Why We Will Win the War on Terror





Mr. Schweikart is the author of America’s Victories: Why the U.S. Wins Wars and Will Win the War on Terror.

If, in June 1942, you looked at where things stood militarily in the Pacific, you probably wouldn't have been overwhelmingly enthusiastic. The U.S. had just handed Japan a solid defeat at Midway, but at the cost of one more carrier, leaving us with just two in the Pacific, one in dock, and one in transit, compared to the Japanese carrier fleet that numbered between 13 and 15, depending on how one counted their "light" carriers. Beyond that, it still looked bleak. The Japanese held everything from Malaya to Attu and Kiska, plus large sections of China. We had yet to liberate anyone, and our fleet had been "attrited" (to use the words of Gen. Norman Schwartzkopf in the Gulf War). More important, the bloody battles of the Philippines, Iwo Jima, Tarawa, and Okinawa had yet to be fought.

And yet . . . a historian, looking back, would know that the war was essentially over after Midway. Oh, there was very hard, and very bloody fighting ahead, but after Midway, Japan could not win, only delay the inevitable. Ditto in Europe, where, after June 6, 1944, Germany could not win. The supposed value of history is that it allows one to apply a long-term lens perspective to current events. That, however, seems to be sadly missing in the case of the War on Terror, and, especially, Iraq. Let me say from the get-go that the Bush Administration erred badly in allowing the struggle in Iraq to be labeled a "war." It is a battle, part of the larger War on Terror. It is no more a "war" than Sicily or North Africa were "wars." But Bush fell into the Left's trap and allowed it to be called a "war," and as such it has been separated from the "War on Terror," and the "War in Afghanistan," itself a battle.

As historians (objective ones, that is) look back 30 years from now, and write the history of this war, they will find the battle of Iraq essentially was over after November 2004. I do not say that because Bush won reelection--that was critical, but so was the formation of the Iraqi government at that time--but because those two events then allowed a military victory at Fallujah, which was the tipping point of this battle (or, if you prefer, "war"). At Fallujah, more than 2000 terrorists were killed and the real al-Qaeda back of the so-called "insurgency" broken. Since then, Zarqawi was scrambling, as did the Japanese after Okinawa, to re-stock his ranks of suicide bombers. They were both unsuccessful. Last month, Zarqawi was killed, replicating the shooting down of Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto's plane in 1943. Even then, the war in the Pacific was not over--and the bloodiest battles had not been fought--but again, the outcome was further cemented.

Beyond Iraq, the U.S. will win the War on Terror because it's what Americans do: we win military conflicts. Leftists love to point to Vietnam. But again, is that a "war," or a battle within the Cold War, which we won? Either way, Vietnam illustrates one of the strengths our military possesses that our enemies almost never do: the ability to learn from loss. In many (not all) Muslim societies, especially those from Bedouin/Arab cultures, it is shameful to lose, and doubly shameful to admit one lost. How can such a foe possibly adapt to the inevitable battlefield screwups? Japanese admirals went down with their ships out of a code of "honor," while American commanders transferred their command--and their experience--to another ship.

Americans win wars because, despite the claims of Senator Richard Durbin, we have an unusual and almost distinct concern for the sanctity of life--ours, and our enemy's. We take better care of prisoners than most combatants, and unlike any I've ever encountered, we make more efforts to rescue our own (including three planned rescue missions for POWs in wartime over the course of three different wars). We win wars because, despite the claims of the left, our soldiers come from every sector, every lifestyle, and every part of American society (zip code studies have proven this). Our troops are simply the best trained, ever, which virtually all military analysts agree is the most important ingredient in successful military operations.

There is a myth of the War on Terror that we "can't beat an ideology," and "terrorism is an ideology, not a state." It seems to me we defeated three much more powerful ideologies in the 20th century alone--fascism, bushido-ism, and communism. Another myth says we've "never fought a war like this." Quite the contrary, in the Filipino Insurrection and subsequent Moro Wars, we not only fought a guerilla/terrorist enemy very much like al-Qaeda (the Moros were even Muslims who practiced beheading their enemies), but the leader, Emilio Aguinaldo (like Zarqawi) stated that his goal was not to defeat the U.S. militarily but to affect the outcome of the 1900 election. Both of our enemies failed, and al-Qaeda will continue to fail. Just as in the skies over Europe, where our bombers, by becoming a giant sky-borne "roach motel" absorbed some 30% of the total Nazi war effort, we have set up a "roach motel" in Iraq, and are killing terrorists by the bushel. It is worth noting that the media has gone out of its way to avoid reporting enemy numbers killed, but my own sources--and a little basic addition--shows that they have lost upwards of 20,000 already. No military force in history has survived these losses. The Japanese kamikazes ran out, and the suicide bombers will too . . . soon. Look for the battle of Iraq to be over by late 2007, and, if the timetable holds, al-Qaeda to be substantially defeated within the next five to eight years.


comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:


Citizen Historian - 12/27/2009

In looking at public discourse nowadays, it is striking how readily discussants fall back on victimology. The stand up-guy seems to have receded as a model (some day historians will write about when we lost him as a model), replaced by the finger-pointer. No wonder we see so many strawman arguments these days. Meeting issues head-on just seems too scary for too many people.

It is especially discouraging to see this among historians. Note how Larry Schweikart writes that "The supposed value of history is that it allows one to apply a long-term lens perspective to current events." Good point. One would expect that he then might move to an examination of how those in government can better use analysts and advisors who possess some historical perspective. (Don't we want those who govern us to do well? If the answer is yes, then don't they deserve an honest performance review?)

But no, instead Schweikart writes, "That, however, seems to be sadly missing in the case of the War on Terror, and, especially, Iraq. Let me say from the get-go that the Bush Administration erred badly in allowing the struggle in Iraq to be labeled a "war." It is a battle, part of the larger War on Terror. It is no more a "war" than Sicily or North Africa were "wars." But Bush fell into the Left's trap and allowed it to be called a "war," and as such it has been separated from the "War on Terror," and the "War in Afghanistan," itself a battle."

So, according to Schweikart, the problem is that Bush fell into the Left's trap. That sounds as silly as the handwringing lamentations of some Democrats that their message has been dulled because of Karl Rove's machinations. Consider the subordinate employees you manage and supervise. Do you let them get away with blaming everyone around them for things they could have handled better? No. Weird how we seem to be moving further and further away in public discourse from the models we aspire to follow in real life. No wonder the polls show a public increasingly disappointed in the way those in Washington operate.

The permanent campaign makes it difficult to have an adult conversation about many issues these days. It's attack attack nyah nyah nyah, all the time. And the art of spin control first introduced by David Gergen has gotten totally out of hand. (When is the last time you heard anyone even refer to the myth of George Washington cutting down the cherry tree, a story of personal responsibility that older generations used to hear about growing up?)
Gergen himself wrote in EYEWITNESS TO POWER that "The 1980 contest for the White House was the last truly good one the country has had because all three candidates -- Carter, Anderson and Reagan -- provided clear choices for the electorate. They said exactly what courses they intended to pursue if elected, didn't blur their differences, held down the mud slinging, and didn't sell their souls to their pollsters and handlers."

Gergen lamented in his book, "How could we have taught a younger generation of public officials the wrong lessons about governance? Where had we gone wrong? While officials since the beginning of the republic have been cajoling the press, one of my deepest regrets in public life is a feeling that I have contributed to this deterioration. Spin has spun out of control and we need to put it back in its box." I give Gergen props for being courageous enough to examine his own role. But I haven't heard many other pundits discuss the issue. Maybe they're too busy making money appearing on TV shout-fests.

In an interview with the National Review, Schweikart was asked "If you had one day to spend in a high-school history class, with probably at shot at making only one point stick, what would it be?" He replied "That regardless of America's faults, it has always aspired to be a "city on a hill" and, more often than not, has attained that goal. It remains a beacon of liberty throughout the world, so much so that people still risk their lives just to come here and, despite threats to do so by the Hollywood elites after every election, they do not leave. I only need ask these students, "Can you think of any other country, really, where you'd rather live today?"

Not a bad vision, if you delete the silly bit about Hollywood elites. For me, one of the more attractive aspects of the aspiring "city on a hill" is the fact that we accept the premise of accountability and strive to do our best. That means including some candor in the manner in which we discuss things, Democrats and Republicans alike. Harder to do, however, if we abandon the stand up-guy model in public life. Just because it is rare in Washington doesn't mean we all have to abandon it elsewhere, too.


Citizen Historian - 12/27/2009

Mr. Broce writes "I don’t believe that any of the people I named are “chickenhawks” either. In fact, I don’t use the term." He also notes, "the term is meaningless—most of the politicians on both sides have served not one day in the military, yet sent our Soldiers into combat."

As is Mr. Broce, I also am no fan of the term "chickenhawk" -- and I would add that I also am no fan of policy or history discussion which rely too heavily on epithets, stereotying, or polemics. That's not to say that we shouldn't consider the background and experiencs of our leaders and what shaped their world views. Isn't that part of what historians do?

The World War II and Vietnam eras both saw men drafted into military service. We now have had an all-volunteer army after the draft was abolished during the Nixon administration.

The World War II generation is in retirement and shrinking in number, although its members (veterans such as Bob Dole, Dan Inouye, George McGovern) once held significant positions or played prominent roles in the Congress. A much smaller percentage of Vietnam veterans serves in Congress now than came to that body from the World War II period. It will be interesting to see what proportion of Iraq war veterans run for office; some, of course, already are doing so.

In my view, in judging early votes on the Iraq war we need to consider a number of issues, beyond who served and who didn't. What information and intelligence was or was not available to those casting votes? Was it possible for anyone with the power to affect the course of action to ask a full range of probing questions of the President and executive branch officials in the political environment in 2002-2003? If not, why not? In considering the latter, we should consider both those whose responsibility it was to do due diligence and those who held the information required to allow proper consideration by stakeholders. These were serious issues with potentially grave consequences, after all.

Far less relevant or attractive here on this history site is the sparring over who among the people posting here served in the military. For one thing, the age of all the people posting is not clear; some came of age in a period where there was a draft, others not. It is impossible to tell who among those who were drafted would have made the choice to enter military service had they been younger and had come of age later.

In the general public's mind, based on what we've read or seen on TV, the range of actions by former veterans stretches all the way from one extreme (Timothy McVeigh) to the other (Colin Powell).

On picture picture issues, Gen. Powell's views I find worth listening to, as I would a Gen. Bernard Trainor, who not only rose to a high leadership position in the Marine Corps, but also directed the National Security Program at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. Some of those views are on display in the book, Cobra II, which I've read.

The McVeigh types, no, I would avoid that, except perhaps to understand the psychology of someone who became or was before his service a hater of fellow Americans. Most men who served fall somewhere in the middle of that range, neither haters to the extreme that McVeigh was, nor broad strategic thinkers like Powell or Trainor, at least by my observation of the people I know personally.

Where any of you fall, I cannot tell fully from your postings. (In which, HNN being available worldwide, we all in our way, through rhetoric and sustance, serve as ambassadors for the U.S. or at least representative of some of its citizens.) So the sparring about who served and who didn't, while it may serve some psychological purpose that we probably shouldn't explore further, largely is ineffective to a reader such as I.

On the other hand, experience does count for something, and I for one would welcome some candid and sophisticated postings from veterans which tell us something about the effect of war on those who lived through it. (I asked for that above in the post about needing context.)

As for using our experiences to shout down others, we can consider ourselves lucky that Mr. Schweikart has not posted a comment, saying, "Unless you have published a major work on U.S. history, your views here don't count and won't be considered." By that standard, most of the posters would have to fall silent, then.


Citizen Historian - 12/27/2009

The quotation you cite from my post reflects Mr. Schweikart's words, not mine. To date, he has not commented on the messages posted here. And I cannot comment on his behalf, I am not even very familiar with his thinking, only having seen some articles and interviews with him. To date, I have not read any of books.

So, I can only speak for myself, having lived my entire life in the United States. Numerous people from "Indo China, Central and South America and the Arab /Moslem world" -- the regions you mention -- have come to this nation as immigrants or refugees. Some have risked much and endured great hardship to get here. I cannot presume to speak for them, but I would guess that many of those who were not born here but came here by choice saw and continue to see the nation as a beacon of liberty. The nation represents potential, potential of varying types, for them.

As Mr. Schweikart says, we as a nation or not perfect, but many of us living here strive to do our best, as we undertand those goals. One of the most attractive aspects of the U.S. for me is the fact that we are not monolithic, that people of many national origins live here. It is easier to do that here than in many other parts of the world, where ethnic, tribal or religious differences have divided people and led to bloody conflicts. Or where people may be persecuted because they do not fit a dominant ideology or way of thinking. Or because of their race or gender or other inherent personal characteristics.

I am grateful that I live here in the U.S., where there is relative harmony, at least in the community where I live. I'm not blind to the fact, however, that there are divisions among the American people and that throughout this land, we balance many political, moral, ethical, and cultural issues differently, each one of us. No one here is exactly like the person standing next to him. In part, that is what I find good about this nation. I believe the best Americans, while not perfect, strive to do well, according to my system of values. As in every nation, there also are ones who shame their countrymen by their deeds.

Yes, I understand that not everyone aspires to come to the U.S. And that there may be people now living in some of the regions you named who might feel discomfort with some aspects of American life, if they moved here. And that some people abroad admire certain aspects of America, but not other aspects. When you live in a country which aspires to be a beacon of liberty, it is easy to understand that people have differences and that those differences are rooted in many things, too complex to explore here. At least that is the case for me.

I'm just an ordinary citizen who likes to read and study history; I don't demand that everyone admire Americans, I can only explain why I am grateful to live here. Again, I cannot speak for anyone but myself; you'll have to ask Mr. Schweikart, if he ever appears here to answer questions raised by those posting, what his interpretation is of the quotation you citedl.


Citizen Historian - 12/27/2009

Patrick Ebbitt's overheated comments refer to "Republican failure" being rewarded. I don't see that in the Sweikart article.

Actually, neither Ebbitt nor Sweikart reflect the way many knowledgeable people discuss this issue. Reasonable people recognize that no one knows whether the Bush administration's long term strategy will succeed or fail. That's the way it is when you're living through difficult times. A historian can look back in comfort now and say of World War II that the war essentially was over after Midway. The people living through World War II did not exude that sense of comfort.

That is not to say that reasonable people among Democrats and Republicans cannot debate tactical and strategic questions relating to the United States' efforts to combat terrorism. That's what we do when we are lucky enough to live in a democracy. Many people want America to do well but question what is the best way to achieve that outcome. Not everyone asking those questions is a Democrat.

Charles Heisler writes of elections in Iraq that "Somehow Patrick doesn't see that as a victory, no doubt preferring the Saddam regime and all his antics to a victory by a Republican president." I've seen this odd argument before but this is the first time I've had an opportunity to question someone who relies on it. I never have heard anyone state that they prefer Saddam were in power. Is there a written or oral source for this contention? I'm not familiar with what Patrick Ebbitt has written in the past. But I don't just mean to ask has Patrick Ebbitt stated this, but has anyone, anywhere, in an article, an interview broadcast on tv, or even in conversation among ordinary people, stated this? I find it impossible to accept as a view prevalent among even a minority of Americans. What is the grounds for making so peculiar an assertion?

No matter what the provocation, and Patrick Ebbitt's comments certainly were overheated, this "you prefer Saddam" response to critics is one that is a loser. I've seen the assertion that "questions about our strategy and tactics = a desire to see Saddam in power" argument time and again. It strikes me as an extraordinarily weak response. In fact, it seems to signal that the speaker or writer lacks confidence in his own position and seeks to distract from discussion of it. Why use it then, if it signals weakness in argument?

Ronald Reagan spoke of "morning in America" and painted a vision of the United States domestically and internationally that appealed to many voters. When he entered office, the United States still was engaged in a Cold War. But look at the majorities by which he won election and even more so, won re-election. His blend of optimism, confidence and firmness convinced many voters that he could lead the country on the path that was best for it. How different from the present time, when political discourse sounds strong on the surface but underneath, too often reeks of fear -- fear just of questions raised by one's fellow Americans -- rather than a sense of confidence that we can pull through together.


Citizen Historian - 12/27/2009

Thanks. I recommend reading Gergen's EYEWITNESS TO POWER: THE ESSENCE TO LEADERSHIP. Gergen uses a level-headed tone to take an introspective look not just at the Presidents with whom he has worked, but also at his own role in their administrations. (No arched back or hissing involved; he exudes the confidence of a man willing to assess in a sober fashion what he has seen and done during his career.) Gergen's is an approach that I respect; not everyone does, but it happens to fit my values.


Citizen Historian - 12/27/2009

Make that EYEWITNESS TO POWER: THE ESSENCE OF LEADERSHIP. The second "to" in my prior post should be an "of."


Citizen Historian - 12/27/2009

The contention about Midway to which I referred is Mr. Schweikart's, not mine. Go back and read his article above. Schweikart states:

"If, in June 1942, you looked at where things stood militarily in the Pacific, you probably wouldn't have been overwhelmingly enthusiastic. . . .And yet . . . a historian, looking back, would know that the war was essentially over after Midway. Oh, there was very hard, and very bloody fighting ahead, but after Midway, Japan could not win, only delay the inevitable."

If you have a bone to pick with that, or plan to add to an entry in Wikipedia, cite Mr. Schweikart as a source for that contention, as he made it, not I.


Citizen Historian - 12/27/2009

Point out, if you will, where in my posting I state support or opposition for Mr. Reagan's policies. My posting focused on rhetoric and how to win over opponents. You will find neither stated support nor opposition for anyone's policies in my posting so you waste your time arguing about the Cold War, etc.

What you do see in my posting is a reference to how effectively Mr. Reagan presented his vision of the United States to the electorate. His appeal to voters relied not simply on attacking political opponents, but also in presenting a positive vision. Obviously, what he did was effective as he won re-election in 1984 by overwhelming numbers.

Perhaps that approach to selling one's views is considered quaint and old fashioned nowadays. It certainly seems unpopular here where we are debating various aspects Mr. Schweikart's article.


Citizen Historian - 12/27/2009

One of the most attractive aspects of living in the U.S. is that we do better about confronting unacceptable behavior and holding people accountable than do many other nations. And we report bad news as well as good. In my ranking of values, personal and institutional accountability represents strength, not weakness.

Illustrative examples follow.

Story 1 making the news this week:

http://www.airforcetimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-1940866.php

"The military may be meeting its recruiting goals by relaxing standards that prevent “racist extremists” from joining, the Southern Poverty Law Center says." . . . In a statement, Mark Potok, SPLC’s intelligence project director, said neo-Nazis, skinheads and other white supremacists are 'joining the military in large numbers so they can get the best training in the world on weapons, combat tactics and explosives.'

White supremacists have been active in the military since the early 1950s, according to a timeline prepared by the group, but it took several incidents in the early 1990s to gain major attention and a crackdown by the military. The Defense Department has tried to weed out supremacists by doing things such as prohibiting anyone from remaining in the military if they have a tattoo with a racially divisive message or being the symbol of a supremacist group."

My reaction? I say props to the Air Force Times for reporting on the story about Southern Poverty Law Center.

Story 2: Today's New York Times has an article about Steven Green, the former soldier who has been charged with horrific crimes involving a 14-year girl and her family in Mahmudiya. The article notes the rise in "moral waivers" granted in recent years. According to the newspaper, "Mr. Green’s commanding officer, Lt. Col. Thomas Kunk, told his brother in a recent letter that 'his worst fears, the nightmare every commander dreams of, has basically come true,' the brother, Peter Kunk, said in an interview describing the letter."

