1. Could You Have Won the Battle of Gettysburg? This simulation of the battle is a test to pit your decisions as Robert E. Lee against what actually happened. If the South had won a major victory, some historians believe that it would have caused the Confederacy to gain international recognition and support from England and France, humiliated Abraham Lincoln, and resulted in a negotiated end to the war on the Confederacy's terms.
2. Ancestry.com has made available online more than 90 million U.S. war records from the first English settlement at Jamestown in 1607 through the Vietnam War's end in 1975. The records, which can be accessed free until the anniversary of D-Day on June 6, came from the National Archives and Records Administration and include 37 million images, draft registration cards from both world wars, military yearbooks, prisoner-of-war records from four wars, unit rosters from the Marine Corps from 1893 through 1958, and Civil War pension records, among others. (HT: Wired)
3. 101 Essential Blogging Resources
4. The Nine Biggest Myths of the Workplace
#1 You’ll be happier if you have a job you like.
The correlation between your happiness and your job is overrated. The most important factors, by far, are your optimism levels and your personal relationships. If you are a pessimist, a great job can’t overcome that. (Think of the jerks at the top.) And if you have great friends and family, you can probably be happy even if you hate your job (imagine a garbage collector who’s in love).
(HT: Lifehack)
5. John Mark Reynolds lists ten things he wished he had known on graduating from college ("These are not the most important things, just the things nobody told me that would have been useful."):
1. Friends matter. Don’t move around without considering the value of the community you have already made.
3. Don’t live for weekends, they are only 2/7 of the week. If your life is that bad, time for changes. Travel as much as you can in light of duty and sacrifice. (This is a great chance to go someplace and do hard labor for the poor with some friends.)
4. If you are bored, pretty much ever, there is something wrong. We live in the most fascinating culture of all time with almost unlimited chances and choices. Perhaps you are only living for self and not for a cause bigger than you are? I know, I know. It sounds Commencement-y, but you cannot be happy living only for self.
7. Matt Dabbs has compiled a list of the Most Blogged Scriptures (HT: Blogs4God)
8. According to a new study in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, repeated exposure to one person’s viewpoint can have almost as much influence as exposure to shared opinions from multiple people. This finding shows that hearing an opinion multiple times increases the recipient’s sense of familiarity and in some cases gives a listener a false sense that an opinion is more widespread then it actually is.
9. Top 50 People in the Bible: The most important people in the bible, derived by computing factors such as frequency of mentions and the dispersion of those mentions across biblical books and chapters. (HT: Blogs4God)
10. Bible Porn: Richard McBee's X-Rated Biblical Paintings --
Although Bible thumpers are considered the most vocal proponents of censorship, if they turned their critical eyes upon their own Bibles and eliminated the narratives about violence, sex, dangerous substances, dishonesty, genocide, crimes against humanity and sacrilege, all that would remain are the words "In the beginning."… Orthodox Jewish painter, Richard McBee (he signs in Hebrew, "Macabee") seeks out those very texts in his art. "Men are driven by amazingly similar desires," he told New Voices in a phone interview. "I am interested in the all-too-human [sexual] drive we share with our patriarchs and all those who have come before us."…
But to McBee, who defines pornography as that in which the "main or sole purpose is for the sexual stimulation of the viewer," his depictions of sexuality are something else entirely. Though his representation of women surely leaves room for criticism, McBee maintains their feminist credibility. "The Torah is screaming the importance of women who demand importance, who demand a role," he says. "Potifar's wife doesn't even have a name, but the Torah understands by putting her in such a position that she demands a voice. That's what's so important about these stories ‚ "it's sexuality as a venue to feminine entitlement. Without Tamar you would not have [King] David. Without Potifar's wife, you would not have Joseph's children."
11. What Was Jack Bauer's College Major? (Scroll down to the bottom for the section on "How You Can Become a Real-Life Jack Bauer") (HT: The A-Team Blog)
12. Want to improve your relationship? Do the dishes because you want to. according to new research from University of Rochester researcher Heather Patrick, partners who engaged in pro-relationship behavior because they wanted to--not because they felt pressured or obligated to--were more satisfied in their relationships, more committed to them, and felt closer to their mates following pro-relationship behavior experiences.
13. 52 Proven Stress Reducers (HT: Dumb Little Man)
14. Dennis Miller sums up the reason I supported (and still support) the invasion of Iraq: "When it comes to the possible slaughter of millions of people, it is better to err on the side of caution."
15. Dennis Prager on "outing" of gay conservatives:
Why is one's value system shaped by one's sexual orientation? Why does the fact that one is gay and engages in homosexual behavior mean that he must advocate redefining marriage? Why can heterosexuals think outside their sexual orientation and advocate same-sex marriage but homosexuals cannot think outside their sexual orientation and advocate retaining opposite-sex marriage?
16. What? There's a bullet in my head? (Part 1) - A Chinese grandmother has woken up in hospital after doctors finally took care of her persistent headaches — by removing a bullet from her brain.
Jin Guangying, 77, of Shuyang town, Jiangsu province, went to Shuyang Leniency Hospital for an X-ray, inset, only to be told the cause of her pain was an injury inflicted when she was 13.
She was shot in 1943 during the Second World War by the invading Japanese when she was taking supplies to her guerrilla father.
After herbal treatment from her mother, the war wound was forgotten - until surgeons plucked the rusty bullet from her skull.
17. What? There's a bullet in my head? (Part 2) -- Michael Lusher apparently is a sound sleeper. A small-caliber bullet struck the 37-year-old Altizer man in the head as he slept Sunday morning, but he didn't realize it until he awoke nearly four hours later and noticed blood coming from his head, said Cpl. R.H. McQuaid of the Cabell County Sheriff's Department. (HT: BoingBoing)
18. John Mark Reynolds on why he still supports the war:
In short, the War is only “bad” if one assumes that:
1. Sadaam could have been left in power without severe harm to the United States.
2. There was any easy place to get a start on draining the swamps of despotism in the Middle East. Iraq (because of its history) might have been a better place to start than most (more moderate history).
3. There is an alternative strategy to defeat terrorists that would lead to a lower loss of life.
4. The War is “endless” and we cannot win. This is not true (according to the commanders on the ground). This kind of insurgency has been defeated in the past (by the British for example), but it does take time and treasure. If the US endures, then we will almost certainly win.
19. The End of Cosmology (Part I) -- In an upcoming issue of The Journal of Relativity and Gravitation, physicists note that the since the universe is rapidly expanding, distant galaxies will eventually be moving away faster than the speed of light. Within a couple trillion years there won't have an empirical basis for modern cosmology.
Says Lawrence Krauss, a theoretical physicist at Case Western Reserve University, "[Future scientists/observers will] feel very special after that happens, because our tiny cluster of galaxies will be the observable universe to them" Without a cosmological frame of reference, Krauss explained, future observers will be clueless that their universe is still expanding. "It will be a sort of twisted situation, where thinking returns to what it was at the turn of the 20th century," says Krauss.
20. The End of Cosmology (Part II) -- After reading the above article, Frank Turk considers the implications for modern science:
Here's why I bring it up: what these people are saying is not that the laws of physics will have changed: they are saying that science will not be able to observe much of what would be necessary to predict or understand them. The underlying assumption is that this hasn't happened at least once already. Somehow people in the future could be victims of their own limited position and instruments but not us.
21. Philosopher William F. Vallicella on wealth and poverty:
Wealth and poverty are both overrated. Money cannot buy happiness. And non-possession is not the same as non-attachment. The poor are just as attached as the rich, the only difference being that they are attached to what they do not possess.
22. The Anchoress has a surprising proposal:
Oh, I think it’s definitely time. Let’s do it - let’s impeach President Bush, let’s have all of this brought forward and get it all investigated and put on the real, actual record, instead of in someone’s book of dreams and opinions or in a convenient, “bumperstickeresqe” meme. Let’s get all the tawdry lists and narratives together and finally get them “on the record and testified to.
As she points out for the pro-impeachment loonies, "once we finally lance the purulent boil that is George W. Bush - some of the pus splashes up on you…"
23. What can a Christian Missionary Learn from The Peace Corps?
24. Architecture idea: a skyscraper with a single floor. (HT: Kottke.org)
25. Mark Byron ponders whether spiritual warfare is more like boxing or judo.
26. The Momergency Kit's a small bag of trinkets, tools and doodads every parent should have when they're out and about with the kids in tow. (HT: Lifehacker)
27. Marvin Olasky on cultivating a "big world" curiosity:
Commencement speakers can speak sweet nothings and no one dies. But if a presidential candidate says or implies that it's a small world after all, don't vote for him. What he doesn't understand about other religions and societies could kill us.
