John McCain: “We left Vietnam. It was over. We just had to heal the wounds of war,” he said. “We leave this place, chaos in the region, and they’ll follow us home. So there’s a great deal more at stake here in this conflict, in my view, a lot more.” McCain said he based his judgment partly on the writings of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the al-Qaida leader in Iraq who was killed in a U.S. air raid, and of Osama bin Laden. “The consequences of failure are so severe that I will exhaust every possibility to try to fix this situation. Because it’s not the end when American troops leave. The battleground shifts, and we’ll be fighting them again,” McCain said. “You read Zarqawi, and you read bin Laden. … It’s not just Iraq that they’re interested in. It’s the region, and then us.”
Henry Kissinger: “If you mean by ‘military victory’ an Iraqi government that can be established and whose writ runs across the whole country, that gets the civil war under control and sectarian violence under control in a time period that the political processes of the democracies will support, I don’t believe that is possible,” he told the British Broadcasting Corp. But Kissinger, an architect of the Vietnam war who has advised President Bush about Iraq, warned against a rapid withdrawal of coalition troops, saying it could destabilize Iraq’s neighbors and cause a long-lasting conflict. “A dramatic collapse of Iraq _ whatever we think about how the situation was created _ would have disastrous consequences for which we would pay for many years and which would bring us back, one way or another, into the region,” he said.
Charles Rangel: Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., said Sunday he sees his idea as a way to deter politicians from launching wars and to bolster U.S. troop levels insufficient to cover potential future action in Iran, North Korea and Iraq. “There’s no question in my mind that this president and this administration would never have invaded Iraq, especially on the flimsy evidence that was presented to the Congress, if indeed we had a draft and members of Congress and the administration thought that their kids from their communities would be placed in harm’s way,” Rangel said.
McCain wants more troops and Kissinger thinks we need to redefine victory but both men agree on the consequences of a rapid pullout. That seems to be the one fact that every serious observer agrees on at this stage. Charlie Rangel, on the other hand, is a f$@king idiot. Using this tactic (repeatedly) to undermine our national security efforts and literally frighten the American people is despicable. This is what passes for serious national security policy in the Democratic party. If you’ve followed Rangel’s idiotic draft ideas you’re probably aware that he’s even voted against his own proposals in the past:
Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) did something a little unusual yesterday. First he protested when Republican leadership scheduled his own bill for a vote.
Then he sent out a letter encouraging his Democratic colleagues to vote against it.
…“I am voting no, because my bill deserves serious consideration,” his statement continued.
“It should be subject to hearings and to expert testimony. The administration should come and tell us about our manpower needs, about recruitment and retention, about the extent to which out troops are overextended. And they should give us their views about shared sacrifice. If they did all of those things in a serious way, they would have to admit that my bill is an option.”
He voted against it because it’s a cheap stunt intended to undermine our national security. Not even Rangel takes Rangel seriously.
Michelle Malkin: It’s a fitting symbol of what Democrat rule in Congress will be the next two years: A worthless, cynical expenditure of time and energy that accomplishes absolutely nothing.
12 Responses
Readers are solely responsible for the comments they post. Comments do not necessarily reflect the opinion or approval of Blogs of War or John Little.
November 20th, 2006 at 7:46 pm
The Defeatists Have Taken Over…
Sometimes I want to slap you defeatists upside your head.
Bookmark to:
……
November 20th, 2006 at 8:07 pm
International Score-Keeping…
“Lack of International Support”… No stronger element provides aid & encouragement to these militant groups. What does “Blogs of War” say about: McCain, Kissinger, and Rangel?…
November 21st, 2006 at 4:29 am
I will agree that rapid withdrawal from Iraq is definitely not the way to go, but that does not mean that we should not be doing anything. It seems to me that President Bush is more concerned with the amount of money we are putting into this stupid war than with bringing our troops home. If we are to withdraw our troops from Iraq, we must negotiate a transfer of power. President Nixon did this in Vietnam, calling it Vietnamization. I believe that we need to enact a similar policy of “Iraqization” and install a government that will not simply be a puppet of the United States.
