing saddam in return for a government, is called “diplomacy”.

Executions are only a tool that should be used against hard core enemies to raise the morale of your friends, rather than to demoralize the morale of your enemies.

You said this:

I can’t recall hearing anyone offering any “solutions” to Iraq other than keeping us there to dampen internecine warfar while the Iraqis themselves “grow” democracy (grow as a transitive verb for abstractions courtesy of Bill Clinton.) Okay, fine.

A reasonable statement. The military IS dampening internecine warfare while giving Iraqis time to grow democracy. The military:

–has prevented sectarian armies from facing off against each other in a civil war;
–has prevented the Iranian military from marching into Iraq;
–has arguably struck withering blows against Al Qaeda, and against Moqtada Al Sadr.

How can military success - in their goal of giving Iraqis an opportunity for democracy, be rectified with your statement:

Ditto Iraq, Iran. I wonder if there are limits to what one can accomplish through the use of force, and I wonder if the US and Israel are reaching them.

By your own explanation, you defined your statement in such a way that it can only be correct if one defines the military’s goal as something the military itself does not define as it’s goal. Which, of course, means your statement is not correct - as you yourself stated in the quote I show at the very top.

The key battle, regarding Iran, is the internal Western battle over the validity of Western principles and values. If the West wins this battle with itself, the Mullahs will be vanquished. This battle is ongoing around the Western world, but the struggle inside the U.S. is by far the most important front. If the U.S. falls to (I don’t have a proper and concise term in my head): moral relativism /nihilism /malaise /lack of vigor/ extreme selfish narcissism/ lack of vigor / lack of wisdom and foresight - then the entire world will have suffered a mighty blow to the body.

Because large enough portions of the left are not near enough to changing, it becomes more and more important that the left be defeated at the polls. I’ve never been involved in politics. I’ve never even called myself a Republican, as I haven’t - and still don’t - trust that party very much. However, more and more, I am thinking of becoming involved in Republican politics. About Republicans and Democrats, I find myself somewhat in league with something the Southpark creators once said: “We hate conservatives; but we really, reallly hate liberals.”

America is up for grabs. Her future is uncertain.

Not at all. Creating conditions conducive to democracy is _not_ a military goal. It’s a political goal. The military goals were achieved three years ago. The only goals now are political in nature; our forces are there now because they serve as a brake to political chaos.

Israel isn’t going to do that. Come on, people.

Since there’s been talk of strawmen, this is strawman perfectly illustrated:
misdefine a military goal; declare the military cannot accomplish a goal they never have had; then declare victory - on grounds that the military cannot accomplish a goal they never had in the first place.

Sorry everybody jumped on that one line about the limitations of force. Obviously that wasn’t the point of your previous comment.

Even an idiot like SB can see that…

As for the stupid hypothetical situation - well, I said it was stupid, didn’t I? And the point was not to indulge in some liberal psycho-nonsense about finding out who’s a racist and who’s not. It’s about asking - seriously - to whom is the Government’s *first* responsibility? To all of people of the world or to the people whom he is sworn to protect? This goes back to Jim’s remark about American foreign policy benefiting America while harming other countries.

I guess this is just another way of asking whether saving one American life is worth sacrificing a thousand <insert favorite victim group here>. Well, yes it is - for tax purposes, anyway. We don’t pay our leaders their ridiculously inflated salaries so they can watch like broody hens over the interests of the Cameroonians.

I’m still not quite clear about Israel and the US having done everything they could do, however. In Israel’s case, considerably more escalation is possible - just not politically expedient.

The Israelis could discover all the relatives of suicide bombers, arrest them, confiscate their land, businesses and possessions, then summarily deport them. Maybe even bulldoze their village for good measure. For a more lasting solution, they could “invade” Palestinian territory, level all the villages and camps, destroy all the crops, bomb all the roads and bridges, round up the Palestinians, force-march them across the Syrian and Egyptian borders, and promise to shoot anyone who tried to get back in.

In Iraq, the US could evacuate and bomb any village or city block where a suicide or IED attack occurred, or in which terrorists are known to be hiding, or in which Iraqis abuse the bodies of dead American soldiers or Iraqi policemen. We could respond to sectarian violence with massive retaliation against sectarian centers. We could march into the Iraqi parliament and demand, at gunpoint, that the politicians form a working government within 48 hours, and back up the threat by shooting the representatives who cause the most delays.

I have no idea whether any of this would work. Most of it has already been tried with varying success by other, usually unsavory, countries. The point is, our options to use force are nowhere close to being exhausted. The question is, how much of this kind of thing are we willing to do to accomplish our goals?

The only thing protecting the Iraqis, the Iranians, and the Palestinians, and a lot of other little brown people right now is us - our belief in civilization, fair play, good sportsmanship, and Judeo-Christian something-or-other.

George Bush isn’t running the show - Jiminy Cricket is.

In that sense, you’re probably right - we have just about reached our limit in the beating-up-on-the-little-brown-people game. So do we keep bleeding until the Iraqis get their shit together, or do we cut our losses and bring it home? Not much of a choice, I guess.

My, but I do run on…

I objected to the Iraq war primarily for the same reason I objected to taking Baghdad in 1991: because I knew it would open a huge can of worms, and we’d be stuck for a long time. And, BTW, I was right.

Ymar, I’ve been around long enough to hear every solution offered, and, in the abstract, I really don’t care if you enact any of the above. However, I live in the real world and I know the United States is never going to do any of those things. And neither will Israel.

Grackle: First of all, I agree that the US is a better top nation than anyone else. And I also think that pin point strikes won’t work. OK, I will agree with you on this: if the executive power, in consultation with the legislative power, and even after the miscalculation over Iraqi WMD’s, decides that surgical strikes on Iran are necessary, then I will accept that, fine.

Then we’ll see what happens afterwards.