(HT: WORLD magazine blog)
Here’s the latest example of a fascinating, though depressing, cultural phenomenon. A fellow who clearly knows nothing about a deep and difficult intellectual problem produces a manuscript purporting to resolve the problem definitively. Such a fellow is a crank, you might think, and will quite properly be ignored. But, no, he actually finds a publisher for his book, and a respected one at that. Even more surprisingly, the New York Times commissions a review of the book from a famous columnist, and, instead of exposing the book for the ignorant twaddle that it is, the columnist writes a glowing review. How does this happen?
Generally speaking, of course, it doesn’t. We have social institutions like the New York Times Book Review precisely in order to make sure that it can’t. Given the amount of material published nowadays, it’s essential to be able to sort the good from the bad, and we rely on prestigious publications like the Times Book Review to do part of the work for us. Book reviewers for this paper are expected to know something about the topics of the books they review, and they are expected to exercise informed judgment, separating the serious books from the intellectual junk in a basically fair sort of way. If a book like the one I describe makes it all the way to a positive review in the Times, there has been a serious failure of the epistemic institutions of our society.
And such there has been, and such there commonly are, when the subject is the philosophical treatment of religion.
(HT: Mirror of Justice)
29. Michael Spencer has "Five Good Thoughts About Evangelicals"
30. After the United States Postal Service introduced its new "forever" stamp-- which lock in the 41-cent rate forever--a man in Pennsylvania walked into a post office and bought $8,000 worth. Is it a good idea to invest in "forever" stamps? Slate.com's Nathaniel Rich says, "Absolutely not. Since 1971, postal rates have increased more slowly than the actual inflation rate, as measured by the U.S. Consumer Price Index. So, despite the numerous rate hikes over the last 36 years, stamps have actually been getting cheaper."
31. Nature's nuclear reactors:
Creating a nuclear reaction is not simple. In power plants, it involves splitting uranium atoms, and that process releases energy as heat and neutrons that go on to cause other atoms to split. This splitting process is called nuclear fission. In a power plant, sustaining the process of splitting atoms requires the involvement of many scientists and technicians.
It came as a great surprise to most, therefore, when, in 1972, French physicist Francis Perrin declared that nature had beaten humans to the punch by creating the world’s first nuclear reactors. Indeed, he argued, nature had a two-billion-year head start.1 Fifteen natural fission reactors have been found in three different ore deposits at the Oklo mine in Gabon, West Africa. These are collectively known as the Oklo Fossil Reactors.
(HT: Neatorama)
32. Stephen Webb examines David Sloan Wilson's new book ("Evolution for Everyone: How Darwin's Theory Can Change the Way We Think About Our Lives) and finds the "dirty Darwinian secret is now out of the closet: If evolution is true, then it must be true about everything."
33. 500 Years of Female Portraits in Western Art -- in 3 Minutes
(HT: Mere Orthodoxy)
I hate these 33-thing posts. They have too many good things and links. It's like an enormous time-suck bomb that drops into my inbox every week. Joe, couldn't you do us a favor, and put together less compelling content?
Joe, what would happen to you if you didn't support the Iraq war?
Seriously.
Bene,
Then the list would only be 32 things, and that wouldn't work right. It's *supposed* to be 33.
Collin
http://evangelicalperspective.blogspot.com
Thanks for the link to my blog. I ran into your blog a few months ago and really enjoy it. And thanks for all those other interesting links.
Wealth and poverty are both overrated. Money cannot buy happiness.
I think it was that well-known philosopher David Lee Roth who said: "Money can't buy happiness, but it can buy you a boat big enough to sail right up next to it."
Bene
Joe, what would happen to you if you didn't support the Iraq war?
Seriously.
If you had taken the time to read the article Joe linked to you would have seen these paragraphs:
The difficulty in a fast-moving media culture is that the good reasons for the War have not changed and so they seem “tired” to those with a short attention span. Global politics is not, however, a pop-culture music group. When the fall of Constantinople (1453) to the Turks is an event that still has political implications, events of just six years ago are not “old.”
Some good things (like marriage or fine wine) take time to develop. Some good political actions (like freeing slaves or liberating nations) also take time. Too many on both the left and right think in Internet speed for real world problems.
Your attitude, Bene, is typically short-sighted and selfish. Do you have any idea how childish and small it sounds?
I have a question for you. What would happen to you if you didn't support global warming alarmism?
Outing gay conservatives
Why is one's value system shaped by one's sexual orientation? Why does the fact that one is gay and engages in homosexual behavior mean that he must advocate redefining marriage? Why can heterosexuals think outside their sexual orientation and advocate same-sex marriage but homosexuals cannot think outside their sexual orientation and advocate retaining opposite-sex marriage?
It of course does not mean one has to 'redefine marriage'. Andrew Sullivan, for example, has argued that while he supports civil marriage for gays he does not think Churches should be pressured to change their stance against gay marriage and admits there are theological arguments why they should not. (Of course, no one is going to accuse me of 'outing' Sullivan).
However there is a difference between being an advocate for certain policies and being an outright hypocrite. Among conservatives there is a very vocal anti-gay faction and anti-gay doesn't mean just opposing gay marriage. It includes outright hostility to any tolerance or accomodation of gays. If such conservatives think that sexual orientation shouldn't matter then why use a phrase like 'the gay agenda'? That certainly sounds to me like sexual orientation matters to them.
Yes it is interesting how some of the those who have been very anti-gay (or have tolerated anti-gay extremists) have turned out to be gay themselves. Really, if someone is going around screaming about the gay agenda during the day and then crusing gay bars at night is there a point at which someone can someone actually say something without having to be bashed for 'outing' them?
Sullivan is a good example here. Pretend for a moment that he never made it public that he was gay. He has come out in support of gay marriage (civil marriage that is) and has opposed hate crime laws. In neither case would I say he should be 'outed'. On the other hand, if he was the ranting and raving type I would say enough is enough and he should be called out on it.
In short, the War is only “bad” if one assumes that:
1. Sadaam could have been left in power without severe harm to the United States.
Bush left him in power when he first came to office without any severe harm to the US. Even as a tyrant to his own people the last 8 years paled in comparision to the Reagan years when he was doing all the horrible things like gassing the Kurds that only recently neocons have discovered are unacceptable.
2. There was any easy place to get a start on draining the swamps of despotism in the Middle East. Iraq (because of its history) might have been a better place to start than most (more moderate history).
Bizaar. Bush campaigned against nation building and example #1 was Somalia. It's foolish to think we can or should forcibly remake the Middle East. For every reason you can list that would make Iraq a good place to start you can list a reason why it isn't. For example, Iraq may have been more moderate than, say Saudi Arabia, but it lacks a cohesive national identity. Even now it is clear that many Iraqi's think of themselves first as members of their tribe or ethnic group and Iraqi's second (a distant second).
3. There is an alternative strategy to defeat terrorists that would lead to a lower loss of life.
Errr, leave Iraq alone and concentrate on cleaning Afghanistan/Pakistan (the only place that actually housed the terrorists who attacked us). Use the hundreds of billions wasted to tighten security at the borders & boost intelligence.
4. The War is “endless” and we cannot win. This is not true (according to the commanders on the ground). This kind of insurgency has been defeated in the past (by the British for example), but it does take time and treasure. If the US endures, then we will almost certainly win.
Define win here. When we are done are we going to have an Iraq that's just like Germany or Japan? Ready to host MTV's next 'Real World'? Or are we going to have some dubious gov't, sort of like Iran under the Shah, that we will hardly be proud of spending so much to create? I honestly do not know and considering that this is turning into a way for Syria and Iran to fight a semi-proxy war against us by feeding the insurgency I'm not even sure you're right that we will eventually win.
jd quotes:
Yea but the Turks did not conquer Constantinople in 1453 to alter the world of 2007. They wanted to alter the world of 1453 and specifically they wanted Constantinople to be part of their little world rather than outside it and that's what they got....in 1453 and not 2007. The slaves that were free in 1866 wanted to be free in 1866...not marginally improve the GDP of the Southern states in 1966. War is horrendously destructive and expensive and anyone who tells us we should be patient with it is a fool.
Every decision we make carries with it an opportunity cost. That is the best benefit we could have gotten if we had choosen something else. The correct decision has an opportunity cost less than the benefit of the decision. In other words, if stock A yielded you $100 and the best stock you didn't buy would have yielded you $99 you got it right, if it would have yielded you $110 you got it wrong. Each year that goes by with us spending $200B+ and another 1,000 or so lives dramatically increases the chances that our opportunity cost will far exceed whatever benefit we get out of this.
Already it is quite clear we are NOT seriously engaging Iran, Syria or North Korea militarily because we are consumed with Iraq. On North Korea, in particular, Bush has essentially adopated Clinton's policy. Perhaps the benefit of engaging these countries with force is less than Iraq. On the other hand the fact is we are weaker now because our military is tied up in Iraq. Weaker than we would have been if our soldiers were at home training or abroad simply patrolling rather than engaged in a hot conflict.