What do I think? I believe the events in Mahmudiya, if proven to have happened, represent a tragic aberration and are not typical of the conduct of members of our forces in Iraq. I believe commanders strive to keep these things from happening. But it is unrealistic to think they always can be prevented. From what I have read in my history studies, war can be a terrible and brutal (and brutalizing) experience for soldiers and civilians alike. None of the veterans I count among my friends (some of whom served in Vietnam, others of whom served in a peacetime military) would have been likely to do something as horrible as what Green is charged with. Nor did my friends emerge from their military service dripping with contempt for civilians. They're solid people. Because they have well integrated personalities, I have no fear that any of my ex-GI friends would improperly turn their training against a civilian populace here in the USA, either verbally or physically.

Here's a question in general terms for any veterans who may be posting here (I see some of you have self-identified as such):

QUESTION; "The Internet is a global medium. News outlets and HNN are read by people throughout the world. To those of you in the US who have revealed a military background here on HNN, if you had a chance to write a "letter to the editor" to a worldwide audience, commenting on the AF Times or the New York Times articles, what you say?"

I'm not looking for bragging, blame shifting or bluster, and, of course, no shooting the messenger (i.e. blaming the two media outlets for reporting the stories), just some perspective based on the military experience to which you have alluded. I'm not necessarily looking for detailed 411 on your own personal experiences, but instead seek additional context, of the type that would be suitable for this history website, on the two stories cited above.


omar ibrahim baker - 10/19/2007

Mr Ebbitt
I refer to your statement:"....I do believe that Israel is deserving of their homeland/right to exist. The Jewish people have historical claim to of the area from Mt. Ebal to Jerusalem etc etc"
Which "right" and "claim" are, presumably, based on the fact that Palestine, at one time some 2000 years ago, had a considerable Jewish population? No claim was ever made, to the best of my knowledge of an exclusive Jewish population.
Both the validity and veracity of this right/claim presuppose the following:
a-That no other people/nation/cultural community ever lived in Palestine before or after the Jewish Diaspora or during the “Jewish” era.
b-That had such a people/nation etc, other than the Jewish, lived in Palestine it would NOT be entitled to the same “rights” .
c-That any other nation/people/cultural/confessional community that inhabited and lived in Palestine DID NOT , nor was ever entitled to, acquire any similar “right/claim” no matter how long it has dwelled in Palestine.
d-That that "right" on which the "claim" is based was held by and for eternity exclusively for the Jewish people.
(Jew by “blood” or “conversion” is another question.)
e-That that “right/claim” was inherited by any body and everybody who professes the Jewish faith in the 20th century.

Should any or all of the above hold true and be of universal applicability then the inevitable conclusions would be:

1-All regions/parts/subdivisions of the world ARE the exclusive “rightful” property of ONE and ONLY ONE people/nation/cultural/confessional community.
2-That a historical study should be undertaken to determine WHERE everybody came from and to whom EVERY part of the world “rightfully” belongs.
3-That all peoples/nations etc should relocate to WHERE EVER they came from
4-That all peoples/nations etc NOT living in their “original” “rightful property” should vacate that property to make room for its “rightful” owners.
It is NOT only that the above presuppositions and the conclusions derived therefrom demonstrate the utter absurdity and baselessness of the Jewish claim on Palestine, substantially made and realized in the 20th century, but that they equally constitute a total negation of human progress that was best marked by the transition of humankind from the roaming and marauding tribes stage to the stage of settled communities.

The above is based on the assumption that there is NO, divinely or otherwise, “chosen people” in this world and that ALL peoples/nations etc are equal.

On top of the fact that the absurd Jewish claim on Palestine has absolutely no foundations and is only a thin cover for the naked colonialist ambitions of Zionist Judaism it is worth considering HOW the Zionist movement realized that claim and HOW Israel became a nation state in Palestine.

As briefly as possible: Israel came into existence as the result of the DISLOCATION. DISPOSSESSION, DISFRANCHISEMENT and SUPPLANTATION of the indigenous Arab Palestinian people that , being the descendants of the non Jewish peoples/nations etc that has lived in and inhabited Palestine since the Jewish Diaspora, has inhabited Palestine for some 2000 years after the Jewish Diaspora.
I look forward to read your reply and comments.
Regards


omar ibrahim baker - 10/19/2007

MR Ebbitt You Should Know Better than to.... (#92928)
by omar ibrahim baker on July 18, 2006 at 10:56 AM
Mr Ebbitt
I refer to your statement:"....I do believe that Israel is deserving of their homeland/right to exist. The Jewish people have historical claim to of the area from Mt. Ebal to Jerusalem etc etc"
Which "right" and "claim" are, presumably, based on the fact that Palestine, at one time some 2000 years ago, had a considerable Jewish population? No claim was ever made, to the best of my knowledge of an exclusive Jewish population.
Both the validity and veracity of this right/claim presuppose the following:
a-That no other people/nation/cultural community ever lived in Palestine before or after the Jewish Diaspora or during the “Jewish” era.
b-That had such a people/nation etc, other than the Jewish, lived in Palestine it would NOT be entitled to the same “rights” .
c-That any other nation/people/cultural/confessional community that inhabited and lived in Palestine DID NOT , nor was ever entitled to, acquire any similar “right/claim” no matter how long it has dwelled in Palestine.
d-That that "right" on which the "claim" is based was held by and for eternity exclusively for the Jewish people.
(Jew by “blood” or “conversion” is another question.)
e-That that “right/claim” was inherited by any body and everybody who professes the Jewish faith in the 20th century.

Should any or all of the above hold true and be of universal applicability then the inevitable conclusions would be:

1-All regions/parts/subdivisions of the world ARE the exclusive “rightful” property of ONE and ONLY ONE people/nation/cultural/confessional community.
2-That a historical study should be undertaken to determine WHERE everybody came from and to whom EVERY part of the world “rightfully” belongs.
3-That all peoples/nations etc should relocate to WHERE EVER they came from
4-That all peoples/nations etc NOT living in their “original” “rightful property” should vacate that property to make room for its “rightful” owners.
It is NOT only that the above presuppositions and the conclusions derived therefrom demonstrate the utter absurdity and baselessness of the Jewish claim on Palestine, substantially made and realized in the 20th century, but that they equally constitute a total negation of human progress that was best marked by the transition of humankind from the roaming and marauding tribes stage to the stage of settled communities.

The above is based on the assumption that there is NO, divinely or otherwise, “chosen people” in this world and that ALL peoples/nations etc are equal.

On top of the fact that the absurd Jewish claim on Palestine has absolutely no foundations and is only a thin cover for the naked colonialist ambitions of Zionist Judaism it is worth considering HOW the Zionist movement realized that claim and HOW Israel became a nation state in Palestine.

As briefly as possible: Israel came into existence as the result of the DISLOCATION. DISPOSSESSION, DISFRANCHISEMENT and SUPPLANTATION of the indigenous Arab Palestinian people that , being the descendants of the non Jewish peoples/nations etc that has lived in and inhabited Palestine since the Jewish Diaspora, has inhabited Palestine for some 2000 years after the Jewish Diaspora.
I look forward to read your reply and comments.
Regards



omar ibrahim baker - 10/19/2007

"That regardless of America's faults, it has always aspired to be a "city on a hill" and, more often than not, has attained that goal. It remains a beacon of liberty throughout the world,..... " .
I wonder how true that is for Indo China, Central and South America and the Arab /Moslem world ?


omar ibrahim baker - 10/19/2007

Mr Ebbitt
"Yes, no doubt the way the Jew was allowed to return after 2000 years at the expense of/forced upon the Arab indigenous populace is problematic/unfair but, life is unfair. “

a-To describe the catastrophe that befell the Palestinian Arab people as "unfair" is not only an utterly meaningless understatement verging on the frivolous and demeaning but could be construed as racially motivated except that , coming from you in particular, I do not consider to be as such.
The indigenous Palestinian Arab people was displaced, dispossessed, disfranchised and subjugated from and in his own homeland and supplanted by colonialist aliens selected and marshaled on a racial/racist basis.
To describe the destruction of Palestinian society to make room for a homeland for aliens is totally and absolutely unacceptable.
The Palestinian Arab people was, still is, denied his inalienable right to RETURN to his homeland , regain his legal property and live by and with his ancestral heritage!
That is a mega crime born out of a barbarian conquest, aided and abetted by erstwhile imperialist Britain and presently sustained by present day imperialist USA, executed by an avowed racially based and motivated, hence racist, anti Arab, both Moslem and Christian, and an anti Islam colonialist movement.
As much as is the Holocaust, perpetrated solely by the Christian west, it is the crime of the 20th century.
Only the disestablishment, the dismantling of this imperialist Western outpost, the Zionist state of Israel will atone for , redress that heinous crime ,repel the aggression and frustrate the invader.

b- “Study the history of the Native American if you really want to feel better about your lot or conversely for some, more pitied. "

That is exactly where all Zionist and imperialist designs and calculations went horribly wrong.
The Palestinian Arab people, being an integral part of the Arab nation and the Moslem world and dwelling in their heartland, are NOT Native Americans and the conquest, submission and decimation of same will NOT be repeated as any rudimentary reading of developments of the last fifty years, and ongoing events, would show.
Zionism and Israel has bitten much more than they can possibly chew and the Christian West support of this racist colonialist Jewish conquest has, wittingly or unwittingly, rekindled the dormant ages long confrontation between Islam and Christianity with Zionist Judaism which managed to form a common Judeo/Christian front against the Arab/Moslem world.
I contend that the establishment of this imperialist Zionist outpost in the heartland of the Arab/Moslem world, Palestine, will go down in history as THE most fundamental reason for the ongoing and ever deepening animosity and declared enmity between our two respective worlds.
The establishment of Israel in Palestine was a grave historical mistake for which we all will pay very dearly for generations to come and not least by the Jewish people, both Zionist and non or anti Zionist.
I do not say this with joy nor glee but with deep sorrow at the foolish avarice of the West and the self centered blindness of Zionist Judaism for the untold miseries it led to and the still greater untold horrors it will unleash all because of their total disregard for and domineering designs of the Arab/Moslem world.
It is neither revengism nor war mongering; it is the inevitable healthy reaction to conquest and attempted submission of a resurgent world wide community embarking on self defense, the historically preordained repulsion of an invasion by racist aliens and the frustration of an imperialist conquest; a replay of the earlier failed Crusaders attempt at the subjugation of the Arab/Moslem world.
Did you by any chance read my “The Meaning of Israel” and “What did Zionism Achieve?” both posted earlier here at HNN?
Regards
NB: I note you have chosen to bypass my comments re Jewish “rights” and “claim”; however I would like to know whether you think that the basis on which both are based are of universal applicability or simply an exclusive prerogative of the “chosen people”.


omar ibrahim baker - 10/19/2007

Mr Ebbitt
"Yes, no doubt the way the Jew was allowed to return after 2000 years at the expense of/forced upon the Arab indigenous populace is problematic/unfair but, life is unfair. “

a-To describe the catastrophe that befell the Palestinian Arab people as "unfair" is not only an utterly meaningless understatement verging on the frivolous and demeaning but could be construed as racially motivated except that , coming from you in particular, I do not consider to be as such.
The indigenous Palestinian Arab people was displaced, dispossessed, disfranchised and subjugated from and in his own homeland and supplanted by colonialist aliens selected and marshaled on a racial/racist basis.
To describe the destruction of Palestinian society to make room for a homeland for aliens simply as "unfair" is totally and absolutely unacceptable.
The Palestinian Arab people was, still is, denied his inalienable right to RETURN to his homeland , regain his legal property and live by and with his ancestral heritage!
That is a mega crime born out of a barbarian conquest, aided and abetted by erstwhile imperialist Britain and presently sustained by present day imperialist USA, executed by an avowed racially based and motivated, hence racist, anti Arab, both Moslem and Christian, and an anti Islam colonialist movement.
As much as is the Holocaust, perpetrated solely by the Christian West, it is the crime of the 20th century.
Only the disestablishment, the dismantling of this imperialist Western outpost, the Zionist state of Israel, will atone for , redress that heinous crime ,repel the aggression and frustrate the invader.

b- “Study the history of the Native American if you really want to feel better about your lot or conversely for some, more pitied. "

That is exactly where all Zionist and imperialist designs and calculations went horribly wrong.
The Palestinian Arab people, being an integral part of the Arab nation and the Moslem world and dwelling in their heartland, are NOT Native Americans and the conquest, submission and decimation of same will NOT be repeated as any rudimentary reading of developments of the last fifty years, and ongoing events, would show.
Zionism and Israel has bitten much more than they can possibly chew and the Christian West support of this racist colonialist Jewish conquest has, wittingly or unwittingly, rekindled the dormant ages long confrontation between Islam and Christianity with Zionist Judaism which managed to form a common Judeo/Christian front against the Arab/Moslem world.
I contend that the establishment of this imperialist Zionist outpost in the heartland of the Arab/Moslem world, Palestine, will go down in history as THE most fundamental reason for the ongoing and ever deepening animosity and declared enmity between our two respective worlds.
The establishment of Israel in Palestine was a grave historical mistake for which we all will pay very dearly for generations to come and not least by the Jewish people, both Zionist and non or anti Zionist.
I do not say this with joy nor glee but with deep sorrow at the foolish avarice of the West and the self centered blindness of Zionist Judaism for the untold miseries it led to and the still greater untold horrors it will unleash all because of their total disregard for and domineering designs of the Arab/Moslem world.
It is neither revengism nor war mongering; it is the inevitable healthy reaction to conquest and attempted submission of a resurgent world wide community embarking on self defense, the historically preordained repulsion of an invasion by racist aliens and the frustration of an imperialist conquest; a replay of the earlier failed Crusaders attempt at the subjugation of the Arab/Moslem world.
Did you by any chance read my “The Meaning of Israel” and “What did Zionism Achieve?” both posted earlier here at HNN?
Regards
NB: I note you have chosen to bypass my comments re Jewish “rights” and “claim”; however I would like to know whether you think that the basis on which both are based are of universal applicability or simply an exclusive prerogative of the “chosen people”.


omar ibrahim baker - 10/19/2007

Mr Ebbitt
Excuse the delay in responding .
I have been over our dialogue and found out, not surprisingly, that it was NOT a dialogue at all instead of my efforts to make it one by consistently responding to the valid points you raise; while, no offense meant, you keep skipping from one subject to the other in, hopefully, your attempt to find out more about the subject from an alternative stand point.
More specifically I have tried to engage you in a dialogue on:
1- Israel's "rights" and "claim" that you asserted and had absolutely no response from you about its local, Palestine wise, and its UNIVERSAL ramifications, implications and applicability.
2-The relevance, legality and admissibility, in the 20th century, of the Zionist model of nation building of DISPLACEMENT, DISPOSSESSION, DISFRANCHISEMENT and SUBJUGATION of an indigenous population, the Arab Palestinian people in the case of Israel.
3-THE ALL IMPORTANT issue of PEACE between the two sides about which I outlined my vision .
I have looked carefully for where you stand about these three issues and failed to find anything of substance.
Our correspondence and your responses in particular are of special interest to me because, contrary to the vast majority of my posts here on HNN, they are NOT part of an adversarial confrontation and ARE a dialogue, an exchange of ideas and not positions.
Hoping to hear from you soon.
Regards


omar ibrahim baker - 10/19/2007

The USA has been through many “official” wars, probably too many for its own good that has ended in outright victory, a stalemate or implicit defeat!
All has been against well defined nation states or an ideology as embodied in a state with a visible human mass, geographically defined borders, a definite infrastructure to destroy, an official army to defeat and a body ruling over, administering and speaking for that enemy .
The objective of its “official” wars was equally well defined: change of borders, change of ruling regime and/or roll back of an ideology i.e. in all its wars the foe was well known , the goals of the war well defined, the parameters of defeat well determined and the address of the prospective capitulator or cosignatory to the armistice well known beforehand.
Who is the enemy in the US “official” War on Terror that will capitulate or cosign the armistice with the USA?
Is it a certain group, a sect, a religious community, a culture, an ideology or whoever the USA chooses to qualify as a "terrorist"?
The absence of a well defined enemy, the prospective capitulator, is as dangerous to the world at large as it is to the USA for the obvious destruction it will necessarily lead to world wide and the multifaceted abuse it would inevitably entail internally.
Such a war is not only liable to be open-ended, time wise, but equally to have an indeterminate/variable enemy to be chosen as such according to the pressures on and the ideological dictates of the Administration in power!
Hitherto the enemy has been "whoever the USA chooses to qualify as a "terrorist"?

Is that in the best interest of the USA, if we forget about the rest of the World for now?


omar ibrahim baker - 10/19/2007

Recent events go to show, once more, that the basic elements of the situation did NOT change NOR will they EVER change: Israel’s ability at destruction, great by any standard, the total and unconditional US support of Israel, verging on the limitless, and the escalating and ever deepening Arab/Moslem will and ability to resist both and fight on.
If anything all three basic factors are gaining in strength and are being progressively ingrained as seminal foundations of the respective positions of their combatants.
Recent events in Lebanon proclaim the “official” end of the search for “peace” era and the return to total, infinite and timeless confrontation.
The exact end of the “search for peace” era was actually the 1973 war when US direct military intervention frustrated Arab, Syrian/Egyptian, efforts to liberate their lands occupied in the 1967 war.
The US message, latter confirmed by the invasion and conquest of Iraq, was unmistakably clear and was correctly interpreted by both the Israeli right and the Arab/Moslem rejectionist, of Israel’s very existence, front: the USA was not out to protect ”the existence of Israel”, which the war in way threatened, but to ensure its absolute regional superiority and advance its expansionist and domineering designs and Israel in no way had diminished its territorial expansionist and domineering ambitions.
Thence dates the inexorable rise of both the Israeli Right and the Islamist Jihadist movement and the decline, to the present state of virtual demise, of the “peace camps” in both domains.
The Camp David “peace “ agreement, born out of virtual Egyptian capitulation, as much as its byproduct the Oslo agreement, equally and consequentially born out of Fatah and PLO capitulation, not only failed to establish genuine peace but also launched the violent anti “peace” movement with the assassination of its author President Saddat in Egypt and the rise of Hamas in Palestine.
The war now is engaged by Hamas, Islamic Jihad , Hisb Allah, a lukewarm Syria and an increasingly dynamic Iran.
No matter how it will develop and end, it is certainly NOT the last war nor will the number of combatants decrease.
If anything it is the First War in which the Islamist movement takes the lead against an openly aggressive and expansionist Israel supported by, for the first time,its declared ideological, as distinct from political, ally the USA of the Zionist/ neocon alliance fronted by President Bush.
Therein lays the seeds of historical, epoch making, total cultural/confessional confrontations and generations and generation’s long wars; the modern history replay of the Crusaders’ war in a much more dangerously armed world
That is definitely bad news for ALL.



omar ibrahim baker - 10/19/2007

Mr Ebbitt
NO where in any of my many posts on the subject on this and other forums did I call for or advocate "(Your solution is) to fight and push every single Jew living in the former Palestinian homeland into either a 6 ft. hole or into the sea".
My long standing position, put in as many different forms as I could manage was, still is, to "dismantle" or "disestablish “the "ZIONIST state" of Israel.
The stress always being on "Zionist", as distinct from "Jewish", which is the pernicious, aggressive, expansionist and racist dogma/policy that led to the dislocation, dispossession, disfranchisement and subjugation of the indigenous Palestinian Arab people from and in his homeland and still denies him his inalienable RIGHT of RETURN to his homeland.
Equal stress was meant by my invariable use of the term "state", being the machinery that implements Zionist dogma/policy, as distinct from "nation" which would include the Jews presently residing in Palestine.
Should you reread what I have written with this in mind, I believe, you would reconsider your above statement and understand better my unshakable stand.

I AM ALL FOR :"(Why not create) a greater Israeli-Palestinian shared state? “and has been on the record for an "Isro/Pal" or "Palo/Is" federated secular state in which both communities enjoy identical rights and obligations including ,first and foremost, the RIGHT of RETURN.
Should the land area of "Palo/Is" or "Isro/Pal", i.e. historical Palestine, be unable to sustain the combined numbers of the two communities then the necessary number of newly arrived “Israelis” shall have to relocate to allow for the REURN of ALL Palestinians , and their descendants, desiring to return to their ancestral homeland and presently DENIED their inalienable RIGHT of RETURN.

