Nat. Rev: Credit Where Credit Isn't Due

[spursncowboys]

Credit Where Credit Isn't Due -- By: Jonah Goldberg


‘Victory has a hundred fathers,” John F. Kennedy said, “and defeat is an orphan.”

By that standard, George W. Bush has won the Iraq war.

Last month, Vice President Joe Biden proclaimed on CNN’s Larry King Live that the peaceful transition to democracy and the (partial) withdrawal of U.S. forces “could be one of the great achievements of this administration.”

Initially, I ignored Biden’s comment because, well, he’s Joe Biden. As critical as I may be of the Obama administration, holding it accountable for Biden’s mouth seems grotesquely unfair.

But then White House spokesman Robert Gibbs defended the vice president, suggesting that it was Obama who put Iraq “back together” and worked out bringing American troops home. More on that in a moment.

Then, just this week, Newsweek, which spent years ridiculing Bush, came out with a cover story titled “Victory at Last: The Emergence of a Democratic Iraq,” in which the authors grudgingly and tentatively credit Bush with creating a democratic Iraq.

No word yet on whether Michael Moore will publicly cut off some fingers, like a failed Yakuza henchman, to atone for his misdeeds.

The Newsweek story might indeed be premature; recent upticks in Iraq violence demonstrate that nobody’s out of the woods yet. From what I can tell, there may be a rough summer ahead if a new government can’t be formed quickly. There almost certainly will be more bombings during this weekend’s elections and beyond.

Still, when the Obama administration starts taking credit for success in Iraq, you know things have changed for the better. Now, of course, it is a grotesque distortion of logic and even political decency for the White House to be taking credit for victory in Iraq.

Obama wouldn’t be president today if he hadn’t opposed the war. His opposition is what most distinguished him from Hillary Clinton in the primaries. Obama also opposed Bush’s surge, which turned Iraq around. He and Biden both claimed that it would actually make things worse. “I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence,” then-senator Obama declared in January 2007. “In fact, I think it will do the reverse.”

When Gibbs went to bat for Biden, he said that Obama’s achievement was “putting what was broken back together and getting our troops home, which we intend to do.” When it was pointed out that the proposed U.S. withdrawal had been set in the Status of Forces Agreement signed by the Bush administration, Gibbs claimed it was the “political pressure” of candidate Obama that made such an agreement possible.



On the merits, this is pretty pathetic stuff. The same administration that blames all of its mistakes on problems it inherited now wants to take credit for accomplishments it inherited.

Still, it’s good news. First and foremost, it’s a sign that the war in Iraq, while costly and deservedly controversial, was not for nothing. Putting Iraq on a path to democracy and decency is a noble accomplishment of which Americans -- of all parties -- should be proud. Even if you think the war wasn’t worth it or that it was unjustified, only the truly blinkered or black-hearted can be vexed by the fact that Saddam Hussein’s regime is gone and the country is on the path to better days.

Second, it shows that America’s victories aren’t Republican or Democratic victories, but American victories. The same goes for its losses. At times it seemed that at least some opponents of the Iraq war wanted America to lose because they thought that was synonymous with Bush losing. It doesn’t work that way.

Indeed, that’s what’s so interesting about the strange turn in the zeitgeist. Many of the war’s most ardent opponents claimed that Americans didn’t like the war for the same reasons the hard Left didn’t. But all that talk about “imperialism,” “neoconservatism,” “Cheney-Halliburton blood for oil,” and the rest was not at the core of the war’s unpopularity. What most Americans didn’t like was that we were losing militarily and costing the precious lives of our troops. Unlike the hard Left (and certain quarters of the isolationist Right), most Americans don’t care that the U.S. has troops stationed all around the world. They don’t think we’re an evil empire because of our troops in South Korea or Germany.

What most Americans care about is winning -- or, more accurately, winning in a good cause. Public attitudes are still raw when it comes to the war, and for good reason. But a generation from now, if Iraq is a stable, prosperous democracy, Americans will in all likelihood think the war was worth it, and that George W. Bush was right.

-- Jonah Goldberg is editor-at-large of National Review Online and the author of Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning. © 2010 Tribune Media Services, Inc.

[Winehole23]

Jonah Goldberg is the verdict of history? That didn't take very long.

[ChumpDumper]

Bush fucked up Iraq.

Horribly.

If he won, we should be out of there altogether.

[spursncowboys]

Jonah Goldberg is the verdict of history? That didn't take very long.