The cost is mounting and those who are now going to argue that in the long run it's will be better should be reminded what Keynes said about the long run. In the long run we are all dead & it is too easy to just say when the storm is over the sea will be flat again.
Actually reading Prager's article on http://www.townhall.com/columnists/column.aspx?UrlTitle=on_outing_gay_conservatives&ns=DennisPrager&dt=04/03/2007&page=2 reveals just how warped the right is on this subject. On the page is a picture of gay rights protestors with this caption:
Prager writes:
Why do so many on the left believe it is OK to damage the lives of gay conservatives? Because they are certain that conservatives in general are bad people, not merely wrong on the issues. And because they particularly wish to punish any gay or black person who dissents from the liberal positions on gay and race issues.
But who is being incoherent here? If General Peter Pace believes gays are immoral then it's important to know who is gay (or committing gay acts) because that's immoral (at least it is important if those people are in leadership positions either in gov't or the media).
But Prager, when these gay people are conservative, would have us believe it is irrelevant. It's none of our business and an invasion of their privacy. But if that's the case then why shouldn't gays have equal rights and sexual orientation be considered irrelevant?
To use another analogy what if a drug legalization group started publishing pictures of noteable anti-drug politicians and commentators buying and smoking pot? Should we worry that we are ruining the life of a conservative who votes to ruin the lives of people who happen to smoke pot while he himself is happily toking up?
And, therefore, such people can be treated with great cruelty. Liberals publicly humiliated Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas in ways no public figure of our generation had ever been humiliated because he was a conservative black.
Actually the above is false. Thomas was humiliated because he was accused of sexual harassment. I don't doubt for a second if Scalia had someone accusing him of harassing her liberals would have refrained because he is white. But let's stick with the black-white paradign a bit.
Let's say Thomas was very light skinned so it wasn't obvious to many he was black. Let's say he was, as he is now, a vocal opponant of affirmative action. If his reasons had nothing to do with blackness then I'd say it wouldn't be right to 'out' him. On the other hand suppose his arguments were along the lines of David Duke...that blacks were inferior and bad and therefore it would be foolish to give them any help. I don't think it would be wrong for someone to point out the guy saying this is himself black and ask him to account for it. Does he consider himself inferior? If so then why should we abide by his recommendations? If not then why is he exempt from being inferior while he lumps others like him together as degraded?
It's one thing for someone to say they oppose gay marriage because of tradition or general conservatism (don't mess with something that seems to have worked). But face it, many, many, many conservatives are either explicit or very implicit in their opposition to gay marriage on the grounds that there is something bad about gays. At this point outing is indeed justified. If there is something bad about gays then conservatives are telling us we should question things a gay person tells us. Well if the conservative happens to be gay why should he suddenly be exempt?
Prager has more moral wisdom in his pinky that you could conjure up in a lifetime Boontoon.
Then he is clearly a very modest guy.
JD: I appreciate you flying to Joe's defense, no doubt he will too.
You continue to amaze me. The exercise you get jumping to conclusions is sobering.
If you wish to assume I don't follow links, that's fine.
The fact I'm one of 'those godless, socialist, wimpy Canucks' doesn't come between oneline friendships. Not from where I sit.
Why would you perceive my question as hostile?
We're adults, political or ideological differences between Joe and I take back seat to repect, regard, honour and mutual love for Jesus Christ.
"Your attitude, Bene, is typically short-sighted and selfish. Do you have any idea how childish and small it sounds?"
Sorry you feel that way JD. That was not the intent.
"I have a question for you. What would happen to you if you didn't support global warming alarmism?"
I don't know what global warming alarmism support means to you JD.
I've covered the full spectrum of environmental concerns in my career, from extremists to the disinterested, I don't understand your question.
I personally believe as part of worship to God and love for my neighbour it is wise I make careful and deliberate decisions to be a good stewart in/on/through the amazing world we've been given.
What ever choices I make, I do so in the knowledge the earth is the Lord's. However small, they are part of gratitude and wonder for the gift we've been given.
I would be poorer in spirit, in friendships, less thankful, less curious, more cynical. I'd be disinterested and uniformed when I went to vote, perhaps less likely to extend a hand in a heat wave, a cold snap, a natural disaster. I'd dismiss responsibility I hold to the next generation. less involved in encouraging the kids in the family.
I don't see life and how we live it as compartmentalized JD.
How ever I've decided to reduce my carbon footprint or involve myself in global warming issues, I think those choices need to be flexible, prayerful, open, an example, and above all,an opportunity for Grace.
I see no reason to pretend I've answered your question to your satisfaction, you've been careful to convey your contempt.
Boonton,
So when Constantinople was conquored it was only for the moment and not for the future? The conquerors may not have seen the future but wanted it none the less.
War is terrible. But what shall we do about Darfur? Send in troops? Pay off agressors with trade deals? What would work? Why not the same for Iraq? Why at all? Of the few things worse than war, to be so naive about the human condition is up there.
Collin
http://evangelicalperspective.blogspot.com
Bene wrote:
I don't know what global warming alarmism support means to you JD.
And I don't know what support for the Iraq War means to you.
Seriously.
So when Constantinople was conquored it was only for the moment and not for the future? The conquerors may not have seen the future but wanted it none the less.
No, I don't deny that Constantinople's defeat still has impact today just like the fall of Troy has impact today and so on. The purpose of invading Constantinople or for the Trojan War, though, was not to impact things 2,000 years in the future but to impact the present. Don't sit there and tell us that this war may make something good happen 500 years from now. Sure it might but so what? We aren't living 500 years from now but now and our focus is properly on now.
War is terrible. But what shall we do about Darfur? Send in troops? Pay off agressors with trade deals? What would work? Why not the same for Iraq? Why at all? Of the few things worse than war, to be so naive about the human condition is up there.
It's interesting you would imply that war skeptics are naive about the human condition. Was it the skeptics who predicted that we would be greeted with hugs and flowers? Was it the skeptics who thought the occupation and rebuilding could be done by handing off a few copies of The Federalist (in Arabic translation I assume) and shipping off in a month or two? Was it the skeptics who disbanded the Iraqi army assuming all the troops would take their weapons home and hang them on top of their mantles? Was it the skeptics who ignored the warnings from career generals that an occupation would require more not fewer men?
After all these blunders now we are told to just wait a few score years (or maybe a few hundred, we mustn't be so impatient) and we'll hardly notice the impact of this war.
Everything we do invests, or attempts to invest, in the future.
I don't think all war skeptics are naive. Just a few. It's the petty politics for power that really bothers me. One group wants to be a world police force. The other wants to export democracy like any other product. Few want to protect our borders. And all while we on the sidelines really have clear idea what's really happening in DC.
Meanwhile we have a threat that's been developing significantly for several decades (centuries, really). Some pacify this enemy by not doing anything significant and others think conventional war is the answer. Neither is an adequate response as history has shown and is showing. Democracy does not change theology, as we see in Lebanon.
Back during the Carter years, President Carter had the chance to bring down the Soviet Union -- the grain embargo showed the world how vulnerable was their economy. And that opened the door for Ronnie & HW. Now the Dems again have the chance to prove themselves by bankrupting the oil producers. It can be framed patriotically (with suitable decorum), and whoever does this can win. It will greatly reduce the enemy's ability to make future war.
(I'm astonished that no bleeding-heart lib has yet come out and said that we need to keep buying oil so that we don't cause people to starve when the oil economies go bankrupt.)
What ability to make war? The Iraqi insurgents aren't using oil money. Weapons and explosives are dirt cheap in Iraq. If you're talking about 9/11, it doesn't take billions to get 12 people to cause mayham. Tim McVeigh did it for a few hundred dollars.
Part of the problem here is your deluding yourself into thinking the Arab world is some type of monolithic superpower. It's more like a monolithic welfare family with plenty of domestic abuse and some outside violence. It has a handful (yes a handful) of anti-social mistfits and a lot of dysfunction everywhere else and its primary victims are not the US or even Israel but themselves.
Everything we do invests, or attempts to invest, in the future.
Yes yes that's true and again so what? Are you seriously telling me this administration has the ability to plan 500 years into the future? Or that you do? Reality is no one does which is why anyone selling you an investment whose payout is far into the future better have a pretty big risk premium built into it.
What ability to make war? The Iraqi insurgents aren't using oil money.
You're correct in the particular but I believe not in the macro economic sense. The regional economy requires oil.
Yes yes that's true and again so what? Are you seriously telling me this administration has the ability to plan 500 years into the future?
Nonsense. What I'm saying is that the Left is being pretty short-sighted. (And so is much of the Right, for that matter.)
