Printable View
Nah, that's not really what he said. He said the scoundrels were rising on a tide of American weakness. You can't choose to be weak, you either are or you aren't. And the phrase is usually "bit off more than you could chew"; he changed "could" to "willing" in his article because it's he knows we could chew it. He's saying the decision was made out of weakness when for many people it's simply a cause they don't believe in.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
I wish I could take the blinders off like you and realize that anyone, even a former editor for the New Republic becomes a right-wing hack just because they take a job at a certain news network... but then, I guess I'll never be a moderate. :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
I think we'd all be better able to comment if we could read the whole column instead of selected excerpts chosen for a hit-piece.Quote:
in this editorial, yes, I think he's being a moonbat
In world politics I'd say there's often little difference between perceived weakness and actual.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
If the author is an example I'd have to say you're right. What harmful effects are supposed to come from being perceived weak by the way?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Other countries will try and get away with more stuff than they might otherwise- stuff you wouldn't want to happen. Like building big walls and parking missiles off your coast, or storming your embassy.
I recall a Vietcong general saying they tested Ford's or Carter's (forget which, exactly) will by launching an attack upon south vietnam to see how they responded.
Currently, think assorted terrorist groups (we just have to hold them off for an administration or less if the dems are in power!) and Iran.
CR
Hello Sasaki,Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
In any conflict the perception of weakness emboldens the enemy. Recall one of Bin Laden's early tacks revolving around his declaration of war against the U.S. played off of the strong horse/weak horse comparison. He said a person will naturally be drawn to the strong horse. Thus the perception of strength or weakness plays directly into rhetoric of conflict as well as diplomacy in general.
Yeah, and then we don't let them, and they say "oh, I guess you weren't weak after all. Problem solved. ~:handball:Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Based on this post, it seems that your argument is not so much in favor of three hysterical paragraphs from Roll Call Magazine, but rather against a muddled and defeatist approach to the war in Iraq. You've sniped at the Congress that won't even be in place for another month for not having a clear plan. You've shown disdain for the "committee" issuing reports and suggestions for how the U.S. should proceed. It seems only fair to ask what the Adrian II policy would be.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
Confirmation of your theory, in handy video format.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rameusb5
Noper. I have sniped at Democratic Congress leaders who have been at the center of federal politics for years, yet whose only notion of Iraq policy seems to consist of a quick and murky withdrawal that leaves nothing accomplished. On the other hand, we have a White House that doesn't have a clue and is dying to blame the lack of accomplishment in Iraq on the Democrats on account of their negative attitude and their refusal to 'stay the course'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
The likely outcome of this impasse is, indeed, a quick and murky withdrawal that leaves nothing accomplished. Meanwhile on the ground America is dealing with enemies who profoundly appreciate that outcome. All they have left to ask for, really, is a timetable.
I doubt we'll see a withdrawal while Bush is still in office. After he leaves office, I wouldn't want to guess what will happen though...
I think we will see a more contrarian Congress that will oppose his Iraq policy more and more- but they'd never have the stomach to cut funding and force a withdrawal.
It's beginning to look like that to me, too. Some kind of clumsy, tragic Saigon evacuation redux.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
If that happens, we forfeit any standing to even have a opinion on what happens in the rest of the world, for a generation. We should then sell our nuclear arsenal to Canada, cut our military manpower by 95%, turn the US Navy into a tuna boat fleet, apply for membership in the EU - and wait, with the rest of the world, crouching, quivering in the corner, for the next terrorist to say "BOO!".
And apologize to Iraq people for yet again giving them false hope. And apologize to America people for the disgusting waste of resource, and the sqandering of a world leadership position/opportunity on cheap floozy military adventures.
I almost wish my country's leadership would take up drinking again. Maybe then they'd remember what leadership is - we haven't seen it here for years.
Uh-oh; this turned into an off-topic rant. I'm sorry. With my own son in Iraq, my personal stake in the outcome of events there, and my boiling frustration with the dullards in DC, all got the best of me.
OK. So did the half-dozen beers.