Vice President Joe Biden proclaimed on CNN’s Larry King Live that the peaceful transition to democracy and the (partial) withdrawal of U.S. forces “could be one of the great achievements of this administration.”

When Gibbs went to bat for Biden, he said that Obama’s achievement was “putting what was broken back together and getting our troops home, which we intend to do.” When it was pointed out that the proposed U.S. withdrawal had been set in the Status of Forces Agreement signed by the Bush administration, Gibbs claimed it was the “political pressure” of candidate Obama that made such an agreement possible.

[ChumpDumper]

So when are we out of there completely?

[boutons_deux]

Jonah Goldberg? :lol

He's the Jewish, right-wing extremist, Muslim-hating version of Michael Moore.

All of his articles are crap just like this. Anybody, like Yoni, still justifying the Iraq invasion and congratulating dubya and his criminal team of lying incompetents is fucked up.

[Winehole23]

2SnC: If Jonah Goldberg relies on the authority of Biden and Gibbs's idle boasts about what they intend to have accomplished in Iraq -- future perfect -- to be the factual baseline of the more general discussion, or more broadly of <<reality>>, then so much the worse for him.

[Wild Cobra]

So when are we out of there completely?
Will you please stop sidetracking threads, troll?

[balli]

Will you please stop sidetracking threads, troll?

Maybe if the fucking retarded original poster wasn't constantly starting threads with right wing drivel from the National Review. There's nothing in this thread to protect except snc's partisan dumbassery.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Will you please stop sidetracking threads, troll?

Not surprising that you defend a right wing hack..

[Wild Cobra]

Not surprising that you defend a right wing hack..
I'm just jumping on Chump for twisting the words, and trying to sidetrack another thread. He's making a big fuss about winning. The article hasn't declared a win yet. It said "By that standard, George W. Bush has won the Iraq war."

Typical chump. Changing the argument so the fucker can troll.

[Ignignokt]

Chumped just got chucked.

[ElNono]

http://www.boogeresque.com/images/mission_accomplished.jpg

[ChumpDumper]

I'm just jumping on Chump for twisting the words, and trying to sidetrack another thread. He's making a big fuss about winning. The article hasn't declared a win yet. It said "By that standard, George W. Bush has won the Iraq war."

Typical chump. Changing the argument so the fucker can troll.So Bush didn't win?

OK.

[Wild Cobra]

So Bush didn't win?

OK.
Not yet, but it looks like things are going well.

[ChumpDumper]

Not yet, but it looks like things are going well.So when do we leave completely?

[Wild Cobra]

So when do we leave completely?
Do you really think me dumb enough to make such a statement?

I'll give you my best guess...

Never!

I think once the mission [Iraq is it's own free nation] is accomplished, we will have a few military based there, like we still have in Korea, Germany, etc.

[ChumpDumper]

That would be a horrible failure.

[spursncowboys]

2SnC: If Jonah Goldberg relies on the authority of Biden and Gibbs's idle boasts about what they intend to have accomplished in Iraq -- future perfect -- to be the factual baseline of the more general discussion, or more broadly of <<reality>>, then so much the worse for him.

Anytime someone calls out the obama crew on their LIES, it is always the same "business as usual" line. The entire Dem party gave up on the OIF. I remember being there reading the newsweek article on how we are going to get everyone out and how many americans are going to be left behind or die from the attacks as we run away. Biden sealing his failed presidency because he wouldn't vote to stop the funding of the military. Calling bush, and petraus a liar for suggesting that Iran was directly training, funding and bankrolling the groups that were killing americans. these guys, for many stated reasons, gave up on iraq. now they want to take credit.

F a whole lot of that!

[boutons_deux]

"Not yet, but it looks like things are going well"

dubya lost Iraq and Aghanistan, and absolutely can't win now, since the Repugs and their suckers in corporate media have declared dubya's shitpile, inherited, dubya-botched wars belong 100% to Magic Negro, so "things are going well" (WC's fantasy) is therefore due to Magic Negro.

[spursncowboys]

Do you really think me dumb enough to make such a statement?

I'll give you my best guess...

Never!

I think once the mission [Iraq is it's own free nation] is accomplished, we will have a few military based there, like we still have in Korea, Germany, etc.

We should def. keep a base in northern iraq.

[ChumpDumper]

We should def. keep a base in northern iraq.That would be a horrible failure.

[Marcus Bryant]

How about no bases in Iraq, Korea, Japan, Germany, and the 70+ other countries worldwide?

[LnGrrrR]

I don't think we can determine the scuccess of failure of Iraq's democracy at this point.