November 21st, 2006 at 10:23 pm
“I believe that we need to enact a similar policy of “Iraqization” and install a government that will not simply be a puppet of the United States.”
Perhaps this was a slip of the tongue, but the U.S. has no right to “install” anything anywhere unless it’s the next president of the U.S., senators, congress, etc…or it will be a puppet by definition, as most folks on the planet would correctly assume. Now, more importantly, in most all of the talk I see here, as well as on most other posts, the primary, in fact ONLY, reason the U.S. is in Iraq in the first place is almost never mentioned. Oil. Period. Nothing else. There are duscussions about a timetable for pulling out the trrops, whether or not there should be more or less, etc….and yet THE reason for the U.S. presence in the region at all is rarely discussed. Doesn’t anyone think this a slight oversight? The U.S. will never leave Iraq as long as they have oil. Period. There are more than 725 U.S. bases (not including the secret ones) sitting around the world in strategic locations a lot of which has to do with protecting oil. THIS as well as our dependency on it should be about 95% of the discussion, and 5% should have to do with troop deployment, etc….Until the U.S. (especially the public) comes to terms with the predictable fallout from it’s imperial actions here and there, nothing will be accomplished, unless one considers laying the foundation for the next group of terrorists to emerge as some sort of success. For an idea of what may be shaping some of the thinking of the rest of the planet, I mean, outside of the indoctrinated U.S. public, as well as the actions many have taken, please read these two books by Chalmers Johnson: ‘Blowback’ and ‘The Sorrow of Empire’. If one wishes to be able to find any real and lasting solution the very first step to take is the ability to try and empathize or understand the enemy. (Ask Macnamara, he’ll tell you ((See ‘The Fog of War’. Also notice in the film that he says that Curtis Lemay said that had the U.S. lost the war both he and Macnamara would have been considered war criminals, which, as most of the planet recognizes they are. This is hardly a desireble goal, at least for a sane person))) kb
November 22nd, 2006 at 12:58 am
“”If one wishes to be able to find any real and lasting solution the very first step to take is the ability to try and empathize or understand the enemy. (Ask Macnamara, he’ll tell you ((See ‘The Fog of War’. Also notice in the film that he says that Curtis Lemay said that had the U.S. lost the war both he and Macnamara would have been considered war criminals, which, as most of the planet recognizes they are. This is hardly a desireble goal, at least for a sane person”"
THIS
November 22nd, 2006 at 1:05 am
“”If one wishes to be able to find any real and lasting solution the very first step to take is the ability to try and empathize or understand the enemy. (Ask Macnamara, he’ll tell you ((See ‘The Fog of War’. Also notice in the film that he says that Curtis Lemay said that had the U.S. lost the war both he and Macnamara would have been considered war criminals, which, as most of the planet recognizes they are. This is hardly a desireble goal, at least for a sane person”"
THIS is the type of thinking that will destroy the will of the Armed forces..Quoting McNamara on how to win a war is laughable..the fool caused us to withdraw from Vietnam, while on the ground the war was won. This current conflict is about a fascist religion wanting world domination..not oil. I know a highly placed US state dept offical who thinks exactly like Kb..very assured of his importance and deep understanding of the real issues what fools they fit right in with the McNamara crowd LBJ used to cause us to fight in Nam with one hand tied behind our backs..
November 22nd, 2006 at 12:41 pm
consent said:
“THIS is the type of thinking that will destroy the will of the Armed forces..”
How? But before this I’d like to know if you saw the film. Yes or no?
“Quoting McNamara on how to win a war is laughable..”
Why?
“the fool caused us to withdraw from Vietnam”
“Caused us to withdraw”? You make it sound as though this was a negative thing. You think that staying longer and losing thousands of more folks, possibly hundreds of thousands, not to mention our own, is a better solution? Or that this proves patriotism of some sort? Well, I guess if we just killed everyone then there would be little to worry about anymore, huh?
“while on the ground the war was won.”