I'll shut up now, and resume my "hope for the best, plan for the worst" persona tomorrow. Thanks for your time. :bow:
KukriKhan, I think there is a ray of light, dim as it might be, in recent events in Iraq. With al-Maliki seemingly close to going under, and the coalition which is set to replace him not at all in favor of U.S. occupation, there is a possibility that a new government might actually ask the U.S. to withdraw.
While such a solution would probably mean that Bush and Co. could save at least some face, I don't really care. Even if it saves Bush's bacon from the fire, the point is to get our troops home from a pointless entanglement.
Meanwhile, I noticed that one of the prime architects of this little fiasco has resigned. Rumsfeld's "hatchetman" in the Pentagon, Stephen Cambone, will be stepping down with his boss at the end of the year. (Pentagon intelligence chief resigns). This really comes as no big surprise, after the recent elections. If Cambone stayed, then he would certainly be sent multiple subpoenas to appear before various Congressional committees to testify under oath. He may still end up having to do so. He is believed by some to be the guy who pushed for pro-war intelligence. He is believed to be the guy who enabled the "softening up" of detainees (torture) at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo. There's even a legend that one general joked to a Congressional staffer not long ago, "If I had one round left in my revolver, I would take out Stephen Cambone." He's also being tried in absentia by Germany for war crimes related to Abu Ghraib, under their controversial universal jurisdiction theory. He certainly won't be able to vacation in Germany any time soon. :wink:
The majority of Blame America First policy comes from the liberal left, not from conservatives. Allow me to provide some examples:
*9/11 was a result of American Middle East Policy and our "thirst for oil" (excuse us for purchasing a product at prices established by the sellers.)
*Global Warming is a result of American capitalism driven by base consumer culture.
*North Korea has nuclear weapons because America isn't engaging in unilateral discussions with Kim.
Pretty unfair of you to attack an individual's viewpoint as "blaming America first" when the author clearly is frustrated with the gutless instant gratification culture of the American liberal left.
Actually on that they aren't wrong. Just not for the reasons you might think. 9/11 happened because of Gulf war 1. By an extremely narrow intrpretation of the Koran any state that encompases Mecca and Medina is sacred Muslim ground. Thusly Saudi Arabia as a whole is sacred ground. By that same view point it's a huge sin for Muslims to allow infidels (Christians) onto that sacred ground. Thus when the US and the NATO send troops to Saudi Arabia in 1991 the Saudi government engaged in a huge sin by letting Christians (who then had the audacity to go and celebrate christmas for all to see) North Americans and Europeans onto holy Saudi soil. Bin Laden was a person who held such views. To him the Sauds allowing the US and it's allies into Saudi Arabia was submission to infidel interests. This turned his wrath from Russia to the US.Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma
You're arriving at the pile-on a bit late, aren't you? Anyway, the entire point of the over-parsed three paragraphs I originally posted were that the author was angry at the voters for not "staying the course." He was blaming America, only from an angle you aren't used to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma
Thank you for illustrating my original point. If and when the Iraq War seems like a terminally bad idea, there will be blame-slinging aplenty, and I have no doubt that a fraction of the right will cast their blame blanket on the American voters for their lack of character. You've chosen to qualify your condemnation with the "American liberal left" phrase, which is interesting, since the "American liberal left" has about as much clout as the fiscal conservatives. Which is to say, oh, 5% or so. There are more self-identified "conservatives" than "liberals" in the U.S., if you choose to believe polls. So which subset of the American electorate are we going to blame for Iraq, if Iraq turns out the way it looks it will turn out?Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma
Oh? Remind me what Carter did to free the hostages and what the world has done to stop Iran from getting nukes? Nothing, and the EU continues its thumb twiddling.Quote:
Yeah, and then we don't let them
CR
Would you like to explain to me what exactly has the US has thus far managed to do about the Irani nukes that the rest of the world didn't anyway then, oh Super Macho Man ? :coffeenews:
And why is it anyway that Americans (particularly "conservative" ones) have the raging hots for new variations of the infamous Dolchschlagslegende...?
