Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
The difference between responsible and irresponsible dissent
Posted by: McQ on Monday, December 19, 2005

I've made the case in the past that responsible dissent is as American as apple pie but that irresponsible dissent, at least to me, isn't acceptable in a time of war.

Note I didn't say that you have no right to be irresponsible in your dissent, I just said I don't find it to be an acceptable form of dissent when the country is at war. Those who engage in it, in my opinion, hurt the war effort by giving the enemy support whether they do so consciously or not. Again, let me stress, this is my opinion.

Last night, in a speech to the nation, President Bush (after acknowledging mistakes in both the prewar intelligence and conduct of the war in Iraq as demanded by his critics) succinctly categorized the difference between what I would call responsible dissent and irresponsible dissent. Let me quote him here:
"There is a difference between honest critics who recognize what is wrong, and defeatists who refuse to see that anything is right. Defeatism may have its partisan uses, but it is not justified by the facts."
Not only is it not justified by the facts, but it gives avowed enemies the sort of justification, rationalization or, support, if you will, they may need to continue their fight. It gives them a reason to hang on and continue doing what they're doing.

It's not like we don't have a history on which they can draw in this regard. We've done this before ... given in to the defeatest mantra and lost our political will to finish the job. Given that history why wouldn't an enemy take heart from seeing essentially the same old song come from a portion of our political leadership (and in the case of at least two Senators, the same song they sang the last time we lost our political will)?

Responsible dissent certainly has a place in this debate. Critics of the war have plenty of good and sound arguments to make about its conduct, that's for sure. Defeatism, however, is an irresponsbile argument, especially with no real facts to support the argument (plenty of opinion, obviously) and with troops in the field.

Maybe it's just me, but that's how I see it. But then that's how I saw it in the '70s as well.

UPDATE: For those of you needing a more graphic representation of what I'm talking about:

Show/Hide
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
McQ, ANSWER, Moveon.org, Michael Moore, etc. are NOT IN FAVOUR OF AMERICA WINNING! Or as they would say it, "Amerikkka." You keep thinking that Michael Moore, or for that matter Tom Haydon, were opponents to US policy, they are/were FOR THE OTHER SIDE!

They are not Wendell Wilkie or Thomas Dewey, they are the German American Bund or the Silver Shirts! You can’t expect RESPONSIBLE dissent from their ilk, they are not responsible dissenters!

Scowcroft and Berezhinski, they can be responsible, though wrong, but you keep expecting reasonable behavior from UNREASONABLE PEOPLE.

I don’t mean that as a personal attack. It seems to me that you hope/believe that in the Libertarian Worldview you have that there will be some kind of "debate" within and then between parties. I think you’re wrong. The folks with undue influence in the D-’s are wed to a world view and they aren’t going to change for a while. I wrote before and I write again, To change on Iraq policy, in the short run, is NOT a good alternative for them. To change their position might COST them votes and money, they might end up WORSE off, than if they don’t change. Better to be a minority, than an even smaller minority! And changing positions might cost them votes in Blue Enclaves, their current strongholds!
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
"While many debate whether we are losing in Iraq, few believe we are winning. The security situation there is adequate in the Kurdish areas of Iraq, varies in the Shiite areas, and, despite use of Iraqi troops to backfill, insurgents control of all of the Sunni areas that are not in U.S. Army or Marine weapon sights at that moment"


Lieutenant Colonel Terence J. Daly, U.S. Army Reserve (Retired)


http://www.usni.org/Proceedings/Articles05/Pro12Daly.html



Other articles in the USNI Proceedings note that we have never beaten an insurgency. They urge radical changes in our tactics to conform with counter insurgency doctrine. They accuse the Bush administration of treating Iraq like a problem that will soon go away.


When ones country is being led and bled by incompetent leadership it is the duty of Americans to point that out. There is no greater aid to our enemies that we can give than to let the bumbling blowhards continue to divide our country and waste our treasury. Following the leader is what lemmings do.


Al Queda can’t beat us. We can only beat ourselves. We are well on our way to doing that.

 
Written By: cindy
URL: http://
Other articles in the USNI Proceedings note that we have never beaten an insurgency.

But we’ve not said we must beat the insurgency. We’ve said that it is the Iraqi’s job to beat the insurgency and have noted such a defeat will not only be accomplished militarily, but politically.

That’s what the Dec. 15th vote was all about.

Our job? Buy them the time and room necessary to get the political and military parts of the equation in shape to do so.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
Other articles in the USNI Proceedings note that we have never beaten an insurgency.

That is absolutely false, but I’m not surprised that the squids would fuck up commenting upon land warfare.

 
Written By: Mark A. Flacy
URL: http://
Except for all intents and purposes it does look like our strategy is working, both in Iraq, and the broader "Global War Against Terror"

http://news.pajamasmedia.com/2005/12/18/6710814_Sunnis_say_they_.shtml
Dec. 18, 2005 (UPI delivered by Newstex)—Sunni Muslim leaders in Iraq’s violent Anbar province say they are ready to cooperate with the United States.
They are seeking to extend a temporary truce honored by most insurgent groups for last week’s elections but say they want the United States to reduce military raids and increase development projects for their vast desert province, The Washington Times reports.
Adnan al-Dulaimi, leader of a prominent Sunni bloc, said insurgent groups had prevented violence from interfering with Thursday’s elections, the newspaper said.
The truce resulted from weeks of negotiations between U.S. officials and insurgents.
Sunni religious leader Sheik Abed al-Latif Hemaiym told The Times in an interview in Amman that Sunnis were prepared to work with the United States.
"We now believe we must get on good terms with the Americans," Hemaiym said. "As Arab Sunnis, we believe that within this hot area of Iraq, facing challenges from neighboring nations who want to swallow us, especially the Iranians, we feel we have no alternative."
http://inbrief.threatswatch.org/2005/12/alqaedas/
LtCol Starling, the Operations Officer of Regimental Combat Team - 2, the unit in charge of western Anbar province, met with a very senior tribal leader the day after election and reported Sunnis voted overwhelmingly for Ayad Allawi, a secular Shiite candidate. Another U.S. source well in tune with the populace in Anbar province reported the same information. If this information is accurate, not only are Sunnis voting (their turnout is predicted at about 80%), but they are voting for a Shiite candidate. And there are calls across the board, from Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish leaders to create a government “to promote national unity.”