We should at least wait until US soldiers are out of there to see how the local populace reacts.

And that still wouldn't excuse Bush for his lack of planning after the ground war, or for not changing his ineffective strategy until three years later.

[LnGrrrR]

How about no bases in Iraq, Korea, Japan, Germany, and the 70+ other countries worldwide?

While you're at it Marcus, you should wish for a magic poop-to-ice-cream converter. :D

In all honesty Marcus, I'm curious what you think about this question. Obviously, in order to satisfy a rapid worldwide response time, America needs bases in other countries. These are also used for refueling and supply.

So, do you think a low number of foreign bases are acceptable? Or do you think America should relinquish the idea of rapid worldwide response?

[Marcus Bryant]

I'd prefer that the national defense of the United States be that, instead of the super incredible self-appointed arsenal of democracy and liberator of the world.

[Wild Cobra]

That would be a horrible failure.
Just a failure on Obama's part since he promised we wouldn't keep soldiers based there.

[spursncowboys]

I don't think we can determine the scuccess of failure of Iraq's democracy at this point. true


We should at least wait until US soldiers are out of there to see how the local populace reacts. I am not for all soldiers leaving but the ones that stay should have no iraq mission.


And that still wouldn't excuse Bush for his lack of planning after the ground war, or for not changing his ineffective strategy until three years later.

I don't think the strategy was as ineffective as it is perceived now due to our monday morning qb'ing. Although even bush will admit it was wrong to shut out the iraqi army with a small footprint. I think the success of the surge was a perfect storm

[ChumpDumper]

Just a failure on Obama's part since he promised we wouldn't keep soldiers based there.No, a failure on pretty much every level for Bush's nation building experiment.

As stupid as Rumsfeld was in his handling of the invasion and its aftermath, he at least had the good initial sense to want to get out as soon as possible. Unfortunately, his ineptitude prevented that from happening.

Keeping a large military presence in a theoretically peaceful Iraq simply confirms Arab claims of permanent imperial occupation. Great idea!

It's hilarious that you cheer the Oath Keepers in one thread that steadfastly refuses the fantasy of foreign troops keeping the peace on US soil, yet here you actively want the people of Iraq to submit to the same, even if there is no emergency.

You're a hypocrite.

[Wild Cobra]

No, a failure on pretty much every level for Bush's nation building experiment.
That's just your bigotted responce.

Remember, Clinton signed legislation to make regime change in Iraq, law! To bad the truthers don't run with that and say that's why we were attacked on 911. That could be fun to debate!

[DarkReign]

While you're at it Marcus, you should wish for a magic poop-to-ice-cream converter. :D

In all honesty Marcus, I'm curious what you think about this question. Obviously, in order to satisfy a rapid worldwide response time, America needs bases in other countries. These are also used for refueling and supply.

So, do you think a low number of foreign bases are acceptable? Or do you think America should relinquish the idea of rapid worldwide response?

Bologna.

While I admire your attempt to explain away a worldwide military presence with logistics at the center of your argument, our worldwide military presence is nothing more than a constant, ever-present display of prowess.

Like in a troop of gorillas, the silverback must beat someone down every now and then to remind every other primate of its dominant role in their lives.

No different with America.

I would have given your argument more merit if you had brought up the treaties our government, and military by extension, must abide.

But then, it still wouldnt be an honest argument on either of our behalfs.

Honesty would say; America's military is everywhere because it can be. By proxy, it also protects American interests (that is, resource, money, geography, business, etc).

America projects its power in many ways, culture, television, politics, money, etc.

But the most important, and by far the most expensive, is our military. No one country...hell, no coalition of countries could ever get off their own ground to even mount resistance to American military might. We know it, but most importantly, they know it.

Marcus, IMO, simply wants to end that projection...for whatever his reasons may be.

I, for one, am similarly interested to see what the world would do without America policing its every move. Surely one or more of the major corporations in our country would go belly-up in no time...those businesses which operate in (for example) South America wherein the exploit the cheap land and labor there under the policies crafted by elected leadership between our country and theirs.

The moment our military stops (ergo, so deos the money in "aid"), I am quite sure the natives (and their leadership) would oust them from their country the very next day.

So, beyond a handful of major corps going down the tubes in a reeeeal hurry (and the subsequent banana shortage), what really changed?

For one, Europe would have to (once again) spend some significant portion of their GDP on defense, instead of hiding behind big brother. Lets see how long they can afford universal healthcare when their sovereignty is one conflict away from a distant history.