Not in this universe it wasn’t. But had the U.S. actually won the war, which, in fact, it actually did in a big way (destroyed several countries almost beyond repair, and which many are still being killed in, etc…), how do you think this would have made everything better? Like it did in the Philippines? Indonesia? Chile? And on and on…..As usual, the problem wasn’t one of “not staying the course” as is the current mantra of the chickenhawks, it’s staying far too long in a place we had less than zero business of being in in the first place. I DO hope you’re not promoting the pathological direction of Lemay, are you? As Macnamara honestly concedes, they BOTH would have been considered war criminals had the U.S. lost. If he can admit this, why can’t you? It’s quite easy to make the charge of war criminals against others who have committed similar, or far lesser crimes. Do you think that this is impossible for some thick-headed thug from the U.S., too? Is this not even a possibility? I rarely hear it being discussed anywhere. One would think that God had exempted any U.S. citizen from even the possibility.
“This current conflict is about a fascist religion wanting world domination..not oil.”
That’s funny! Well, at least we know that the portion of our tax dollars which goes into the propaganda coffers is working. It has absolutely zero to do with religion anything, and never has. Unless, of course, you’re referring to the Christian attempt at taking over the world. I mean, there’s FAAAAAR more evidence for that. Not even remotely close from any other side. I mean, historically speaking anyway.
“I know a highly placed US state dept offical who thinks exactly like Kb..”
Yes, there are quite a few. They’re the honest a logical ones. Actually, to change the subject here for a minute back to the film, one thing I found remarkable was ‘Lesson 1′ which was entitled ‘Empathizing with the enemy’ or something to this affect. Now, the thing which was fascinating about this “lesson” wasn’t that learning to see through the eyes of the others, or enemies, is such a deep concept, we learn this in psychology 101, but rather that he seemed to really think this was such a great insight by Tommy Thompson, and almost acted as if the notion of learning to see through the eyes of the others was some newly discovered insight. THIS is what was interesting. The reason I bring this up is that it seems that a lot of the time during “debates” between “peace people” and “war people” or whatever they want to be labeled, is the war folks inability to do this. And I mean at all. Do you not think this may be an intelligent thing to do as sort of a first step? If not, why not?
“very assured of his importance”
I don’t consider myself having much of any importance, or anymore than any other average joe.
“and deep understanding of the real issues”
Trying to understand, yes. What’s wrong with that?
“what fools they fit right in with the McNamara crowd”
I fit in with his crowd? That’s funny.
“LBJ used to cause us to fight in Nam with one hand tied behind our backs..”
Yes, this is the usual line, “If we only had more”. Well, this is NOT the intelligent course of action, or at least not by a civilized country. Perhaps we’ll approach that some time soon. kb
November 22nd, 2006 at 10:59 pm
kb you are a hoot-
“christian attemps at take overs”
lets just list the current conflicts world wide and see how many are incited by christians..
Ceylon-tamil tigers
Kashmir-muslims vs hindu
Indonesia-muslims purge of christians
Darfur-muslims slave traders pogrom on christians
Isreal-muslims attacks on Jews
Somolia-muslims vs muslim
Turkey-muslim vs Kurds
cypress-muslim vs Greeks
Egypt-muslim fundamentalist vs coptics and secular muslims
Lebanon-Syrian muslim vs christians and nationalistic muslims
rather a long list..all having one thing in common..muslim violence vs others.
puts your ablities to reason in a rather poor light, much like your opinions on Vietnam and the use of US forces in the world..you are stuck on stupid.
November 22nd, 2006 at 11:59 pm
consent said:
“kb you are a hoot-”
And I DO hope you plan on showing how. (This is usually about as far as it gets, being called a “hoot”. Let’s see.)
“christian attemps at take overs”
“lets just list the current conflicts world wide and see how many are incited by christians..”