The Islamic Army of Iraqi laments Shiite control of the government “will be the mother of evils and disaster upon the Sunni people.” Zarqawi has been quite clear about his hatred and disgust for the “apostate” Shiites, and has repeatedly slaughtered Shiites in an attempt to instigate a civil war in Iraq. This is a vein that runs deep among the Salafists; the Shiites are hated more than Westerners for their different interpretation of Islam.

The depth of al-Qaeda’s nightmare in Iraq only deepens. Not only are their attacks less frequent and even less effective in influencing events on the ground, but their natural base of support, the Sunni population, has chosen democracy, and if reports are true, is voting for a secular Shiite to govern Iraq. This would be yet another ideological defeat for al-Qaeda and the rejection of their extremism in the heart of the Muslim world.
http://go.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=10621913&src=rss/worldNews
Gulf Arab leaders to get tough on Iran and Syria

U.S.-allied Gulf Arab leaders, alarmed at neighboring Iran’s nuclear ambitions, will examine proposals for a nuclear-free zone in the world’s top oil-producing region when they meet for a summit on Sunday.

Syria’s standoff with the United Nations over the killing of former Lebanese premier Rafik al-Hariri will also top the agenda of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), which groups Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman and Qatar.

All kings and emirs of the GCC have arrived in the UAE capital Abu Dhabi amid tight security for the two-day annual meeting which will start at 6 p.m. (1400 GMT).

They hope to defuse mounting tension in a region already affected by instability in Iraq since the 2003 U.S.-led war to oust Saddam Hussein and militant attacks by supporters of Osama bin Laden’s al Qaeda network.

"We trust Iran but we don’t want to see an Iranian nuclear plant which is closer in distance to our Gulf shores than to Tehran causing us danger and damage," GCC Secretary-General Abdul Rahman al-Attiya said ahead of the opening on Sunday.

"This issue is very worrying, not just for the GCC but for whole world," he told reporters.
http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/iraq/articles/20051218.aspx
This relentless progress of democracy is causing quite a commotion throughout the Arab world. While it is fashionable to denounce the American presence in Iraq, and what the Americans were doing, the Arab language buzz on the net is going in unexpected directions. Because of al Jazeera and the Internet, young Arabs everywhere are not only able to observe what it happening in Iraq, but to discuss it with young Iraqis. These discussions are not noted much in the West, because they generally take place in Arabic, and often via email and listservs. The non-Iraqi Arabs are impressed at the proliferation of media in Iraq, and the eagerness of Iraqis to vote, and make democracy work. The economic growth in Iraq is admired, and is already attracting entrepreneurs from other Arab countries. The more cynical non-Iraqis believe that it will all come to nothing, and that another Saddam will eventually emerge and shut down all this democratic nonsense, as is the case in most of the Arab world. But the pessimists appear to be in the minority. Arabs are tired of dictators, economic stagnation, the corruption and living in a police state. Moreover, there’s a nimble quality in Arab thinking that allows them to simultaneously blame the Americans for going into Iraq, and praising the result.
 
Written By: Keith, Indy
URL: http://
Maybe it’s just me, but that’s how I see it.
Me, Too, McQ....

Then again, it’s likely I’m just trying to defend GWB at all costs... Or, so I’ve been told.
(chuckle)

 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
In defense of the types whom you speak of, I can at least understand why they would find it difficult to offer support for a war which they considered to be immoral from the outset.

To note, I do not share this view myself. Despite opposing the initial invasion (because I highly suspected that the intel we were being given was as accurate as we eventually determined it to be), I am very supportive of our continued presence there and think that we can turn this into something positive.

I shouldnt really need to put that disclaimer, but I figure if I dont I will be dismissed as an anti-American defeatist, and many of the crowd here are quick to jump on anything that looks remotely suspect to them...

The point I am trying to make, is I can at least respect why some could be of the belief that there can be no victory in a war that was immoral from its outset. I think that is a shortsighted view myself and ignores the reality that we find ourselves in, but I can at least understand it.

[quote]It seems to me that you hope/believe that in the Libertarian Worldview you have that there will be some kind of "debate" within and then between parties. I think you’re wrong. The folks with undue influence in the D-’s are wed to a world view and they aren’t going to change for a while. I wrote before and I write again, To change on Iraq policy, in the short run, is NOT a good alternative for them. To change their position might COST them votes and money, they might end up WORSE off, than if they don’t change.[/quote]

I disagree. Look how quickly people like Dean and Murtha changed their positions from defeatist ones to advocating that we should find a way to finish this correctly. All the bluff and bluster aside, I think that most Dems realize that total and immediate withdrawl is not a realistic option. It just sounds good to call it a complete and total failure if you wish to tear down your political enemies.

That isnt to say that I consider it responsible dissent, quite the contrary, I am sick of all the political games from both sides. I am merely pointing it out for what it is, politics.
 
Written By: Rosensteel
URL: http://
Question: Lets say we were in a war. And let’s just say FOR SAKE OF ARGUMENT ONLY that the war could not be "won," whatever that means. Lets just say FOR SAKE OF ARGUMENT that further troop deaths would be in vain and would accomplish nothing. And lets just say FOR SAKE OF ARGUMENT that the commander in chief nevertheless wanted to continue prosecuting the war indefinitely.

In such a situation, what would be the responsible line of dissent? Put Iraq aside - I am simply speaking hypothetically.
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
[i]I shouldnt really need to put that disclaimer, but I figure if I dont I will be dismissed as an anti-American defeatist, and many of the crowd here are quick to jump on anything that looks remotely suspect to them[/i]

If you don’t like having to put in that disclaimer, perhaps your beef is with the people who are so irresponsible that they ARE anti-American defeatists who make it harder for you...
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
In such a situation, what would be the responsible line of dissent? Put Iraq aside - I am simply speaking hypothetically

LMFAO....
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Question: Lets say we were in a war. And let’s just say FOR SAKE OF ARGUMENT ONLY that the war could not be "won," whatever that means. Lets just say FOR SAKE OF ARGUMENT that further troop deaths would be in vain and would accomplish nothing. And lets just say FOR SAKE OF ARGUMENT that the commander in chief nevertheless wanted to continue prosecuting the war indefinitely.