India and Pakistan would probably declare war in the first year, and it wouldnt end well.

China...I have no idea. I dont know the country, but I do know they hate Japan and Taiwan (Taiwan especially). I am quite sure there are more than a few Chinese diplomats old enough to remember WW2 and Japan's actions to them at the time.

Regardless, I wouldnt mind seeing the worldwide military presence brought to an end. It is my belief that a few portions of the globe would descend into war and chaos, but such is the cycle of humanity. I know one thing for sure...we'd have a helluva lot more money and FAR less taxes.

The world would burn, but we would have never lived better as Americans.

I fail to see a downside.

[ChumpDumper]

That's just your bigotted responce.It's pretty clear who the bigot is in this thread. You want to keep the Muslims under the boot of America, well, just because.


Remember, Clinton signed legislation to make regime change in Iraq, law!So now you are trying to change the subject from permanent military presence in Iraq.

More hypocrisy.

[spursncowboys]

Bologna.

While I admire your attempt to explain away a worldwide military presence with logistics at the center of your argument, our worldwide military presence is nothing more than a constant, ever-present display of prowess.

Like in a troop of gorillas, the silverback must beat someone down every now and then to remind every other primate of its dominant role in their lives.

No different with America.

I would have given your argument more merit if you had brought up the treaties our government, and military by extension, must abide.

But then, it still wouldnt be an honest argument on either of our behalfs.

Honesty would say; America's military is everywhere because it can be. By proxy, it also protects American interests (that is, resource, money, geography, business, etc).

America projects its power in many ways, culture, television, politics, money, etc.

But the most important, and by far the most expensive, is our military. No one country...hell, no coalition of countries could ever get off their own ground to even mount resistance to American military might. We know it, but most importantly, they know it.

Marcus, IMO, simply wants to end that projection...for whatever his reasons may be.

I, for one, am similarly interested to see what the world would do without America policing its every move. Surely one or more of the major corporations in our country would go belly-up in no time...those businesses which operate in (for example) South America wherein the exploit the cheap land and labor there under the policies crafted by elected leadership between our country and theirs.

The moment our military stops (ergo, so deos the money in "aid"), I am quite sure the natives (and their leadership) would oust them from their country the very next day.

So, beyond a handful of major corps going down the tubes in a reeeeal hurry (and the subsequent banana shortage), what really changed?

For one, Europe would have to (once again) spend some significant portion of their GDP on defense, instead of hiding behind big brother. Lets see how long they can afford universal healthcare when their sovereignty is one conflict away from a distant history.

India and Pakistan would probably declare war in the first year, and it wouldnt end well.

China...I have no idea. I dont know the country, but I do know they hate Japan and Taiwan (Taiwan especially). I am quite sure there are more than a few Chinese diplomats old enough to remember WW2 and Japan's actions to them at the time.

Regardless, I wouldnt mind seeing the worldwide military presence brought to an end. It is my belief that a few portions of the globe would descend into war and chaos, but such is the cycle of humanity. I know one thing for sure...we'd have a helluva lot more money and FAR less taxes.

The world would burn, but we would have never lived better as Americans.

I fail to see a downside.

I honestly think it is more military and strategic than jingoism.
As far as south america, us battling cuban and russian funded armies makes us exploiting them then I guess it depends how you perceive foreign policy affairs.us battling cuban and russian funded armies makes us exploiting them

[LnGrrrR]

Bologna.

While I admire your attempt to explain away a worldwide military presence with logistics at the center of your argument, our worldwide military presence is nothing more than a constant, ever-present display of prowess.

Like in a troop of gorillas, the silverback must beat someone down every now and then to remind every other primate of its dominant role in their lives.

No different with America.

I would have given your argument more merit if you had brought up the treaties our government, and military by extension, must abide.

But then, it still wouldnt be an honest argument on either of our behalfs.

Honesty would say; America's military is everywhere because it can be. By proxy, it also protects American interests (that is, resource, money, geography, business, etc).

America projects its power in many ways, culture, television, politics, money, etc.

But the most important, and by far the most expensive, is our military. No one country...hell, no coalition of countries could ever get off their own ground to even mount resistance to American military might. We know it, but most importantly, they know it.

Marcus, IMO, simply wants to end that projection...for whatever his reasons may be.

I, for one, am similarly interested to see what the world would do without America policing its every move. Surely one or more of the major corporations in our country would go belly-up in no time...those businesses which operate in (for example) South America wherein the exploit the cheap land and labor there under the policies crafted by elected leadership between our country and theirs.