You're correct in the particular but I believe not in the macro economic sense. The regional economy requires oil.
True but let's be clear about two things here:
1. You are not going to bankrupt oil economies. I don't care what you're proposing whether its ethanol, coal to gas or whatnot there's plenty of money still left that will go to anyone who happens to be sitting on billions of barrels of easy to get oil.
2. Where was the huge oil revenues for Sudan or Bosnia? Or even Afghanistan for that matter? You don't need to have lots of money to have a really nasty and really long civil war/insurgency on your hands. Again bullets, guns and explosives are cheap and even in very poor areas there are people who have money.
Nonsense. What I'm saying is that the Left is being pretty short-sighted. (And so is much of the Right, for that matter.)
Look I'm sure this war will have some impact on the world 500 years from now. I'm honest enough to tell you I have no idea what it will be and I'm not even sure people 500 years from now will be able to untangle it. Quick, tell me exactly what impact Constantinople falling in 1453 has today? How would today be different if it had fallen in 1455 or 1449 or 1575 or if it didn't fall at all? You can spin the what-if's all day long and maybe get an idea or two for a good alternate-history novel but that's not the same as really knowing.
No one ever said this war wouldn't have very long term consquences. The fact is there's no pratical way to tell what they will be if you're talking about timelines that extend hundreds of years into the future. If you want to say maybe something good will happen 500 years from now because of this war then fine maybe it will. But that's hardly much of an argument for the war. Something really bad may happen 500 years from now because of it. Using this as an argumen't isn't being long-sighted, it's just being silly....or shall I say desperate since it's getting harder and harder to argue this war hasn't been incredibly wasteful and of dubious value if you're looking at the short term which is anotehr way of saying right now!
Okay JD;
I didn't ask you.
Don't give yourself a headache.
jd: "I think it was that well-known philosopher David Lee Roth who said: 'Money can't buy happiness, but it can buy you a boat big enough to sail right up next to it.' "
jd brought forth a comment that made me smile. He usually makes me mad or frustrated. This is a red letter day from this moment on. I was going to make negative comments about Joe's unflagging support for the war, but now I'm not in the mood. I'm going to fix a couple of drinks and help my wife make supper just because I want to.
Hypothetical:
If I give you that Iraq cannot be "won" in any real sense then ...
Why do anything in Darfur?
And the more important question ...
Can Islam ever be defeated or is its goal inevitable? (I'm sure glad that Europe from 10th to 15th c. didn't have your defeatest attitude.)
Can Islam ever be defeated or is its goal inevitable? (I'm sure glad that Europe from 10th to 15th c. didn't have your defeatest attitude.)
We are not fighting Islam and Islam is not fighting us. However the answer to your question is no, Islam cannot 'be defeated' as any real attempt to defeat it would result in betraying our values of freedom and our humanity. If you can tell me how you defeat half a billion or a billion people without paying such a price let me know. I'll point out to you we seem to have drifted pretty far from the original plan of invading Iraq in order to stop WMD's from falling into terrorist hands. On the bright side, Islam is even more unlikely to defeat us.
Now if you're talking Islamicism or fundamentalism that's a different story. They lost the war the moment they decided to start it, the only question is how many they will get killed before its over.
If I give you that Iraq cannot be "won" in any real sense then ...
Why do anything in Darfur?
I'm not sure I follow the premise of this question at all. Are we holding off doing anything in Darfur until we iron out the kinks in Iraq? I guess we better hope the genocide is still going on in a few years so we will have something to do when we finish up in Iraq.
If your question is what can we possibly do in Darfur if we can't solve Iraq....that kind of smacks of a needless fatalism. It's like you're assuming our only options are full scale invasion and occupation or NOTHING. And if the former doesn't work everywhere then it can't work anywhere therefore we have nothing left.
I think there's plenty of things one can do short of war in many situations. No, they don't always work but it hardly seems like we have tried to do anything about Darfur except a few sanctions that Bush recently advocated.
We are not fighting Islam and Islam is not fighting us. However the answer to your question is no, Islam cannot 'be defeated' as any real attempt to defeat it would result in betraying our values of freedom and our humanity.
How were we able to defeat National Socialism, Fascism, Communism, slavery, and monarchism without betraying our "values of freedom and our humanity"? The "Islam" we are fighting is not so much a religion as it is an ideology, largely influenced by National Socialism; why could we defeat those other "isms" without losing our humanity, etc., but not "Islamism"?
I think there's plenty of things one can do short of war in many situations.
Like what? Sanctions? Would anybody else support them? They didn't support them in Iraq. In fact that was one of the arguments for deposing Saddam; that the sanctions regime that was ostensibly keeping him for developing WMD's wouldn't hold. The picture is similar in the Sudan with China making oil deals with the regime responsible for the genocide in Darfur.
We are not fighting Islam and Islam is not fighting us.
Then you do not understand their outlook.
If your question is what can we possibly do in Darfur if we can't solve Iraq....that kind of smacks of a needless fatalism.
Fatalism, no. It's the proposition that an incursion into Darfur, inserting ourselves into a region to serve our intents or purposes, may very well yield a similar result.
It's like you're assuming our only options are full scale invasion and occupation or NOTHING.
Occupation? That's what Pelosi asked for. I've not proposed such, and have suggested the opposite -- help create something like Lebanon. But if you won't try even now that we're there -- that smacks of fatalism.
How were we able to defeat National Socialism, Fascism, Communism, slavery, and monarchism without betraying our "values of freedom and our humanity"? The "Islam" we are fighting is not so much a religion as it is an ideology, largely influenced by National Socialism; why could we defeat those other "isms" without losing our humanity, etc., but not "Islamism"?
Are you talking about Islam? In that case you're talking about something much older, more diverse and more entrenched than National Socialism, Communism etc. Are you talking about Islamicism? In that case perhaps you should remind yourself that we defeated countries dedicated to National Socialism, Fascism, Communism etc. There are and will always be individuals and groups dedicated to those things.
Like what? Sanctions? Would anybody else support them? They didn't support them in Iraq. In fact that was one of the arguments for deposing Saddam; that the sanctions regime that was ostensibly keeping him for developing WMD's wouldn't hold. The picture is similar in the Sudan with China making oil deals with the regime responsible for the genocide in Darfur.
This is where skilled diplomacy comes in. Again does it always work? No. But then again neither does war.
Collin
Then you do not understand their outlook.
Out of one billion Muslims we have had 12-20 attack us directly. Perhaps factoring in 'back office operations' of other attacks besides 9/11 you may be able to push that figure up to 100, maybe 200. Perhaps I don't understand their outlook but their will to follow through seems pretty shoddy.
Occupation? That's what Pelosi asked for. I've not proposed such, and have suggested the opposite -- help create something like Lebanon. But if you won't try even now that we're there -- that smacks of fatalism.
Asked for an occupation of Iraq? What do we have now? An ice cream social? And why would you consider it a good thing to 'help create something like Lebanon'?
You've missed the material showing the high level of acceptance of the suicide actions.
It's Nancy who's talked permanence. But even if we were to remain, where's your commensurate complaint about the Balkans, Somalia, Korea, Europe, Haiti, Philipines (?), and the rest of our other permanent bases and peace keeping occupations? Too many complaints on Iraq are merely partisan and devoid of historical context.
Because Lebanon is relatively stable and relatively free. Apart from Hez, it is a useful example of what can be done -- a logical stepping stone -- though certainly not an example of a final soution.
Bene:
This is a public forum, Bene. If you wanted only Joe's response, you could have emailed him.
Any question about support for the war--which you obviously don't support--begs to be answered by many of the posters here, don't you agree? Hoping that your question is provocative enough to lure Joe, you pretend that your question isn't provocative when someone else answers. Then you rebuke me for being hostile. I wasn't hostile in my responses to you. I thought your question was "selfish and childish," and used one of the links in Joe's article to show you why. If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
Are you talking about Islam? In that case you're talking about something much older, more diverse and more entrenched than National Socialism, Communism etc. Are you talking about Islamicism? In that case perhaps you should remind yourself that we defeated countries dedicated to National Socialism, Fascism, Communism etc. There are and will always be individuals and groups dedicated to those things.
Not sure what you are getting at here. Are you saying that the reason we were able to defeat National Socialism, Communism, etc. without losing our humanity and values is because we were fighting countries and not "individuals and groups"? That there is some significant difference between fighting a totalitarian nation-state and fighting a totalitarian group (largely supported by nation-states) that imperils our humanity and values?
This is where skilled diplomacy comes in. Again does it always work? No. But then again neither does war.