In such a situation, what would be the responsible line of dissent? Put Iraq aside - I am simply speaking hypothetically.


I think in operational terms... Poland Sept. 1939. We are Poles. We can not win the war, it’s obvious. Poland can reasonably ask for terms and if the PM wanted to keep fighting, in Poland, then I’d say "Enough." At least we could end the fighting IN Poland.

France, 1940, is another good example. France was defeated in 1940. It COULD have continued the struggle on, as DeGaulle, but it didn’t have to. It’s government and military made a choice, to quit fighting.

You can "quit" when the outcome, that is likely of continued fighting is worse than the outcome of surrender. Now in the case of the Poland and the Nazi’s it would be an even toss as to whether the odds of continuing were worth it, BUT GIVEN WHAT ACTORS KNEW AT THE TIME, a case could be made, morally, that continuing to fight would simply pile up the dea on "our" side for no tangible benefit.

A time to end an war, such as World War I, would have been about 1915-16... and had someone pushed for and truly accepted the "14 Points" that might have been a reasonable and just dissent from the pro-war position.

Also, Wilkie and others in 1940 made a case for NOT intervening. They were wrong, but they did have a morally strong position, believing what they did and knowing what they did in 1940. Taft and others did not want to see the US involved, unduly, in the post-WW II international system. Again, they were wrong, but they did make their case, and their case was NOT that the US should get out of the WAR NOW, or that the US was "PROVOKING" the Germans and Japanese or that US actions were what was causing Japanese/German atrocities or kamikaze attacks, nor did they call the Germans the "Minutemen" and exclaim that they would win! They wanted the US tow win, they simply didn’t agree with all the ends proposed by FDR.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Other articles in the USNI Proceedings note that we have never beaten an insurgency.

But we’re not ... we’re talking about Iraq.

By what you’ve said, though, I assume you understand that, in fact we’re winning.

Sticking with reality and the subject at hand, what does that make defeatist talk in your neck of the woods?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
If you don’t like having to put in that disclaimer, perhaps your beef is with the people who are so irresponsible that they ARE anti-American defeatists who make it harder for you...
Perhaps, but that is pretty much irrelevant because this is not a liberal or Democratic forum. When I am in the prescence of them, I argue with them. When I am in the prescence of the other side, I argue with the other side.

Much more interesting that way.
 
Written By: Rosensteel
URL: http://
I disagree. Look how quickly people like Dean and Murtha changed their positions from defeatist ones to advocating that we should find a way to finish this correctly. All the bluff and bluster aside, I think that most Dems realize that total and immediate withdrawl is not a realistic option. It just sounds good to call it a complete and total failure if you wish to tear down your political enemies.
Have they Rosensteel? Or have they repackaged it into, "Oh we just want a TIMETABLE and some dates?" Kerry, has tried the repackaging, I haven’t heard that Dean or Murtha have changed their positions, indeed I believe Murtha continues to speak on the subject of the "Broken Army", "Living hand-to-mouth..."

Yet according to McQ it ought to be fairly obvious that the position they’ve advanced isn’t politically wise, but they advance it and only try to maneuver around it. I believe Rahm Emmanual now has it that the Democrats won’t take a position on Iraq in ’06. That isn’t taking Michael Moore’s side, true, but it isn’t offering much of a vision in the alternative, either. And the reason they can’t take a side IS THE ANTI-WAR MOVEMENT. They can be SILENT, but to change their position, to support the war NOW, would cost them more than its worth, so they free the members to vote their conscience or constituent’s, because the Party can’t move itself from OPPOSITION.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Other articles in the USNI Proceedings note that we have never beaten an insurgency.
Huuuu’uuuuum mayhap the gentlemen at Proceedings ought to examine US history or read Max Boot’s "Savage Wars of Peace." I think the US Indians might suggest the US can defeat insurgents. Also the Philipino’s might agree with the Aborginal Americans, as might the Nicaraguans, the Haitian Cacos, and the Hukbalalhap (sp.). But yes, the US HAS defeated an insurgency.... I didn’t read that blurb until now.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
LMFAO....
I should have excepted you from the question, Shark, as it requires thought to answer.
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
In defense of the types whom you speak of, I can at least understand why they would find it difficult to offer support for a war which they considered to be immoral from the outset.

This is mostly directed at the political leadership Rosensteel, and I’m sure you understand that.

There are very few among that leadership which found the war in Iraq to be ’immoral’. The vast majority of that leadership gave the president the Congressional "ok" to use force in Iraq.

It is those to whom this is addressed.

But back to your point about arguing against the war on moral grounds. That’s certainly a responsible form of dissent and an argument one can make. You could argue we had no ’right’ to go in there. You can justify your stance on whatever moral ground you wish, such as ’all war is wrong’.


While I certainly won’t agree, I can at least call such a moral argument "responsible". But a moral anti-war stance doesn’t involve defeatism (unless you can come up with a scenario in which that would be a valid argument ... morally). "Defeatism" has no "moral component" that I have found.

Defeatism, in the face of facts to the contrary (and none supporting the defeatist premise)for what one can only surmise are for political points and made without regard to our having troops in the field or what succor an enemy might take from those types of remarks is, in my opinion, irresponsible dissent. And it is especially irresponsible when you are one of those who was responsible for approving the action being taken in the first place.

So I can only consider those who engage in it to have lost the political will necessary to complete what they started and they are trying to justify such a loss of will by painting a picture that just isn’t true. They first tried the "Bush lied" meme. Then they tried the "we were mistaken" meme. None went anywhere. Now they’ve reverted to the tried and true method which worked in the past ... talking ourselves out of a victory by being overwhelmingly defeatist. That’s irresponsible, and while the hope they give an enemy may indeed be false hope, it is hope nonetheless ... hope which will extend the conflict and cost American lives. That’s an advantage to an enemy a united and resolute country wouldn’t present.

That is my problem with such dissent.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
And let’s just say FOR SAKE OF ARGUMENT ONLY that the war could not be "won," whatever that means. Lets just say FOR SAKE OF ARGUMENT that further troop deaths would be in vain and would accomplish nothing. And lets just say FOR SAKE OF ARGUMENT that the commander in chief nevertheless wanted to continue prosecuting the war indefinitely.

Why, I’ll give the MK answer: I wouldn’t get into a war that I couldn’t win. Therefore, there’s no reason for me to give an answer to a situation that I wouldn’t have put us into.