The moment our military stops (ergo, so deos the money in "aid"), I am quite sure the natives (and their leadership) would oust them from their country the very next day.

So, beyond a handful of major corps going down the tubes in a reeeeal hurry (and the subsequent banana shortage), what really changed?

For one, Europe would have to (once again) spend some significant portion of their GDP on defense, instead of hiding behind big brother. Lets see how long they can afford universal healthcare when their sovereignty is one conflict away from a distant history.

India and Pakistan would probably declare war in the first year, and it wouldnt end well.

China...I have no idea. I dont know the country, but I do know they hate Japan and Taiwan (Taiwan especially). I am quite sure there are more than a few Chinese diplomats old enough to remember WW2 and Japan's actions to them at the time.

Regardless, I wouldnt mind seeing the worldwide military presence brought to an end. It is my belief that a few portions of the globe would descend into war and chaos, but such is the cycle of humanity. I know one thing for sure...we'd have a helluva lot more money and FAR less taxes.

The world would burn, but we would have never lived better as Americans.

I fail to see a downside.

DR, that was my whole point.

America's military is everywhere because it CAN BE. It CAN BE due to foriegn bases.

Either we keep these foriegn bases and the "be everywhere" capability, or we get rid fo those bases and the ability to be everywhere. I was wondering which Marcus would prefer.

Since you're in on the question DR, what do you think would be acceptable? Bases in a few foriegn areas? None at all?

How about acceptable response time? If, say, North Korea decides to attack us, should we have bases to supply and refuel along the way? Or should we just try to garner allies and request usage of their resources?

[Marcus Bryant]

Excellent work as always, DR.


Marcus, IMO, simply wants to end that projection...for whatever his reasons may be.

A military of that magnitude places the nation on a permanent war footing. It makes it easier for politicians to drag the nation into foolish wars. And, yes, it's freaking expensive. It also serves to increase the centralization of governance and national life. It invites corruption. How can $700 billion+ spent annually, with a large chunk going to private contractors not?

Conservatives worry about the nationalization of health care and the permanent state bureaucracy it would create, yet are content with the nationalization wrought by the permanent military bureaucracy. We're essentially continuing the Cold War, two decades past its end.

[Marcus Bryant]

How can you have any notion of a constitutional Republic when the federal state spends $700 billion per annum, with a sizable portion of that allocated through the political process to favored states and congressional districts? Localism is killed by the power of the purse.

[Wild Cobra]

So now you are trying to change the subject from permanent military presence in Iraq.
Liar.

That was my opinionated response to your question. Take it or leave it.

Are you really so stupid that I must spell out everything?

[Marcus Bryant]

Plus I don't think Americans should be heavily taxed to provide for logistical support for theoretical future wars to be created by politicians, outside of what is needed to maintain a national defense. Want to reduce the national debt? Want a tax cut? Start with the Pentagon.

[spursncowboys]

maintaining the military personnel and posts are not where the money is lost in. it's overpaying on all the equipment and planes and R&D.

[ChumpDumper]

Liar.

That was my opinionated response to your question. Take it or leave it.And it had nothing to do with a permanemt military presence in Iraq.


Are you really so stupid that I must spell out everything?No, you are really so stupid that you fail to realize just how astounding a level of hypocrisy you have achieved.

[ChumpDumper]

maintaining the military personnel and posts are not where the money is lost in.We make money off of those?

[LnGrrrR]

A military of that magnitude places the nation on a permanent war footing. It makes it easier for politicians to drag the nation into foolish wars. And, yes, it's freaking expensive. It also serves to increase the centralization of governance and national life. It invites corruption. How can $700 billion+ spent annually, with a large chunk going to private contractors not?

Conservatives worry about the nationalization of health care and the permanent state bureaucracy it would create, yet are content with the nationalization wrought by the permanent military bureaucracy. We're essentially continuing the Cold War, two decades past its end.

I agree that our military is larger than it should be, and take on missions that other nations would take on, if it were not for our willingness to do so.

What I'm wondering, Marcus, is where do you think we should draw the line at? A few foreign bases? None at all?

[Wild Cobra]

And it had nothing to do with a permanemt military presence in Iraq.

Are you really so stupid as to think I know that answer with any level of certanty?

My God man.

Go the fuck away.

[Marcus Bryant]

I agree that our military is larger than it should be, and take on missions that other nations would take on, if it were not for our willingness to do so.