Maybe if we offer China Taiwan, they will help us out in Darfur. Seriously, people who talk about using diplomacy, especially "smarter diplomacy" seem to have an even less of an understanding of the limitations of diplomacy than they imagine those who support war have of the limitations of war. Let's look at Darfur, China is doing business, particularly oil business, with the Sudan. I think it is safe to assume that they now what is going on in Darfur and the Sudanese government's involvement, so the question is why are they willing to do business with a government that supports genocide? Probably because they don't care about human rights or at the very least care more about oil. So what to do? Diplomacy is using a combination of carrots and sticks to induce a country to do something that they don't see in their interest. What carrots and sticks would you be willing to use to get China to stop doing business with the Sudan and why do you think they would work? Since they seem to be concerned about oil, instead of offering them Taiwan, we could offer them ANWR; we don't seem to want to use it.
It's Nancy who's talked permanence. But even if we were to remain, where's your commensurate complaint about the Balkans, Somalia, Korea, Europe, Haiti, Philipines (?), and the rest of our other permanent bases and peace keeping occupations? Too many complaints on Iraq are merely partisan and devoid of historical context.
Speaking of context, Korea is not Iraq. Europe is not Iraq. Haiti is not Iraq. The Balkans is not Iraq. Our intervention in those places did not turn into costly fiascos while our intervention in Iraq has. It's a fallacy to try to force critics to adopt an invalid consistancy of "If you want out of Iraq you must want us out of Europe, Korea, etc.". Each intervention, presence, occupation or whatnot has to be addressed based on its own unique history and circumstances.
Because Lebanon is relatively stable and relatively free. Apart from Hez, it is a useful example of what can be done -- a logical stepping stone -- though certainly not an example of a final soution.
What exactly did WE do to make Lebanon stable and free aside from a very brief expedition in the 80's? It seems to me that all the sides basically exhausted themselves fighting and agreed to cool it down.
ucfengr
Not sure what you are getting at here. Are you saying that the reason we were able to defeat National Socialism, Communism, etc. without losing our humanity and values is because we were fighting countries and not "individuals and groups"?
Very simple, we defeated countries that were dedicated to National Socialism, Communism etc. (in the case of Communism you could argue that many Communist countries ended up defeating themselves). You don't mean that we defeated National Socialism or Communism in the sense that we defeated every individual who supports or believes in those ideologies. How would you propose we do that?
When people say things like 'we are fighting Islam' they are living in a fantasy world. In the Middle East our relations with Saudi Arabia, probably the most Islamic of Islamic countries, is almost as close as our relationship with Israel. In both Iraq and Afghanistan we are defending Constitutions that explicitly declare those countries to be Islamic (although with provisions for religious freedom).
Maybe if we offer China Taiwan, they will help us out in Darfur.
Taiwan is ours to give?
Seriously, people who talk about using diplomacy, especially "smarter diplomacy" seem to have an even less of an understanding of the limitations of diplomacy than they imagine those who support war have of the limitations of war.
This would seem to imply that the current administration has exercised the smartest diplomacy possible and there's no benefit left to trying to use smarter diplomacy. If you believe that then you probably believe the Republican from the last Congress who told the press that all pork and waste had been eliminated from the budget.
Let's look at Darfur, China is doing business, particularly oil business, with the Sudan. I think it is safe to assume that they now what is going on in Darfur and the Sudanese government's involvement, so the question is why are they willing to do business with a government that supports genocide?
Probably for a host of reasons just as we did business with Saddam's Iraq during the 1980's. Aggressive diplomacy might do some good. It might get China to exert pressure on Sudan or it might even get Sudan to moderate its act a bit. Every little bit helps and little bits add up. During the last 40 years there were all sorts of campaigns to get oppressive gov'ts to free jailed advocates, writers etc. While these letter writing campaigns didn't overturn any gov'ts that I'm aware of it did shine a spotlight on those gov'ts and made them a bit less willing to misbehave. Then again it might work but I'm not exactly sure what the objection here is to trying. While we are at it what exactly are you even talking about. 'WE' are not doing anything in the Sudan beyond some diplomatic moves and some sanctions. 'WE' aren't sending troops, 'WE' have no plans to send troops and 'WE' don't even seem to have the idea of sending troops on the table. Is this another right wing fantasy like the 'war on Islam' above?
What carrots and sticks would you be willing to use to get China to stop doing business with the Sudan and why do you think they would work? Since they seem to be concerned about oil, instead of offering them Taiwan, we could offer them ANWR; we don't seem to want to use it.
What if Bush went to China for a Presidential visit (a big deal) and asked them both privately and publically? They might say yes (then again even if China cut off the Sudan they may still insist on continuing). They may say they'll think about it. Either way the publicity would pressure both China, the Sudan and others to address the issue. At least it would be there and would become a factor in the decisions made.
I guess I'm a bit better negotiator than you. Instead of offering US land in ANWR I'd first consider making it a bit harder for Wal-Mart to purchase billions from China. If they weren't making so many plastic toys for us they wouldn't need as much oil :)
Speaking of context, Korea is not Iraq. Europe is not Iraq. Haiti is not Iraq. The Balkans is not Iraq. Our intervention in those places did not turn into costly fiascos while our intervention in Iraq has.
Your perspective of history seems to start about, oh, RIGHT NOW. A reading of the history of our conflicts in Europe (the one in 1914 and in 1939) and Korea would show at several times during and in the aftermath they looked like they could become "costly fiascoes", but we determined to persevere and things turned out fairly well (the 1914 one arguably didn't turn out well).
Very simple, we defeated countries that were dedicated to National Socialism, Communism etc. (in the case of Communism you could argue that many Communist countries ended up defeating themselves).
So, there is something magical about a group or individual that makes defeating them impossible, for the US at least, but a country we can handle? Using this logic, the US should stop fighting organized crime, because they are not a country, so we could never defeat them without losing our humanity and values.
You don't mean that we defeated National Socialism or Communism in the sense that we defeated every individual who supports or believes in those ideologies. How would you propose we do that?
Sounds like you are arguing that defeating "Islamism" requires defeating every individual who supports or believes it, an argument I never made, but that defeating these other "isms" only defeating it's main country sponsor. Why the double-standard?
Taiwan is ours to give?
Since Taiwan's independence from the PRC is largely dependent on our guaranteeing their defense, yeah, pretty much.
Probably for a host of reasons just as we did business with Saddam's Iraq during the 1980's.
Nice little bit of moral equivalence. What limited support we provided Iraq in the 1980's was in response to Iran. Even at that, we didn't do a lot of business with Iraq, most of their military gear came from Russia and France as did their nuclear equipment.
Aggressive diplomacy might do some good.
What the heck does "aggressive diplomacy" mean? It's one of those vague terms that really doesn't mean anything without specifics attached.
It might get China to exert pressure on Sudan or it might even get Sudan to moderate its act a bit.
How, specifically?
While these letter writing campaigns didn't overturn any gov'ts that I'm aware of it did shine a spotlight on those gov'ts and made them a bit less willing to misbehave.
Yes, a couple of strongly worded letters from Richard Gere, Rosie O'Donnell, and....Carrot-top ought to do the trick. Maybe we could get Bowser from Sha Na Na involved too. That would show them. There really seems to be a disconnect here. In the Sudan, people are being slaughtered, and you think a letter writing campaign is an appropriate response. I know it is said "that the pen is mightier than the sword", but I don't think that statement is made to be taken literally. If you are not willing to use force in the Sudan, than you are not serious about wanting to stop the genocide.
I support the war in Iraq because we are responsible, as a result of our invasion, for setting up a stable government that can provide security and guarantee basic freedoms for Iraqis. We haven't done that yet, although we are making progress every day, after some serious backsliding in 2006.
I support the March 2003 invasion of Iraq because it liberated Iraq from a brutal totalitarian dictator, and because setting up a democracy in Iraq killed two birds with one stone: it eliminated the threats posed by Saddam's regime, such as WMD's and potential alliances with terrorists; and it demonstrated that Muslims and Arabs and Muslim Arabs can set up and maintain a liberal democracy.
But of course, the great experiment in democracy was derailed by a sectarian civil war, so our plan failed miserably and was a huge, tragic mistake, right?
Not exactly. The democracy has already pulled off three legitimate national elections. The sectarian civil war is being held at bay, for now, and only started in the first place because outside agitators (Sunni Al Qaeda, Shiite Iranians, and others) realized the monumental stakes and poured men and money and weapons into Iraq in a desperate bid to destroy the democratic regime.
Walking away now, or before Iraq is stabilized, would be serving up victory to our enemies on a silver platter. And it would also mean abandoning hundreds of thousands of our friends in Iraq to torture, murder, and theocracy.
Funny thing is, when it came to putting his vote where his mouth is, even Sen. Harry "we've lost the war" Reid ended up agreeing with me. There's hope for the Democrats yet!
Oh, and don't forget about the nuclear bomb that Iran wants to build.