 
Written By: Mark A. Flacy
URL: http://
But don’t dare say that giving hope to the enemy, is supportive of the enemy...
 
Written By: Keith, Indy
URL: http://
Why, I’ll give the MK answer: I wouldn’t get into a war that I couldn’t win. Therefore, there’s no reason for me to give an answer to a situation that I wouldn’t have put us into.

Or you could say that supporting a continued fight in a war which we are obviously losing (and when I say "obvious", that view would be supported by fact) would be as irresponsilbe is saying we’re losing (or can’t win) a war we’re apparently winning or have a reasonable or good possibility of winning.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
Times sure did look bleak during the Battle of the Buldge, it was sure looking like we couldn’t win... and I’ll give MK the same answer...

NUTS!!!
 
Written By: Keith, Indy
URL: http://
mkultra only asked us to consider Reality when deciding if losing a war should be unnecessarily prolonged:

And it was answered with:
Or you could say that supporting a continued fight in a war which we are obviously losing (and when I say "obvious", that view would be supported by fact) would be as irresponsilbe is saying we’re losing (or can’t win) a war we’re apparently winning or have a reasonable or good possibility of winning.
You need to keep up.

Welcome to 1968 gentlemen.

You mean like when certain media types and elected officials here turned a stunning and resounding defeat (Tet of ’68) for the VC into a victory by donning the defeatist mantle?

Yeah, no kidding.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
Times sure did look bleak during the Battle of the Buldge, it was sure looking like we couldn’t win... and I’ll give MK the same answer...

I’ll pick a bit of a nit here ... it never looked so bleak we thought winning wasn’t possible, or for that matter, assured. At that point though, we knew the war wouldn’t be over by Christmas.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
Yeah, but if we had our current chattering class back then, what would the headlines have said. And how would that have swayed popular opinion, and Congress. (Wasn’t trying to make a direct analogy there.)

Go back a couple years and the Battle for Britain. Or even further to Valley Forge. I would argue that the current situation in Iraq isn’t in any way as bleak as those moments in our history.

Luckily, we don’t have a Commander in Chief who is swayed to heavily by popularity contests (ie polls) where as, we do have a populace (and "loyal opposition") who changes their mind (at least in polls or in speeches) depending on the reported conditions on the ground (as oppossed to actual conditions on the ground.)
 
Written By: Keith, Indy
URL: http://
It’s deja vu all over again when our Government becomes scared of it’s own citizens to the point where domestic spying becomes normal

Oh, you must’ve gotten a leaked copy of the Barrett Report on Henry Cisneros and other Clinton-era misconducts....
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Dean’s too easy.
 
Written By: Taylor
URL: http://www.libertarianconservative.com
I think a large part of your problem is not with Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi. It’s with Michael Foucault and Jacques Derrida. (Those darned French are the problem again!)

McQ, you seem distressed that leftist politicians seem to ignore facts on the ground. You derive from that the idea that their dissent is irresponsible, because it ignores or distorts objective reality. I can’t argue with your conclusion, but I think understand why they don’t get it.

Here’s the problem - in the post-modernist left there is no such thing as objective reality!

Democratic politicians continue to use the rhetorical forms of the Enlightenment, because that’s what the proles expect. But they don’t really agree with the fundamental worldview of the enlightenment. See this reference for a detailed treatment.

The person who most often exhibits post-modernist arguments on this board is, of course, mkultra. Note that her posts almost always concentrate on rhetorical "gotchas", and not on facts, logic, prediction, or any of the argumentative techniques of the enlightenment. In fact, when facts are brought to bear against an argument by mkultra for which there are no rhetorical tricks to weasel out with, she will simply fail to respond.

This is not by accident. When Howard Dean is pressed about his positions, he’ll simply ignore any inconsistencies. For him, those inconsistencies don’t exist. All that matters is the ultimate victory of the leftist "narrative". How the victory is achieved is of no consequence, because one of the corollaries of the idea that there is no objective truth is that there is no such thing as dishonesty. If you feel strongly enough about what your are saying, then axiomatically, you are right and by extension your opponents are wrong.

Howard Dean, mkultra, and the other "irresponsible dissenters" cannot give you what you seek - honest evaluation of the facts and moral choices to be made from those facts. To do so would require them to abandon the leftist, post-modernist worldview about what facts and morality are all about.

And just as a fish isn’t aware of the water, they don’t know that there’s anything out of the ordinary about their worldview. They believe it’s the only legitimate worldview, in fact, which is why they are so quick to label their opponents as "evil". In that respect, they resemble the way a fundamentalist religious person reacts when you question their faith. They have convinced themselves that their faith is perfect, so if you attack it, the only possible reason for your attack is that you are evil.

Where other people see lunacy on the part of the Democratic left, I’m now beginning to understand. I always understood that they were in denial, but I finally started to understand why they can’t throw it off.

To compromise on any issue would compromise their entire world view. They can never, ever, ever admit that they are wrong - because the very concept of "wrong" would imply that there is an objective "right". And, to restate, to them there is no objective "truth", just the leftist "narrative".

They may use the word "truth" as in such catchphrases as "speaking truth to power". But they don’t mean the same thing you and I mean by "truth". And you can see that in the very situations where they use that phrase. It’s always about leftists confronting the establishment, and it’s used even in cases where the leftist is obviously deluded. It has nothing to do with "truth" - it has everything to do with "power".
 
Written By: Billy Hollis
URL: http://
I left something out I meant to include. I said
...one of the corollaries of the idea that there is no objective truth is that there is no such thing as dishonesty.
That doesn’t mean the left won’t accuse people of being dishonest. It’s just that they don’t mean the same thing the rest of us do when they say that.

Exhibit A is the "Bush lied" leftist meme. We children of the Enlightenment realize the difference between a mistake and a lie. But post-modern leftists don’t care whether Bush really lied or not, or even what a lie really is. They want to establish the narrative that Bush lied, because that promotes their agenda.
 
Written By: Billy Hollis
URL: http://
Question: Lets say we were in a war. And let’s just say FOR SAKE OF ARGUMENT ONLY that the war could not be "won," whatever that means. Lets just say FOR SAKE OF ARGUMENT that further troop deaths would be in vain and would accomplish nothing. And lets just say FOR SAKE OF ARGUMENT that the commander in chief nevertheless wanted to continue prosecuting the war indefinitely.