What I'm wondering, Marcus, is where do you think we should draw the line at? A few foreign bases? None at all?

None.

[Marcus Bryant]

And, yes, I'm aware that would make it more difficult for the nation to go to war.

[Marcus Bryant]

We all look to Rom...er, Washington for our lead. All hail the Empe.....er, President and his legio....er, military.

[Ignignokt]

IF those countries want our bases there, then i don't see why the "F" we care.

[mavs>spurs2]

ChumpDumper at it again. Guys, don't even bother responding to this faggot, he only seeks to disrupt and get under your skin.

Just quit posting, you homosexual sycophant

[LnGrrrR]

And, yes, I'm aware that would make it more difficult for the nation to go to war.

Marcus,

Thanks for the response! I am not willing to pare things down as much as you are: I would like to keep a presence in a few foriegn countries, as I think it helps deter some countries from doing wrong, as well as gives us the modern day capability to attack anywhere that is needed.

I wouldn't mind closing a good deal of bases though, as well as limiting the amount of missions we perform.

If it makes you feel any better, I heard that Obama has proposed only a 1.5% increase for the military in 2011, which is quite lower than the annual 3.5% or so we've been getting. I expect though that he will be blasted for not caring about the troops, and be forced to raise it.

I'd like to think that my goal of closing a few bases/performing fewer missions is more realistic than yours Marcus, but at this point, they might BOTH be pipedreams.

[ChumpDumper]

Are you really so stupid as to think I know that answer with any level of certanty?

My God man.

Go the fuck away.I can answer with a decent level of certainty.

They really don't want us there on a permanent basis.

Really.

[ElNono]

Military bases abroad are a tacit admission that we simply do not trust who we call our allies. And I completely agree that the military complex is and has been always ripe for corruption. And it's not just contractors. Who can forget the bricks of money that flew into Iraq with basically no accounting whatsoever?

Nat sec has turned into just another excuse where money goes into a black hole. Much like 'protect the children' or 'the war on drugs'...

[DarkReign]

Since you're in on the question DR, what do you think would be acceptable? Bases in a few foriegn areas? None at all?

How about acceptable response time? If, say, North Korea decides to attack us, should we have bases to supply and refuel along the way? Or should we just try to garner allies and request usage of their resources?

Hmmm, interesting question...a valid one, too.

Two ways of answering, long or short. I usually prefer short and end up being long...

I dont want to pigeon hole your argument to just North Korea, as I am sure youre just using it as a (good) example.

So I'll pretend instead that there is an external threat from any and all countries.

In my mind, the American military's sole purpose is defense of the homeland. Not spreading democracy, protecting American interests abroad or assisting our handicapped "allies" up the staircase of foreign relations.

In the make-believe world I just created (because it will never happen), there are no international treaties like NATO. We absolve ourselves of the World Police responsibility and leave it (in its entirety) to the broken, defunct organizations like the UN. Let the bluehats figure out whats best for Europe, less involved we are, the better.

The UN is no tool of the United States. Yes, it absolutely caves to the demands of the USA, but thats only because we basically finance it at this moment. We'd still keep our veto vote, just as Russia and China keep theirs right now even though they dont do shit-on-a-stick with the UN.

We pull our financing in totality and overnight the UN becomes what it has always been...Europe's first foray into unilateral, continental decision-making.

We Americans do not have Europe's inherent disadvantages in that regard. We havent had a continental equal since...shit...I really cant name a time. Whereas Europe is literally brimming with equals at every border (at varying times...Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Britain, Sweden, Austria, Denmark, etc), all vying for the same resources, all distrustful of the other, all looking to advance beyond reproach, but sadly unable.

The US? Been there, did that. Came to preeminence quickly by any historical standard (if not the quickest). That mostly had to do with geography and origination...this has gone way off track...let me get back to point.

Ahem (short, my ass).

How many military bases/logistical locations should the US keep in an attempt to be able to resoind to global threats?

None. Zero.

I dont care that most of our bases are wanted by the natives. Wouldnt you, too? If your broke-ass, pre-20th century shithole of a nation was offered protectorate status to the most powerful nation to ever walk the planet at the minimal cost of resource and real estate, you'd be a fool to say no.

Which is why every "little guy" says yes to someone. Most of the time, the offer is accepted from the USA...other times in the past, the Soviet Union...but now, its exclusively the United States making and taking offers.

In the event that some dumbass country gets a wild hair up their ass to attack for whatever reason, we would just go to war with our checkbooks instead of an IOU list.