All of the combined don’t come remotely close to the millions killed by Christian crusaders throughout the centuries. This is as absurd as calling Castro a terrorist when in fact every other Central American and South American dictator supported killed thousands of times more than he. In fact, he looks like an angel compared to them. So, similararly, your list is almost nothing. And many of these have probably resulted from Christian influence int he first place. Not all of course. So, let’s take Iraq now. If Sunnis and Shites get into a civil war, who on earth are you planning to give credit for starting it, them? It must be nice to simply look at effects without ever considering causes, or at least when it’s not convenient. And, as usual, you’ve done what rightists often do by saying that “Well, we may have killed a lot (actually this is never even admitted), but they have killed many more, as if this makes it better somehow. That’s like saying “Well, the communists killed XX million people but we only kill X million” as if this excuses our own crimes. I hardly think so. Besides, look at your list: Indonesia, which is the biggest Muslim country in the world, was a U.S. ally for many years, including those which had the biggest mass slaughters under Suharto. Much of their weapons were from the U.S. That’s support. The slaughter of 1/3 of the population of East Timor, with the green light from Kissinger in yet another of his war criminal acts. I’m afraid your examples are paultry at best. And “muslim attacks on Jews”? What the hell are you talking about? Where is you number comparison yet again. The Palestinians haven’t killed remotely close to the number of Israelis as have been killed by them. Where have you been? Killing by anyone is criminal in my opinion, but don’t try and make Goliath appear as poor little weak David or something. Geez!
“rather a long list..all having one thing in common..muslim violence vs others.”
Yes, you ARE what one would consider a victim of indoctrination. There are probably more folks killed by L.A. gangs, not to mention the 20,000 a year with handguns in the U.S., than most of these combined. You should probably get your fear barometer adjusted a little to reality.
“puts your ablities to reason in a rather poor light”
You have demonstrated nothing other than there are a few groups around the world who may call themselves Muslim who are fighting. Why not throw in the Abu Sayef? I’m mean now there’s another Muslim threat for you, and especially for “Christians”. By the way, are you really sure you wish to start comparing numbers of those killed historically by Christians with non-Christians?
“much like your opinions on Vietnam and the use of US forces in the world..”
What opinion of Vietnam? That Macnamara admitted that he and Lemay would be considered war criminals had the U.S. lost the war? That’s not an opinion of any sort at all. That’s a simple and non-controversial fact. Just as it’s a fact that the U.S. began bombing South Vietnam in 61-2, not to mention the CIA playing around there years before this, none of which it had any business whatsoever of doing at all. Who do you think gave you this right? God? Perhaps a Christian God? I guess it was Allah who killed XXX million Vietnamese.
“you are stuck on stupid.”
As you haven’t come remotely close to demonstrating. But if you’d like to try, go for it. Here’s what you can do for starters. Answer these questions:
1. Give me a list of any crimes ever committed by the U.S.
2. Do you think the U.S. uses any sort of propaganda? If so, give an example. If not, why not.
3. What right does the U.S. have of doing anything anywhere in the world, and who gave us that right? ANd do other countries have the same right? There are 80+ military bases in Japan. Does Japan have the right to put some in the U.S., or does Germany, or does any other of the more than 750+ worldwide? If not, why not? (Oh, and please don’t give me any sort of “They want us there” nonsense as an answer. This will not be considered a serious option)
That’ll do for starters. By the way, and I knew I’d have to mention this, did you see the ‘Fog of War’ or not? I’ll assume you haven’t and this is what has led to the perpetuation of some of your dated “ideas”. After you see it I’d be interested in hearing what you had to say.kb
November 23rd, 2006 at 1:18 pm
KGB, oops I mean KB Discourse must be honest first and foremost. You are dishonest with your assumptions. War crimes committed by the US Armed forces? Let’s forget the Japanese, and Germans in WWII, the Vietcong genocides, Chinese
War crimes in Korea and Tibet, more recently Iraq and Iran’s war where millions died-children used for mine sweeps if you recall, we can go on and on thru history back to the kingdoms of Egypt’s wars.. As one who fought a small war in SE Asia..shit happens. But to compare the US Armed forces to any of the actions of those listed, is dishonest and prejudiced, at best.