I strongly believe that a neutral deZionised secular Palestine that is Arab/Jewish/Moslem/Christian SOLELY in the cultural/confessional sense for its different particular communities, and not in the nationalist/political/sovereignty sense, is the only way out of this ominous historical impasse and is the only equitable solution to an existential problem that threatens calamitous results for all concerned and beyond .
Regards


Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007

What you think or pretend to think you know about "what I think" is wrong. I do not give a damn whether anybody here thinks of me as erudite.


Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007

Patrick, why assume "Citizen" is a he? Furthermore, she, as I prefer to assume, seems to me to have a good point. By any normal measure of common sense, or of the public interest of the USA, no matter how one regards the presidency of Reagan (I, for example, think he was probably the dumbest U.S. president ever) G.W. Bush is worse, and partly for the reasons given by C.H.


Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007

Patrick, I agree with your general description of disintegrating security and political stability around the world. There are of course multiple causes for each of the multiple mini-catastrophes you mention. Although they are not completely linked together, there are also multiple connections between various subsets of them. Unfortunately or otherwise, I do not have time for the series of long essays covering the details one would need to get into in order to effectively discuss What is Wrong with the World Today and Why.

I would note in passing however that -Steve Broce's latest Rovian regurgitation notwithstanding- I cannot see how any open-minded and informed observer could fail to realize that historically weak and inept leadership in Washington D.C over the last 5 years has undeniably made many bad matters worse. Nor in over four years of frequenting HNN, can I ever recall anyone blaming "everything bad that happens in the world" on the Republicans. I do on the other hand recall scores of comments by Steve Rove Broce effectively and/or directly maintaining the equally idiotic precise opposite: that the Republican Party has zero blame for any bad thing.

I would probably label the general direction indicated by the many crises you mention as "global chaos and anarchy," but, as long as you explain your terms (which you did not do properly before, in my view), you can call it "world war" if you prefer.

I do disagree with the view -clearly implicit in Broce's predictably rote comment, and at least suggested in your remarks as well- that whatever atrocities the Israeli regime commits are always and inevitably solely the fault of some other party. The fact that such an asinine and prefabricated total bias is the defacto official policy of the dry drunk incompetent currently in charge of the Oval Office is, of course, not a reason to suck up to such nonsense.


Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007

Kindergarten was long ago for me.


Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007

The species chickenhawk is a subset of the genus hypocrite. Both terms have been used often of late in discussing American politics because examples of both creature types in the U.S. government are as blatant, as prolific, as egregious, and as little justified today as they ever have been in our history. If we care about history, and not just about raping it for propaganda purposes, and we wish to speak plainly and truthfully, we cannot avoid hitting nails on heads. The fact that such nail hitting bothers pathological propagandists on this board, and ties them into illogical knots of childishness, is certainly not a reason for avoiding it. If someone here has a more apt term for describing the sort of arrogant, selfish, and colossally inconsistent cowardice that is a core characteristic of leading figures in executive branch of our federal administration, such as Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush, Wolfowitz, etc., pray suggest it. There is nothing magical about vocabulary. There is something Orwellian and unAmerican about the unusually outrageous rhetorical trickery covering up unprecedented arrogance and incompetence coming from the administration of George Waffle Bush.


Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007

I'm all ears, Steve the exploiter


Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007

(For a change) I agree with Friedman's comment above. I furthermore think that what is going on now in Lebanon is more about a settling of old scores than the start of something fundamentally new. The Israeli rampage might make sense if it really had a good chance of neutralizing attacks from Lebanon. I am not persuaded that it does. On the other hand, from the Israelis' viewpoint, imagine if the Iran-supplied rockets hitting them had nukes on board. THAT would look much more like World War III, and I cannot say that the world is doing much to head off that ugly scenario. For the umpteenth time, the utter lack of a credible and effective American president is a huge deficit.


Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007

...for publishing propaganda garbage and pretending that it is history. And on HNN for scrounging down to this level of Orwellian dreck. Real historians, left, right, center, up, down, over, or under, know that there is far less legitimate parallel between pathologically bungled Iraq disaster of 2003-present, and America's World War II involvement of 1941-45 than between the very dissimilar George Frat Boy Bush and Ike.


Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007

Osama Bin Laden WANTED us to think that "We entered WWIII, 9/11/2001." The traitor Bush played into this ridiculous nonsense in order to dupe voters into electing him as a war president.

Are we in a never to end world war with "Christofacists" because McVeigh blew up Oklahoma with a truckload of reconfigured fertilizer?

What utter baloney!


Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007

Ike was an internationally successful supreme general in one of the greatest wars in human history, an internationally popular president, a hero, and a gentleman.

W was a dope and alcohol addict, an AWOL combat dodger, a failed businessman, has presided over a catastrophically bungled attempt at nation building concoted so he could sell himself to his halfwitted, apathetic and duped supporters as a "war president," and is an arrogant traitor, an international disgrace, and a fool.


Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007

This is really quite pitiful. Both you guys are capable of considerably better.

"War on communism" ? Come on. Let's
at least keep Rove's 100% pure and fresh bull manure to the present and not pollute our past with it as well.

The rival of the US during the Cold War was the USSR. It was more "communistic" when we helped save it from Hitler.

G.W. Bush is not fit to lick the undersides of the soles of an Ike or an FDR and the informed world knows it.


Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007

"Chickenhawk," unlike the brain of Steve Broce, is not a purely partisan matter.

"Chicken-hypocrite" makes sense only as a counterpart to "chicken," not as a counterpart to "chickenhawk".

Chickensh-t, on the other hand, fairly well describes a serial poster whose hundreds of nauseatingly predictable kneejerk comments rarely amount to more than "Tweedledee Good, Tweedledum Bad."


Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007

Full speed ahead. Strut across that "Mission Accomplished" flight deck and walk right over the edge.

Congratulations, Heisler. For the first time in my 4+ years of reading and commenting on HNN, I believe I have witnessed the first instance of pure insanity here.


Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007

Look those big words up in a dictionary, Steve, if you don’t know what they mean.

Do you really expect me to believe

(a) that you are incapable of reading and comprehending my first post here

(b) that you give a hoot what I “really think” ?

If only kneejerk bias and disingenuousness were substitutes for critical thinking and open-minded exchanges of views.


Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007

"Hypocrite" applies well to someone who makes hundreds of posts on this website criticizing one of the two main U.S. political parties (or other posters which he bogusly labels as supporters of that political party) while never ever criticizing the other main U.S. political party.

"Kindergartener" applies to someone whose only defense against such being identified with such a blatant character flaw is to immediately and reflexively accuse those around him of that flaw.


Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007

Patrick,

Your HNN posts are almost always entertaining, usually witty, generally openhanded, and often insightful. They are also sometimes hard to figure out.

For the last couple of centuries, most historically significant instances of "war" have involved great masses of uniformed men confronting each other violently on behalf of countries which are major world political powers. Certainly this definition applies inescapably and centrally to World War I and World War II.

While I share the bulk of your dismay, e.g. at the neo-con BSing of America, I fail to see how another world war of this kind is in the offing. What is the major power the U.S. is heading towards a world war against?


Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007

1. Tens of thousands of American politicians "earn" a living as full-time members of the Democratic Party.

2. Tens of thousands of American politicians "earn" a living as full-time members of the Republican Party.

3. To ascribe every conceivable problem, failing, or difficulty in America today to the scoundrels of point 1, while assigning zero blame to scoundrels of point 2 (as Mr. Broce has done in his plethora of prior HNN posts) is the sure mark either of (a) a pathological propagandist and incessant abuser of American history or (b) a pitiful dupe.

Possibility (a) certainly qualifies as a "character flaw." Given the evident lack, or -one might say- the hypocritical lack, of "regaled exploits," (b) seems rather more likely.


Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007

...except the conserving of his status as an unimpeached, unindicted, and untried likely traitor to America:


1. Trashing America's national security is not "conservative."

2. Speaking loudly and carrying a wet noodle is not "conservative."

3. Insulting international allies and partners is not "conservative."

4. Pouring tens of billions of taxdollars down one rat hole after another is not "conservative."

5. Drastically weakening the fiscal solidity of the public treasury is not "conservative."

6. Trying to rape the last dregs of oil in America's last huge wilderness in order to get the equivalent of a few years of gasoline for overweight couch potatoes to drive their SUVs with is not "conservative."

7. Encouraging nuclear proliferation around the world is not "conservative."

8. Being nothing but a brainless rubber stamp for whichever terrorist happens to running Israel is not "conservative."

9. Using bad English to justify hypocritical policies design to fleece taxpayers is not "conservative."

10 Violating civil liberties and constitutional rights is not "conservative."

11. Taking advantage of comatose "progressives" who are locked in a eternal straitjacket of viewing everything in terms of an irrelevant or outdated "conservative" versus "liberal" dichotomy is not "conservative".

12. Squandering America's international reputation and military power on a horribly botched and stinkingly hypocritical attempt at foreign nation-building marketed as a "war" (duping brain-dead "antiwar" suckers, again and again) was a sucessful way for a president-select to become an elected "war president," but is not "conservative."


Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007

By your logic Friedman, an elder Schweikert could have sang the praises of Hitler circa 1944, by foaming on and on using faux history to "show" how much like Bismarck good old Adolf was, and you would then chime in saying it's too earlier to tell & that only a biased observor would not wait until after the the Führer was dead to declare a historical catastrophe.


Patrick M. Ebbitt - 9/25/2006

Citizen,

Please accept my apologies, being a literal man, if one does not refute the premise/thesis then one is in favor/support of that thought. Your failure to debunk, then repost the 'Over After Midway' line led me to believe you bought into/promoted this screwy line of reason/thought.

As for Reagan, your post appeared to me as if you were willing to climb Mt. Rushmore, hammer/chisel in hand, to begin carving the profile of 'ol Dutch into the granite right next to Lincoln or at the very least strike your own dimes in Sleepy' likeness.


Patrick M. Ebbitt - 9/25/2006

Peter,

Good evening. As our resident HNN preeminent historian/sage what in your opinion is the signs of an imminent World War? What clues, if any, should we look for to be able to predict/see the coming of such a cataclysmic event? Or is the geopolitical/global military situation one that does not lend itself to traditional definitions/can't happen in our lifetime thought?

World War (n): a war in which the major nations of the world are involved.

Do we need to meet a set/certain numerical count in the number of nation/participants? What of the non-nation entities, do they count? Must the nations/entities involved meet a level of military prowess/ superiority/ sophistication/ ranking level from an authoritative source like Jane's?

The mix of volatile events... Unseen terrorists on the march, Israel on the offensive, Hezbollah/Hamas defiance, Iran/Syria alliance/belligerence, India/Pakistan tension, North Korea saber rattling, Venezuela preening all the while the US is handcuffed/stymied in Iraq/Afghanistan puts a number of nations/scenarios in play. Nervous neighbors, old allies/adversaries and wild card/unpredictable variables add to the instability. What are the potential signs of World War geopolitically?

Discounting the nuclear card to consider that the game has changed substantially as the two superpower standard has been replaced by the lone hyper-power model with accompanying smaller 4th generation warfare enemy/targets, 'old' Europe has folded into a joint/shared defense force (although, European allies did provide national units to the Iraq/Afghan Coalition efforts), China while formidable is well behind in the technology/delivery of ground troops required for foreign incursion and tough as nails Russian military might is aged/less menacing than during her cold war heyday. What are the potential signs of World War militarily?

Then there are the ideologues, industrialist/bankers, militarists and the ever present/dangerous religious zealots/goof balls to push the agenda forward. How do they fit in/effect the potential of creating World War?

Thanks for your worthy/sought after opinion/efforts in advance.


Patrick M. Ebbitt - 9/25/2006

Charles,

Of all the HNN posters my respect/ admiration for you is greatest. Your viewpoint is highly sought/ prized/ valued for your learned/ worldly/ rational/ well conceived/ substantiated reason and I really did miss you the past few weeks. It's great to have you back posting. I realize that this is not a ringing endorsement, that some here would surely shun, coming from Room 1A of the HNN Asylum Wing but, my truth be told.

Putting the partisanship aside, forgetting my near French ancestry (Italy did win the World Cup), passing on our China owned economy/personal debt/national deficit/outsourced-minimum wage careers and the crime rate/prison culture/safety of our streets (Washington, DC thrill kill phenomenon) let's get down to the crux of the biscuit... the Iraq War.

I've moved beyond/given up on my once staunch beliefs that this war is an unjustified/immoral mistake against God/nature/mankind carried out solely for the economic gain of a few criminals within the USG and MIC at the expense of the lives of a few peons/suckers. HNN rightists have helped me grow to understand that the way of the world is that money calls the fiddlers tune and those poor ghetto kids in uniform better learn to dance quickstep or be fitted for a black nylon zippered dumpsuit (flag drape option FOC). It was tiring having to read the complaints about my posting the ever/rapidly increasing DOD casualty rates week in/out (2,544 but, who's counting anymore?).

The issue is what do we do now? The myriad of excuses as to the how's/why's have been played out like Namath's knees. We have replaced the world's greatest oppressor Saddam to become his more than able surrogate. In fact, we are slaughtering Iraqi's at such an alarming rate that we're making the old 'Butcher of Baghdad' look like a piker by compare. The same Iraqi's we are so desperately trying to liberate/free/bring democracy to or at least I think that's them. They now seem so unhappy and ungrateful, spoiled sports.

No one here at HNN has been able to rightly identify who is the enemy so maybe, you can tell me? Nor can anyone here provide any viable clue as to what our objectives are now so, I am hoping you can assist on this also? Seeing as how our military accepts anyone nowadays especially, neo-Nazi /Aryan nationalists how can we make the local teen girls feel comfortable/safe/accepting of a good raping/murder/burning and family snuffing? How can we convince the locals to stop kidnapping/ indiscriminately killing each other based on ID? How do we stop the bombing of Mosques/car bombing/IED bombing and Bush from getting bombed again on the bottle and bombed at the polls?

If you can convince me that the war is swell and that I have nothing to fear I'll be on my way back to the Tenth Dimension from where I came.

http://www.tenthdimension.com/flash2.php

Have a great evening...


Patrick M. Ebbitt - 9/25/2006

Steve,

I never, ever waste time just for the sake of posting or to get anyones goat nor to read your whimsical words of rightist hyperbole wit.

Again, you prove to be nothing more than a Republican knob. The subject of gays in our military/society and the subsequent poor/shabby/despicable treatment by Republicans of these fellow citizens reeks of disgraceful ignorance and indefensible hate.

It is fully understandable that you, of the well documented history for cherry picking, would skirt around this Republican turd once you realized that you're AWG and this Toro was gassed/firing/blades a sharpened spinning.

N-E-X-T... NEXT !!!


Patrick M. Ebbitt - 9/25/2006

If GWB was paying the least bit of attention/care to readily available/well known/ documented intelligence reports/data and doing his damn job as SELECTED instead of pretend play as 'Lil Joe down at the Lazy Fakey Ranch milking horses and chopping down brush we could have avoided the 9/11 attacks.

August is the Vacation pResidents month off, as if he breaks a sweat the other eleven, we'll see what treat is in store for us while Doofus suns/funs down at Crawford... like his hiding out from Cindy Sheehan routine two years ago or pretend playing Guitar Johnny while New Orleans drowned last summer... We got a taste of it again today as our Statesman Embarrassment whooped it up/ cut the clown like a juvenile in Germany slopping down BBQ while Iraq and the rest of the Middle East burned to the ground.


Patrick M. Ebbitt - 9/25/2006

Steve,

Israel is on the offensive in defense of it's national integrity/ sovereignty/ survival.

Hezbollah/Hamas stated defiantly that it is not backing off and will push the war further into Israeli territory.

See todays Drudge/Newmax for details...

Now why don't you explain how you see it especially, in light of the fact that your Republicans delivered/dumped the rest of us unwillingly upon the threshold of World War 3.


Patrick M. Ebbitt - 9/25/2006

Omar,

Just because I believe that Israel is entitled to/ deserves a homeland does not mean that I do not believe the same for the Palestinians. What is with you folks? There is more than enough room/land for all to have nice homes, businesses, recreation, private/religious space throughout the whole of Palestine.

This lands history is shared equally by both Jew and Arab. What you're saying is that because the Jew was ejected in 70AD by the Roman Empire to be scattered near/far they have no right to return to their ancestral homeland that is also the historical home to Arabs. Do you have titled proof/ deeded historical documentation that this land is owned solely by Arabs? This is quite troubling and the root cause of all the turmoil. Yes, no doubt the way the Jew was allowed to return after 2000 years at the expense of/forced upon the Arab indigenous populace is problematic/unfair but, life is unfair. Study the history of the Native American if you really want to feel better about your lot or conversely for some, more pitied. For Christ sakes you folks are both descendent from the same loins of Abraham. To white bread like me you all even look similar. If that's a prejudiced/ ignorant/ stupid statement it is and I wholly apologize for it but, look in the mirror, then pick out any random Jew and you'll see what I mean.

Now that I have proven to be a racist and no better than you folk keep on getting it on. Killing each other, hating, scheming/plotting just stop taking the rest of us down with you. It's so much easier to war with each other than to team/ strive/ work together to build/ share a better life for your children. It could be so much different/ better if you all would stop the selfishness/ ignorance/ religious idiocy/ tribal bickering. Let me tell you about the ancestors... they're dead.

On a personal note Omar I really like/ respect you allot. You are a brilliant man and I know you have good heart. Why can't a man like you take the lead/ expend your wondrous energy/ put away, bury the hate to take up the shield of peace, love and understanding. All revolutions start with a single man/idea why not it be you that leads the life changing/ history making metamorphosis that can save a peoples of this particular speck of dirt on this little ball of rock/water that orbits a fourth rate star in a lousy section of a third rate galaxy?

Good night, see you tomorrow...


Patrick M. Ebbitt - 9/25/2006

Steve,

Hurry, chase down that door-to-door Britannica salesmen before he gets away/ reaches your neighbors home to sell them the reference books that you so direly need.

1.) Bush v. Gore, 531 US 98 (2000) Not Gore v. Bush as you pretend. Bush filed/pressed suit and in three separate opinions, seven justices found that a ballot recount then being conducted in certain counties in the State of Florida was to be stopped due to the lack of a consistent standard; two justices disagreed. A 5-4 majority further declared in a per curiam opinion that there was insufficient time to establish standards for a new recount that would meet Florida's deadline for certifying electors.

The SCOTUS were able to S-E-L-E-C-T George W. Bush who was then P-L-A-C-E-D not, E-L-E-C-T-E-D to office as POTUS.

2.) There is/was plenty of evidence/data/discussion with POTUS/DOD by FBI/CIA well in advance of the 9/11 attacks of exactly the type of scenario that tragically unfolded.

Playing cowboy is 'hard work' but, it sure beats the hell out of doing any real work that our boy in his lifetime/history has failed to succeed at/accomplish anything of note without some adult covering for this lame-o.

3.) Although, I lack any Foreign Service experience whatsoever, other than (3) college credits in International Law, my performance as Statesman would outshine Nimrod's on his bestest day. Watch this little clip for a few laughs and check out Merkel's confused look as if to say... "Who/what/where is this dingleberry coming from?" and "Why me Lord, God. Why am I the one who has to host this whack-job?"

http://movies.crooksandliars.com/TDS-Bush-Pig.mov

A Ben Franklin he's not.

4.) Iran and Syria pulling the strings of Hezbollah... No, you don't say !!!

It's Iranian military advisors who are directing the missile assaults on Haifa and the Israeli gunboat... but, humor me, do go on. I always love to hear tales from a 20's something GS.


Patrick M. Ebbitt - 9/25/2006

Omar,

I was looking for you throughout the thread. Mr. Friedman and Heisler seem to have vanished also. The events of the past (72) hours have been heart stopping to say the least.

In all seriousness, from your vantage point/perspective, do you believe we have reached the tipping point/threshold to World War III?