We'd pay (or conquer if need be) all the way to the enemy, making it expensive, risky and dangerous.

Which is exactly what war should be for Americans. When our nation is mobilized, it should take War Bonds to pay for it. Which means the entire country would have to be behind it, which means war would become a necessity, not a luxury.

Say what you will about WW2, Pearl Harbor, etc. Details are distracting at times. Bottom line: it was a war the American people believed in with every fiber of their flags. War Bonds sold like hotcakes. Some Americans were cutting into their food supplies to help the effort. A volunteer army of nearly one million sprang up literally overnight, recruiter centers around the country were overwhelmed.

Does it make WW2 more glamorous? No, it does not. But it does make it more justifiable when every American (ok 98%) were contributing directly to the war effort, at home and abroad.

What about Iraq? Afghanistan? Vietnam? Korea? Do you believe the American people would have so quickly done the same? I do not...and for good reason.

$1 trillion dollars is absolutely too much. How much was our GDP last year? Like $13 trillion, or something? That means $0.077 of every gross dollar made in this country was being spent on our military.

Too much. Too much, too much, too much. An outside threat, even under my scenario, stands no chance against us. None. They could never conquer, the could never hold territory, they could only strike, never kill.

And if its a war of "Who can hit the hardest the fastest", then they admitted defeat before they declared war. All the same, history will remember them with the Ottomans, Persia and the Soviet Union.

[admiralsnackbar]

The Newsweek story might indeed be premature

[Marcus Bryant]

The weird thing is that the qualities of war that necessitate national level industrial planning and rally citizens towards greater centralization of political power were attractive to some rather high profile progressives in the early 20th C. "Conservatives" now embrace that wholeheartedly. Even Beck has managed to figure that out.

[Marcus Bryant]

IF those countries want our bases there, then i don't see why the "F" we care.

Yeah, it's not like we have to pay taxes to maintain it or service the debt that paid for it.

[spursncowboys]

why did we invade iraq? They were distributing wealth more equal under saddam. That should be our goal in Iraq. Humans guaranteed the right to vote is a bumper sticker for red necks.

[admiralsnackbar]

What is that... libel? :lol

[Winehole23]

It's how SnC got his start way back in the day. Think droll. Think impersonation.

As in, SnC's impersonation of admiralsnackbar failed at delivery.

[spursncowboys]

way to maintain the high standards WH. Good to know if my writing style ever needed to be summed up short, with a personal spin, I can count on you.
Glad to see you hold Admiral's feet to your fire.

[Winehole23]

Glad to see you hold Admiral's feet to your fire.About what? I'm not the one who has a beef with him.

[spursncowboys]

The Newsweek story might indeed be premature

let me help you out.


The Newsweek story might indeed be premature

[spursncowboys]

copy and paste under the influence should be a crime
except there would be no liberal nonsense on the forum if that were the case.

[Winehole23]

You seem to see that as a waiver for the stupidity of Goldman's lame conceit that Iraq is a success and Republican policies laid the foundation for stability and progress. I don't.

Vive la difference.

[spursncowboys]

So the day the Iraqi people went to the streets to elect their leaders, you say saddam should still be in office with the world under the premise that he still has wmds. He would probably be at over 20 violated un resolutions.
here is a comment in an economist op ed http://www.economist.com/node/15606203/comments that I thought were pretty good.



vpemmer wrote:
Mar 8th 2010 4:51 GMT


I am appalled, but not surprised at the vitriol heaped on the West and the Iraqi people's work in wresting that country from first a particularly heinous and aggressive dictator and then from a savage cult straight from the middle ages.

To leave Irag in the hands of Sadaam and Sons would have been unforgiveable given the threat he posed to his own population, his neighbors, the integrity of the UN, and the security and prosperity of the advanced economies.

I respectfully submit that the people who are overflowing with recrimination concerning the West in Iraq now would be crying about the West's indifference to oppressed peoples, lamenting the West's crisis of confidence, and accusing it of a lack of backbone had it done nothing.

Further, I'll suggest that it is the prevalence of this Western self-recrimination that gives Ahmadinejad his careless courage.


Shamal Karim wrote:
Mar 5th 2010 2:27 GMT


I recently read that the IWW was cruel and unnecessary. The American Civil War was also certainly cruel but it was not unnecessary. While the casulties in Iraq pale in comparison the dark and dire age that was inflicted on the Iraqi people for decades by Saddam and his clan could only be resolved for Iraqis by some profound shift of energy. It could only be removed by voilent means unfortunately, as Hitler had to be. That change could only be brought about by the might of America and its allies. Iraq is seeing a new dawn. It will take time but we shall overcome.