The result of US wars has been to form free societies in: Germany, Japan, South Korea, Free Eastern Europe at end of the cold war, stop communist dictatorships in Latin America, Free Kuwait, That is history that is fact. IN Cuba we have left Castro alone even though he represented himself as a friend of the USA shortly after coming to power. Then he became our enemy…why if we are such war criminals did we not just wipe him out? Kennedy could have at the bay of pigs but chose instead to let many good Cuban men die rather than make it a conflict with US forces..To defend America’s wars is obsurd the results of our wars are like no others in history. Our country has stabilized the world, avoided Nuclear war..and allowed prosperity the likes of which have never been seen before. Please, look at the world from the results of our actions ..To prejudge Iraq now is much too soon.
America’s role in the world as the super power means any dictatorship, any fascist – movement -religious or otherwise, will be aligned against us. So we bear the attacks of the likes of Iran, Saddam, N Korea, OUR enemies speak volumes about who the USA truly is.
November 23rd, 2006 at 11:09 pm
Consent said:
“KGB, oops I mean KB”
Was this supposed to be witty or something? Do you believe you’ve seen something which would indicate that I’m a “communist” somewhere? Oh, I see. It must be the usual right wing “logic” of “If you don’t think like me, then you’re a communist”. Yes, well, history os full of examples of fascist thinkers who thought the same way.
“Discourse must be honest first and foremost.”
Yes, and it should also have something to do with reality. You can be perfectly honest ‘in your mind’
and not have a clue as to what’s going on or what has happened. Take the Macnamara example mentioned earlier. I think he probably knows just slightly more than you about the government, the cold war, making tough decisions, etc…and knows that his a Lemay’s decisions would qualify them as war criminals, which, of course, it would. It hardly takes a genius to recognize this. I mean, most folks on the planet easily recognize it. Why can’t you?
“You are dishonest with your assumptions.”
Hey’ there’s a big difference between someone being wrong about their assumptions and being dishonest about them. The dishonesty would entail them actually knowing better and purposely choosing to lie about it. THIS, sonny boy, I have not done. I’d say that more likely your charge of my “dishonestly about assumptions” is a projection on your part, but I’m willing to consider evidence that I may be incorrect. And you?
“War crimes committed by the US Armed forces?”
I DO hope these quotation marks aren’t the marks of surprise of some sort. You know, like the possibility of such notion is unthinkable. You AREN’T inferring that, are you? If so, then I’m afriad that you HAVE just demonstrated just whose assumptions are dishonest. The assumption that ones own side could never participate in such things is what is dishonest. BUt I’ll assume for now that you didn’t mean this. Let’s see though.
“Let’s forget the Japanese”
SUre. There’s nothing really to talk about. Dropping the atomic bombs was a war crime by any standard or measurement, any honest one anyway. Nothing really to discuss. I mean, when you have the folks which were participating in the crimes admitting as much, and others saying that dropping the bomb wasn’t necessary, not to mention the rational average, honest, folks who could have told you this anyway, there really IS nothing much more to discuss.
“and Germans in WWII”
Germany has many instances as well. Bombing civilians in order to achieve political ends IS terrorism, and a war crime. So, nothing much to talk about here either, unless you wish to be dishonest and say that this never happened.
“the Vietcong genocides”
Yes, there were some, just as there were from the other side. Do you think comparing the number of civilians killed by Ted Bundy and the number killed by John Gasey excuse the other one? How about the U.S. genocides? These are the ones you should be concerned about, as these are your responsibility. What the hell do you think your country was founded on in the first place? Ask any Native American, they’ll tell you. And an honest person living in America should be readily aware of this basic fact about “their country”.
“Chinese”
What are you referring to? Mao’s man made drought which killed millions? Why not refer to the drought which happened when the British illegally and criminally ruled India? 20+ million died then as well. Perhaps you should quit depending comic on books like ‘The Black Book of Communism’ for your materials, and start looking at actual data. I mean, most of my sources are from the U.S. goverment itself. Here’s a tip for starters…Watch FOX news and then assume the opposite is true.