In such a situation, what would be the responsible line of dissent? Put Iraq aside - I am simply speaking hypothetically.
Hypothetically, If you were a British citizen in England in 1940, I am sure you would be telling everyone how stupid Churchill was, and how much England needed to capitulate to Hitler. ,Hypothetically
 
Written By: Kyle N
URL: http://
Question: Lets say we were in a war. And let’s just say FOR SAKE OF ARGUMENT ONLY that the war could not be "won," whatever that means. Lets just say FOR SAKE OF ARGUMENT that further troop deaths would be in vain and would accomplish nothing. And lets just say FOR SAKE OF ARGUMENT that the commander in chief nevertheless wanted to continue prosecuting the war indefinitely.

In such a situation, what would be the responsible line of dissent? Put Iraq aside - I am simply speaking hypothetically.
Hypothetically, If you were a British citizen in England in 1940, I am sure you would be telling everyone how stupid Churchill was, and how much England needed to capitulate to Hitler. ,Hypothetically
 
Written By: Kyle N
URL: http://
OK, fine, Book. Then come up with some alternate explanations for things that don’t seem to make any sense to the rest of us.

Why does the left persist in the "Bush lied" mantra? Or do you believe he lied, and if so, what’s your reasoning?

And if you’ve only been here a week, you probably have not seen the pattern I noted on mkultra’s comments. In case you’ve not noticed, I’m not nearly as hard on mk’s brand of leftist bs as many of the other commenters. Why do you suppose we all see drivel and you see "thought-provoking" posts?

Do you think the left is honest every time they use the phrase "speaking truth to power"? Do you want me to put forth counter-examples from, say, the Katrina flood?
Let’s agree that everybody here is patriotic.
That’s a meaningless agreement if we don’t agree on what "patriotic" means. McQ started this by trying to come up with some way to fit the left’s behavior with a rational idea of what it means to be patriotic. And he’s failed at it.

I note that you didn’t offer a shred of fact, analysis, or logic in your reaction to what I put forth. Instead, we get the standard leftist counter-argument - your feelings were hurt by being "labeled".

OK, so you don’t like being "labeled". Then get beyond labels and start saying something of consequence, instead of whining that you don’t like the way others consider your political position to be nonsensical.
 
Written By: Billy Hollis
URL: http://
I always thought MKUltra was a guy. Huh.
 
Written By: Nathan
URL: http://brain.mu.nu/
Great Britain had a plan in 1940 - we’ll fight till we take Berlin and then the war will be over. Dynamic, simple, it worked.

USA had a plan in 1942 - we’ll fight till we take Tokyo and the the war will be over. Elegant, best to keep it simple.

USA has a plan now - we will fight Saddam in Iraq and then establish a democracy there, stop Islamists from surrounding area and the local dictators from interfering by asking them nicely and stay until the job is done. Hard to see why more people aren’t showing unreserved support.[/sarcasm]
 
Written By: Unaha-closp
URL: http://
Let’s agree that everybody here is patriotic
Sure.

Now before we do that, let’s try a question or two; Are they all being patriotic to the same cause?

 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
Stop a minute, folks. Even a blind pig finds an acorn sometimes. Let’s take MKultra at his (her?) word.
Lets say we were in a war. And let’s just say FOR SAKE OF ARGUMENT ONLY that the war could not be "won," whatever that means. Lets just say FOR SAKE OF ARGUMENT that further troop deaths would be in vain and would accomplish nothing. And lets just say FOR SAKE OF ARGUMENT that the commander in chief nevertheless wanted to continue prosecuting the war indefinitely.

In such a situation, what would be the responsible line of dissent? Put Iraq aside - I am simply speaking hypothetically.
Snark and Derridaing aside, in the abstract it’s a fair question. What would constitute "responsible dissent"?

There are several differences between what we have today and responsible dissent, some positive (things that should be added that aren’t present) and some negative (things whose presence in the narrative constitutes or denotes irresponsibility). At the top of the positive list are two things that are so entertwined as to be inseparable.

Responsible dissent would include a definition and examination of "not winning" and its consequenses and sequelae. As part of that, responsible dissent would incorporate a clear-eyed view of the aims and intentions of the enemy/opposition with an explanation of how the success of those aims and intentions can be lived with as part of "not winning".

I’ve never seen any of that, not from MKultra, not on Kos, not from any of the antiwar folks.

Let’s face it, RWDBs, we do have something in common with the Islamists when it comes to dealing with moonbats. Put yourself in Osama’s sandals for a moment. You carefully compose a manifesto and get up in front of the whole world to explain, in words of few syllables and with as little ambiguity as possible, what your aims and intentions are and what methods you mean to use to attain them. But no sooner have you settled yourself in the Western abortion of a chair and tried to tug your robes into place than MKultra or one of her (his?) fellows leaps up to explain that it’s all a lie, that you’re just too ignorant to express yourself correctly, and what you really want is <extended riff on Left/Pacifism couched in Marxist-Leninist rhetoric, heavy on the IMPERIALISM> It’s gotta be frustrating. Nothing they say ever gets through. All the words ever do is trigger the playback in the Left’s heads, and the babble is impenetrable. We have the same problem from time to time.

There are several negative things, things that need to be left out to make the dissent responsible. Bigotry: them sand-niggers’re too damn stupid and backward t’live like white folks, prettied up with obfuscatory verbiage. Paleolithic tribalism: Git bin Laden an’ blow his damn brains out! accompanied by sneers about inability to do that. There are others, but those are the biggies.

As long as the anti-war Left continues to insist that the Islamists’ aims are consonant with anti-Imperialist pacifism when their specifically, emphatically, and repeatedly declared intentions are diametrically opposed to that, and as long as they take refuge in sleight-of-hand references that can’t be considered in the least liberal except as an uppercase us-label, the dissent isn’t responsible.

Regards,
Ric
 
Written By: Ric Locke
URL: http://
But we’ve not said we must beat the insurgency. We’ve said that it is the Iraqi’s job to beat the insurgency and have noted such a defeat will not only be accomplished militarily, but politically.

That’s what the Dec. 15th vote was all about.

Our job? Buy them the time and room necessary to get the political and military parts of the equation in shape to do so.