[Marcus Bryant]

Why exactly are we bringing in comments from other forums? That's rather weak sauce.

As for the Civil War, are we sure it was "not unnecessary"? Yes, that's standard textbook American history, but was it really a given that the institution of slavery would have continued indefinitely, or that the union could not have reunified at some point later? Not to mention that perhaps it was avoidable altogether with an eventual end to slavery...

[Marcus Bryant]

Further, in the over 150+ nations on the Earth, there are quite a few candidates for "spreading democracy" and removing asshole dictators. When does the US military take them out, or is that just a weak justification for an ill-thought out war because someone tried to kill W's daddy?

[Winehole23]

So the day the Iraqi people went to the streets to elect their leaders, you say saddam should still be in office with the world under the premise that he still has wmds.I did not say that. Who did?


He would probably be at over 20 violated UN resolutions. Of course. The UN. We had their back, right?

[DarkReign]

Further, in the over 150+ nations on the Earth, there are quite a few candidates for "spreading democracy" and removing asshole dictators. When does the US military take them out, or is that just a weak justification for an ill-thought out war because someone tried to kill W's daddy?

I'll bite.

A vast majority of those nations who need some democracy spreadin' dont sit on a wealth of natural resource. A majority of those nations only have human resource, which isnt nearly as valuable.

[spursncowboys]

I did not say that. Who did?sorry that was a question.


Of course. The UN. We had their back, right?Now there is something to look at when it comes down to cutting spending.

[spursncowboys]

Why exactly are we bringing in comments from other forums? That's rather weak sauce.

As for the Civil War, are we sure it was "not unnecessary"? Yes, that's standard textbook American history, but was it really a given that the institution of slavery would have continued indefinitely, or that the union could not have reunified at some point later? Not to mention that perhaps it was avoidable altogether with an eventual end to slavery...

they were comments from the link I posted. I agree in the fact that to the north it was avoidable. However to the south i think that would have happened sooner or later.

[admiralsnackbar]

copy and paste under the influence should be a crime
except there would be no liberal nonsense on the forum if that were the case.

I'm sober, remarkably. At least for the time being. :toast

Looking past the allegation that you might be calling me a liberal (them's fightin' words, son!) are you implying that your defining characteristic of copy-pasting articles (in what I can only assume is a state of mind in which your precious bodily fluids are unsullied by alcohol) free of commentary is somehow a mark of your clear-eyed conservatism? That's awesome.

Anyway, apologies for any bunched panties about quoting the article you posted and being too lazy to tag it to your satisfaction.

[spursncowboys]

I'm sober, remarkably. At least for the time being. :toast

Looking past the allegation that you might be calling me a liberal (them's fightin' words, son!) are you implying that your defining characteristic of copy-pasting articles (in what I can only assume is a state of mind in which your precious bodily fluids are unsullied by alcohol) free of commentary is somehow a mark of your clear-eyed conservatism? That's awesome.

Anyway, apologies for any bunched panties about quoting the article you posted and being too lazy to tag it to your satisfaction.

I really thought you were misquoting me, not realizing it was the op. thanks for worring about my panties. sorry bout the lib quote :toast
if you need help getting sand out of your vagina, let me know. I got a way that worked for me.:toast

[admiralsnackbar]

I really thought you were misquoting me, not realizing it was the op. thanks for worring about my panties. sorry bout the lib quote :toast
if you need help getting sand out of your vagina, let me know. I got a way that worked for me.:toast

It's all good: I gots me one of those hand-held massaging shower heads :king

[Winehole23]

Enough towel-popping already. This is like, the second thread today that ended up *hitting the showers*. :lol

[Yonivore]

Enough towel-popping already. This is like, the second thread today that ended up *hitting the showers*. :lol
Showers? Towel Popping?
http://www.drudgereport.com/rf.jpg

I'm there!

[Winehole23]

Ah, that's the one. :tu

[LnGrrrR]

I'll bite.

A vast majority of those nations who need some democracy spreadin' dont sit on a wealth of natural resource. A majority of those nations only have human resource, which isnt nearly as valuable.

Beat me to it DR.

Of course, thinking in a realpolitik way, at least we only help out countries that we have a tangible reason for. If we actually stuck to our guns, and applied the idea of "democracy building" to the world at large, we'd be involved in 20+ countries by now.

[Winehole23]

The list of bad guys is similarly lengthy.