Thanks for your learned input.


Patrick M. Ebbitt - 9/25/2006

Andy,

How did I miss this little Republican-speak gem, "most decisive major leader since Ronald Reagan"

October 23, 1983 Beirut, Lebanon 241 dead US Marines/Navy personnel from two truck bombs was met by a CUT AND RUN response by the most decisive President to date until our infamous Dear Leader 'W' Bush the Lesser.

If this is your model of decisiveness/leadership then we're really are in trouble following this Bwana Dik through the hostile jungles of the world.


Patrick M. Ebbitt - 9/25/2006

Peter,

You're correct. Citizen makes many excellent points that are clearly evident especially, in the post below. An almost irrefutable posting, that I read with keen interest, by any standard here at HNN or on any other site where I lurk.

As for gender identification it just goes to prove, once more, just how clueless/naive/inept I truly am. Therefore, for the second time in as many days my apologies go out to Citizen.


Patrick M. Ebbitt - 9/25/2006

How refreshing indeed. An HNN article that rubs the bellies/pats the head/reassures the Republican/rightists that their War On Error is going great guns smoothly/right on schedule to plan.

Republican failure once again rewarded with a pat on the back.

Well Repugs... Remember your pat on the back is only 18 inches from a swift kick in the pants...

Maybe some of the HNN Wingnuts can help out our poor clueless Kool Aid guzzling Mr. Schweikart who provides zero... count 'em zero... examples of success in Iraq/Afghanistan or anywhere else.

If puke laced backwash such as this tripe wins wars;

"Beyond Iraq, the U.S. will win the War on Terror because it's what Americans do: we win military conflicts. Leftists love to point to Vietnam. But again, is that a "war," or a battle within the Cold War, which we won?"

or

That we win wars because we take better care of our POW's or we have a more diverse military while conveniently forgetting how Republicans/rightist fought bitterly against an all volunteer military/ racial & gender equity in our armed forces and held out/hung on with bloody fingernails against the gays in uniform...

Then we are well on our way to victory. It is ours for the asking... nod, nod... wink, wink.

I seriously doubt if LGF or Powerline would have posted this hogwash even with a generous pledge/contribution from the author. This essay is a sad joke and should have never been printed on the pages of HNN.


Patrick M. Ebbitt - 9/25/2006

Charles,

Although, I was expecting a bit more detail from someone of your caliber it is understandable considering the complexity of the subject matter. My consternation with your post centers on the right-left paradigm that we continue to play and valuable time is wasting. As you are well aware and contrary to the beliefs of some, whom I have debated here in the past, I fall into neither ideological sphere so what I am about to write may come as a shock to you. However, I am deadly serious.

GHW Bush and his failure to achieve total victory in Gulf War I was a major mistake in that we did not finish the job/ eliminate Saddam/reshape the region at that time when the opportunity clearly presented itself/was ripe. The Clinton era was even more troubling/disappointing as our pussy footing/no fly zone-sanctions/failure to bring bin Laden to justice exacerbated/worsened/empowered terror groups and enflamed an already spiraling out of control/ dire situation.

Today's events in Israel/Palestine/Lebanon have magnified 1000 fold the total incompetence/ineptitude of the Bush Administration. The (3) year failure to put to bed what was easily a 'slam dunk' war in Iraq/Afghanistan has mutated into Day One of World War III. (I know, I know the Cold War that we fought/won was World War III but, for the sake of continuity/history/avoid confusion skipping to World War IV is not practical for these talking points)

Therefore, I truly believe we need to initiate serious/extensive/far reaching actions in effort to save our nation and for our very existence. The United States needs to place this nation on full war footing immediately/no debate/no protest/no questions. The President must implement/enforce martial law, suspend the Constitution/habeas corpus, suspend elections, activate all Guard/police units, enforce nationwide curfews, censor/government control of all media and reinstate the Selective Service Draft.

If we face any resistance from the populace in any region of the country then the military must be called out/into the street/orders shoot to kill. A few thousand citizens killed is a miniscule price/should whip the remaining soft underbelly populace into shape/ harden the nation for the days ahead. Detention should be made mandatory for any citizen who does not comply for the duration of this national emergency.

I find it hard to believe that President Bush has not made a national prime-time televised speech after todays events. Once again it shows just how weak a leader he really is. I am fully in favor of suspending all elections during an emergency of this magnitude and making the President unitary executive for the duration of the crisis. My only anxiety is that it is this weakling/stumble bum at the helm. Unfortunately, this is what we have to work with so we must make do and go with it. The survival of our nation is that important and it is a small concession for us all to save the whole. If only it was LBJ or Ron Reagan or GHW Bush my fears would be minimal but alas, it's not.

World War III has started. We are now in a full scale civil defense emergency and drastic measures must be enforced for we have no more time to waste.


Patrick M. Ebbitt - 9/25/2006

Robert,

Well debate then! Bring it on! It is the easiest thing in the world to criticize someone else's ideas/thoughts/postings when you supply absolutely none of your own. There was so much in this and other posts that I puked up that you are welcome to challenge. Help yourself to more than just the backwash and I'll be happy to oblige/debate.

Although, I could be wrong and usually am, I take it that you're a wingnut. Here, I'll start with a subject that no Republican/rightist dare touch or ever openly debate as they are nothing but gutless worms.

The Republican Party sucks and is un-American because of it's mistreatment/ attempted outlaw-ban-discharge/ enforcement-support of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Pursue, Don't Harass and overall despicable actions against the brave men & women of our armed service who are gay.

Oh, did I mention that Republican's suck?


Patrick M. Ebbitt - 9/25/2006

Steve,

Your second helping of SOS is once again nothing to pop a cork over. Like some others here your head has been reduced to a solid block of lifeless matter from excess talk radio/ Weekly Standard over-saturation. It may be too late but, turn back now before you meet the fate as Lots' wife and are reduced completely to a pillar lump.

To all your points regarding Iraq and Afghanistan a simple two word response... CIVIL WAR.

As for Libya again a simple two word response... MUAMMAR QADHAFI.

Read the attached Green Book and accompanying White Book written by your idle and buddy then get back to me... m'K

http://www.mathaba.net/gci/theory/gb.htm

http://www.algathafi.org/medialeast/medialeast-en.htm


Patrick M. Ebbitt - 9/25/2006

Citizen,

This is an outstanding post. Thanks.


Patrick M. Ebbitt - 9/25/2006

Omar,

No apology required. You have been posting elsewhere much to my enjoyment. You are correct my disjointed reasoning/ response reflect a severely limited knowledge of the subject matter and yes I do seek from you a highly evolved direct point of contact perspective. Here is my take...

1.) Israel has an undeniable right to existence with Jerusalem as central hub of their homeland. Recently, a remarkable find occurred that you may be well aware. A handful of dried figs were found in Gilgal, Lower Jordan Valley, dated 11,400 years. The figs are believed to be the very first domesticated plants. Harvard and Bar-Ilan University have shown the plants to be sterile so the plantings must have been generated by shoots which the Jewish people learned to create reproduction.

The first documented date of a unified Kingdom of Israel 1030BC which suffered the Exodus and the Israel/Judah schism around 920BC. For the next 1000 years the Kingdom remained fairly constant despite wars/occupations. The First Jewish Revolt (66-73AD)/sacking of Jerusalem in (70AD) followed by the Second Jewish Revolt (135AD) forced the Diaspora and 2000 year exile. Although, their remained a small populace of Jews in Palestine the peoples were scattered to the wind. Through the efforts/machinations/ at times underhanded wheel & deal of men like Moses Hess and Theodor Herzl a series of immigrations began in the 1880's though the 1917 Balfour Mandate and British Protectorate.

Palestine is as much the spawning ground of Jew as it is Arab. So the return and subsequent 1947 granting of nationhood for me is acceptable, the treatment of the Palestinian populace was not. There was no need to displace any Arab. The Jewish need to create a pure state smacks of racism that they fought against for 2000 years. The tables turned they failed to utilize their own history/compassion/ common decency to protect the indigenous Arab populace.

2.) The Zionist model of nation building is failed/wrong/ racist/ brutal with respects to the Arab inhabitants it replaced. If you want to move into my neighborhood you are welcome but, build your house down the street not on top of mine. And if you pull eminent domain, provide me a nicer house down the street and some large bills as compensation. The use of shyster illegal mandates back by force of the worlds military powers Britain/Us is so dastardly that is beneath shame/contempt.

3.) The issue in your peace initiative is that new Jewish settlers cannot/will not be stopped. As with any nation/people more is better. You need bodies to run an economy/man an army. Other than that, the points you make are excellent and of little refute. However, we need to stop the settlement building, tear down that wall and develop a plan for the return of Palestinian refugees post haste.

This doesn't appear to be in the cards as Israel's war is to create a larger buffer zone/isolate the country further from Arab incursion/access. The Jewish peoples should just build an astronomically large prison cell, lock themselves in and eat the 'sacred sands' of Judea they so longingly covet.

Take care and have a good day.


Patrick M. Ebbitt - 9/25/2006

Omar,

I read all your posts with great anticipation/interest including “The Meaning of Israel” and “What did Zionism Achieve?”.

I need not remind you that in debating me on this issue that there will be a clear imbalance in the discussion. You come to this fight lock/loaded with a 50 cal. while I, on the other hand, am drizzling piss into a plastic squirt gun all the time fending off the blue glare of the big guns metal barrel. This is not/cannot be a fair debate as you are the resident subject expert on this all important topic. The ground rules now being understood will make my efforts easier and ignorance less offensive/ confusing/understandable.

I'll agree that the forcible removal/ displacement of Palestinians by Great Britain to be supplanted by Jews and the subsequent creation of a Jewish state is far from 'unfair' as a poor descriptive on my part. For those Palestinians and their decedents it is nothing short of criminal/ deplorable/ unjust/ iniquitous. My being a realist however, the current situation, is what it is. A Jewish nation exists and it is not going away, ever. Now the question is what to do about it?

Your solution is to fight and push every single Jew living in the former Palestinian homeland into either a 6 ft. hole or into the sea. To date this approach has proven to be a loss leader. Killed innocence from both sides with far more Palestinian lives lost. Economically, Palestinians have basically been driven into abject poverty/ near starvation dependent on foreign aid for basic survival needs. Politically the structures are weak/ ill/ corrupt and self serving/ indulgent to the few/ strong/ militant. This future is not very bright/ promising/ protective-nurturing for the generations to come. The fact that Israel has been able to physically fence out/ cage in the Palestinian populace with very little protest from the world community proves that the cause is not well received outside the immediate affected community. The only saving grace is the undeniable determination/ grit/ pride and strong/loving family bonds of her people.

My solution is a more pragmatic and calls for coexistence/ sharing/ teaming and assimilation. Why not create a greater Israeli-Palestinian shared state? If the Israeli Jew and Palestinian Arab were to combine into a unified state it would be an economic/ social/ secure/ religious freedom powerhouse. Look no further than the EU as a model/example. Both peoples would benefit greatly from the common/ shared strengths of each and the efforts expended on the current struggle/ hate/ fighting could be directed to the positive and creation of a special land of opportunity/ hope for all inhabitants.

As to Jewish 'claims' my beliefs mean little as the Jews are smack dab in the middle of a land that spawned them 10000 years ago. My question to you is was Adam/Eve Jewish?

As to the Jews being a 'chosen people' the answer is 'no' I do not believe this. In the eyes of God there is no 'people' only the individual person. Gaining God's forgiveness/ grace/ entry into His Kingdom is not a group effort/ tour bus exercise. It is solely an individual act/ aspiration/ endeavor. He will not seek the input/participation of others to judge the life actions of the one.

I will talk to you more tomorrow and we can expand upon this discussion.

Take care my friend...


Patrick M. Ebbitt - 9/25/2006

Steve,

Check the Congressional Record... read who sponsored/ pushed this mess and how the votes tallied.

It was the pointed gun of you egg sucking Elephants who wanted gays lined up and shot as either treasonous security risks or freaks or both.

Only Clintons understanding/ compassion/ reason saved the day to get the chickenhawk/ draft dodging/ never served/ send your kid/ gutless Republicans to compromise on a hate filled measure against our most loyal military men & women.

Republicans are homophobes... gay marriage anyone? What you say, Steve?


Patrick M. Ebbitt - 9/25/2006

Charles,

My Libertarian Party has failed to break past the single digits in percentage of votes cast in any national election and our lone voice in Congress Dr. Ron Paul is registered as a Republican. Democrats are just as suspect as Republicans but, it is the Republicans who have proved to be ineffective at governance over the past (12) years and especially, over the last six. The party of accountability needs to take responsibility for it's numerous shortcomings.

The election in Iraq was farcical as Sunni's sat out en masse and the subsequent provisional/puppet US regimes would collapse quicker than a mobile home in a Louisiana hurricane without our military/financial support. The Iraqi government has had (3) leaders since the fall of Saddam in Iyad Allawi, Ibrahim al-Jaafari and now Nouri al-Maliki. The US booted Allawi and Jaafari for not playing ball and Maliki's recent olive branch was tossed onto the insurgents bon fire as kindling/motivation for even greater sectarian violence.

There is no need for me to rage against the machine. One lone voice of reason matters not in a nation obsessed with/ ill on violence, sex, money grubbing/ over consumption, crime, drugs (legal & illicit) and the inherent values decay/ decadence/ collapse of traditional family structure/ loss of religion that these little gems generate. The fear/ buzzwords/ logos of the Republican Party who is at their very best when practicing as art form the vices they so openly rail against the rest of us to avoid/ fight against by ignorantly voting Republican.

I have a front row ticket for the show so come and wake me when the credits roll.


Patrick M. Ebbitt - 9/25/2006

Steve,

- Ejected the Taliban from Afghanistan (January 16, 2002)
- Ejected Saddam Hussein from Iraqi governance (April 9, 2003)
- Killed Uday (July 22, 2003)
- Killed Qusay (July 22, 2003)
- Captured Saddam Hussein and turned him over to the Iraqi government for trial (December 14, 2003)
- Killed Zarqawi (June 7, 2006)
- Captured Binalshibh (September 11, 2002)
- Captured Khalid Sheikh Mohammed )March 1, 2003)
- Captured Abu Zubaida* (March 28, 2002)
- Captured Mohammed Haydar Zammar (October 27, 2001)

Seeing as how my initial offering was silly/ill conceived while your tremendous list of Republican achievements (other than the killing a non-Iraqi Abu Musab al-Zarqawi) seems to have run out of bragging rights/ monumental events/steam on December 14, 2003 capture of Saddam... let's hope we execute him quickly before he escapes the justice/hangman's noose he so rightly deserves by keeling over like Slobo Milosevic or Kenny Boy Lay... just proves how this misadventure in nation building has morphed from flower greetings to last throes to full blown civil war.

In classical Rovian Republican style you tout the killing of one thug as if it were a victory equal to the conquest of Sicily or defeat of von Manteuffel's 5th Panzer Army in the Ardennes. You're more than welcome to "keep going". In fact, I insist.

* Ron Suskind "The One Percent Doctrine" states that CIA/FBI interrogators found Zubaida to be mentally ill "This guy is insane, certifiable, split personality." Another fine a catch, Ollie!

What is it with the capture/ killing/ prosecution/ imprisonment of mental patients like Zubaida and Zacarias Moussaoui? Is this the best we can do? When are the Republicans going to turn their gun sights on the real enemy in the War on Error... the Wahhabists of Saudi Arabia... Oh yeah, thats right, I forgot... the Saudi Wahhabists are the Bush's long time business partners and personal family friends.


Patrick M. Ebbitt - 9/25/2006

Dear Mr. Historian,

May I call you by your first name Citizen? If you thought my initial rant was "overheated" you ain't seen nothing yet! Stick around, it's early in the week.

Before we start you write, "A historian can look back in comfort now and say of World War II that the war essentially was over after Midway" I'll be sure to provide citations in your name when I make the required changes over at Wikipedia on my account. I am sure that survivors and those who lost loved ones after June 4-6, 1942 will be relieved to learn that Kwajalein, Tarawa, Bougainville, Guadalcanal, Guam, Peleliu, Leyte Gulf, Philippine Sea, Iwo Jima and Okinawa were pillow fights/ unnecessary/ practice run exercises carried out for fun or because they had nothing better to do than sit around listening to radio which was so damn boring anyway. Those who fought and died in the European Theater should be equally ecstatic considering that their war was essentially over after El Alamein.

Following this show of educated/ historical acumen you write. "reflect the way many knowledgeable people discuss this issue." Ok, I give up! What are you reading/sourcing that places you above us rabble or gives you the edge in acquiring the Rippers' essence in precious bodily fluids as to the how's/why's of the current real/geopolitik of Iraq, Afghanistan and points beyond?

As for Saddam, off with his head. No Kenny Boy Lay easy way out for this cornfed Rumsfeld tool. However, there are knuckleheads who advocate his return to power and essays on the subject are easily Googled.

As for Mr. Reagan winning the Cold War single handedly let's be sure to pass on giving any credit to Pope John Paul II or Mikhail Gorbachev. The latter who demonstrated remarkable restraint/leadership/poise/command control and could have easily slipped to unleash a barrage of military might against the West just as the Soviet ship of state slammed upon the ocean floor of history quicker than an ill fated Kursk.

Also, be sure not to forget/mention the 1980 October Surprise Election and that worthy stiff (in more ways than one) challenge presented by the high flying Mondale-Ferraro ticket in 1984. Didn't Bergland-Lewis put up near identical numbers? Finally, remember, Reagan never played the fear card... whether Soviet communist/ Central American Sandinista... never happened.


Patrick M. Ebbitt - 9/25/2006

Charles,

By chance, Bush's driver isn't named Jeff Gannon Guckert?


Patrick M. Ebbitt - 9/25/2006

Steve,

WHAT GOOD NEWS? When you're not too heavily sedated from picking wild mushrooms in your backyard and sober up you'll need to take the time to show me exactly where you cull this information that warps your sense of reality.

A daily dose of murder, rape and torture. Is this your idea of reshaping the Middle East/ nation building/ freedom/ democracy? Even WSJ, Drudge, Weekly Standard, Powerline. Little Green Footballs, Free Republic and Newsmax have given up on finding/printing any stories of GOOD NEWS out of Iraq as I know from browsing each site.

If you are willing to forgive/ forget/ trust Qadhafi that's up to you. To me he's a murderer/ thug/ anti-semite/ anti-western enemy that Reagan bungled big time when he failed to kill the cretin. Just one more black mark in a long list of botched opportunities/ disappointments parlayed as a rousing success to the American people by the retarded followers of old Dutch.

civil war (n.) 1. A war between factions or regions of the same country.

It is either the mouthing of a Republican apologist/ FOX news anchor or the absolutely delusional ramblings of a daytripper to deny that a civil war is not the normative condition in Iraq/Afghanistan. Factional fighting in both countries is endemic/prevalent and you can call it whatever you wish but, reality bites/says otherwise.


Patrick M. Ebbitt - 9/25/2006

War is as outmoded as cannibalism, chattel slavery, blood-feuds, and dueling. An insult to God and humanity, a daily crucifixion of Christ.--Muriel Lester

Omar,

The US also gives total/unconditional/limitless support to Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Although, I disagree with some of the policy/actions of the Israeli government I do believe that Israel is deserving of their homeland/right to exist. The Jewish people have historical claim to of the area from Mt. Ebal to Jerusalem. See the works of Adam Zertal, Archaeologist, Haifa University who has tied/proved the Old Testament to the geographic homeland of the ancient Jewish Nation. In spite of Israel Finkelstein's assertions that there was no Israelite Kingdom under David, Zertal's work is quite detailed and convincing.

This problems root cause is that the leaders of the Palestinians and Israelis keep their peoples at odds. Arab and Jew live side-by-side/are friends/do business with each other but, there is always an element in both groups who keep the hate card in play egged on by outsiders Syria, Iran and yes, the US. If we could only let the regular people work out these issues I am sure coexistence/peace would be nurtured/thrive.