Really?
What are we playing over there? Hot potato!?
Our job is homogenous with the Iraqi government. And that means everything.
Victory can be nothing short of absolute peace and stability for the Iraqi people. Not just when we can take the training wheels off. Sorry McQ, we’re not getting out of there that easily. We broke it, we bought it.

Yes, We are responsible for ending the insurgency, along with the Iraqi’s. And by we I mean the U.S., U.K., The Coalition of the Willing, The Bush Administration, The Democrats, The Republicans, …
And
The mouse in your pocket.

Cheers
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
Stop a minute, folks. Even a blind pig finds an acorn sometimes. Let’s take MKultra at his (her?) word.
Lets say we were in a war. And let’s just say FOR SAKE OF ARGUMENT ONLY that the war could not be "won," whatever that means. Lets just say FOR SAKE OF ARGUMENT that further troop deaths would be in vain and would accomplish nothing. And lets just say FOR SAKE OF ARGUMENT that the commander in chief nevertheless wanted to continue prosecuting the war indefinitely.

In such a situation, what would be the responsible line of dissent? Put Iraq aside - I am simply speaking hypothetically.
Snark and Derridaing aside, in the abstract it’s a fair question. What would constitute "responsible dissent"?

There are several differences between what we have today and responsible dissent, some positive (things that should be added that aren’t present) and some negative (things whose presence in the narrative constitutes or denotes irresponsibility). At the top of the positive list are two things that are so entertwined as to be inseparable.

Responsible dissent would include a definition and examination of "not winning" and its consequenses and sequelae. As part of that, responsible dissent would incorporate a clear-eyed view of the aims and intentions of the enemy/opposition with an explanation of how the success of those aims and intentions can be lived with as part of "not winning".

I’ve never seen any of that, not from MKultra, not on Kos, not from any of the antiwar folks.

Let’s face it, RWDBs, we do have something in common with the Islamists when it comes to dealing with moonbats. Put yourself in Osama’s sandals for a moment. You carefully compose a manifesto and get up in front of the whole world to explain, in words of few syllables and with as little ambiguity as possible, what your aims and intentions are and what methods you mean to use to attain them. But no sooner have you settled yourself in the Western abortion of a chair and tried to tug your robes into place than MKultra or one of her (his?) fellows leaps up to explain that it’s all a lie, that you’re just too ignorant to express yourself correctly, and what you really want is <extended riff on Left/Pacifism couched in Marxist-Leninist rhetoric, heavy on the IMPERIALISM> It’s gotta be frustrating. Nothing they say ever gets through. All the words ever do is trigger the playback in the Left’s heads, and the babble is impenetrable. We have the same problem from time to time.

There are several negative things, things that need to be left out to make the dissent responsible. Bigotry: them sand-niggers’re too damn stupid and backward t’live like white folks, prettied up with obfuscatory verbiage. Paleolithic tribalism: Git bin Laden an’ blow his damn brains out! accompanied by sneers about inability to do that. There are others, but those are the biggies.

As long as the anti-war Left continues to insist that the Islamists’ aims are consonant with anti-Imperialist pacifism when their specifically, emphatically, and repeatedly declared intentions are diametrically opposed to that, and as long as they take refuge in sleight-of-hand references that can’t be considered in the least liberal except as an uppercase us-label, the dissent isn’t responsible.

Regards,
Ric
 
Written By: Ric Locke
URL: http://
We are responsible for ending the insurgency,

Uh, no we aren’t, Pogue ... unless you think we plan on staying there for 5 to 10 years in greater strength than we are now and we plan on occupying the land out of which we kick the insurgents.

We don’t plan to do either of those, and has been plainly said by the US, we’re there to keep the insurgency to a low hum while the Iraqis are good enough both militariliy and politically to take on the task of defeating the insurgency themselves.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
Snark and Derridaing aside, in the abstract it’s a fair question. What would constitute "responsible dissent"?

What? Is what I said invisible or something? I promise I didn’t use vanishing pixels when I wrote it:
Or you could say that supporting a continued fight in a war which we are obviously losing (and when I say "obvious", that view would be supported by fact) would be as irresponsible as saying we’re losing (or can’t win) a war we’re apparently winning or have a reasonable or good chance of winning.
And Ric: quite refreshing your browser window. That’s what is making your comment repeat.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
We don’t plan to do either of those, and has been plainly said by the US, we’re there to keep the insurgency to a low hum while the Iraqis are good enough both militariliy and politically to take on the task of defeating the insurgency themselves.

So we stick ’em with the bill? Hey, if that’s our definition of victory,
works for me. Just as long as we GTFO.

(boy, we’ve come a long way since the Marshall plan.)
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
These past days I was sadly reminiscing about how it’s been a long time since I’ve had a reasonable debate over foreign policy. The absurd chorus from the left drowns out any constructive criticism that might we worth considering. The stilted dogmatism of the paleo-right doesn’t even come close to an attempt to weigh and judge the reality and context of the present and consider long-range possibilities to guide us into the future.

It comes to the point where the very tone and sound-bite quality tells me it isn’t worth arguing with most people. And that saddens me. I can respect a number of differing positions – almost none of which I see in the most vociferous critics that dominate the debate. But then again, constructive criticism isn’t what they are after, is it?

There’s dissent and there’s dissent. I recall how I proceeded when I differed from our policy in the past and then I look for a proper manner of criticism, today. I rarely find it. And that’s my humble opinion.
 
Written By: Jason Pappas
URL: http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/
Why, I’ll give the MK answer: I wouldn’t get into a war that I couldn’t win. Therefore, there’s no reason for me to give an answer to a situation that I wouldn’t have put us into.

If I were going to get into a war that I could win I wouldn’t call it a "War on Terror" as there’s absolutely no way I could define a smart criterior for victory.
 
Written By: symptomless
URL: http://
Stop a minute, folks. Even a blind pig finds an acorn sometimes. Let’s take MKultra at his (her?) word.
Lets say we were in a war. And let’s just say FOR SAKE OF ARGUMENT ONLY that the war could not be "won," whatever that means. Lets just say FOR SAKE OF ARGUMENT that further troop deaths would be in vain and would accomplish nothing. And lets just say FOR SAKE OF ARGUMENT that the commander in chief nevertheless wanted to continue prosecuting the war indefinitely.