“War crimes in Korea and Tibet”
Which ones? You mean the ones in Tibet which the U.S. didn’t really care anything about? Yes, well, most crimes committed were done either when the U.S. supported the criminals, as in the case with Saddam, Suharto, Pinochet, Marcos, well, the list is really too long, but if you want a complete list just ask. Here’s enough to keep you busy for a while. And be sure to read those links by honest patriots who helped carry out many of the crimes:
http://www.betterworldlinks.org/book73e.htm
“more recently Iraq and Iran’s war where millions died-children used for mine sweeps if you recall”
Yes, and who hand their hands in this from before it began? And how about the CIA agent I heard speaking on the radio about 20 years ago saying that he was selling arms to folks on both sides? But what are you inferring by using this example? That the U.S. was justified in supporting a man who “gasses his own people” so as to maintain “stability”, whatever that menas at any given moment? It would appear that your assumption is that the U.S. has some sort of business being there at all in the first place. Is THIS your assumption?
“we can go on and on thru history back to the kingdoms of Egypt’s wars..”
Yes, we could. I’d be interested on seeing how you “interpreted” the events there as well. But one thing one could probably put forth without too much worry, I doubt the U.S. was too involved in the “kingdom of Egypt’s wars”. At least not the “ancient” ones.
“As one who fought a small war in SE Asia..shit happens.”
THIS is your excuse and rationale? “Shit happens”? You aren’t even curious as to the reasons for doing things anywhere? I’d be pissed as hell knowing that I had been sent to do something, especially in the case of Vietnam, or more recently Iraq, which I had no business of being there or doing in the first place. THIS seems to be the point where the divergence between what I’d consider the more honest veterans and the less honest, or at least more in denial ones, lies. The more honest or aware ones aren’t afraid to look at what was done and admit that much of it was unnecessary, or perhaps even criminal, if one wishes to apply the same standards to themselves as they easily do others. Then there are the ones who wish to try an deny, ignore, make apologetics for, etc….I’d have to say that I tend to believe those folks which are more likely to admit the truth, even if it doesn’t put them in such a pleasant light. And, by the way, I’m not really talking much about the average soldier at all, though arguments could be made for that as well. I’m speaking of the decisions being made by those higher up with slightly less benign intentions, or reasons, as is the case with Iraq right now.
“But to compare the US Armed forces to any of the actions of those listed, is dishonest and prejudiced, at best.”
I’d say that here is a perfect example of dishonesty. You don’t think anyone from the U.S. has ever committed any actions which are as bad, or even far worse in some cases, as those you’ve listed above? And prejudice in what way? To admit that one’s own country has committed crimes is in no way, shape, or form, dishonest pr prejudice. On the contrary, NOT to admit that it has committed crimes is prejudice and dishonest. I can just imagine your response to some Russian who asserted that criticisms of Stalin’s purges was unfair and dishonest. I think you had better brush up a little on the concept of projection.
“The result of US wars has been to form free societies in: Germany, Japan, South Korea, Free Eastern Europe at end of the cold war, stop communist dictatorships in Latin America, Free Kuwait, That is history that is fact.”
I can only assume that the heroin you were taking in Vietnam hasn’t worn off yet. None of the above are good examples of anything. And as regarding Latin American dictatorships, I’m afraid you have it complete backwards. We openly supported and trained the dictators, especially those who killed the most people. Not even close. Once again, I’d advise you to start your education over, or perhaps for the first time, and shed these embarassing notions you have internalized about U.S. infallibility. You can start by reading Ralph McGehee, Philip Agee, John Stockwell, and a list of other patriots who are honest and admit and share the truth and facts. They, too, like you, were once indoctrinated, but managed to work their way out of it with a little hard work, and being honest with themselves, and in turn, the world. If one wishes to make the U.S. a better place, these are the sorts of folks who should be recognized as patriots, NOT those who wave flags and rant their usual denials.
“IN Cuba we have left Castro alone even though he represented himself as a friend of the USA shortly after coming to power.”