Unfortunately, grass roots initiatives do not play well to the big shots in Washington/Tel Aviv/London/Damascus/Tehran so it's war. From my perspective it is World War III as I stated last Thursday. For once in my life I finally got the drop on my flavor flav Republican Newt Gingrich who came out today with the same opinion. The true concern now is that an element in this country including, moderates like James Woolsey are calling for widening of the front and the bombing of Damascus. This will get quite ugly before it is all over and for what a few square miles of sand on the Mediterranean.

Mankind must put an end to war, or war will put an end to mankind. War will exist until that distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige that the warrior does today. -- John F. Kennedy


Patrick M. Ebbitt - 9/25/2006

Charles and Peter,

The toll of the past (3) years coupled with the events in Israel/ Palestine/ Lebanon of the past (48) hours has wore me out. I am a stunned/ speechless writers block suffering apathetic/uncaring wretch.

This is the key to the Rove strategy of wearing down the John Q. Public's of America with a constant barrage of overwhelming/unbelievable tales of woe utilizing the (3) Rules of the Straussians... deception, religion and aggressive nationalism... as witnessed during the last few news cycles that for some of us has just been far too difficult to fathom.

Contrary to Charles opinion these events are larger than any one man including his beloved GW Bush. Bush has proven ineffective/ unable to win a small theater conflict in Iraq and now history will take it's vengeance with a runaway/ chain reaction series of events that he helped ignite/turn into a world wide conflagration.

The true leftists, the neocons, have placed the final piece of the puzzle into place with Israel entering the now World War as an active participant. This was their plan all along and Bush is/was not a player but, a convenient conduit for the shaping of history by other more powerful forces.

The machinations of Irving Kristol have arrived/ reached maturation from when he wrote, "Use democracy to defeat liberty. Turn the people against their own liberty. Convince them that liberty is licentiousness - that liberty undermines piety, leads to crime, drugs, rampant homosexuality, children out of wedlock, and family breakdown. And worse of all, liberalism is soft on communism or terrorism - whatever happens to be the enemy of the moment. And if you can convince the people that liberty undermines their security, then, you will not have to take away their liberty; they will gladly renounce it."

Re-read Charles postings and blend his words into Kristol's premise/thesis. When a strong/ intelligent/as patriotic a man as any American such as CH is willing to surrender his personal liberty/ unconditionally then we as a nation are prone to overthrow/ usurpation. All that is needed is the platform and a World War is the perfect channel.

The neocons thrust is that America has been ruled by an unwise/ unfit liberal elite for over 200 years and are primed/ more likely to endorse/ be pliable to conservative/ austere policy. This is in direct conflict/ contradiction to the Founding Fathers who feared the tyranny of the majority and institutionalized safeguards to protect the liberty of the individual and minorities.

This was proven/ effective/ enabled in Nazi Germany through the Decrees of 1933, Article 48 as seen here.

http://web.jjay.cuny.edu/~jobrien/reference/ob60.html

Will it work in America 2006? That remains to be seen but, a crisis the magnitude of a World War is the perfect dry tinder required to ignite the powder keg. The Neocons reactionary goal is to squash/ quell all things Liberal and democracy is the vehicle to accomplish this task under a watchful eye of the wise elite who are supremely fit and already in position to enforce dictatorial powers.


Patrick M. Ebbitt - 9/25/2006

http://www.answers.com/topic/article-48

Sorry for the John Jay pop-up and I realize that both of you have read Article 48 but, for those who have not...

Where's Fredrick Thomas when you really need him as I am sure he could quote this writ verbatim...


Patrick M. Ebbitt - 9/25/2006

Omar,

Please accept my apologies for the confusion but, reading over your posts here/elsewhere has me thoroughly bamboozled and I know better than to assume however, it has appeared from this end of the wire that you fully advocate the dissolution of the State of Israel. If you are unable to do this through legal/diplomatic means how do you propose to carry out this aim/goal other than to war/kill the Jewish inhabitants of this former Palestinian land?

Second, to substitute/interchange the concept/ideology/ branding of Jew and Zionist as if shifting the gears of a road racer to compliment your talking points/ camouflage intentions can be construed as disingenuous. I realize that you are going to extraordinary lengths to simplify the condition/ history/ viewpoint for my limited capability/ understanding but, now my questions are...

Is Jew a religion or a nationality? Does one have to be a Jew to be a Zionist? Conversely, does one have to be a Zionist to be a Jew?

I may be wrong but, the problem with the Palestinians is that they don't know what they want. Following the establishment of the PLO in 1964 whose explicit chartered goal was armed struggle for the destruction of Israel to create an independent Palestinian state between Jordan River/ Mediterranean Sea. Suffered major setbacks/embarrassing defeats in 1967/70/73 to finally shift gears again in 1988 to amend the charter to recognize Israel for the promise of creating a Palestinian State alongside Israel. Then the 1993 Oslo Accords granting self government in the Gaza to which the US issued billions in aid to the Palestinian Authority only to have it squandered/ disappear/ stolen and the Gaza turn into a misgoverned/ mismanaged sham. To up-shift gears in the 2000 Intifada to attack/ attempt to destroy Israel once again shows the inconsistency/ confusion/ misplaced goals & objectives/ timeframes/ outcomes/ results. The failures here rest solely on the plate of the Palestinian not Israeli. In the words of Tuco after killing an adversary from a disadvantaged position being caught in a bathtub bathing in the movie The Good/Bad/Ugly "If you're going to talk, talk. If you're going to shoot, shoot".

If it were me, my convictions would be rock solid and if the expulsion of the Jew was the goal then killing them is the task. I am sorry my friend but, you blow with the wind like the Palestinian people throughout post 1947 history. If I were a Palestinian and my job was the elimination of the Jewish State and if that meant armed action then... you know the rest. This whole mess has now reached its zenith with Israel's aim to destroy Hezbollah and cripple the the Hamas led Gaza authority in full force. The Palestinian inability to settle on a unified front/ goals/ objectives have put the ball in Israel's court and they are exercising/ dictating the events/ outcomes. Unfortunately, the butcher/ slaughter by Israel of the Palestinian is once again a war crime/ act of barbarity against God but, the Palestinians brought this upon themselves. This is the end/ undeserved crushing of the great Palestinian peoples from which they may never recover/ be the same. A future that mirrors that of the North American Natives.

What a sad/ tragic/ disgusting/ sickening chain of events.

Good night Omar. I'll be around to discuss more tomorrow...


andy mahan - 9/19/2006

Can't fight a tactic? This one was just too good to pass. Militarily, tactics are ALL you fight.


andy mahan - 9/19/2006

GWB is the most decisive major leader since Ronald Reagan. I know he doesn't rise to level of Stalin and Castro in your mind Lorraine but he's still alive.

Just for fun. Why don't you name the State leader that is doing a good job in your view. Now you can't pick Stalin or Castro, cause I already know you esteem them.


andy mahan - 9/19/2006

China is somewhat mauve. It can no longer be compared to the blood red government of Mao. China is rapidly moving away from any form of Communism. The institutions are still as they were before but they were corrupted even when the baseball hat wearin murderers ran the show.


andy mahan - 9/19/2006

Whether people want to impugn Schweikart or not, his essay is irrefutably true, accurate, and balanced. I've thought as he does all along.

The insidious thing about the detractors of our military success is that my "character judgment" is that they refuse to recognize any successes only because of their blind hate for our President. These same liars don't honestly care for the safety or morale of our troops. They are the true “Chickenhawks”.


andy mahan - 9/19/2006

Simon,

Lorraine is too self-conscience to discuss real issues, favoring or her noncommittal drive-by pettiness.


andy mahan - 9/19/2006

John,

Better go back and read it agin.

Truth: The primary support of the thesis was WWII.

Accuracy: Agin, you didn't understand the essay. The intent of the phrase, "There is a myth of the War on Terror that we "can't beat an ideology," and "terrorism is an ideology, not a state." was to contrast the perceptions of those that think ideology cannot be defeated, only states can. He wasn't saying some people think terrorism is a state, not an ideology.

Balance: Your prejudice notwithstanding, it is not required that he lend validity to the wailings of the leftist extremists e.g., "Bush lied, People died!" in order for the piece to be balanced. It is balanced because he did exactly what you failed to understand. Which is to put forth an argument and support it with unassailable facts.

I think it says pretty much about the truth, accuracy and balance of the piece that you are attacking grammar, not substance.


andy mahan - 9/19/2006

Somehow, I suspect, that even if they could answer, "why we fight" they would get failing marks.


andy mahan - 9/19/2006

John,

My mistake, I know you libs prefer to argue the boundaryless expanse of semantics and I fell for the game.

Nonetheless, I stand by what I said. If you choose to be ignorant, or are honestly ignorant, I won't spend the time trying to explain it to you.

This is what Merriam-Webster says:

Main Entry: 1tac·tic
Pronunciation: 'tak-tik
Function: noun
Etymology: New Latin tactica, from Greek taktikE, from feminine of taktikos
1 : a device for accomplishing an end
2 : a method of employing forces in combat

If you can't fight a "device" or "method" why don't liberals stop the attacks on Conservatism...Rovian politics...etc?


andy mahan - 9/19/2006

We entered WWIII, 9/11/2001. It had been escalating for decades before. This war pitting Islamofacists against the free world will continue for decades to come. Anyone deluding themselves that a withdrawal from Iraq will end WWIII is childlike. The boogieman will still be there when their eyes are closed. Such are today’s whiners lamenting the misperception that Bush should have already won this war. Silliness.


andy mahan - 9/19/2006

Hey, didn’t I tell ya? These liberal shell games are so predictable. I’m gonna ask you to concentrate real hard. The question is: Can we fight tactics? It is apparent that you have tacitly accepted my position based on your replacement of the term “military confronting” in lieu of “fighting”. We both know liberals are fighting the tactics of Conservatives and of Rove, don’t we? We also both know they are fighting the tactics of Conservatism and Rove regardless of whether they think they can destroy the others ideology or not, don’t we?

All those who fight this administration’s response to terrorism are not all liberals, that is just the least insulting term I can use to describe them.


andy mahan - 9/19/2006

Good example Pete. McVeigh is certainly comparable to Bin Laden and a million Muslim murderers.

And the wacks just can't understand why America rejects them.


Steve Broce - 7/17/2006

“If anything it is the First War in which the Islamist movement takes the lead against an openly aggressive and expansionist Israel”

Omar, even most of the other Arab governments recognize the falsity of this interpretation of events. That explains the tepidness of their responses to Israeli reaction to Hezbollah and Hamas terrorism. In some cases, these Arab governments have criticized Hezbollah directly.

The fact remains that both the attacks from Gaza and from Lebanon came from areas that Israel had evacuated and were solely controlled by the Lebanese and the Palestinians. To call Israel’s response “expansionist” is silly, given that Israel had evacuated both areas.

What’s clear is that Hamas and Hezbollah are both intent on the destruction of Israel. What is also clear is that Israel will not go gently into that good night.


Steve Broce - 7/17/2006

That's kind of funny, Patrick, coming from someone who extolls the leadership of Jack "C&R" Murtha's plan to redeploy to Okinawa.


Scott Whittaker - 7/17/2006

Greetings Steve,

Your point is well made regarding the definition of a civil war being overly broad; that being said, I don’t think you really addressed the point that I was trying to make.

You claim that “to have a real civil war, you must have to sides willing to fight” and then go on to claim that the insurgents are only willing to kill Iraqi shoppers, however that doesn’t explain the 2500 US soldiers killed in ambushes and IED attacks in Iraq, nor does it explain the number of Iraqi government actors and agents who have been killed. The simple fact is, there IS fighting on multiple sides, and by your own definition, that is a real civil war.

Take care,
Scott


Steve Broce - 7/17/2006

Really, Randy? Why don't you specify the three most terrorist tactics that our Green Berets use.


Steve Broce - 7/16/2006

Maybe, but that begs the question.

Have you completed your assignment, Bill?


Steve Broce - 7/16/2006

I have read enough takedowns of his "evidence" to know what his book is.

Read his blog sometime if you really want to see what a fritcake he is.


Paul Mocker - 7/16/2006

Thinking more on this, I'm not sure how to judge the answers the pilots gave. Assuming the film didn't mislead me (by failing to include relevant interview footage, for example), what would we I consider to be a reasonable answer to the question of why we fight?

They are trained to take orders and not question. Are they trained to think? They are not trained to question. Perhaps my judgment of them is too harsh.

Yet, what motivated them to serve in the military? Wouldn't why we fight, be a question a serviceman or woman have thought about?

Listening to their responses, I sensed that they were excited about "The Mission" and the bomb's technology, and didn't notice any interest in the question of the justness of the war.


Paul Mocker - 7/16/2006

Calm down, amigo.

Does your disagreement with Palast's political views affect your opinion of the book? What evidence didn't convince you? Did you read the book?


William J. Stepp - 7/16/2006

Sorry, I’ve regained my composure.

No you haven't. You're a nutcase.


Steve Broce - 7/16/2006

Greg Palast is a left wing loon who did not make a compelling case that any fraud occurred in Florida.

Of course, since you use the terms “Rethuglicans’ and , “Demomats”, I guess you really wouldn’t require much convincing, now would you?


Paul Mocker - 7/16/2006

I think that both of you are missing a very important issue. "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" by Greg Palast details the fraudulent and illegal removal of voters from Florida's voter rolls. He makes a compelling case that Harris and her ilk removed eligible voters. It should have been investigated by the Federal Election Commission or whatever body has jurisdiction.

Convincing as Palast is, a question still remains: Why didn't the Demomats make this an issue? Were they guilty of election fraud in other states? Were they playing similar dirty tricks, which the Rethuglicans knew about?

Democracy is under attack.


N. Friedman - 7/16/2006

Patrick,

I did not disappear.

I have no idea whether WWIII began. However, I doubt it began or will begin due to what Israel does in Lebanon. I doubt that the various Arab countries will attack Israel for responding to Hezbollah. I think the dispute will be limited to Lebanon and, possibly, Syria. The Arab regimes are not all exactly lining up behind Hezbollah, after all.


Steve Broce - 7/15/2006

-*-“Bush v. Gore, 531 US 98 (2000) Not Gore v. Bush as you pretend.”

As usual, Patrick, you’ve only got half the story. The fact of the matter is that Gore went to court first. A few facts:

Gore filed a law suit in Florida “Gore v Harris” requiring the Secretary of State for Florida to accept amended election returns on 11-16-2000. The next day Gore filed an appeal with the Florida Supreme Court (FSC) seeking an injunction preventing Harris from certifying the results of the Florida election. On 11-21-2000 the FSC ordered Harris to accept amended election returns until 5pm on 11-26-2000.

The following day, Bush appealed the FSC ruling to the SCOTUS., which remanded the case back to the FSC for clarification. During this appeal, Miami-Dade county decided that they could not complete their recount by the FSC mandated 11-26-2000 deadline and stopped recounting. Gore filed suit and lost.

On 11-26-2000 Harris certified Bush as the winner in Florida by 537 votes. Gore filed suit and lost.

Gore appealed his loss to the FSC, which ordered a manual recount of only undervotes in certain counties and that Miami Dade votes not previously recounted be recounted and included. Bush appealed the FSC ruling to the SCOTUS which ruled 7-2 that the recounts being conducted did not meet the equal protection standards and by 5-4 that the recount should be stopped.

So you see, Patrick, Gore went to court first and Bush V Gore was an appeal of Gore filed legal action. If Gore didn’t want the Court to decide the outcome, he shouldn’t have gone to court in the first place.

Furthermore, the Florida Ballot Project, a manual recount done by a consortium of media outlets, using a uniform standard, found that Gore would have lost by more votes, if he had gotten the cherry picked recounts that he wanted.

-*-“There is/was plenty of evidence/data/discussion with POTUS/DOD by FBI/CIA well in advance of the 9/11 attacks of exactly the type of scenario that tragically unfolded.”

I suspect that I’m far more familiar with what prior information was available regarding the 9/11 attacks than you, and you are simply wrong if you believe that there was any specific information sufficient to stop the 9/11 attacks before they occurred.

Furthermore, when Bush is in Crawford he is on a working vacation, the government continues to operate and had such information had been available, I can assure you it would have been acted on—whether Bush was in Crawford or Washington.

-*-“I always love to hear tales from a 20's something GS.”

I have no idea what a “20’s something GS” is.


Paul Mocker - 7/15/2006

The commentators that I heard yesterday said they thought Israel would be smart enough to avoid getting Syria and Iran directly involved.


Paul Mocker - 7/15/2006

I must not fail to understand its grave implications.

I'm disturbed that the two Air Force pilots interviewed in the movie - they dropped the first bombs of the Iraq War - could not answer the question of why we fight. If they were my students they would get failing marks.


Steve Broce - 7/15/2006

Hey, Scott, welcome to HNN.

I agree that the dictionary definition is as you state it. I believe, however that in context, the dictionary definition is too broad.

If you accept that a civil war is “A war between factions or regions of the same country”, then you could call the gang wars between the Crips and the Bloods a “civil war”. Most people would scoff if you did that.

So if we agree that a “civil war”, in context, is really more than simply “a war between factions or regions of the same country”, things get interesting.

I’m not comparing what’s going on in Iraq to a simple “Crips/Bloods” dispute. It is obviously much more than that. But “civil war” has taken on a more serious meaning than you suggested. I’m talking about conflict on the scale of the “Biafra/Nigeria” conflict or the Bangladesh/Pakistan war. These conflicts illustrate my point. To have a real civil war, you must have two sides willing to fight. That doesn’t exist in Iraq, as yet. You’ve got the government, willing to fight, and you’ve got the insurgents, willing to kill Iraqi shoppers.

Good luck, buddy. Hope to see you soon.


john crocker - 7/15/2006

The end of my post is missing. To continue:

As a side note:
"Your prejudice notwithstanding, it is not required that he lend validity to the wailings of the leftist extremists..."

Characterizing all who oppose a particular strategy as leftist extremists is not fair nor is it constructive and characterizing my comments as biased within the same sentence that you expose your own biases is not very effective argumentation.


Steve Broce - 7/15/2006

Oh I see, Bill, by all means, let’s not look at North Korea’s history of continuous lawlessness since 1950 when we decide whether we want North Korea to have nuclear weapons.


Steve Broce - 7/15/2006

“I was merely pointing out that he was a chickenhawk. Is there a law against that?”

Well, not a law exactly, Bill, let’s call it a rule. If you are totally incoherent on an issue, as you are on this issue, as a rule, you’re going to get called on it when you post at HNN.

Let me ‘splain it to you, Bill

You call the author of this article a “chickenhawk” because you claim that he has no military service yet dares to make an argument that we will win the war on terrorism.

When your own lack of military service is raised, you plaintively ask: “What does having served in the military have to do with being able to construct an argument, etc.?”

The answer, of course, is HOW THE HELL WOULD I KNOW?

YOU’RE THE ONE THAT BROUGHT UP THE AUTHOR’S SUPPOSED LACK OF MILITARY SERVICE. YOU MUST HAVE THOUGHT THERE WAS SOME RELEVANCE TO HIS ABILITY TO “CONSTRUCT AN ARGUMENT, ETC” TO HAVE RAISED THE ISSUE IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Sorry, I’ve regained my composure. Now then, Bill, your assignment for today is to try and reconcile the obvious contradictions in the positions that you have taken on this issue.


Randll Reese Besch - 7/15/2006

Our own terrorist units like Green Berets and Screeming Eagles use all the tactics of terror. One motto is "Kill them all let God sort them out."


William J. Stepp - 7/15/2006

I was merely pointing out that he was a chickenhawk. Is there a law against that? And it was you who made a big deal of it and pretended I didn't know what one was.
I mentioned my military "record," and notice you ducked my question about yours, which I'm guessing is the same as mine and most other people, who would have been eligle to be in the army ("serve") when there was no draft slavery.