Who exactly is going to stop the mullahs if we bug out of Iraq? And who is going to stop all the other regimes in the Middles East from scrambling to get a bomb once Iran gets a few?
And who is going to clean up the mess when the eastern Mediterranean suffers a dozen or so nuclear craters in the next regional war? Or when we nuke Tehran after some Iranian-backed terrorist bombs New York and Washington?
I agree with Boonton that Islam won't conquer the world, but Islamism can sure f**k it up real good if we don't get serious. I don't want to see that happen, especially when we haven't given it our best shot in Iraq first.
ucfengr
Your perspective of history seems to start about, oh, RIGHT NOW. A reading of the history of our conflicts in Europe (the one in 1914 and in 1939) and Korea would show at several times during and in the aftermath they looked like they could become "costly fiascoes", but we determined to persevere and things turned out fairly well (the 1914 one arguably didn't turn out well).
In other words there's precedent for both successful wars that had their bad periods and wars that were fiascos. That fact does not tell us if Iraq is going to turn out to be good or bad. Right now we know the war has been horribly mismanaged and it has cost us greatly. On that account those responsible should be held accountable.
Sounds like you are arguing that defeating "Islamism" requires defeating every individual who supports or believes it, an argument I never made, but that defeating these other "isms" only defeating it's main country sponsor. Why the double-standard?
I'm not the one who put forth the argument that we are 'fighting Islam' and then asked the question of whether we can 'defeat Islam'. Last I heard Islam was a religion with about a billion followers of various sects, degrees of devotion etc. I have no idea what you guys are trying to say here. If you want to know if we can defeat all those people then the answer is no. If you mean something else then please articulate it.
Nice little bit of moral equivalence. What limited support we provided Iraq in the 1980's was in response to Iran. Even at that, we didn't do a lot of business with Iraq, most of their military gear came from Russia and France as did their nuclear equipment.
I believe sanctions were proposed by the Congress and rejected by the Reagan administration (I don't know if it came to a veto or not). Exactly why is it ok to 'do a little business' with a regime that is engaging in genocide and then 20+ years later declare that genocide is a partial reason to invade?
What the heck does "aggressive diplomacy" mean? It's one of those vague terms that really doesn't mean anything without specifics attached.
I gave you a specific example. Wasn't Bush in China not too long ago?
Yes, a couple of strongly worded letters from Richard Gere, Rosie O'Donnell, and....Carrot-top ought to do the trick. Maybe we could get Bowser from Sha Na Na involved too. That would show them. There really seems to be a disconnect here. In the Sudan, people are being slaughtered, and you think a letter writing campaign is an appropriate response.
What's odd is that these are the type of people that are taking action now. Aside from some of the more recent activity the only stuff I've seen about the Sudan has been various groups taking out ads, holding marches etc. I have seen next to nothing from world leaders. You cry over people being slaughtered yet you mock those who are trying and try to convince us that somehow supporting Bush's Iraq policy is really doing something about Darfur.
Matt
Funny thing is, when it came to putting his vote where his mouth is, even Sen. Harry "we've lost the war" Reid ended up agreeing with me. There's hope for the Democrats yet!
Two different issues here. First was the war properly handled up to this point and the second is what should be done from this point onwards. I think the answer to the first one is obvious. Bush's answer has been pretty obvious as well. He takes no real responsibility for any of this.
Now you're right, no one has a good handle on what to do now and the ideas run the course from get out now, get out slowly, all the way to let's just keep it going to see if it gets better. Congress cannot effectively run foreign policy except when matters get so intolerable that extreme action has to be taken like simply cutting off funding.
Oh, and don't forget about the nuclear bomb that Iran wants to build.
Who exactly is going to stop the mullahs if we bug out of Iraq? And who is going to stop all the other regimes in the Middles East from scrambling to get a bomb once Iran gets a few?
Ironically this war is almost certainly the cause of both Iran and N.Korea's nukes. The lesson of Saddam's Iraq to these countries is very clearly "make sure you really have WMD's you can use because not having WMD's won't protect you from invasion". Fair or not the military option here is off the table so the answer to your question is "No one will stop them". The Bush administration won't admit this but they have all but accepted it resorting to...someone restrain ucfengr!....'aggressive diplomacy' as their last resort. The reality of this war, though, is that we are going to have to live with a nuclear Iran and North Korea. Perhaps a democratic Iraq and long term peace there will make the trade off fair.
Do you seriously believe we have the ability to invade and occupy Iran? I don't think we do.
And who is going to clean up the mess when the eastern Mediterranean suffers a dozen or so nuclear craters in the next regional war? Or when we nuke Tehran after some Iranian-backed terrorist bombs New York and Washington?
And we think George Bush and his policymakers will clean this up for us?
ucfengr,
Ah, yes, the old "america will only lose wars when americans fail to support the war effort" frame....if we, as a nation could just gather the will to persevere democracy will spread throughout the middle east and all would be well. Failure in Iraq is the fault of the 75% of Americans who don't see the wisdom of our glorious decider's plan.
Forget the war on terror, what's needed is a war on those Americans who won't support Bush! Right, Ucfengr?
You cry over people being slaughtered
Truth is, I am not crying over Darfur, not because I don't think it is horrible, but because I just don't have enough spare emotion.
yet you mock those who are trying and try to convince us that somehow supporting Bush's Iraq policy is really doing something about Darfur.
I had no idea Carrot-top and Bowser were so socially conscious. I guess you do learn something new every day. It's true I am mocking them. I think the idea that writing letters and leading marches 10,000 miles away is a pretty pointless response to armed thugs who are murdering and raping woman and children is worth mocking. The letters serve more to edify the writers and marchers than to make any real attempt to stop the murder. If you found out your child had some deadly disease, would you right a letter to the disease? No, you would take action.
JD;
Colin understood the creative intent in the 'what if' imagery at #2. He was able to be open and playful.
No one in this thead expressed being threatened or trolled, no one expressed insecurity at the question, except you; a hint of the trait of loyalty. I trust it stands you in good stead.
No accusations or concern from others about malicious intent. Discussions were not disrupted.
Again, I commend you for your desire and need to defend Joe,this blog, and its community.
I do not accept responsibly for your assumptions and regret explanations are unacceptable to you.
I did not quarrel with your answer to #2, your beliefs were not diminished or mocked.
You ask:
"Any question about support for the war--which you obviously don't support--begs to be answered by many of the posters here, don't you agree?"
That is the commenters decision, if they wish to, then I agree.
Your words:
"Your attitude is typically short-sighted, and selfish, childish, small; global warming alarmist, anti war, provocative, pretend, luring, rebuke, hostile, heat, get out"
I have no interest in promoting triagulation, false consensus effect or projection.
I believe this is what you are looking for.
JD: You say, the question at #2 was'typically short-sighted, selfish, childish and small.'
We are not communicating,
I'm calling it.
Double bind, no win.
I withdraw the question.
Bene:
I guess we are not communicating. I have never seen such indirect writing. Do you ever come out and say what you mean?
You say that "Colin understood the creative intent in the 'what if' imagery at #2. He was able to be open and playful."
Colin also didn't take you seriously. Is that what you wanted? Somehow I doubt it. You seem excruciatingly earnest to me.
You say that "what would happen to you if you didn't support the war?" is creative. I say it's banality posing as profundity.
You write as if I'm the one who introduced "accusations" into the thread. Please note that you are the one who first mentioned anything about anyone being hostile.
Your last post seems to be this kind of passive-aggressive thing. In fact, everything you write seems to be in the nature of a condescending "I'm sorry you feel that way." Maybe it's just the Canadian way. I don't know.
Truth is, I am not crying over Darfur, not because I don't think it is horrible, but because I just don't have enough spare emotion.
OK so then why are you bringing Darfur up in context of the Iraq war?
I think the idea that writing letters and leading marches 10,000 miles away is a pretty pointless response to armed thugs who are murdering and raping woman and children is worth mocking.
I don't know about Darfur but there is precedent. The Soviet Union freed dissidents, writers etc after public outcries. So have other tyrannical countries. I doubt it would alter the Sudan gov't or stop the war but it could do some good. Even if it doesn't it at least keeps the issue in the media which you can't do considering your condition of emotional exhaustion.