Yes, he DID wish to work with the U.S. and we refused, and since then have been carrying out the most terror against him of just about any other country. Are you unaware of the terrorism against his government being carried out over the years? There are only a hundred books written about all of the terrorism. One should probably be a little more interested on why it was ever necessary for a Castro to develop in the first place. And he was easily supported by the vast majority of the population of Cuba. Well, where’s your preference for democracy? The real question should be why wasn’t the U.S. helping Castro from before the time he took over from the criminals who no one liked? Not that the U.S. had any business there at all, even then, but if one wished to make an argument for supporting the people against criminal rulers, why weren’t we assisting Castro from the start? I think the answer is obvious. It’s obvious in most of the cases. And it’s even more glaringly obvious in the case with guys like Saddam, though I’m afraid, as usual, Saddam and our other “allies” killed vastly more folks than Castro ever came close to doing. Nothing to seriously compare. Oh, and just in case you weren’t aware, Castro was anti-communist in his early days and was even jailing members of the communist party. I mean, just in case you weren’t aware. That’s before the U.S. pushed him into reluctantly accpeting support from the Soviets, which, of course, the U.S. actually loved because it gave a smei-legitimate reason for fear, military build up, and the usual antics. Being a military person I would have thought you would have known this. These are the basics, like the a,b,c’s of U.S. policy. Now who is being dishonest here?
“Then he became our enemy…”
His becoming our “enemy” was the choice of the U.S., NOT his choice. We made him our enemy.
“why if we are such war criminals did we not just wipe him out?”
What business do you think you have of doing anything in Cuba? I mean, true, the U.S. attempt to take Cuba goes back into the 1800′s when the U.S. president said that we would strangle Cuba “until it falls into our hands by the laws of political gravitation”. Most Cubans, as are most other Latin American county, is accutely aware of this history.
“Kennedy could have at the bay of pigs but chose instead to let many good Cuban men die rather than make it a conflict with US forces..”
You’re atill assuming that the U.S. has some business being there at all. What business? That the Soviets were putting nuclear bombs close to the U.S. in what they perceived as self defense. I mean, the U.S. would never have nuclear bombs anywhere close to the Soviet borders, would they? You’re acting like the Soviets putting missles in Cuba was an act of aggression or something. Not anymore than the U.S. putting them all over the place is considered an act of aggression by many folks. You guys really seem to have trouble applying the same standards to yourself that you do everyone else. Why? Do you think you have some special hotline to God? I mean, this is what bin Laden thinks, too, you know. What gives? Who is not being honest here?
“To defend America’s wars”
“Defend America’s wars”? What are you talking about? You think it’s patriotic to defend something no matter of it’s illigitimacy or criminality simply because “your side” committed the crimes? Now THAT IS a perfect example of dishonesty, not to mention pseudo-patriotism. Do you think it makes one a patriot to blindly cheer one’s own team not matter what? This is the type of citizen that every Stalin or Hitler would have dreamed of having. This line of thinking is the antithesis of democratic thinking. But I’ll guess that you’re not big on democratic thinking either then, huh?
“is obsurd the results of our wars are like no others in history.”
Don’t know what you’re talking about. It does sound a little like the many speeches given by most every leader, from most every country though.
“Our country has stabilized the world”
Really? That’s odd. Most of the world doesn’t see it this way. In fact, most see it quite the opposite. And with this administration it has become the worst it has ever been in U.S. history. The perception of the U.S. are the lowest they’ve ever been. You should probably quite depending on FOX “News” for your perceptions about how the world thinks, and start looking directly at how they think, from their side, before it has been filtered from the compliant corporate-controlled right wing media which the U.S. has always had. You are probably one of these folks who STILL believe, even after all the evidence has debunked the aburd notion, that the media is “liberal”. Right? You ARE one of these fiolks, yes?
“avoided Nuclear war..”
You sound as though “we” did something, but no one else did. We pushed the envelope to almost making it happen. AFter all WE have most all of the nukes, which we are not supposed to have according to international law. Perhaps you were unaware that all states were to make good faith efforts to rid the world of such WMD. It odd that the U.S. keeps getting out of living up to these laws. Usually when folks don’t abide by the laws they’re called criminal. Well, do you wish to be a criminal, or shall we do what mnost folks on the planet want, which is to get rid of the WMD, which we think we have some sort of right to lecture others about not having?
“and allowed prosperity the likes of which have never been seen before.”