Steve Broce - 7/15/2006

Not to put too fine a point on this, Bill, you were the first one to suggest that the authors lack of military service made him a "chickenhawk"


Steve Broce - 7/15/2006

“My defn. of chickenhawk is exactly correct.
What does having served in the military have to do with being able to construct an argument, etc.?"—Bill Stepp

Ahh, Bill, you finally get it.

YOU called the author of this article a “chickenhawk”.

I now ask you the same question that you just posed: “What does having served in the military have to do with being able to construct an argument, etc.?”


john crocker - 7/15/2006

I agree with much of what you said. If the epithet is apt and bears on the point being made there is argueable justification for using it. The fact remains though that casting this epithet or any other generally sidetracks the original arguement.

This arguement began with Schweikart being called a chickenhawk. Whether or not he is a chickenhawk has no bearing on his arguement and I believe we are better served in this case by focusing on his arguements rather than his character.


Steve Broce - 7/15/2006

Was that the last time you did something
regaling, Pete?


john crocker - 7/15/2006

Which of the attacks you mentioned was domestic?

Americans have been attacked by terrorists since 9/11, just not in the U.S. To say "we have experienced five years of total comfort as a people from the attacks of terrorists--an admirable level of executive leadership" is either patently false or is meant to refer only to terrorist attacks on American soil. Either way the arguement is a loser.

"The terrorist’s tempo has been disrupted and as a result we haven’t been attacked."

Visit the following link:
http://www.army.mil/terrorism/2004-2000/index.html

Following is a partial list of terrorist attacks on American targets from 2004 that I copied from that site.

Roadside bomb Explosion (December 20, 2004)
In Tikrit, Iraq, unidentified attackers detonated an explosive device as a U.S. convoy passed by, killing one Turkish truck driver. No group claimed responsibility.

IED Explosion in Iraq (December 17, 2004)
In Bayji, Iraq, unidentified assailants detonated an improvised explosive device, wounding four U.S. security contractors. No group claimed responsibility.

Attack on U.S. Consulate in Saudi Arabia (December 6, 2004)
In Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, five attackers broke through the gate of the U.S. Consulate, threw explosives and fired automatic weapons, killing five people (1 Filipino, 1 Sudanese, 1 Yemen, 1 Indian, 1 Sri Lankan) and injuring nine others including two Saudi Arabian National Guardsmen at the gate. The al-Qaida Organization in the Arabian Peninsula claimed responsibility.

U.S. Contractor Attacked in Iraq (November 14, 2004)
In Baghdad, Iraq, unknown assailants shot and killed a U.S. contractor. No group claimed responsibility.

Kidnapping in Iraq (November 11, 2004)
In Baghdad, Iraq, unidentified assailants kidnapped a U.S. citizen from his home in the Mansour District. As of the end of 2004, the disposition of the victim was unknown. A group calling itself the Islamic Army in Iraq, 1920 Revolution Brigades, claimed responsibility.

Roadside Bomb Explosion in Iraq (November 10, 2004)
In Tikrit, Iraq, a roadside bomb exploded as a U.S. convoy passed, killing a U.S contractor. No group claimed responsibility.

Car Bomb Explosion in Serbia (November 9, 2004)
In Urosevac, Kosovo, Serbia and Montenegro, a car bomb exploded at the Ben-af shopping mall as police and U.S. peacekeepers inspected the vehicle for explosives, injuring one U.S. Soldier and one civilian. No group claimed responsibility.

U.S. Contractor Attacked in Iraq (November 2, 2004)
In Baghdad, Iraq, unidentified gunmen shot and killed a U.S. contractor paramedic. No group claimed responsibility.

Kidnapping in Iraq (November 2, 2004)
In Baghdad, Iraq, unknown assailants abducted a Lebanese-American from his office in Mansour District. As of 29 march 2005, the disposition of the victim was unknown. No group claimed responsibility.

Hotel Bombing in Pakistan (October 28, 2004)
In Islamabad, Pakistan, a bomb exploded at the Marriot Hotel, injuring eight people (1 American diplomat, 3 Italian, 4 Pakistan). The hotel lobby also suffered minor damage from the blast. Al-Qa'ida claimed responsibility.

IED Explosion in Iraq (October 27, 2004)
In Baghdad, an improvised explosive device (IED) exploded near a civilian vehicle, killing one U.S. contractor. No group claimed responsibility.

Bomb Detonates in Afghanistan (October 23, 2004)
In Kabul, Afghanistan, an assailant detonated a bomb on Chicken Street, a shopping area for tourists, killing two civilians (1 American, 1 Afghan) and wounding three Icelandic soldiers and five Afghan civilians. The Taliban claimed responsibility.

Bomb Explosion in Iraq (October 14, 2004)
In Baghdad, Iraq, two bombs exploded at an outdoor shopping area and in a café in the Green Zone, killing four U.S. citizens and wounding 18 other people. Abu Mus'ab al-Zarqawi's Jama'at al-Tawhid wa'al-Jihad claimed responsibility.

Photographer Kidnapped in Iraq (October 10, 2004)
In Baghdad, Iraq, unidentified assailants kidnapped a U.S. freelance photographer for World Picture News. The victim was released on 13 October 2004. No group claimed responsibility.

Car Bomb Attack on Hotel in Egypt (October 7, 2004)
In Taba, Eqypt, Islamic assailants drove a car bomb into the lobby of the Hilton Hotel, detonating the explosives and killing 34 people (13 Israeli, 10 Egyptian, 2 Italian, 1 Russian, 1 American) and wounding 159 others (8 Russian, 2 British, 2 American). The hotel sustained major damage, including 10 collapsed floors. This incident was part of a series of attacks that occurred on this day.

The tempo of attacks is higher now than before the invasion of Iraq. Whether you believe the war in Iraq is justified or not, it has certainly not lessened the tempo of terrorist attacks on Americans. This brings us back to where we started. If you posit that our domestic safety is due to the leadership of Bush, you must also conceed that our 7 years of domestic safety under Clinton was due to his leadership. If you posit that Americans have not been attacked by terrorists since 9/11 you are ignoring the evidence.


William J. Stepp - 7/15/2006

My defn. of chickenhawk is exactly correct.
What does having served in the military have to do with being able to construct an argument, etc.?
It does show a willingness to steal from taxpayers (or be a slave, when there was a draft).
And not that it matters, but what's your military record?

And "US out of North America" is a well-known libertarian slogan and bumper sticker.
So is "Taxation is theft."
Which it is.


William J. Stepp - 7/15/2006

I wasn't going back to 1950.
If you back that far, the score
is more like

USA 15
NK 1


William J. Stepp - 7/15/2006

My source is The Economist.


john crocker - 7/15/2006

I agree that Mr. Stepp's definition is imprecise, but I think we can all agree that someone cannot be a chickenhawk without being a hawk (an outspoken supporter of war or war-like policies).

Because one persons offered definition is imprecise does not make a term meaningless, unless we want to descend into post-modernism.

As for the term being used almost exclusivly in reference to republicans, that is due in large part to the fact that most hawks are republicans.

The term is an epithet in both senses. I think it does accurately characterize some people. I tend to avoid its use in this type of venue though as it inevitably leads to emotional, rather than rational debate.


john crocker - 7/15/2006

Drawing an analogy is not factual support of an arguement.

ex/ Our arguement is like WWII. The third post in this thread was much like Midway, at which point my victory was inevitable.

You see this is not a valid arguement. If I add more commentary about WWII it does not become a more compelling arguement. An analogy, if apt, can be part of an arguement; not the sum of an arguement.

The author provides no evidence in support of the claim. He extends his analogy, linking events in both conflicts, but does not give evidence. Saying November 2004 was the tipping that signalled inevitable American victory does not make it so and comparing it to Midway is NOT support of that arguement.

Accuracy: Who argues that terrorism is an ideology? Terrorists subscribe to various ideologies and they use the tactic of terrorism to forward their ideologies. He attempts to conflate all who attack us in Iraq and elsewhere as sharing an ideology, rather than a tactic. People that use the same tactic do not by extension share ideologies. Everyone in this forum draws from the same set of tactics, yet we do not share the same ideology. The Shia and Sunni insurgents who attempt to use terrorism to remove the U.s. from Iraq share a goal, not an ideology. As for being able to beat a tactic, I have addressed this in other posts.
I notice you did not support his contention about Durbin.
Balance:
Typically when people use the term balance in this context they mean that the referent is not advocating a point of view, but rather simply laying out facts in an objective manner. This was certainly not done.

From your post I gather you are using the following definition. "2: a means of judging or deciding" I have outlined in several posts why I think the means of judging and deciding he uses are flawed.

"I think it says pretty much about the truth, accuracy and balance of the piece that you are attacking grammar, not substance." The point I have been making is the article's lack of substance and reliance on an extended and weak analogy.

As a side note:
"Your prejudice notwithstanding, it is not required that he lend validity to the wailings of the leftist extremists..."


Steve Broce - 7/15/2006

Well I’m glad that I misconstrued your original post as making it appear that Israel was the aggressive, rather than the aggrieved party.

How I see it?

Hezbollah is primarily supported and controlled by Iran and Syria. Iran and its nuclear weapons program are likely to be the hot issue at the G8 summit in Russia. Iran saw a chance to get the spotlight off the G8 summit and to make a statement to the world that it has cards to play in the game by stirring up the situation in the Mideast through its surrogate, Hezbollah.

We all depend on oil from the Mideast. Not just the US, but Europe and China. What better way for Iran to remind the world of that fact than by roiling the oil market with some military action just before the Summit?

The Hamas action in Gaza is just a side show.

The problem now is that Israel has had enough of Hezbollah attacks from Southern Lebanon and apparently intends to destroy Hezbollah as an effective fighting force. In the long run, this would be beneficial for Lebanon, IMNHO.

It is also an open question as to just how far the wack job in Tehran will push this. It has been reported that Iranian Military officers are in Lebanon and fired some of the missiles that struck Haifa. If this is true and can be confirmed, Israel may feel like taking a shot or two at Iran.

Frankly, I feel pity fro Lebanon. It appeared that it was pulling it self together and now it looks like Hezbollah has succeeded in pulling it back into the pit.

“-*-in light of the fact that your Republicans delivered/dumped the rest of us unwillingly upon the threshold of World War 3.

UH, Patrick, this can only be the product of dementia on your part. Not that I expect you to ever acknowledge it, but Republicans are not responsible for everything bad that happens in the world. Especially in the Mideast.


Steve Broce - 7/15/2006

“If GWB was paying the least bit of attention/care to readily available/well known/ documented intelligence reports/data and doing his damn job as SELECTED instead of pretend play as 'Lil Joe down at the Lazy Fakey Ranch milking horses and chopping down brush we could have avoided the 9/11 attacks.”

Hey, Patrick, you were able to get two of your silly theories into one sentence. The “Bush was selected, not elected” and “Bush was playing down in Texas when he could have prevented 9/11” Good job.

As for Bush being in Germany while the Mideast “burned to the ground”, this is more amateur statesmanship on your part. Don’t try this at home, kiddies, it’s not as easy as it looks.

I’m sorry, Patrick, but I missed the part where you explained your training and experience in foreign policy. Am I really supposed to be convinced by the analysis of someone who apparently has no foreign policy experience?

Let me explain something to you, Patrick. The mid-east is ALWAYS on fire. Sometimes it burns a little hotter than usual. Bush stopped in Germany on his way to the G8 summit.
It would serve Iranian and Syrian plans to a T, to have Bush turn around and go home to Washington instead of attending the G8 summit, where, one of the topics is—Iranian nuclear plans. President Ahmadinawackjob would just love to scotch the G8 summit.

If I'm being to subtle for you, Patrick, let me make it clear--The President of the United States cannot allow his actions to be manipulted by the heads of state of two terrorist supporting nations like Syria and Iran. And in case you haven't figured it out, Iran and Syria are pulling the strings of Hizbolla.

However, I’m sure a foreign policy expert, like you, probably already knew that .


Steve Broce - 7/15/2006

“A chickenhawk is someone (like Bush, Cheney) who advocates war, and who wants to let someone else do the fighting and dying.-- Bill Stepp”


“But taking your definition at face value (always a dicey proposition) then I guess you would have to call Democrats Harry Reid, Patrick Leahy, Chuckie Schumer, Carl Levin, Joe Biden, Ron Wyden, Hillary Clinton, Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein, etc., etc, etc. all “chickenhawks too, now wouldn’t you?”—Steve Broce

“I do not believe any of those you named were chickenhawks.
Upon reflection I believe my stated definition was too broad.
A chickenhawk is someone who is a vocal supporter of a war or warlike policies, yet is too afraid to serve.”—John Crocker

John, I don’t believe that any of the people I named are “chickenhawks” either. In fact, I don’t use the term. That’s the stock and trade of guys like Bill Stepp and Pete Clarke, who also have never served in the military.

However, using Bill Stepp’s definition, each of those Democrats, who never served in the military but voted to use military force, qualify.

That’s why the term is meaningless—most of the politicians on both sides have served not one day in the military, yet sent our Soldiers into combat. But posters at HNN who do use the term almost always apply it to Republicans.


Steve Broce - 7/15/2006

“A chickenhawk is someone (like Bush, Cheney) who advocates war, and who wants to let someone else do the fighting and dying.-- Bill Stepp”


“But taking your definition at face value (always a dicey proposition) then I guess you would have to call Democrats Harry Reid, Patrick Leahy, Chuckie Schumer, Carl Levin, Joe Biden, Ron Wyden, Hillary Clinton, Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein, etc., etc, etc. all “chickenhawks too, now wouldn’t you?”—Steve Broce

“I do not believe any of those you named were chickenhawks.
Upon reflection I believe my stated definition was too broad.
A chickenhawk is someone who is a vocal supporter of a war or warlike policies, yet is too afraid to serve.”—John Crocker

John, I don’t believe that any of the people I named are “chickenhawks” either. In fact, I don’t use the term. That’s the stock and trade of guys like Bill Stepp and Pete Clarke, who also have never served in the military.

However, using Bill Stepp’s definition, each of those Democrats, who never served in the military but voted to use military force, qualify.

That’s why the term is meaningless—most of the politicians on both sides have served not one day in the military, yet sent our Soldiers into combat. But posters at HNN who do use the term almost always apply it to Republicans.


Steve Broce - 7/15/2006

“Israel on the offensive, Hezbollah/Hamas defiance”

Patrick, you choose a curious way of summing up the situation. It almost sounds like the Israeli’s started this and Hizbollah/Hamas is standing up to Israel.


Steve Broce - 7/15/2006

"Possibility (a) certainly qualifies as a "character flaw." Given the evident lack, or -one might say- the hypocritical lack, of "regaled exploits," (b) seems rather more likely."

I'll regale you with my stories if you regale me with yours, Pete.


Steve Broce - 7/15/2006

“After the terrorist attacks of 1993 we experienced 7 years of freedom from domestic terrorist attacks. By your logic Clinton is 40% better.’

But here’s the thing, John.

2/93—First WTC bombing

6/96—Khobar Towers bombing

8/98—African embassy bombings

10/2000—USS Cole bombing

9/2001—Multiple bomb attacks

All during the 90’s and early 2000’s the attacks were increasing in frequency. The time between attacks was down to less than a year—and the effectiveness and severity of the attacks was increasing. If the frequency and effectiveness of the attacks had continued to increase at the rate that it had under the Clinton Administration, we could have expected severe terrorist attacks every few months in the wake of 9/11.

But we didn’t, I believe, because Bush decided to go after the terrorist in a way that Clinton didn’t—where they live.

All the caterwauling here at HNN that we still haven’t gotten OBL is really beside the point. The terrorist’s tempo has been disrupted and as a result we haven’t been attacked


john crocker - 7/15/2006

I accidently posted my reply in the wrong location. You can find it below.


john crocker - 7/15/2006

"In 1862 Lincoln failed to achieve total victory over the Confederate States, in 1942 FDR failed to achieve total victory over the Axis powers and yet, in both cases, the presidents were victorious, so criticize Bush at this stage of the game for failing to complete your definition of "total victory" is simply unimportant in the scheme of things."

Great presidents in the past won difficult wars, so criticism of this president at this time is unimportant.
Not a compelling arguement

"we have experienced five years of total comfort as a people from the attacks of terrorists--an admirable level of executive leadership"
After the terrorist attacks of 1993 we experienced 7 years of freedom from domestic terrorist attacks. By your logic Clinton is 40% better.

"That you do not take the threat of terrorism seriously enough to lay aside philosophical differences with the Bush Administration does not make the threat less or the victorys less real, it only makes you uncomfortable." That someone disagrees with your assessment of how to deal with terrorism does not mean thay do not take the threat seriously. This implication is innacurate and rude.

WWII, the Cold War and the "War on Terror" make poor analogies for each other. That they all have beginnings, middles and presumably ends is not sufficient similarity for an apt analogy.


john crocker - 7/14/2006

"...his essay is irrefutably true, accurate, and balanced."

The truth or fallacy of his thesis, that the war has passed some critical point and our victory is now inevetible, is pointless to argue, as he provides no evidence to support it other than exceedingly weak analogies and jingoism. If his thesis is true, his essay is poor support.
As for accurate:
"...despite the claims of Senator Richard Durbin, we have an unusual and almost distinct concern for the sanctity of life--ours, and our enemy's."
"There is a myth of the War on Terror that we 'can't beat an ideology,' and 'terrorism is an ideology, not a state." There rational people who disagree on we "can't beat an ideology." I challenge you to find a rational person that thinks the statement "terrorism is an ideology, not a state," is a myth.
Finally, the essay forwarded an arguement. It forcefully presented one viewpoint and mentioned other views only when casting unfavorably relative to his own. It makes no pretense of balance. This is a partisan essay put forward for partisan reasons. I do not find its partisanship inappropriate, but I do find the idea that it is balanced laughable.


john crocker - 7/14/2006

Sorry for post in wrong position.

In the interum I read the other posts in this thread. It seems this term gets people pretty riled up. I am new to reading comments and can see how the arguement that inevitably follows gets tiresome.
I regret contributing to it, and yet I make this post.



john crocker - 7/14/2006

I do not believe any of those you named were chickenhawks.
Upon reflection I believe my stated definition was too broad.
A chickenhawk is someone who is a vocal supporter of a war or warlike policies, yet is too afraid to serve. I realize that realize this requires knowledge of or a judgement of the persons mental state; and knowledge of this is impossible.
So chickenhawk is a character judgement. No one can say definitively that someone is a chickenhawk. One can only look at the persons actions and make their best guess. I know its subjective, but character judgements ultimately always are. I didn't toss the epithet, I just offered a definition. I don't know Schweikart's bio so I don't feel qualified to judge.


john crocker - 7/14/2006

I do not believe any of those you named were chickenhawks.
Upon reflection I believe my stated definition was too broad.
A chickenhawk is someone who is a vocal supporter of a war or warlike policies, yet is too afraid to serve. I realize that realize this requires knowledge of or a judgement of the persons mental state; and knowledge of this is impossible.
So chickenhawk is a character judgement. No one can say definitively that someone is a chickenhawk. One can only look at the persons actions and make their best guess. I know its subjective, but character judgements ultimately always are. I didn't toss the epithet, I just offered a definition. I don't know Schweikart's bio so I don't feel qualified to judge.


Scott Whittaker - 7/14/2006

Greetings Steve,

I haven’t posted here before, and I am a little short on time, so I apologize in advance if this seems rushed, however I have an issue with your comments regarding this not being a civil war.

You Said:
“As for CIVIL WAR (your upper case, not mine), not even close right now. To have a civil war, P{atrick, you have to have two sides willing to engage in combat. Right now, what you have is one side willing to fight and one side willing to blow up Iraqi’s while they shop. That isn’t civil war.”

I don’t see how you can describe the situation in Iraq as anything other than a civil war, which the American Heritage Dictionary (Fourth Edition) defines simply as “A war between factions or regions of the same country.”