There was a point in the Iraq War, shortly before the Americans started killing themselves and their allies, and before the "shock and awe" when the campaign could have been regarded as a good thing - especially by the millions of Iraquis who, at that point, could see freedom beckoning just down the road. The moral problems with the war are all to do with American strategy and the way they have attempted to put that strategy into effect. The incompetence of the US army has led to an obscene number of civilian deaths and a civil situation within Iraq that will last at least as long as the other major religious conflicts in the Middle East, by which time the US and its allies will be bankcrupt. It would have been far better if the command had been given to a more disciplined army like the British as this would have meant that the campaign would have been controlled and directed by experienced army officers on the ground rather than by a single politician back in the US who was petrified of joining the army when younger. However, even this would not stop the gung ho, and somewhat amateur, American lower ranks whose antics were always going to lead to civilian unrest. So, obviously the answer is that the Iraqui War was and is a bad thing because the US was involved. Perhaps it would have been better for the free world to have pursued any action under a UN mandate and under the leadership of anybody else but George Bush. Of course, we have learned nothing from this experience as it appears the world is now going to let Bush lead the way on climate control. I fear it may be time to kiss our posteriors goodbye. It's all so very "Dr. Strangelove" don't you think?
There was a point in the Iraq War, shortly before the Americans started killing themselves and their allies, and before the "shock and awe" when the campaign could have been regarded as a good thing - especially by the millions of Iraquis who, at that point, could see freedom beckoning just down the road. The moral problems with the war are all to do with American strategy and the way they have attempted to put that strategy into effect. The incompetence of the US army has led to an obscene number of civilian deaths and a civil situation within Iraq that will last at least as long as the other major religious conflicts in the Middle East, by which time the US and its allies will be bankcrupt. It would have been far better if the command had been given to a more disciplined army like the British as this would have meant that the campaign would have been controlled and directed by experienced army officers on the ground rather than by a single politician back in the US who was petrified of joining the army when younger. However, even this would not stop the gung ho, and somewhat amateur, American lower ranks whose antics were always going to lead to civilian unrest. So, obviously the answer is that the Iraqui War was and is a bad thing because the US was involved. Perhaps it would have been better for the free world to have pursued any action under a UN mandate and under the leadership of anybody else but George Bush. Of course, we have learned nothing from this experience as it appears the world is now going to let Bush lead the way on climate control. I fear it may be time to kiss our posteriors goodbye. It's all so very "Dr. Strangelove" don't you think?
Jd and Bene,
I thought Bene's question in comment 2,
Joe, what would happen to you if you didn't support the Iraq war?
Seriously.
was a valid, good question, although I can see why Jd thought it was hostile. I didn't interpret it that way.
Here's my answer:
The war is not being fought only on the battlefield. It is also being fought over here, in the media, and in the hearts and minds of every American.
If support for the war here remains strong, then our soldiers will be able to fight more effectively. If opposition to the war overwhelms support for the war, then that would help tip the balance in favor of our enemies, and could indeed be a deciding factor if we end up losing.
It wouldn't be the only factor in a loss, of course. And it wouldn't necessarily be the deciding factor in a loss -- but it could be.
Words and ideas have real-world consequences. And I'm sure you understand that, or you wouldn't have bothered to ask your question in the first place. Since your question has led to a good mini-debate on the war, your words have had good consequences.
Boonton,
You are a very bright person, if you don't mind my saying so. But you sound like you're channeling Mumon when you bash President Bush.
You go to war with the president you have, not the president you wish you had. That said, I wouldn't pick another person in the U.S. to be our leader than George Bush.
I don't agree with everything he does (not vetoing McCain-Feingold, pushing a lousy immigration bill, allowing Dubai to manage our ports, his principled but I believe mistaken stand on federal support of embryonic stem-cell research), but I consider him the best president since FDR.
Ironically this war is almost certainly the cause of both Iran and N.Korea's nukes.
This goes beyond channeling Mumon -- this is perhaps the one thing you've written that I most strongly disagree with.
You'll have to elaborate on this theory (with some facts -- I understand your logic), before I try to shoot it down.
Mad Priest,
If a large part (in your case, almost all) of your argument hangs on one or more ad hominem attacks, then you are not advancing your case, you are discrediting it, or at least raising the question of why you don't support it with more reasonable and persuasive facts and analysis.
I suggest you purge your comments of all such attacks and rewrite your critique using specific examples of malfeasance and/or incompetence, assuming you can find enough to support your position.
Matthew,
We are not actually at war in Iraq, the war ended over four years ago. Our military is now occupying Iraq-it's an occupation, not a war.
The idea that "failure" in Iraq is the result of lack of support by the American people or that our activities there would be sucessful, but for the lack of support from the american people is wrong. The american people have not betrayed the mission, the continued occupation of Iraq is the betrayal. The majority of the american population wants an end to the occupation. The decider is no longer serving the interests of "we, the people". The democrats in congress are not doing their constitutional duty either. They have the constitutional duty to set the agenda and they are not doing it. They should no longer fund this failed occupation. Read the constitution and note the responsibilities and power given to the legislative branch with regards to managing the military.
I don't agree with everything he does (not vetoing McCain-Feingold, pushing a lousy immigration bill, allowing Dubai to manage our ports, his principled but I believe mistaken stand on federal support of embryonic stem-cell research), but I consider him the best president since FDR.
I will not ask you to support this statement with any facts or reasons. I won't be that cruel.
Nukes in N. Korea and Iran
You'll have to elaborate on this theory (with some facts -- I understand your logic), before I try to shoot it down.
1. Our military is tied up big time in Iraq. We do not have the resources to fully engage Iran or N. Korea. (Well we probably do but the political will would be very lacking).
2. Iran & N. Korea both went full throttle on their nuke programs since the Iraq invasion and have barely looked back. Why? IMO:
2 a. Iraq taught it isn't good enough for the world to think you may have WMD. You need to really have them.
2 b. Being a nuclear power seems to be the key to membership in the 'do not invade club'. This would, of course, apply to deterring an invasion by the US but also applies to deterring other hostile powers in the area. See, for example, Pakistan & India.
2 c. If the US wants to invade you it will regardless of whether or not you really have WMD. The lesson of Iraq was that the US (or actually this administration) will distort intelligence and look at facts selectively to get the answer they want. Needless to say this adminsitration trashed any serious committment to non-polifiteration treaties anyway. So you might as well have full WMD rather than 'taking the high road' and stopping such plans.
If support for the war here remains strong, then our soldiers will be able to fight more effectively. If opposition to the war overwhelms support for the war, then that would help tip the balance in favor of our enemies, and could indeed be a deciding factor if we end up losing.
It wouldn't be the only factor in a loss, of course. And it wouldn't necessarily be the deciding factor in a loss -- but it could be.
Let's imagine for a moment you are patrolling a dangerous area in Baghdad and there's lots of peole on the streets you don't trust. What would cause you to either pay close attention to your immediate situation or cause you to get distracted and lost in daydreams? Somehow I think the immediate danger to you and your fellow troops would primarily motivate you to take as much care as you possibly could. I don't think you would be more or less motivated by learning Bush's approval rating went up or down 10 points or support for the Democratic timetable bill went up or down. People who say things like this above are people who are sitting very comfortably and have little else to worry about but their ideological beliefs.
Fundamentally what Matt is doing above is blaming US troops on the ground. Apparantly they are so blinded by ideological love of the Bush administration that any bad news for it politically drives them to put less effort into fighting the bad guys and protecting the good guys. Perhaps, though, the person suffering from excessive love of this administration isn't the troops but the commentator here who thinks Bush is the best thing since FDR?
John,
We are not actually at war in Iraq, the war ended over four years ago. Our military is now occupying Iraq-it's an occupation, not a war.
Actually, I agree that saying "the war in Iraq" is a little off-target, but not for the reason you mention.
An occupation is not always a war, so you have introduced a useful distinction.
However, our occupation of Iraq has degenerated into a combination of an incipient civil war, an insurgency (which is currently failing dramatically and hopefully on its last legs), and a terror campaign led and financed by foreign nationals and groups. The brew of violence is certainly some kind of war, though the best label for it is not obvious.
The reason we shouldn't call it "the war in Iraq" is because Iraq is only one front, one battlefield in a much broader war, a global war. On one side, you have the instigators, the ones who are dragging it out and trapping all the innocents in the crossfire: the terrorist jihadis, and their islamofascist comrades and supporters. On the other side, you have the forces of civilization, liberty, and justice, which includes the U.S. coalition and its supporters.
Although Iraq is only one of many battlefields across the world, the jihadis, including Al Qaeda, seem to have decided to make Iraq the central battlefront, the one that could decisively make or break their movement. So although "the war in Iraq" is a little misleading, it will do just fine for most purposes.
I prefer, in deference to the wisdom of the late Stephen Vincent, to refer to the battle for Iraq as a "reconstruction" as opposed to an "occupation". But I will not object if you have different preferences.
The american people have not betrayed the mission, the continued occupation of Iraq is the betrayal.
I did not say or imply that the American people betrayed the mission. I was merely highlighting the obvious: if the American will to fight flags, then that will make winning harder and losing easier.