I’m sorry son, but your indoctrination has you seeing things which simply don’t exist in the real world. Most of these countries didn’t start to develop until the U.S. got out of the way. Many under-developed. I haven’t a clue where you’ve been, but it sure hasn’t been the library. Perhaps a little less Rush and Hannity book-burnings, and a little more reading. You have apparently not even read your what I’ll assume is rightest writings. You have Thomas Carothers, a Reaganite, admitting that the U.S. has long been allied with top down forms of government which were undemocratic in Latin America. THIS is honest.
“Please, look at the world from the results of our actions ..”
Oh, that’s exactly what I’m doing. Once again, it is YOU who need to look. And I mean look at something other than U.S. produced propaganda. You DO know that the U.S. has the most advanced systems of propaganda, don’t you? Even Hitler recognized the wests superioity on the uses of propaganda. (Read Chomsky, Bernay’s, etc…)
“To prejudge Iraq now is much too soon.”
There’s nothing to prejudice. The U.S. illegally and criminally invaded another country as if it had some right to do so. Do other countries have similar rights? I mean, bin Laden thinks they do. I would have thought you a little bit higher level than that.
“America’s role in the world as the super power means any dictatorship, any fascist – movement -religious or otherwise, will be aligned against us.”
Oh, so in your black and white world where you live, where YOU get to determine what a dictatorship is, etc…(does this include the ones we create as we have MANY times in the past), one either supports your own dictatorial notions, or they are the enemy? THIS is your answer? THIS is the same notion that every other tyrant throughout history has assumed. This IS the opposite of democracy. This is a perfect example of totalitarian thinking. You need help.
“So we bear the attacks of the likes of Iran, Saddam, N Korea, OUR enemies speak volumes about who the USA truly is.”
Oh, this is much more true than you realize, though perhaps not in the way you’re thinking it does. I DO hope that your thinking is NOT the norm among military folks. If so, the U.S. is in a lot more trouble than I realized.
November 24th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
McCain! You’re killing me!
I happen to be in the unenviable position of thinking that Senator McCain is the best choice for president of the United States at this juncture. He is probably not going to be president, however, due to, in no Small part, to his own efforts. Everybody know that he needs to pander to the extreme right in order to pass the hurdle of the Republican primary, but he is taking it so far that he is becoming unelectable even in the eyes of right wing Republicans. He looks like he badly needs the presidency, rather than wanting to be president.
His advisers seem oblivious to the fact that both Republicans and Democrats all want an end to the Iraq war in their life time, and so when he the Senator comes across as pro-war no matter what it hurts his electability with both party electorates. Even for supporters, like me, it is becoming worrisome when McCain doesn’t distinguish himself from the president Bush when t comes to Iraq. There is nothing wrong with qualifying the Senator’s support for the war by declaring that he wants the US out of Iraq but he’ll do it in a manner that protects US interests and the territorial integrity of Iraq. I personally hope that Mr. McCain doesn’t really believe that having 500,000 troops in Iraq would solve the problem; if he does then maybe it’s a good thing that he doesn’t stand a chance at this point.
If I where the senator’s advisor I would advise him to do the following:
-To come to peace with the possibility that he won’t be the next president of the United States as it is detrimental to his cause to appear to want the presidency at all cost.
-Support the efforts in Iraq by saying that we he is not in support for immediate withdrawal from Iraq but he does not support turning Iraq into another de facto US territory and is in favor of calculated withdrawal with continued support for our allied in Iraq post withdrawal.
-To continue his anti-torture stance but clearly state that the United States can never guarantee 100% security for its citizens even with torture. The United States, more than ever, needs to make a stance against the forces of hatred and blind revenge within and without. The best chance the US have against terrorism is when it stands for its ideals and principles without giving in to the temptation to hate back and take revenge.
-Declare that the US economic recovery is dependent on US efforts to support peace in the world and mutual peaceful coexistence.
-Talk about how Democratic candidates, if elected, are likely to adopt an aggressive posture in Iraq in order to demonstrate their toughness against terrorism, and that Senator McCain is the best candidate, as a war hero, to make the right decisions in Iraq without worrying about being called a coward if he pulls out of Iraq.
I hope Senator McCain would heed the advice and go on to be the next president of the United States.