The war is being fought on multiple fronts and with multiple agendas, however it is in the end a battle that is home grown (internal to Iraq), and based on easily identifiable conflicts that have existed in Iraq for many years (between different factions).

There is one group trying to establish a Theocracy based on an incredibly strict interpretation of Sharia (similar to that of the Taliban) and another group that is trying to establish some type of democracy. These groups are fighting each other for power and ultimately for control of the country (note: asymmetric warfare like terrorism and guerrilla warfare is disturbing, however it is still fighting). The sectarian violence that seems to be taking place is also indicative of the nature of this war, which is in the end an extension of long standing and long suppressed ethnic and religious tension between the majority Shia who have long been oppressed by the Sunni minority.

In short, this may not be an example of your definition of a civil war, but it seems to meet the requirements of the American Heritage Dictionary (Fourth Edition).

Take Care,
Scott


Steve Broce - 7/14/2006

I see, Pete, now not criticizing the Republicans is a "character flaw".

What will you dream up next?


Steve Broce - 7/14/2006

-*-“In fact, they are in control of much of that country, and outside Kabul it's pretty much no man's land as far as the central government is concerned’

-*-‘The Coalition have little control in Afghanistan, the Taleban is becoming more bold and powerful. There will probably be a repeat of the sequellae of the Soviet invasion.”


What evidence do you have for these statements? Everything I’ve read is that the Taliban has some strength in southern Afghanistan and not much elsewhere. Furthermore, everytime they come out to fight, they get the sh*t kicked out of them.

Operation Mountain thrust has been going on since early June. The Tally so far—700 Taliban killed, 20 coalition soldiers.

I don’t know where this “Taliban controls Afghanistan” is coming from, but it sounds like wishful thinking on your part.


Amin Ali Golmohamad - 7/14/2006

The Coalition have little control in Afghanistan, the Taleban is becoming more bold and powerful. There will probably be a repeat of the sequellae of the Soviet invasion.

One cannot assume that by killing/capturing a handful of bigshots that there is any chance of ending the enemy activities. Imagine 10 americans were killed every day by the "enemy". They would not be able to get much closer to their aim as more americans can be produced. Likewise capturing a few leaders? they can easily be replaced.


Steve Broce - 7/14/2006

I say you're either posting this stuff to get a rise or you are suffering from the most serious case of political Tourette's I've ever seen.


Charles Edward Heisler - 7/13/2006

Or witnessed, no matter how unwillingly, the sage suggestion of someone that can cut thru the media crap and understands that when America was attacked that a leader emerged with the determination to use the power of the nation to right a global wrong.
Of course a real historian could see and understand the signs Peter and maybe if you read HNN for a few more years and come to an understanding of American history, you will not be so disappointed when I am shown to have been correct.


Steve Broce - 7/13/2006

Ahh, Pete, I wondered how long I would have to wait for you to crawl out from under your rock and rise to the defense of your fellow Chicken hypocrite.

Actually, Pete, Chicken hypocrite, applies to people like yourself who, having never established your own military service, never the less call others who HAVE served "chickenhawks" because they send the US Military out to do the job that the US Military is supposed to do.

I do, however, give you points for effrontery. You support the sending of US Troops into combat, but defend yourself against the obvious hypocrisy by saying, in effect, “I, Pete Clarke, have defined “chickenhawk” in such a way that even though I support the sending of our troops into combat, and I myself have not established my record of military service, I’m not a “chickenhawk” because I’m not the one ACTUALLY sending the troops into combat.”

I’m moved to ask you again, do you at least blush when you make that argument?

By-the by, you should know that by Bill’s definition of “chickenhawk”, you are a chickenhawk in good standing.


Charles Edward Heisler - 7/13/2006

Peter, I hope you live long enough to find the inevitable judgement of historians that Bush was the greatest war leader in American history. That is going to be the final result of the war on terror.


Steve Broce - 7/13/2006

“Your second helping of SOS is once again nothing to pop a cork over.”

I’m sure YOU wouldn’t pop a cork over any good news out of Iraq or Afghanistan. But I’m also sure that the Iraqi’s and Afghani’s popped plenty of corks after voting for the first time in their lives.

As for Quaddaffi (or whatever way we are supposed to spell his name this week), he’s the guy who gave up his nuclear program and now wishes to join in the community of nations. I think it had something to do with those pictures of Saddam getting checked for lice.

But the reality is, Patrick, that you will never acknowledge any event that occurs in Iraq is positive, because to do so would mean that you would have to acknowledge that Bush is capable of doing something right and you are never going to admit that.

As for CIVIL WAR (your upper case, not mine), not even close right now. To have a civil war, P{atrick, you have to have two sides willing to engage in combat. Right now, what you have is one side willing to fight and one side willing to blow up Iraqi’s while they shop. That isn’t civil war.


Steve Broce - 7/13/2006

"The US should then get out of North America."

With this,Bill, I think you have exposed yourself( metaphorically speaking, of course) as a either not being serious on the issues or being a babbling loon.

I'm not sure which.


Steve Broce - 7/13/2006

And, Bill, a “chicken hypocrite” is someone who has never served in the military but call others “chickenhawks” because they haven’t served in the military and have the audacity to opine on a war.

“Chicken-hypocrites” usually do this while piously assuring us that they would have served in the military if only the right war had come along.

On this last point, Bill, your assurance that you would have served in the military if only…well, you’re just inches from sincerity on that one.

But taking your definition at face value (always a dicey proposition) then I guess you would have to call Democrats Harry Reid, Patrick Leahy, Chuckie Schumer, Carl Levin, Joe Biden, Ron Wyden, Hillary Clinton, Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein, etc., etc, etc. all “chickenhawks too, now wouldn’t you?


john crocker - 7/13/2006

1 : a device for accomplishing an end
2 : a method of employing forces in combat
I did not agree with your position, I clarified my vocabulary. The essay we are responding to is clearly about military confrontation and defeat of ideologies. My original position was that military action cannot remove a tactic from use so long as that tactic remains effective. Terrorism will exist as long as it is effective. If terrorism is less effective it will be used less. Our current efforts in the "War on Terror" are making terrorism more, not less effective.
Fear is motivating the decision making of Americans. Isn't that what the terrorists want? Isn't it effective?

Please only respond to this arguement.


Steve Broce - 7/13/2006

Well, Bill, at least you didn’t try to defend your silly statement that “North Korea hasn’t cheated”. That’s progress.

Unfortunately, your knowledge of Korean history appears to be as lacking as your knowledge of the Agreed Framework that North Korea signed and agreed to abide by.

-*-“Invasion scoreboard:

USA 2
North Korea 0

Who's the thug?”

You are apparently unaware of the events that occurred on June 25, 1950. On that day, North Korea invaded it’s neighbor South Korea and very nearly succeeded in crushing the South Korean government. During its invasion, North korea killed millions of South Koreans.

Furthermore, North Korea has attempted numerous incursions by tunnel of its agents into South Korea with the subsequent loss of scores of South Korean lives.

You ask “who’s the thug”?. Well what would you call a lawless regime that kidnaps Japanese citizens off Japanese soil and forces those Japanese to work in the North Korean intelligence service for decades?

What term would you use to describe a country that plants a bomb aboard a South Korean airliner in 1987 and blows that airliner out of the sky-killing 115 Koreans.

How thuggish was it for the North Koreans to bomb a summit meeting in Rangoon in 1983 killing and injuring scores of South Koreans and Burmese officials.

Was North Korea engaging in thuggery when it twice attemped to assassinate the South Korean president, resulting in the death of dozens of South Koreans, including the South Korean First Lady.

Was North Korea being a thug when its submarine ran aground in South Korean waters and its crew thereafter killed South Korean citizens during their attempt to escape back to North Korea?

Would you deny that North Korea acted thuggishly by its hijacking and harassment of numerous South Korean fishing boats, commercial vessels, and civilian airliners since 1953. I might mention that dozens of crewmembers from these incidents have never been repatriated or accounted for.

And none of that includes the much more serious thuggery that North Korea has visited on its own citizens.

That is why few rational people equate North Korean possession of nuclear weapons with US possession of nuclear weapons.

Of course, using your own logic, I’m sure that you would argue that Ted Kaczynski is as entitled to dynamite as the next fellow.


Frederick Thomas - 7/13/2006


What total caca!

If you have a dispute with any of the points I made, state your facts.

FYI: MacArthur did far more with far less in the Pacific than Ike in any of Ike's campaigns, and Patton was believed the leader of the invasion by the Germans because they could not conceive of a man with no combat leadership experience or proven ability leading such an enterprise. They called Ike "the clerk."

Ike's best camparison is to Westmoreland, another politician, but one with more background than Ike by far.

By the way, my own military efforts were very successful, in every respect except that I regret the young men on the other side whose deaths I caused, but which saved US and allied lives. I have earned the right to criticize politico soldiers. You, sir, with no such experience, are not even in the game.


Thomas Bockhorn - 7/13/2006

There is no evidence that Al-Qaeda ever dealt with Saddam. The unfortunate part is that we MADE it a part of the war. Instead of just targeting Al-Qaeda with secret agents and special forces, we decided that we need to have some sort of show that everyone could see. Iraq was an excellent target. Everyone hated Saddam and he irritated the U.S. so why not.
The Bush administration pressured the CIA to find evidence of weapons of mass destruction which we now know that other than some seriously degraded weapons from the 1980's not worth our massive attention. Partly due to this pressure from a President who wanted a war, partly due to incompetent, and partly to Democrats who refused to question the reasons for war itself, he got what he wanted.
As to our "victory" in Iraq, I doubt we will get what we want there. We may sing songs of glory in a year or so, but after we leave Iraq will disintegrate into chaos or will reinstitute some sort of totalitarian state, most likely based on Iran since the majority of Iraqis are shia who have religious ties to Iran. So instead of creating a stable and strong democracy in Iraq, we will have another Iran if and only if the government is stable enough.
If either in the mist of civil war or a strong totalitarian religious state based on Iran, Al-Qaeda will most certainly use it as a base for further operations. Not only are we helping our enemy get money since we buy oil from the Middle East, we give them areas to train. They lost Afganistan (only temporary) and gain Iraq. Wonderful!
This is not WWII. We can not make that comparision. Al-Qaeda is not some sort of nation were if we just kill its infrastructure, kill as many of their fighters as possible, and kill some of their leaders, Al-Qaeda will beg for mercy. We are fighting a war closer to the American Revolution where instead of us being on the patriot side, we are on the British side. Just like the Revolution, We have emense technology, manpower, huge navy, and other military resources at our disposal. Al-Qaeda have money but are limited in military resources they can obtain. Yet, as the American Revolution points out, in a war such as that, its not military might nor is it manpower that are the determining factors but willingness to stay the course and strong ideology that they believe is right. Al-Qaeda is those two things. We can kill their current leadership tomorrow, but this organization will continue to run with new leaders.

Thomas B.


William J. Stepp - 7/13/2006

The US and Britain had no business being in a no/fly zone or even establishing one.
The US and Britain should get out of the Middle East. The US should then get out of North America.
The Brits can decide for themselves what to do with the Queen.


William J. Stepp - 7/13/2006

The North Korean state has as much right as any other--including the U.S. state--to have nukes, which is to say no right.
The concept of "cheating" makes sense in cards or board games or baseball, but not when applied to a sovereign state's policies.
If I were North Korea, I'd want nukes to counter the savage beast in Washington D.C.
Invasion scoreboard:

USA 2
North Korea 0

Who's the thug?


Steve Broce - 7/13/2006

-*-“Neither North Korea nor Iran are signatories to any nuclear arms proliferation pacts. So they aren't "cheating."

Bill, you need to read the “Agreed Framework” that North Korea signed before concluding that “they aren’t cheating”. To wit:

Article III of the Agreement states, in part ..” Both sides will work together for peace and security on a nuclear-free Korean peninsula.” And “The DPRK will consistently take steps to implement the North-South Joint Declaration on the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.” And “The DPRK will consistently take steps to implement the North-South Joint Declaration on the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.”

Even an apologist for North Korea like you should be able to see that North Korea is not working “together for peace and security on a nuclear-free Korean peninsula”. Likewise, it should be clear, even to you, that North Korea is not “consistently taking steps to implement the North-South Joint Declaration on the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.”

Furthermore, Article IV of the Agreement states, in part, that “The DPRK will remain a party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and will allow implementation of its safeguards agreement under the Treaty.”

Thus, North Korea agreed to remain a party to and abide by the NPT. North Korea’s enrichment program is clearly a violation of the NPT and thus a violation of the Agreed Framework.

That’s what I meant, when I said that North Korea was cheating.

There is actually widespread agreement that North Korea has cheated on the Agreed Framework. Your denial of the obvious is inexplicable.


Steve Broce - 7/13/2006

"The Republican Party sucks and is un-American because of it's mistreatment/ attempted outlaw-ban-discharge/ enforcement-support of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Pursue, Don't Harass and overall despicable actions against the brave men & women of our armed service who are gay."

Patrick, for God's sake get some facts before you blurt out this nonsense.

"Don't ask, Don't tell" was Clinton's policy. You know, President Clinton, the DEMOCRAT.

Sheesh.


john crocker - 7/13/2006

I stand by my earlier statement.

Liberals are not militarily confronting conservatives or Rove. How effective do you think that would be in defeating conservatism? As long as there are people who believe conservatism is effective it will exist and as long as Rovian smear tactics are effective they will exist as well.

As for liberal attacks. Liberals and conservatives conduct a "war" of ideas with the agreement that the side with majority support wins for a set time. No rational person on either side believes they will completely destroy the other ideology. There will always be people who are better served by the opposing side.

PS Is anyone who thinks this administration's response to terrorism is ineffective a liberal?


E. Simon - 7/13/2006

And what remedy would you have proposed for Baathist Iraq's crime of consistently targetting U.S./British air patrols in the no-fly zones? Of course, by that time we hadn't invaded a sovereign nation, we were just executing our charge under the U.N. of enforcing control over 2/3rds of Iraqi airspace. But I suppose that fact is too insignificant a technicality in the minds of many. And yet, the irony of so starkly contrasting that interesting little tidbit and the many conflicts it involved with the mere addition of ground troops is remarkable.


Charles Edward Heisler - 7/13/2006

In 1862 Lincoln failed to achieve total victory over the Confederate States, in 1942 FDR failed to achieve total victory over the Axis powers and yet, in both cases, the presidents were victorious, so criticize Bush at this stage of the game for failing to complete your definition of "total victory" is simply unimportant in the scheme of things.
There will be time for victory in the war on terror and there will be defeats along the way, although I do have to say, given the security that Bush has provided the American people, we have experienced five years of total comfort as a people from the attacks of terrorists--an admirable level of executive leadership during wartime.
Martial law might be necessary at some future date, we may have to sacrifice at some future date, we may have to be restricted at some future date, should this war turn against the West but not at this time.
Patrick, your looking glass is all warped, you see defeat in victory, helplessness in strength, you truly tilt with windmills.
That you do not take the threat of terrorism seriously enough to lay aside philosophical differences with the Bush Administration does not make the threat less or the victorys less real, it only makes you uncomfortable.
Those of us that recognize the threat, see the danger, know the stakes can celebrate what has been achieved and look forward to the coming victory that benefits all freedom loving peoples.
One only has to review the last half century and remember the long and painful Cold War and the battle with Communism, to count the growth of democracy in the world during those decades to see that the march toward physical and economic freedom has been relentless. I suspect the war on terror will be as lengthy and as successful and am prepared for the good days and the bad.


William J. Stepp - 7/13/2006

A chickenhawk is someone (like Bush, Cheney) who advocates war, and who wants to let someone else do the fighting and dying.
I don't advocate war, but I would fight a just war, i.e., one which involved legitimate defense.
An invasion of a sovereign nation that didn't attack us is not a just war. In fact it's a crime.


William J. Stepp - 7/13/2006

North Korea began cheating during the Clinton Administration and has been agressively pursuing nuclear weapons since long before Bush was President. The same for Iran.

Neither North Korea nor Iran are signatories to any nuclear arms proliferation pacts. So they aren't "cheating."


William J. Stepp - 7/13/2006

We have not ejected the Taliban from Afghanistan. In fact, they are in control of much of that country, and outside Kabul it's pretty much no man's land as far as the central government is concerned.


N. Friedman - 7/13/2006

Peter,

Your assertions are directed to a moral conclusion. I did not say it is improper to draw moral conclusions.

Such, however, is different from drawing historical conclusions.

On my view, you can say you despise Bush, Jr. And, you can think his program immoral. You can think he and his administration are all idiots.

And, you can say that, thus far, his program does not thusfar appear to you to be bearing fruit. And you can say his plan seems to you to thus far be backfiring. And there are many, many other things you can say.

Other than the moral judgements, all the other statements should be made with a tentative gloss - which is important since we really do not know what his program will do over the long term -.


Rob Willis - 7/12/2006

Mr. Thomas, stick to your subjects. You have no idea about the evolving concerns facing Ike during the period, and you have less understanding of military science, the role of a soldier,(even of high rank), or the uniqueness of the situation facing him during his tenure. Ike was flawed, wrong, and unfit. But he did far better than you or anyone else could have done at the time. I am revolted by Monday-morning QB's like you you. Really, I am.

R. Willis


Charles Edward Heisler - 7/12/2006

OK, I'll bite--were FDR, Wilson, Lincoln, Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon "Chickenhawks"?


Charles Edward Heisler - 7/12/2006

"If you can convince me that the war is swell and that I have nothing to fear I'll be on my way back to the Tenth Dimension from where I came."

If I really believed I could "convince you" Patrick, I would try to use more reasonable and well supported examples but, alas, I know the task in impossible so I choose to merely gore for the sake of goring--the preferred and most effective method of dealing with the Left.
The only "dimension" you on the Left inhabit is that insufferable region of self satisfaction and self gratification wherein you believe that you are right by simply being you and holding your "caring" beliefs about the entire world outside of Republican America.


James Spence - 7/12/2006

Ref (#92429)
Mr. Ebbitt,
Interesting site, the tenthdimension. The questions Rob Bryanton spawns are almost, but not as, incredible as Juan Matus’ heavy-weight system of ancient Toltec search for knowledge, minus the science.


James Spence - 7/12/2006

Okay Mr. Thomas, since you want to win this argument , you win… But just for the sake of friendly information exchange ----

China is what some would call "lunch line" communism. More importantly, there has never been a true communist country as Karl Marx would have it, but China is the least like a true communist country. They allow free trade and enterprise and there are plenty of people in China that are richer than others something not allowed in traditional communism. China will probably become a democracy in our lifetime, maybe the next Japan.

China is officially communist - CIA says it is (look it up), which means the US official position on China is that they see it as a “friendly” communist state - but starting in 1978 Chairman Deng Xiaoping began economic reforms and was reported as having said, "To get rich is glorious." Today, China remains under communist rule, which means that the government still controls Universities, hospitals (health care), power generation, their military, etc,. but it also allows for individual wealth. They are letting their economy change from a planned / government controlled style to a market driven style because they know it’s easier to run. Many economists believe this switch may in the end save the China from collapsing like the Soviet Union.


Carl Becker - 7/12/2006

Wow, Mr. Spence, you actually complimented GW real accomplishments (yes GW Bush really is competent). But Steve “neonut” Broccolli was actually too dumb to get it.


john crocker - 7/12/2006

"Is anyone that did not serve in a war and holds an opinion on that war a "Chicken Hawk"?"

The short answer is no. My understanding of the term is that it refers to someone who is vocal supporter of a war in which they would never fight.
They are a "hawk", but are to "chicken" to put there own neck on the line.

I think you probably already knew this.


john crocker - 7/12/2006

"Militarily, tactics are ALL you fight."

You can use tactics and can prepare to confront tactics; you cannot fight them. As long as a tactic remains effective it will be used. Very little I have seen of our strategy in the "War on Terror" has made the tactic less effective.