Oach...Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
Bush Senior was a leader. During the 1990-1991 Quwait crisis he forged (1) internal consensus, (2) an international coalition that included most of Iraq's unstable neighbours as well as the about-to-be-dissolved Soviet Union, and (3) a good operational plan. You can say whatever you want about the wisdom of that intervention, but it was well-prepared, well-led and quickly concluded. In the present Iraq operation, the internal consensus and the multilateral approach are missing and there has been no operational plan including the staff and means to implement it. Bush, Rumsfeld and others pretended they could 'go it alone' in every sense of the word.Quote:
Originally Posted by KukriKhan
Because this President thought he could pull off an invasion on the basis of a pack of lies, without the full backing of Congress or his own military staff and practically without international support. The inevitable fall-out is now blamed on the opposition, instead of where it belongs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
Nah, it's not just Iraq. The same "spineless weaklings of the home front backstabbed our brave warriors" argumentation happens over Vietnam too, after all. Seen it myself. That's why I'm kind of curious, also of if the proponents of such thinking quite realize the pedigree of the basic idea.
I doubt it, Watchman. People who believe such nonsense aren't usually capable of grasping irony, especially when it's they who are being unintentionally ironic. :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
I have a few questions on this area.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
Why is it that one has to swear on the Bible to take public office, if there's supposed to be some separation of church and state. If you're a congressman aren't you then part of the State?
Why swear on anything at all? its already against the law to abuse your position in office.
Second sort of unrelated question is; If in court as a witness, do you also have to swear on the Bible (i.e. "do you agree to tell the truth ...so help you God")? if you don't believe in God then what does your oath mean?
Surely the religious aspects of any state procedure or ritual should be removed in favour of something that is more relevant to the multicultural population of America.
If God is out of Schools, then sHe should be off the money, out of the court and out of the rituals of politics as well. Shouldn't sHe?
Never heard of the author but he has a point when he says that it is more then americans are willing to chew. The insurgents understand america a whole lot better then vica versa, and they understand that the real war is fought in the public opinion within america's borders. Terror works.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
I did a search and came up with no hits in google or wikipedia for Dolchschlagslegende. What is it?
Actually, I just watched a "Military Blunders" show on cable that talked about the rescue attempt. Apparently Carter approved a military operation to free the hostages, but it was, for all intents and purposes, a failure. They lost several helicopters (there was actually a collision between a helicopter and a transport plane) in the operation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
After that failure, the Iranians freed the hostages because the Shaw was overthrown and the Iatola came to power, which is what the Iranian people wanted anyway, so the need for the hostages ceased to exist.
So Carter's administration did make an attempt to rescue them. To be honest, some blame for the operation's failure should lie on his shoulders, since he was the commander in chief at the time. But there was plenty of blame to go around. He was in a difficult situation and I'm not sure that Regan or any other president could have been more successful. The Iranians did NOT want to negotiate, BTW.
It should be Dolchstosslegende. It originates in WW1, it blames part of the people itself and it's politicians for not supporting, if not downright sabotaging the war effort. The German capitulation is a prime example, some people just couldn't understand why the government had surrendered when German troops were still fighting (and holding) the frontier, and these people would have preferred to fight till the last man.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rameusb5
Thanks!Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
And BWAHAHA!
I love it when people assert that the people should support the government and not vice versa. Usually these people were the LOUDEST complainers during the Clinton administration.
It's Stoss ? Drat. Last I saw it written it was Schlag...
He also required that the soldiers take along non-lethal crowd control measures and attempt to use non-lethal means to disperse any opposing or hostile crowds or people they encountered, and worried about Iranian casualties.Quote:
Apparently Carter approved a military operation to free the hostages, but it was, for all intents and purposes, a failure. They lost several helicopters (there was actually a collision between a helicopter and a transport plane) in the operation.
After that failure, the Iranians freed the hostages because the Shaw was overthrown and the Iatola came to power, which is what the Iranian people wanted anyway, so the need for the hostages ceased to exist.
Also, the hostages were taken during (or sometime around, not exactly sure) the revolution and held long after it was over, and released on the day Reagan came to power. Gee, I wonder if the Iranians didn't percieve him to be as weak as Carter?
Crazed Rabbit
I always assumed the war with Iraq might of have had something to do with it...