In such a situation, what would be the responsible line of dissent? Put Iraq aside - I am simply speaking hypothetically.
Snark and Derridaing aside, in the abstract it’s a fair question. What would constitute "responsible dissent"?

There are several differences between what we have today and responsible dissent, some positive (things that should be added that aren’t present) and some negative (things whose presence in the narrative constitutes or denotes irresponsibility). At the top of the positive list are two things that are so entertwined as to be inseparable.

Responsible dissent would include a definition and examination of "not winning" and its consequenses and sequelae. As part of that, responsible dissent would incorporate a clear-eyed view of the aims and intentions of the enemy/opposition with an explanation of how the success of those aims and intentions can be lived with as part of "not winning".

I’ve never seen any of that, not from MKultra, not on Kos, not from any of the antiwar folks.

Let’s face it, RWDBs, we do have something in common with the Islamists when it comes to dealing with moonbats. Put yourself in Osama’s sandals for a moment. You carefully compose a manifesto and get up in front of the whole world to explain, in words of few syllables and with as little ambiguity as possible, what your aims and intentions are and what methods you mean to use to attain them. But no sooner have you settled yourself in the Western abortion of a chair and tried to tug your robes into place than MKultra or one of her (his?) fellows leaps up to explain that it’s all a lie, that you’re just too ignorant to express yourself correctly, and what you really want is <extended riff on Left/Pacifism couched in Marxist-Leninist rhetoric, heavy on the IMPERIALISM> It’s gotta be frustrating. Nothing they say ever gets through. All the words ever do is trigger the playback in the Left’s heads, and the babble is impenetrable. We have the same problem from time to time.

There are several negative things, things that need to be left out to make the dissent responsible. Bigotry: them sand-niggers’re too damn stupid and backward t’live like white folks, prettied up with obfuscatory verbiage. Paleolithic tribalism: Git bin Laden an’ blow his damn brains out! accompanied by sneers about inability to do that. There are others, but those are the biggies.

As long as the anti-war Left continues to insist that the Islamists’ aims are consonant with anti-Imperialist pacifism when their specifically, emphatically, and repeatedly declared intentions are diametrically opposed to that, and as long as they take refuge in sleight-of-hand references that can’t be considered in the least liberal except as an uppercase us-label, the dissent isn’t responsible.

Regards,
Ric
 
Written By: Ric Locke
URL: http://
Great Britain had a plan in 1940 - we’ll fight till we take Berlin and then the war will be over. Dynamic, simple, it worked.
ect.
Sorry, your analogy is lame. We didnt just take out Hitler and Tojo, We stayed in those nations for years (hell, we are still there) and spent millions turning them into versions of ourselves. So you see, you actually are supporting Bushes policy!
Try again.
 
Written By: Kyle N
URL: http://
Lets say we were in a war. And let’s just say FOR SAKE OF ARGUMENT ONLY that the war could not be "won," whatever that means. Lets just say FOR SAKE OF ARGUMENT that further troop deaths would be in vain and would accomplish nothing.
mkultra: Your loaded question makes the presupposition that you can actually know whether or not a war is ’winnable’, or even know that you are ’winning’ a war that you are currently engaged in. Anyone who is even marginally knowledgeable about military action should see that as plainly ludicrous on its face.

I’m curious: Strictly, hypothetically speaking, what exactly would be the metrics of a conflict’s ’unwinnability’?
Other articles in the USNI Proceedings note that we have never beaten an insurgency.
cindy: Ever heard of the Moros? Suggesting that the US has never defeated an insurgency is simply ridiculous. Not only would I say that we have defeated many insurgencies, I would argue that we effectively defeated the one insurgency people say we ’lost’: The Viet Cong. After their abortive Tet Offensive in 1968, they were rendered combat ineffective. I’d say a conservative estimate is that they suffered 75% casualties. The communists had to thoroughly reinforce from the regular North Vietnamese Army after that. From then until the end of the war the VC played a marginal role in the conflict.

Of course, the defeatists in that war hailed the Tet Offensive as a communist victory and their ’irresponsible dissent’ contributed to the eventual capitulation of a strategically important American ally.

It’s sad, really, how people who don’t seem to know anything about military history, or even history in general, get away with making these kind of statements in public and in the media all the time.
 
Written By: J
URL: http://
Answer this for me McQ. Are you correct?

Uh, no we aren’t, Pogue ... unless you think we plan on staying there for 5 to 10 years in greater strength than we are now and we plan on occupying the land out of which we kick the insurgents.

Or is Kyle N?

We didnt just take out Hitler and Tojo, We stayed in those nations for years (hell, we are still there) and spent millions turning them into versions of ourselves. So you see, you actually are supporting Bushes policy!

***

Of course, the defeatists in that war hailed the Tet Offensive as a communist victory and their ’irresponsible dissent’ contributed to the eventual capitulation of a strategically important American ally.

I don’t quite see the strategic importance of S. Vietnam, speaking with hindsite as it is. It may have seemed important at the time, but now it seems of little importance.

It is very plausible that if we were still in Vietnam, we would still be plagued by "Charlie". Even thirty years later.
IMHO, of course.
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
I don’t quite see the strategic importance of S. Vietnam, speaking with hindsite as it is. It may have seemed important at the time, but now it seems of little importance.
What was the strategic importance of Korea, in the decade prior?
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
What a great thread! With two exceptions, maybe the best of the year (Disclaimer: I have a short memory). Everyone was on point and relatively sincere. The Billy Hollis comment resonates! I have mothballed it to re-read. Oh, the two exceptions? [Heh] First was the overt sexism of Book:
"Welcome to 1968 gentlemen."
I think that the other gender might be welcome to 1968 as well.
The second false note was (predictably) MK’s attempt to set up a response to be attacked with a prepared arsenal and disguising it as an honest inquiry which might lead to a considered response. It turned out OK, however.
I particularly enjoyed Book’s admission that he recognized and identified with the alternate liberal universe in MK’s comments. QED, or something like that.
 
Written By: notherbob2
URL: http://
I apologize for getting us off track here, but I’d like to respond to Pogue...
I don’t quite see the strategic importance of S. Vietnam, speaking with hindsite as it is. It may have seemed important at the time, but now it seems of little importance.
I think Vietnam may not seem that important to us now for a variety of reasons. One being the Vietnamese independent nature, especially from China. I don’t think we realized they would be fighting a border war with the Communist Chinese less than a decade after the fall of Saigon.