There may be perfectly good reasons for the American people to want to end their commitment to Iraq. But whether there are good reasons or not, any weakness in the will to fight translates into weakness on the battlefield, if for no other reason than it gives hope and opportunity to our enemies.
The majority of the american population wants an end to the occupation. The decider is no longer serving the interests of "we, the people".
I call B.S. (buffalo shinola).
About one third of America is firmly behind the war/reconstruction, about one third is firmly against it, and about one third is unsure, ignorant, and/or indifferent.
The one third in the middle is particularly susceptible to being coaxed into giving answers to leading questions that more or less support the agenda of various poll-takers.
The one-third/one-third/one-third split is not ideal for conducting a war like the one in Iraq, but it happens to correspond to the historical estimates of support/opposition during the American Revolution. I think that war ended in a pretty satisfactory outcome, all things considered, so I wouldn't be so quick to give up in Iraq just yet.
The democrats in congress are not doing their constitutional duty either. They have the constitutional duty to set the agenda and they are not doing it. They should no longer fund this failed occupation.
The Democrats have pushed the Cindy-Sheehan/Michael-Moore/Jimmy-Carter agenda well past its expiration date. For you to complain is the height of ingratitude.
Read the constitution and note the responsibilities and power given to the legislative branch with regards to managing the military.
Are you being condescending for my benefit or for the benefit of the random reader? Because I find your tone to be disrespectful.
If I have been disrespectful to you, please point it out, because I have tried not to be.
Peace,
Matthew
Although Iraq is only one of many battlefields across the world, the jihadis, including Al Qaeda, seem to have decided to make Iraq the central battlefront, the one that could decisively make or break their movement. So although "the war in Iraq" is a little misleading, it will do just fine for most purposes.
And for good reason. Andrew Sullivan had an interesting passage a few days ago. He quoted someone (a soldier I think) who said that half of the uniformed Iraqi police/army are either insurgents themselves or would aid them under the right circumstances. He made the observation that George Bush is now the first President to spend taxpayer money to have our military train people who are trying to kill them.
I think there was some merit to the 'flypaper argument'. That was that Iraq would draw assorted jihadists and other rif-raff to Iraq where it is easier to face them down on a single battlefield rather than spread out around the world.
However there's two sides to this. A bit of flypaper will catch you some flies making your house a bit nicer. A huge pile of Sh**e, though, is going to accomplish nothing but make flies. I think a lot of people who would have otherwise went about their lives are being recruited by Islamists by the war in Iraq...fanned on with tales of torture and abuse from American (a lot of those tales are false but not all of them). I also think that Iraq has become a training ground for future terrorists who now can cut their teeth kidnapping, torturing, killing and blowing things up. Another story Sullivan cited was a terrorist captured in Jordan who appeared to have been 'imported' from Iraq for his expertise in setting up IEDs. Remember Afghanistan was a prime training ground for the last generation of jihadists of whom bin Laden was the most famous.
I did not say or imply that the American people betrayed the mission. I was merely highlighting the obvious: if the American will to fight flags, then that will make winning harder and losing easier.
This is true but irrelevant. The question is does the benefit of 'winning' (however you want to define it) outweigh the costs. At any given time the American people can be thought of having a mental estimate of what the cost and benefit will be. Obviously this can be wrong. The history of war is famous for people incorrectly estimating at the start that war would be a lot less bloody than it really turned out to be and would be a lot of great benefits quickly. How many, for example, thought the Civil War would be over in a month? It is also possible that this estimate could be too high. The first Gulf War had a lot of people (including the military) expecting a great number of US casualities. Many were happily surprised to have seen it end quickly and with very few US casualities.
Somewhere estimating too high (everything will go great) or too low (everything is going bad) is the truth. There is no objective way to find this truth, though. The 'experts' and 'elite opinion' is often more wrong than the popular opinion here so it's not like the decisions can just be delegated away to some commission or whatnot.
Now you can say this war's declining popularity is making it harder to fight but it is just as likely this war was very hard from day 1. We were just under the delusion that it was going to be a cake walk. Not unlike a drunk driver who thinks the ice covered road is easy to navigate until he crashes his car and then figures it was the worst ice storm in history. The ice didn't change from good to bad, the drunk just couldn't tell what reality was.
I would say your argument would have some merit if you're trying to say the enemy would fight harder if they think the war is becomming more unpopular in the US. The problem with this argument, IMO, is that there is no unified enemy in Iraq. No group has the power to run the entire country even if the US disappeared from the scene tomorrow. Many of the groups seem to be spending as much time fighting each other than fighting the US. I wouldn't even be surprised if some groups are shifting alliances back and forth (like the Iraqi policeman who helps American troops by day protect his village from Al Qaeda kidnappers but at night aids Sunni or Shi'ite insurgents who are trying to off the other's leaders).
I would suspect Al Qaeda would rather see the US in Iraq for another 10 years where they can kill a handful of us each day rather than see us leave tomorrow leaving behind a country they could never even begin to manage.
About one third of America is firmly behind the war/reconstruction, about one third is firmly against it, and about one third is unsure, ignorant, and/or indifferent.
If you asked "knowing what we know now, should we have invaded?" I think you'd find opinion for this war is a lot less supportive than you want to imagine. There are many here who are 'behind the war/reconstruction' because they think we don't have any choice left or are willing to give it a little bit more time before turning more anti-war.
The one-third/one-third/one-third split is not ideal for conducting a war like the one in Iraq, but it happens to correspond to the historical estimates of support/opposition during the American Revolution. I think that war ended in a pretty satisfactory outcome, all things considered, so I wouldn't be so quick to give up in Iraq just yet.
Let's add some more to the list:
Korea - Not Iraq
Europe - Not Iraq
Hatai - Not Iraq
Bosnia - Not Iraq
Somalia - Not Iraq
Darfur - Not Iraq
and now....
Colonial America - Not Iraq.
Matthew,
No disrespect intended.
The democratic congress has not done it's duty. The constitution clearly states congress declares war, sets the agenda for war, and can, under the constitution end our military activities (or war, occupation, reconstruction...)in Iraq. No I am not grateful for the democratic congress, they are not being responsive to the will of the people.
The occupation of Iraq is not a part of any larger war. There simply is no larger war. Words like "war on terror" and "islamofascist" are meaningless and are merely framing tools used by the Bush administration. Islamic terrorist are not fascists and you can't have a war against a tactic. You deal with organized crime and you deal with illegal drug problems, you don't actually have a "war on organized crime" or a "war on drugs".
OK so then why are you bringing Darfur up in context of the Iraq war?
I don't think I did. My point in referencing Darfur is to show your side's lack of seriousness in dealing with genocide. Murderers don't stop because well-meaning, but unserious people write letters and stage marches. They stop because serious people are willing to forcibly stop them.
Boonton,
Thank you very much for your latest comments.
We are getting into some substantive matters of disagreement, as opposed to merely trading slogans, so I think this is a very good exchange.
Our military is tied up big time in Iraq. We do not have the resources to fully engage Iran or N. Korea. (Well we probably do but the political will would be very lacking).
Good point, I agree with you.
If the reconstruction of Iraq had gone smoothly, we would be in a much stronger position to deal with Iran and North Korea.
Iraq taught it isn't good enough for the world to think you may have WMD. You need to really have them.
Another good point.
But I think Kim Jong-il understood this a long time ago, and that our actions in Iraq and elsewhere have done nothing to accelerate his plans. On the other hand, I do think it plausible that Iran may have re-doubled its efforts since our invasion of Iraq.
Whether Iran has done so or not, however, is not a question of what you or I think or believe. It is empirical question that has to be decided by intelligence experts and eventually by historians. You and I simply don't have a clue, one way or the other.
Being a nuclear power seems to be the key to membership in the 'do not invade club'. This would, of course, apply to deterring an invasion by the US but also applies to deterring other hostile powers in the area. See, for example, Pakistan & India.
North Korea didn't need a nuclear bomb during the Korean War. They just needed to borrow the nuclear shield of China, and that was enough to get us to agree to a status quo ante stalemate.
I would think King Jong-il's need for a nuclear arsenal is a function of his total estrangement from every nation in the world aside from China, and his desperate fear of internal rebellion. It has very little, if anything, to do with the nuances of American foreign policy. I think you imagine the U.S. to be more influential than it actuallly is.
The lesson of Iraq was that the US (or actually this administration) will distort intelligence and look at facts selectively to get the answer they want.
You're channeling Mumon again, and I ain't on the same wavelength, sir.
Needless to say this adminsitration trashed any serious committment to non-proliferation treaties anyway.
This is not only false, it is directly contrary to what President Bush has accomplished with regards to non-proliferation.
Take a look here, here, and here. [The third link is actually critical of President Bush, but I included it for some balance and context.]
Here is what I think overall of your North Korea/Iran argument:
Although we are overextended in some ways, I think o