Maybe next we could have a "War on Espionage", a "War on Flanking", or a "War on Ambush."


john crocker - 7/12/2006

Post removed after it was listed twice. -- Ed


john crocker - 7/12/2006

If we are speaking simply of "state ownership of the means of production," then it was not defeated by military might as was the thesis of the essay. This economic model was brought down by its own inefficiency and inability to compete economically.
Ideologies are not defeated militarily, they are defeated by competing ideologies.


Steve Broce - 7/12/2006

The sky is falling,Jim, the sky is falling...


Steve Broce - 7/12/2006

Well, Pete, I must admit that you got me. My invitation to you to "tell us what you really think" was made in bad faith. I already know what you think--that if you use enough invective, people will think of you as erudite

If you need help with the big words-I'm always there for you, buddy.


Steve Broce - 7/12/2006

“In classical Rovian Republican style you tout the killing of one thug as if it were a victory equal to the conquest of Sicily or defeat of von Manteuffel's 5th Panzer Army in the Ardennes.”

And in classical Ebbittian style, having made a silly, ill-conceived challenge, you now stubbornly continue to dig the hole that you are standing in.

But since you invite me to continue—

The Iraqi’s now have a constitution

The Iraqi’s had two parliamentary elections –both of which were monitored and endorsed by the United Nations.

Afghanistan has adopted a Constitution.

Afghanistan, for the first time ever, democratically elected a President.

Afghanistan formed a democratically elected parliamentary government

The Afghan elections were likewise endorsed by the UN

Libya gave up its nuclear ambitions and is joining the community of nations

I could go on, Patrick, ….but here’s the real deal-no terrorist attacks in five years. OBL, unlike you, knows that Iraq is the central front for AQ’s war on the US.

Can you point to any five year period during Clinton’s administration when AQ didn’t conduct terrorist ops against the US? Four years? Thre..well you see where this is going.


E. Simon - 7/11/2006

Perhaps veterans have less hang-ups over how adequetely a country such as the U.S. can manage with civilian control of the military than do revolutionaries, er, sorry - I mean armchair political activists.


E. Simon - 7/11/2006

That's a well-thought out and entirely original analogy. I wonder how Mr. Clarke could have come up with it. Must have taken incredible focus.


E. Simon - 7/11/2006

But after reading your comments above, I should wonder if providing aid and comfort to the ejaculatory pronouncements of Jihadi propagandists such as Omar is something you wouldn't mind doing. If you're not familiar with his outstanding authorship, it should be possible to Google hnn for examples that are replete with something that even the most maniacal of pseudo-intellectual firebrands would prefer not to touch.


E. Simon - 7/11/2006

Hmmm.. if it was Omar's comments that your post was directed at then I'd have to agree. If it was mine, then I'm wondering how many of his posts you've read, and if so, how much more redeeming you would find an excitedly childish post, as opposed to an insipidly childish post.


Frederick Thomas - 7/11/2006

Eisenhower had an enormous "BTF," or "bullshit toleration factor", a West Point expression, which is why he was favored by Roosevelt, who was political beyond all else and recognised a kindred spirit. He even tolerated Roosevelt's communist leanings, which he despised.

Marshall liked him because he would suck up ferociously, and sacrifice anything to follow GM's suggestions.

These traits are the traits of a politician and syncophant, not a soldier, and it showed:

- Eisenhower's initial failures in North Africa, through inadequate training, support and supply (particularly evident at Kassarine)

- his high losses at D-Day, through lack of adequate preparation by naval gunfire and air bombardment. Ike bombed mainly non-landing zone targets so that the Germans would not know where we would land, and that was an amateur's mistake.

- his lack of readiness for the final German offensive in the Ardennes, leading to a near collapse of the US position. Patton pulled his fat out of that fire.

- his widespread violation of the Geneva accords post war, in killing over 10% of German POWs through neglect and malnutrition at Rhine fields, an example of his concept of "disciplining" the Germans.

- his wimpy response in Korea, which remains a problem for the world to this day.

- his cowardly failure to support the Hungarian uprising, which most attribute to a lack of heart following his heart attack.

etc.

Your assertion that Ike was loved by all is not borne out by the way he was savaged by the Democrats as "stupid," "inexperienced" and "naive" not to mention that only Churchill's extreme pressure could make the senior military Brits work with him, citing mainly his total lack of combat experience. To MacArthur, he was an "able administrator."

Somewhere in your post there is a good point waiting to be made. I respectfully suggest that you not exaggerate quite so much.


robert m. collins - 7/11/2006

"Puke laced backwash." My, you certainly do have a way with words and a talent for debate.


Frederick Thomas - 7/11/2006


"classless political system"

http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861599030/communism.html

I will grant your point that no communist state has been classless, especially the Soviets.

They were tyrannies run by elites which murdered their people by the millions or tens of millions, the Soviets killing 63 million in just 70 years of existence.

Put another way, Communism as practiced is much worse exploitation than Marx ever dreamed of. The politbureaus treat the proletariat as trash, to be disposed of.

But given that, the point is still that state ownership of the means of production, Marx's basic definition, IS what most distinguishes "Communism," and China today does not have that. I wonder what old Karl would have done had he seen the reality of China's sweatshops today.


James Spence - 7/11/2006

“Bush's real impact will not be known for years to come. “ To me, this is too incredible to be true. Unless by “impact” you mean something else.

I believe we are already seeing it the impacts – there too many to mention here. As a nation under Bush, we as a country probably reacted to the 9/11 event more drastically than the terrorists ever thought possible. It was a dream come true for them to have a man like GW at the helm who really represented the conservative element in all of us. Bush is not ultimately to blame, it is conservatism itself that is at fault (another subject).

Consider these impacts, some of them a reaction to a scraggly bunch of ragheads. This president has competently managed to: centralize power within the executive branch to an unprecedented degree, start two major wars, stack the Supreme Court with two far-right justices, and the lower federal courts with many more, cut taxes during a war, unprecedented, passed the PATRIOT Act, the No Child Left Behind Act, the Medicare Drug bill, the Bankruptcy bill, massive tax cuts, rolled back and refused to enforce a host of basic regulatory protections, appointing industry officials to oversee regulatory agencies, increased the role of religion in government, passed Orwellian-titled legislation assaulting the environment — “The Healthy Forests Act” and the “Clear Skies Initiative” — to deforest public lands, and put more pollution in our skies. What remains are the impacts on the administration’s current method of dealing with global terrorism and if the aforementioned impacts are any indication the future looks bleak.


N. Friedman - 7/11/2006

Peter,

If HNN is so, so bad, why do you read it?

I do not see how one could make too much of a comparison between Bush II and Ike. As for the comparison you make, you may well be correct.

On the other hand, it is rather trite to compare someone still in office with someone long dead. We know the impact of Ike's doings - or, at least most of the impact -. Bush's real impact will not be known for years to come.

While current judgement amy suggest that Bush has messed up everything he has touched and everything he has left alone (i.e. your theory that he is a total disaster), history is rather cunning, as you know. So, I think we should be careful and make only a tentative judgement.

And, also, given that we are active parties in today's world, we must take that into account and realize that we are too close to the situation to judge fairly. Which is say, you may perceive him as a disaster not due to what he has done but due to his approach being different from what, by your biases, you think is the best approach.


Charles Edward Heisler - 7/11/2006

Not buying your premise Patrick--you know the one that goes, "...it is the Republicans who have proved to be ineffective at governance the past 12 years....." Of course you don't define the term "ineffective" because we all know what that means to you.
An ineffective American Administration is one that toadies to the vile French and viler American Left.
We'll stick with the guys that can fight successful wars, run an economy, keep the unemployment figures down, crime under control, and the liberals infuriated--all clear indices of effective leadership in my book.


Steve Broce - 7/11/2006

Well, Lorraine, do I take it that you prefer the Clintonian method of fightiong terror? You know, asperin factories and deserted training camps?

Tell me who your nominee in the "Most Serious Terrorist Fighter" is.


Steve Broce - 7/11/2006

Although, actually, Bill, I'm not surprised that you haven't served one day in the military. I've found that the people who are most likely to refer to others as 'chickenhawks' are people like yourself, who haven't themselves served.

Veterans almost never use that term.


Steve Broce - 7/11/2006

Well that is really an empty promise, isn't it.

Never served one day in the military, but that doesn't stop you from pronouncing oythers to be "chickenhawks" now does it?

Can you spell "hypocrisy", Bill?


Steve Broce - 7/11/2006

Well, Lorraine, do I take it that you prefer the Clintonian method of fightiong terror? You know, asperin factories and deserted training camps?

Tell me who your nominee in the "Most Serious Terrorist Fighter" is.


Lorraine Paul - 7/11/2006

E Simon.....Exclamation points may be fun, insipid childishness isn't!


Lorraine Paul - 7/11/2006

"Bush has a better grasp of (sic) how to deal with terrorists...". How naive are you??

The "War" President!!! I think he has been reading too many Terry Goodkind books LOL. The only grasp Bush is capable of is holding his golf club and....(hmm! nearly forgot I was a lady!).


Charles Edward Heisler - 7/11/2006

Is anyone that did not serve in a war and holds an opinion on that war a "Chicken Hawk"? What do we do with the legions of historians that have written on the Civil War? Should we disregard their research because they are "Chicken Hawks"? Just wanted to know, having seen this term thrown around like it was really important in discussions of this type.


William J. Stepp - 7/11/2006

I never served in the military, but would gladly serve in a volunteer defense force, one that didn't steal from taxpayers and have an absurd (and ugly) battle flag.
Let me know when the commies/bushidos/fascists invade, and I'll get my gun.
Oh, I forgot, the fascists are alive and well in Washington.


Steve Broce - 7/11/2006

Perhaps you could regale us with tales of your own military exploits


Steve Broce - 7/11/2006

Tell us what you really think, Pete.

If only invective was a substitute for erudition.


E. Simon - 7/10/2006

No comment here. Just felt like sharing in Omar's always exclamatory mood.

!

! ! !

!

! ! !

!

Exclamation points are fun!


William J. Stepp - 7/10/2006

I vaguely recall a post by Schweikart on another list in which he said, somewhat ruefully, that he never served in the military. Which would make him a chickenhawk, I gather.


Charles Edward Heisler - 7/10/2006

Yeah Peter, so far Bush has all his hair and is leaving his driver alone so there is some difference.
Your point?


Steve Broce - 7/10/2006

--“For the first time in US history, someone attacked the US and got away with it..”

Don’t be too sure that OBL has “gotten away with it’. He certainly doesn’t act like he believes he “got away with it”. Notice that he now is in hiding, living, no doubt, with some fear that he will get the “Al Zarqawi treatment”. Someday, when he least expects it, OBL will get his due.

The real story here is that Bush started to fight back against Al Qaeda in a effective way, instead of blowing up asperin factories and deserted training camps. I believe that is one reason why there have been no serious attacks on US civilians since the war on terror began.

--“dictators from Iran to North Korea know that playing by the rules doesn't help you. The only way to protect yourself from invasion is to arm with nuclear weapons.”

When was the last time North Korea or Iran “played by the rules”? This is utter nonsense. North Korea began cheating during the Clinton Administration and has been agressively pursuing nuclear weapons since long before Bush was President. The same for Iran. I challenge you to cite any evidence that either regime began developing its nuclear capabilities in response to anything Bush has done.

--“Meanwhile back in Afghanistan the Taliban are regrouping stronger than ever.”

The Taliban are not “stronger than ever”. In case it escaped your notice, the Taliban used to run Afghanistan. Now they hide out in the hills and get pounded any time they mass in strength.


--“We are turning Iraq over to the Iranians’


The Iraqi’s themselves will ultimately decide their own fate. We aren’t “turning Iraq over to the Iranians’.

--“Against "terror" i.e. suicide bombers? I haven't seen us attack the Sri Lankan LTTE yet. They invented the tactic of suicide bombing.”

What’s your point? That we shouldn’t go after any terrorists, because we don’t go after all of them?

--“Bush is losing the war because he has no idea what he is doing or why,”

Actually Bush has a better grasp of how to deal with terrorists than any other President in recent memory. Why don’t you cite which President handled terrorism more effectively than Bush has.


john crocker - 7/10/2006

Post removed after it was listed twice. -- Ed


john crocker - 7/10/2006

It's as communists as the "communism" we defeated in the cold war. Both are/were tyrannies masquerading as communism. The communists we conquered during the cold war was not communist.
As for the philosophy you aptly point out our allies in Europe, who mark the compromise position between capitalism and communism modern democratic socialism. Not exactly a resounding defeat.


Steve Broce - 7/10/2006

Ralph—Perhaps I should have spoken more precisely—we ejected the Taliban, who had allied themselves with Al Qaeda, from power in Afghanistan. The attack was on Al Qaeda AND any regime that sheltered them. The Taliban chose to side with Al Qaeda and thereafter reaped the harvest of that decision.

As for the current offensive against the Taliban, I note that they are holed up in the mountains and not running things anymore. Surely that is progress.

Lisa—my list was in response to Patrick’s rather silly and ill-considered challenge to cite ”examples of success in Iraq/Afghanistan”. The fact that everything isn’t rosy in Iraq yet is not proof that there hasn’t been progress in Iraq. Ditto for Afghanistan.

As for Colin Powell calling the situation in Iraq “civil war”, I have seen no responsible reporting of such a story and do not consider Huffington reliable. If Powell had made such a statement, it would be wall-to-wall on the WaPo and NYT’s, and it is not.

Furthermore, what’s going on in Iraq is not even close to “civil war”. I’ll give you a clue, Lisa. To have a “civil war” you have to have two sides willing to fight. What you have in Iraq is one side that is willing to fight—the Iraqi government and one side, the terrorists, who are willing to kill Iraqi’s while they shop. I believe that as more and more Iraqi’s tire of the blood-shed, the terrorists will get the Al Zarqawi treatment—killed because they were ratted out.


Frederick Thomas - 7/10/2006


Thanks for your comment, but a rigid party oriented government is shared by many non-communist tyrannies.

Where the rubber meets the road, China is more pure capitalism than is France.






Louis Nelson Proyect - 7/10/2006

amazon.com sales ranking for Schweikart's "America's Victories": 104,471

amazon.com sales ranking for Noam Chomsky's "Failed States": 642

ps., Schweikart does not list his military service on his CV. Did playing in a rock-and-roll band matter more than killing commies?


James Spence - 7/10/2006

“China is not communist”

This statement is simply untrue.

Although it has reformed into a more market-oriented economy, it still operates within a rigid political framework under Party control.


Charles Edward Heisler - 7/10/2006

Lisa, do you have any concept of time and effort? Where in your experience were wars easy and short lived?
I assume by your mewling that you are among that most coddled generation for whom all things were made convenient and immediate?
Sorry to break your misconceptions but the great movements and positive changes for all mankind do not come as your Big Mac and fries--in neat little bags with ketchup on request!


Lisa Kazmier - 7/10/2006

You could keep going but where's the bottom line? Where or when is the "safe for democracy" emerging in either place? If things are so rosy, why can't the US leave and why is it so beyond-the-pale to even mentioning such a thing? I suppose you could tell us the Iraqi insurgency is in its "last throes" or was that last year? Arianna Huffington has reported a conversation with Colin Powell who called the situation in Iraq a civil war. That doesn't sound at all like this great record of accomplishment. And I've seen nothing that suggests Karzai is more than the mayor of Kabul still. So, do these "accomplishments" amount to much or are they a nice bean counter list that ultimately carries significant only to someone impressed by a list? After all, if the list were so stupendous, the job of the soldiers would be done. Is it?


Frederick Thomas - 7/10/2006


Thank you for your comments, Mr. Crocker, but I am not sure that 20% of the world is Communist any longer.

The former 800 pound gorilla of Communism, China, has a thoruoghly Capitalist economy operating freely under a quasi-Communist politbureau, and police state which barely discusses such things as the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Since Communism defines itself as state ownership of the means of production, China is not Communist, unlike certain posters on HNN :)

That leaves Cuba and North Korea, hardly 20% of the earth's population.


john crocker - 7/10/2006

"There is a myth of the War on Terror that we "can't beat an ideology," and "terrorism is an ideology, not a state." It seems to me we defeated three much more powerful ideologies in the 20th century alone--fascism, bushido-ism, and communism."

First bushido-ism if that is indeed a term was never an -ism outside of Japan and fell with the defeat of Japan.
Second fascism is alive and well, it didn't end with Hitler or Sadam.
Third with about 20% of the world living under communist rule it hardly qualifies as defeated.

Finally, WWII is a remarkably poor analogy for our current war. It seems that supporters of unpopular conflicts always attempt to link them to WWII. It illuminates nothing other than the ignorance of the person making the analogy.


John Edward Philips - 7/10/2006

Because the only thing we have to fight is fear itself? There is no war on terror! You can't fight a tactic.

Seriously, Schweikart has no idea what is going on in, but is obsessed with his WWII analogy. Let me give you a clue about the wars we are in now.

For the first time in US history, someone attacked the US and got away with it because, again for the first time in US history, the president started a second, unrelated war against Iraq when his first war against al-Qa'ida (remember them, the guys who attacked us on 9/11?) wasn't finished. Not only has bin Ladin gotten away, he has more followers now, and dictators from Iran to North Korea know that playing by the rules doesn't help you. The only way to protect yourself from invasion is to arm with nuclear weapons.

So what ARE we fighting for now?

To defeat al-Qa'ida? Then why haven't we finished the job in Afghanistan? Saddam Hussein never had anything to do with al-Qa'ida and Bush never claimed he did. Meanwhile back in Afghanistan the Taliban are regrouping stronger than ever.

To bring democracy to Iraq? We are turning Iraq over to the Iranians.

Against Islam? That would be really nuts. Please don't tell me Schweikart thinks we are fighting to end Islam.

Against "terror" i.e. suicide bombers? I haven't seen us attack the Sri Lankan LTTE yet. They invented the tactic of suicide bombing.

Bush is losing the war because he has no idea what he is doing or why, nor does he have any idea what military power can do or not do.


Ralph E. Luker - 7/10/2006

If we have "ejected the Taliban from Afghanistan," why have we just launched our largest offensive against the Taliban within Afghanistan? You also seem to miss the point that the attack was on Osama bin Ladin and al Qaeda. Whatever happened to that?


Charles Edward Heisler - 7/10/2006

Let me use the example that Schweikart gave of the election in Iraq. Somehow Patrick doesn't see that as a victory, no doubt preferring the Saddam regime and all his antics to a victory by a Republican president.
Patrick has this problem, he lives in a democracy that has rejected his preferred political party since 1994, twelve long years while Patrick has been so sure that his party had all the answers! Liberals are having such a difficult time these days, nothing works for them--come to think of it, considering all those liberal social programs and warm and fuzzy belief that men never war with each other, liberals have rarely have had anything work for them.
Let's let Patrick rage against the light, it is fun if nothing else--when the Fall election is over we can reconstitute Patrick as pure goo.


Steve Broce - 7/10/2006

“Maybe some of the HNN Wingnuts can help out our poor clueless Kool Aid guzzling Mr. Schweikart who provides zero... count 'em zero... examples of success in Iraq/Afghanistan or anywhere else.”

Well Patrick, let’s see…

We have -

-Ejected the Taliban from Afghanistan

-Ejected Saddam Hussein from Iraqi governance

-Killed Uday

-Killed Qusay

-Captured Saddam Hussein and turned him over to the Iraqi government for trial

-killed Zarqawi

-captured Binalshib

-captured Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

--captured Abu Zubaida.

-captured Mohammed Haydar Zammar

I could keep going…


Charles Edward Heisler - 7/9/2006

How refreshing to read a positive essay on the War on Terror. I especially appreciate the reminder of American, or Western, victories over "isms" that many critics fail to acknowledge.
Thanks for reminding everyone that Iraq is merely one front in this war, one that Bush warned early on was going to be a long struggle--something many critics and Americans seem to have forgotten. It would appear that we are indeed winning the war on terror given the apparent inability of terrorists to strike outside of the Middle East. We can only hope and pray that victories continue.

Subscribe to our mailing list