Also, the loss of our important ally in South Vietnam was countered by strengthening relations with other nations in the region, such as Thailand and Singapore.

Third, as much as people claim that it has been ’disproven’ now, I still do not completely dismiss the ’domino theory’ as total bunk. By the United States making a stand in Vietnam, we at least slowed the expansion of communism throughout Asia. The Soviets and Chinese were occupied temporarily. We also demonstrated the will to confront the evils of communism with military force. After we sat idly by as half of Europe fell under the ’Iron Curtain’, I think that was a noble effort.

Lastly, I think soon we may again become aware of the importance of that region as China makes more overt moves to assert control over the potentially oil-rich South China Sea.
 
Written By: J
URL: http://
What was the strategic importance of Korea, in the decade prior?

I’m sure that I don’t have to school such a scholar as yourself as to the reason Truman sent us in there. Stopping the communist advance (the eight hundred pound gorilla at the time). And looking back, the Korean conflict seems to be justified given the current situation. South Korea prospers as North Korea falters.

The situation with Korea is now apparently different than the situation with Vietnam. The difference being that we now have a lunatic, Kim Jong-Il, standing at our doorstep with a paper bag full of shit in one hand, and a book of matches in the other. And unfortunately, we have to step on it no matter what.
Vietnam just has a bag of shit. No matches.

As I said, Vietnam may have seemed like a good idea at the time, strategerly speaking of course. But now, not so much.
History has a trick about making all the chips fall into place.
And unfortunately, I believe the Iraq war will turn out sourly. I do not wish for this to happen, I don’t like Bush, but I don’t dislike him that much.

I believe that the Iraq war will go down in history as the biggest blunder since the Treaty of Versailles.

But hey, here’s hoping I’m wrong.

***

Lastly, I think soon we may again become aware of the importance of that region as China makes more overt moves to assert control over the potentially oil-rich South China Sea.


Here’s hoping you’re wrong.

Cheers.
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
And unfortunately, I believe the Iraq war will turn out sourly. I do not wish for this to happen, I don’t like Bush, but I don’t dislike him that much.

I believe that the Iraq war will go down in history as the biggest blunder since the Treaty of Versailles.

But hey, here’s hoping I’m wrong.
I think you probably are wrong, and I think much of the source of the difference of opinion lies in the expectation level.

For example, I doubt that we’ll see Iraq become a representative democracy of the quality of, say, Costa Rica, in the next twenty years. There will be a lot of setbacks. There will probably be episodes of violence, some possibly severe. However, if they establish an acceptable level of rule of law, and allow free market economics to take its course, then it won’t be that long (less than fifty years) before a very large majority of the population have too big a stake in keeping things going smoothly for the old ways to return.

Turkey is probably the best template we can hope for. The "Asian tigers" are the next closest example we can offer, and they’ve done very well.

But Iraq does not have to do nearly that well for our effort to have been a success, as far as I’m concerned. They don’t have to become Turkey or South Korea, or even Costa Rica. Both they and we will be a lot better off than would have been the case if they just get to the level of, say, Honduras. That at least breaks the stalemate of Arab dictatorships in the region, and presents a counter-force to the fundamentalists. It’s hard to see how that could fail to be a good thing.

Granted, there is the possibility of wholesale civil war, and civilian casualties on the scale of a Rwanda. But I think that’s a long shot.

It would be a lot longer shot if the left would get on board with making the whole thing a success. The ability of the terrorists to recruit goes down if the expectation is that they’re going to lose. So raising the hopes of the insurgency that we will actually abandon Iraq to chaos gives them the optimism they need to keep recruiting and keep killing Iraqi civilians. I wish the left would realize that.
 
Written By: Billy Hollis
URL: http://
I’m sure that I don’t have to school such a scholar as yourself as to the reason Truman sent us in there.
"Scholar" is probably the exact wrong word, but I do understand why Truman decided to declare a national interest in the Korean peninsula. There’s very little distinction between Korea and Vietnam, though. It’s hard to see how one was geopolitically important, yet the other was not.
The situation with Korea is now apparently different than the situation with Vietnam.
Sure, now it’s different. The State actors have changed altogether.
I believe that the Iraq war will go down in history as the biggest blunder since the Treaty of Versailles.
For that to be true, I think you’d have to have a very radical Islamist takeover of Iraq, followed by a nuclear arms race in the Mid-east and a war spilling out into Asia and Europe. Frankly, that seems exceedingly far-fetched to me.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Sure, now it’s different. The State actors have changed altogether.

Thank you.

For that to be true, I think you’d have to have a very radical Islamist takeover of Iraq, followed by a nuclear arms race in the Mid-east and a war spilling out into Asia and Europe. Frankly, that seems exceedingly far-fetched to me.

With all due respect, it’s not all that exceedingly far-fetched. New governments are inherently open to foreign influence, and with the situation in Iran, along with their recent nuclūler developments, it, quite frankly, seems inevitable.
Unless, of course, we stay there. But as McQ has recently informed me, that is not the plan.

I tell you right here and now, I pray to the unknown beings above that this will not come to fruition. And I desperately hope that I am wrong.

I am a patriot. And so are many, if not most, of my fellow dissenter’s. As I’m sure you know already.
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
Sigh. If Book is right - and if Book’s ilk are in charge - we will be standing-by passing useless UN resolutions, mouthing platitudes about world peace while everything goes down the toilet. Fortunately, wiser heads are in charge; therefore this scenario will never happen.
 
Written By: notherbob2
URL: http://
Hey, when I was in my last years of high school, the elites in the media and DC were telling us that we should make accommodations for the Soviets, and that Reagan (Raygun) was going to cause WW III...

Here’s a toast to all those liberals who thought they knew it all... clink.
 
Written By: Keith, Indy
URL: http://
Meant to respond to this earlier, Pogue:
I tell you right here and now, I pray to the unknown beings above that this will not come to fruition. And I desperately hope that I am wrong. I am a patriot. And so are many, if not most, of my fellow dissenter’s. As I’m sure you know already.
Of that, I have no doubt. Not only would I not question your patriotism, I don’t regard it as relevant. But I’ve no doubt that you’re concerns are sincerely held and sincerely expressed.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider