For Tom, Box, PA, Ralph, 46, et al...

[highnote]

Guys,

Will you humor me and watch the Andrew Bacevich interview with Bill Moyers? I would very much like to hear your opinions.

He comes across, to me, as very non-partisan. It is truly the best interview of this kind that I have ever seen.

He makes so many interesting points I don't know where to begin to talk about them.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/08152008/watch.html

Thanks in advance.

John

[hcap]

Lengthy article
Illusions of Victory
How the United States Did Not Reinvent War… But Thought It Did
By Andrew Bacevich

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174964/andrew_bacevich_the_american_military_crisis

All of this turned out to be hot air. If the global war on terror has produced one undeniable conclusion, it is this: Estimates of U.S. military capabilities have turned out to be wildly overstated. The Bush administration's misplaced confidence in the efficacy of American arms represents a strategic misjudgment that has cost the country dearly. Even in an age of stealth, precision weapons, and instant communications, armed force is not a panacea. Even in a supposedly unipolar era, American military power turns out to be quite limited.

Don't expect the PA high-fivers to accept any of this. Or anything that Moyers does He clearly is criticizing the concept of the "Long War" as a military province as he did in the Moyers interview.

swetyejohn, correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to have been convinced recently of the lefts' criticism of the War-from recent posts. But I suspect reluctant to come out on the record. Equivocating a bit too much instead of clearly stating your feelings. What's the worst that can happen?. Probably have to get used to signing on as 'Commie/Lib/Socialist/Pinko/Traitor/Troop hater"? :rolleyes:

[lsbets]

If you ever wondered why no one thinks you are a serious thinker Hcap, this post of your is a perfect example. SJ asked for opinions. You started with a quote, then moved onto a vague insult at those who don't agree with you, then said you thought SJ was smart enough to agree with you, but too chickenshit to say so. THe only thing your reply was missing was some inane cartoon.

You're a joke. A pathetic worm of a person. Seriously. I can't think of one redeeming feature of yours.

SJ - I'll read the link later on today if things aren't too crazy and tell you what I think. I know you disagree with me on a lot of stuff, but your feelings have always been well thought out and thoughtful, like most of the others I disagree with on the board. The only ones who get labeled anything are the ones consumed with hate and devoid of any class at all.

[Tom]

The only thing your reply was missing was some inane cartoon.

You're a joke. A pathetic worm of a person. Seriously. I can't think of one redeeming feature of yours.


Allow me.......

[boxcar]

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Boxcar

[Dave Schwartz]

John,

I will watch yours if you watch mine on Modern Liberalism.

Deal?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaE98w1KZ-c

Dave

[highnote]

John,

I will watch yours if you watch mine on Modern Liberalism.

Deal?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaE98w1KZ-c

Dave


I will watch it. You've piqued my interest.

[highnote]

Lengthy article
Illusions of Victory
How the United States Did Not Reinvent War… But Thought It Did
By Andrew Bacevich

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174964/andrew_bacevich_the_american_military_crisis

I have meant to go to tomdispatch. Moyers mentioned this site. Looks interesting. Thanks for the reminder.



Don't expect the PA high-fivers to accept any of this.


I try not to expect anything from anyone. That way I am never disappointed.


Or anything that Moyers does He clearly is criticizing the concept of the "Long War" as a military province as he did in the Moyers interview.

??? It's not clear what you're saying. I was hoping interested people would listen to Bacevich's arguments and take them seriously. His opinions are different than most of the people you hear arguing on cable TV news. He sees things from a perspective I have not heard and that's why I thought he was interesting. If he was far right or far left or even in the middle he would be less interesting. He seems to be trying to be independent and objective.

swetyejohn, correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to have been convinced recently of the lefts' criticism of the War-from recent posts. But I suspect reluctant to come out on the record.

Yes. I think the war was a mistake. I said from the beginning that it should have been a special operations war and we should have used the goodwill that 9/11 generated to get law enforcement agencies around the world to help us fight it. Afterall, most people are opposed to terrorism.

Bacevich argues that terrorism is akin to organized crime. Therefore, the way to fight it is with a police force, not a military force.

Equivocating a bit too much instead of clearly stating your feelings.

You seem to take a George Bush view -- you're either with us or against us. What's wrong with trying to be objective?

I don't know what you mean by equivocating. As I said, I have opposed the war in Iraq from the beginning. I think it is an expensive mistake. Thousands of American troops have died. It is estimated that this war will cost 3 trillion dollars after all is said and done.

What could the alternative uses of that money been? That could have funded a lot of special ops and trained foreign police forces to deal with terrorism.

Bacevich argues:

As the imperial presidency has accrued power, surrounding the imperial presidency has come to be this group of institutions called the National Security State. The CIA, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the other intelligence agencies. Now, these have grown since the end of World War Two into this mammoth enterprise.

But the National Security State doesn't work. The National Security State was not able to identify the 9/11 conspiracy. Was not able to deflect the attackers on 9/11. The National Security State was not able to plan intelligently for the Iraq War. Even if you think that the Iraq War was necessary. They were not able to put together an intelligent workable plan for that war.

The National Security State has not been able to provide the resources necessary to fight this so called global war on terror. So, as the Congress has moved to the margins, as the President has moved to the center of our politics, the presidency itself has come to be, I think, less effective. The system is broken.

We have criticized the imperialism of Britain for being in Iraq and Afghanistan. And now here we are doing the same thing. One thing is clear: all powers eventually leave Persia. We will leave. It may be in 16 months or 100 years.

Persia is strategically vital because that's where the oil is. Take oil out of the equation and we're not invading Persia.

Bacevich argues that we're in Persia because the American way of life is not negotiable and woe to anyone who tries to force us to change. We're willing to allow our troops to die in Persia so that we can be certain we have the oil we need to maintain our lifestyles.

Now, that may be an oversimplification, but it is part of the equation.

We should focus on developing a workable energy program.


What's the worst that can happen?. Probably have to get used to signing on as 'Commie/Lib/Socialist/Pinko/Traitor/Troop hater"? :rolleyes:

I take no pleasure in provoking those who hold beliefs that are different from mine.

My goal is to understand why people hold certain beliefs. I may lean left, but a lot of people lean right. Why? And can we both be correct in our beliefs? Can we find a common ground? If we listen to the other side can we learn something of value? Does the other side have valid points? It's hard for me to believe that one side or the other is always correct.

If what you mean by "equivocating" is being tolerant and open to other people's opinions, then I guess I am guilty as charged.

[Tom]

John, I will wathc both yours and Dave's videos......later. It is Toga-time after all!;)

But what you said about fighting terrorism with a police force, two things:

We needed the military aspect for Afghanistan because of the magnitude of the infection there, and, all other thoughts about Iraq aside, it too was far to broad in scope to use less than an army.

We tried using the police aspect here at home, with selective wire taping, and the libs had kittens. The problem with using police tactics is you have to wait to react and not be proactive. You cannot arrest the guy until he robs the bank.

One thing for sure, if Obama and the dems get control, we will fight terror with neither tool. Now, they just broke at Arlington....

[highnote]

John, I will wathc both yours and Dave's videos......later. It is Toga-time after all!;)

But what you said about fighting terrorism with a police force, two things:

We needed the military aspect for Afghanistan because of the magnitude of the infection there, and, all other thoughts about Iraq aside, it too was far to broad in scope to use less than an army.

We tried using the police aspect here at home, with selective wire taping, and the libs had kittens. The problem with using police tactics is you have to wait to react and not be proactive. You cannot arrest the guy until he robs the bank.

One thing for sure, if Obama and the dems get control, we will fight terror with neither tool. Now, they just broke at Arlington....

I agree with you on Afghanistan. The terrorist camps had to be destroyed.

I agree Hussein was a bad guy, but it should have been possible to remove him from power with special ops. I'm not convinced we had to send thousands of troops to their deaths and spend billions of dollars to occupy the country just to get rid of the man. But that's a debate this country is going to have for many years to come.

A police force alone isn't the answer to stopping terrorism. But the CIA, FBI, NSA, etc etc etc failed to predict and prevent a terrorist attack.

I agree with Bacevich that organizing police forces between various countries is the way to fight terrorism -- the same way we fight drug dealing and other forms of organized crime.

Bottom line, still, is that we have to have oil. Persia is vital to our national security because the American way of life is not negotiable. Americans are not willing to give up their lifestyles -- which requires a lot of oil.

So it's our basic lack of a realistic energy policy that is a big cause of us being in Persia. And our troops are bearing the largest burden. They are putting their lives on the line so that we can maintain a lifestyle.

There are leaders in the world as bad as Hussein, but because their countries are not vital to our national security we turn a blind eye.

[Capper Al]

This interview shows that a liberal and a conversative can sit down and talk about an issue and maybe even come to some consensus. I enjoyed it. Thanks for sharing.


Guys,

Will you humor me and watch the Andrew Bacevich interview with Bill Moyers? I would very much like to hear your opinions.

He comes across, to me, as very non-partisan. It is truly the best interview of this kind that I have ever seen.

He makes so many interesting points I don't know where to begin to talk about them.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/08152008/watch.html

Thanks in advance.

John

[Secretariat]

Excellent interview.

"Imperial policies provide imperial Presidents to compromise freedom here at home, and we've seen that snce 911."

"...plunging into Iraq will go down as a recklessness never before seen in American history."

Bacevich's quotes referring to the imperial presidency were spot on. I plan on reading some of his books.

[Tom]

What freedoms have been compromised?
I must have missed that.

Let's see, freedom to not die in attacks has been enhanced.
Freedom to go into tall buildings is enhanced.
Some terror architects got wet, no big deal.

Wassup here?

[highnote]

What freedoms have been compromised?
I must have missed that.



I wish Bacevich would have elaborated on which freedoms we have lost since 9/11.

There are restrictions -- like not being able to carry my pocket knife on an airplane. But I can still put my pocketknife in my checked baggage. So I'm not sure that counts as loss of freedom.

I still have the freedom of speech and the other freedoms guaranteed by the constitution.

The main point he was making was that we have a crisis in foreign policy and it is future generations who will not have the level of freedoms we have. He feels we are squandering our power and wealth because we persist in imperial delusions.

This is one of my favorite Bacevich quotes:

The Congress, especially with regard to matters related to national security policy, has thrust power and authority to the executive branch. We have created an imperial presidency. The congress no longer is able to articulate a vision of what is the common good. The Congress exists primarily to ensure the reelection of members of Congress.

[Dave Schwartz]

SweetyeJohn,

How you doin' with that video link I sent you?

I watched the interview and will post my opinion as soon as you tell me that you watched the other video.

Dave

[46zilzal]

I will read it and report later.

[highnote]

Hi Dave,

I watched the video.

He is definitely a professional speaker and a very bright man. He threw in humor at the right times and had his speech memorized. Being a comedian, he is probably used to memorizing long routines. I was impressed with his speaking skills.

I liked the Q&A session the best. He was very good at answering from off the cuff.

Since we're watching two videos in this thread I suppose it's fair to compare and contrast Sayet and Bacevich.

Both were well prepared. Bacevich teaches history so he can draw on history to make his points. He argues that American's lack of an energy policy is what is causing our political, economic, social and military problems.

Sayet's background appears to be in the entertainment business. He spent a lot of time bashing it and blaming liberal entertainment for the downfall of America and the cause of all the liberals problems. Ironic, that he used to work for Bill Maher. He also worked for Ben Stein. So it seems there is a bit of show business in his presentation and a lot of hyperbole. But that's OK. It makes an otherwise opinionated speech listenable.

In a way, they are both right. If we returned to a 1950's America, where we lived in an Ozzie and Harriett family unit and reduced our consumption of oil we'd be better off.

Since their backgrounds are so different it makes for two completely different types of presentations.

Bacevich brought up things in history and how they affected American politics -- The Carter Doctrine and Carter's Malaise Speech -- to name a couple.

Sayet brought up John Lennon's "Imagine" lyrics as an example of how unrealistic liberals are. He appeared to be speaking to a partisan audience and framed his argument about how liberalism is bad and conservatism is good. Everything was black and white -- liberal - conservative.

While I thought Sayet was an excellent presenter, he didn't change my perspectives or beliefs. He reconfirmed my belief that conservativism/liberalism is more than a black/white issue. There is a full spectrum of beliefs on both sides. Some liberals share some conservative beliefs with conservatives and some conservatives shares liberal beliefs with liberals.

Bacevich is a professor, as well as an experienced soldier. His job as a professor is to disseminate knowledge. I learned a lot from Bacevich and he shed light on American politics and the military from angles I had never seen before.

After about the 50th time of hearing Sayet say that Liberals are evil and that liberals support evil and that liberals raise up evil I got a little bored with his speech. But he would then inject some comic relief and move on.

I didn't get the feeling Bacevich was partisan -- he was critical of every president from Carter to Bush Jr. and congress. He also said that Reagan may have been the most skillful politician of our time.

Sayet is obviously partisan. Not that there is anything wrong with aligning oneself with a political philosophy. Bacevich's non-partisanism is actually a different kind of partisanism.

My biggest disagreement with Sayet is when he says liberals do not use rational thought. He says Liberals don't want to discriminate, but he says sometimes discrimination is necessary. He gives the example of security checks at the airport. He says an 87 year old grandmother is not likely to be a terrorist, but three young females wearing shrouds and screaming Allah Ackbar (sp?) are more likely to be. The liberals, he says, insist that everyone needs to be frisked. He says, only those fitting the profile should be checked.

But we know from the use of rational thought about how to apply the Black Swan theory. Just because something is rare, doesn't mean it isn't going to happen. And the consequences of that rare event happening could be devastating. So let's say a white guy with a bomb in his shoe blows up an airplane 35,000 feet about the ground with 200 passengers on board (it almost happened). How do you explain to the family members that the bomber wasn't screened by security because he was a white guy and didn't appear to be a threat?

And what security personnel do we want to entrust to make those kinds of calls for us?

Here is a photo of Zacarias Moussaoui. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zacarias_Moussaoui

He looks like he is a person of African American dissent. So are the security personnel only to check African American's with a light complexion and leave white guys unchecked?

So I disagree with Sayet when he says liberals don't use rational thought. I would argue he has not thought through this particular position carefully enough.

In general, I'd recommend Bacevich over Sayet because Bacevich looks at the current state of America from a perspective I had not seen before. Whereas, I can turn on Fox news and hear Sayet's views nightly. Sayet is a drummer boy in the conservative army. Bacevich is marching to his own beat.

Both are valid expressions of their world views. Personally, I found Bacevich's more interesting because I had never heard it before.

PS
a little off topic. I found this link while trying to find a picture of Moussaoui...

http://www.shelleytherepublican.com/2006/05/30

You gotta love the internet.

[Dave Schwartz]

John,

The Moyer interviewee began with the premise that the U.S. today could be compared with Great Britain's imperialism in the 18th and 19th centuries. Please, that is more than just insulting - it's downright stupid.

When GB imperialized, they really took over. That phrase, "The sun never sets on the British empire" was, of course, literal.

Is Afghanistan or Iraq headed for statehood? What about Bosnia? What land or territory have we claimed?

I know, I know... It's all about the oil. Well, if we have the oil, why are we paying so much for it?



Personally, I find the Sayet video to be right on the money. It just amazes me that educated people can respond the way they do when asked a question. Perhaps a couple of examples are in order.

Question: "How can a candidate with no experience like Obama expect to lead the nation?"
Answer: "Like Bush did a such a good job."
(This answer was from a PhD/liberal on another site I frequent.)

or

Question: "How can you take the side of the arabs after 9/11?"
Answer: "What other choice did they have?"



Now, I appreciate that you have all the appearance of a middle-of-the-roader. I give you credit for not being an obnoxious liberal like 46, arrogant as Hcap or hateful like Light. But you are still clearly liberal.

As the quote oft-credited (probably incorrectly) to Churchill goes:

"If you're not a liberal when you're 20, you have no heart. If
you're not a conservative when you're 40, you have no brain."

So, aren't you 40 yet? :rolleyes:


Dave

[Dave Schwartz]

One more thing... Just for the record. I am a "moderate." At least that is what all the online tests I take say - just before they tell me to vote for Obama. Geez, but they are subtle.

Apparently, I am young for my age. :D

Dave

[highnote]

But you are still clearly liberal.

Thank you. I'll take that as a complement. :ThmbUp:


As the quote oft-credited (probably incorrectly) to Churchill goes:

"If you're not a liberal when you're 20, you have no heart. If
you're not a conservative when you're 40, you have no brain."

I've often wondered if Churchill meant that after you become a conservative you gain a brain but lose your heart.




So, aren't you 40 yet? :rolleyes:

Reminds me of a line from an old black and white movie .... "On my 40th birthday I turned 35 forever." :D

By the way, what is your opinion of Bacevich's arguments? That was the point of this thread.

[equicom]

HCAP... criticism of the war is not leftist. It is realist. The war isn't really doing you (the American people) one bit of good. It's debatable whether it is doing Iraq any good, and it remains to be seen if other nations will benefit.

Possibly the weakening of America's defenses due to this conflict would be of benefit to anybody seeking to attack, although obviously it is highly unlikely that a conventional military strike would be made by any nation in the immediate future.

Support of the war is not necessarily Republican either. The war is not a Republican war, it is just being led by a Republican.

Also the soliders over there fighting are not all Republicans. There are soliders from all political persuasions, and there are some soldiers who are in favor of the war and some who are not. I think it is ridiculous that people think that they are supporting the Republican cause by supporting the war or supporting the Democrat cause by opposing it.

You should support or oppose it based on rational thought-out ideas, not just because you have attached yourself to a particular team.

[hcap]

HCAP... criticism of the war is not leftist. It is realist. The war isn't really doing you (the American people) one bit of good. It's debatable whether it is doing Iraq any good, and it remains to be seen if other nations will benefit.

Possibly the weakening of America's defenses due to this conflict would be of benefit to anybody seeking to attack, although obviously it is highly unlikely that a conventional military strike would be made by any nation in the immediate future.

Support of the war is not necessarily Republican either. The war is not a Republican war, it is just being led by a Republican.

Also the soliders over there fighting are not all Republicans. There are soliders from all political persuasions, and there are some soldiers who are in favor of the war and some who are not. I think it is ridiculous that people think that they are supporting the Republican cause by supporting the war or supporting the Democrat cause by opposing it.

You should support or oppose it based on rational thought-out ideas, not just because you have attached yourself to a particular team.The war has been a left/right issue, a point of demarcation since it was a gleam in George W Churchills' eye. Yes there are objective tests for opposing the war that clearly have very little to do with ideology, many have to do with realism. However there is an objectivity as well from an ethical/moral/humanistic point of view. During most of our discussions of war here-realism-the pluses and minuses of geopolitical chess becomes the bottom line. Many of us feel this artificially circumscribes the issues.

Bacevich touches on both. The failure of the "long war" from a geopolitical point of view, and the larger human implications, morally and ethically. The US empire building extravaganza according to Bacevich has failed in both the realm of realism and humanism.

The left has leveled both criticisms on the Bush administration since the onset of neocon philosophy dominating US foreign policy and bush. It is the left and liberals that have led the charge. We were correct and deserve to say "we told you so". If this is arrogant or irritating to the PA high-fivers, so be it.

Bacevich is not middle of the road in his criticism. He may be of true conservative roots and may be of different political persuasion than me, but now has arrived at the same conclusions. Morally and realistically.
I take no pleasure in provoking those who hold beliefs that are different from mine.

My goal is to understand why people hold certain beliefs. I may lean left, but a lot of people lean right. Why? And can we both be correct in our beliefs? Can we find a common ground? If we listen to the other side can we learn something of value? Does the other side have valid points? It's hard for me to believe that one side or the other is always correct.

If what you mean by "equivocating" is being tolerant and open to other
people's opinions, then I guess I am guilty as charged.In this case, no, we both can't be correct. Maybe now yes we can find common ground if those that supported the war realize the wrongness of the endeavor. My belief all along has been that the war has been a terrible mistake. It appears now 5-6 years later that the justifications, the false bravado, the abuse of power by the ends justifies the means adherents, has skewed this country in the wrong direction.
I think equivocating is a form of tolerance and accept that you are trying to be fair and perhaps non-irritating to those that still support the war and can't accept their failure, but at some point, the enablers of the same failed philosophy must be called out. As this war began, and during it's execution, I and others who dissented were called all sorts of despicable names. Marginalized and accused of "hating the troops".

My comment about "Commie/Lib/Socialist/Pinko/Traitor/Troop hater" was not that far off the mark. Equivocating can not be an acceptable defense-for me-when there is an undercurrent of being on trial here for all sorts of crimes including treason. Unfortunately, I suspect that if you stuck your neck out further in the same direction as I and others, you too would be lumped along with the rest of us as anti-American. Maybe I am wrong and the neocon war supporters have changed but I doubt it. Yes equivocating may buy you some breathing room here but if you dare to express outrage loudly it will provide limited cover.

The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism is the title of Bacevichs' new book. I have argued this same falseness of exceptionalism, and have been raked over the coals here many times.

A previous book..
The New American Militarism: How Americans Are Seduced by War
......"Bacevich is a graduate of West Point, a Vietnam veteran, and a conservative Catholic.... He has thus earned the right to a hearing even in circles typically immune to criticism. What he writes should give them pause.... His conclusion is clear. The United States is becoming not just a militarized state but a military society: a country where armed power is the measure of national greatness, and war, or planning for war, is the exemplary (and only) common project."--Tony Judt, The New York Review of Books

Bacevich goes not support "the long war", the "global war on terrorism", the so-called "bush doctrine" or the militarization of the country.I would say he is expressing the same sentiments as many of us on the left have expressed, although he may be a conservative by backgroud.

[hcap]

If you ever wondered why no one thinks you are a serious thinker Hcap, this post of your is a perfect example. SJ asked for opinions. You started with a quote, then moved onto a vague insult at those who don't agree with you, then said you thought SJ was smart enough to agree with you, but too chickenshit to say so. THe only thing your reply was missing was some inane cartoon.

You're a joke. A pathetic worm of a person. Seriously. I can't think of one redeeming feature of yours.

SJ - I'll read the link later on today if things aren't too crazy and tell you what I think. I know you disagree with me on a lot of stuff, but your feelings have always been well thought out and thoughtful, like most of the others I disagree with on the board. The only ones who get labeled anything are the ones consumed with hate and devoid of any class at all.
Hey Javert,

Speaking of chickenshit, why don't you simply stay on topic and deal with Moyers and Bacevichs criticisms. I guess it's ok to hound me for imaginary crimes, and your weenie pal Tom to post extremely unfunny cartoons, but not ok to deal with the same criticisms I and others have leveled at the war that you support, the military think-that you engage in, and the American Empire propping up that you think is just ducky-coming from Bacevich

[Dave Schwartz]

John,

By the way, what is your opinion of Bacevich's arguments? That was the point of this thread.

I thought I made that clear. When you begin with a false premise, it kind of devalues the rest of it.

I thought it was pure hogwash.


Dave

[Tom]

Gotta agree Dave. When I see a garbage can, I stop looking for a snack.
The guy had nothing to offer worth pondering because he entire point was biased from the get go.

[highnote]

Gotta agree Dave. When I see a garbage can, I stop looking for a snack.
The guy had nothing to offer worth pondering because he entire point was biased from the get go.


I wondered, too, whether he was biased when he said his son was killed in Iraq.

Here's a man, who spent his career in the military. His son entered the military to serve the country and was killed.

Can you blame the guy for questioning U.S. foreign policy?

I think he brings up a good point about reinstituting the draft. Americans pay for a professional army to fight for us -- much like we hire someone to mow our lawns and bus our tables -- because fighting and risking our lives and our childrens lives is something we'd rather pay someone else to do.

I support reinstituting draft.

Put the children of high ranking officials and a bunch of voters on the front lines of war and watch how quickly U.S. foreign policy changes.

[Tom]

You want to use use the draft as a political tool. That is just disgusting.
You will do no better than an all volunteer army. Why do you think people volunteer. you have no clue, but you will use the military as a tool. no offense, but this is exactly why I will NEVER compromise of work with libs. I do not trust this nation to lib and that kind of thinking.

[boxcar]

I wondered, too, whether he was biased when he said his son was killed in Iraq.

Here's a man, who spent his career in the military. His son entered the military to serve the country and was killed.

Can you blame the guy for questioning U.S. foreign policy?

I think he brings up a good point about reinstituting the draft. Americans pay for a professional army to fight for us -- much like we hire someone to mow our lawns and bus our tables -- because fighting and risking our lives and our childrens lives is something we'd rather pay someone else to do.

I support reinstituting draft.

Put the children of high ranking officials and a bunch of voters on the front lines of war and watch how quickly U.S. foreign policy changes.

SJ, no nothing would truly change, including the type of criticisms. The leftists would simply accentuate the fact that the poor, dead draftees never had a choice in the matter because they never had the chance to freely volunteer for military service to begin with, let alone be sent to some war zone. The Left always wants it both ways.

Furthermore, I believe it's too late for policy to change because the Left needs to keep us dependent on foreign oil supplies. If the U.S. were to move towards independence, that would be anathema to Liberals because it would significantly delay these socialists from rapidly implementing their socialist agenda through their primary vehicle of environmentalism. Therefore, the economic lifeblood of this entire planet, i.e. oil will cause the U.S. to take strategic action for some time to come.

Boxcar

[highnote]

You want to use use the draft as a political tool. That is just disgusting.
You will do no better than an all volunteer army. Why do you think people volunteer. you have no clue, but you will use the military as a tool. no offense, but this is exactly why I will NEVER compromise of work with libs. I do not trust this nation to lib and that kind of thinking.


No. I support the draft, not because it would be used as a political too, which it would, but because that way everyone can do his or her fair share of protecting this country.

Too many people get off easy by letting a professional army do the work. It is not a volunteer army. Our troops are paid for the work they do.

That's like saying doctors are volunteers. People choose the professions they want to do.

I respect anyone who joins the armed forces. I've come to learn how important people in the southern states view military service, for example.

The best way to show respect for members of the armed forces is to make sure they are not sent into harm's way needlessly.

It's one thing to protect Americans. It's another to protect the American lifestyle. Maybe Americans should consider changing the way they live so that Persia is not so vital to American interests.

By the way, did you guys even listen to Bacevich's arguments -- or did you just hear one sentence you didn't like and turn it off?

All I wanted to do was have a dialogue about American foreign policy with respect to our war in Iraq and I get called chickenshit by the liberals and disgusting by the conservatives.

No wonder there is no progress. Damned if you do. Damned if you don't. :bang:

[Dave Schwartz]

I wondered, too, whether he was biased when he said his son was killed in Iraq.

Here's a man, who spent his career in the military. His son entered the military to serve the country and was killed.

Can you blame the guy for questioning U.S. foreign policy?

John,

Yes, of course I blame him. In fact, more so because of it.

So, he's got compassion because his son died? What happened to his compassion when other fathers' sons were dying?

Listen, war is not a pleasant thing but it happens. And the outcome of war is that some people die while others live.


And I know the mantra of the L-L-L-Left: "War: There must be a better way." Well, as my wife once said, "If you know what that better way is please tell us because we've been doing it this way for thousands of years."

I can tell you that talking isn't it. You simply cannot talk your way out of everything.


And just so that you understand where I am coming from - I actually like my politics with a touch of liberal. Specifically, I am:

*for social programs (though not the ones we currently have)
*for higher taxes on the very rich. (That means $1m per year up)
*for no taxes for the very poor. (That means those at the poverty & below.)
*against staying in Iraq (but not against going in the first place)
*not a gay/lesbian hater
*for a better health care answer
*a believer in global warming

That video I pointed you to is not an attack against all liberals. It is an attack against (what I call) the "Capital L" liberals. In dealing with such a person I find that video depicts them perfectly.

Also for the record, I dislike "Capital C" conservatives just about as much as I dislike the other extreme. There are two differences between the L's and C's:

1) You cannot have an intelligent, logical, fact-based conversation with an L.
2) C's do not claim they were cheated when they lose.



Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[equicom]

The best way to show respect for members of the armed forces is to make sure they are not sent into harm's way needlessly.

If even a fraction of the money spent on the invasion had been used to boost defenses and patch up the holes that allowed the terrorist attack in the first place, then there would be no need for anyone to be at risk in the way they are now.

I believe that the invasion of Iraq was a political exercise, and no proof has been presented yet to indicate that it was anything other than a political exercise.

How many of you, for example, knew that the airlines and the government had known for years about the potential for a terrorist attack via cockpit invasion (and that it had been done several times before), which led to consideration of a plan to boost cockpit door security... which they sat on for over 20 years, and only did something about it after the WTC attack?

[Tom]

No. I support the draft, not because it would be used as a political too, which it would, but because that way everyone can do his or her fair share of protecting this country.
:bang:

Why not extend this to taxes then? Liberals have no qualms about stealing from successful people to reward those who will not support themselves of their families. Could it be the crippling the military serves their agenda and making people dependent on themselves does not?

Sorry John there is no common ground between the left and right anymore.

[Tom]

I can tell you that talking isn't it. You simply cannot talk your way out of everything.

Regards,
Dave Schwartz

Good example right now - Russia. Remove the threat of the Cold War retaliation and they are on the March again. I predict this will be a replay of WWI - WWII with Putin in the role of Hitler. Look out Poland et al. The evil empire is awake again. The horror that was Germany was not properly extinguished in 1918 and rose again until we fire-bombed it to Hell in 1945. WWI went on hiatus with a negotiation; WWII eneded with utter desruction and unconditional surrender.

You do not negotiate with your enemies - you kill them. Period.

[highnote]

John,

Yes, of course I blame him. In fact, more so because of it.

So, he's got compassion because his son died? What happened to his compassion when other fathers' sons were dying?


That's a good point. I wondered the same thing myself.

Sometimes it takes a "crucible" event like that for someone to wake up.

And you can argue that he's wrong, and I respect that opinion. But what I like about what he writes is that he tries to understand the current state of American politics with respect to foreign policy and point out some of it's shortcomings and offer solutions.

I think it's important that he points out that America needs a better energy policy other than trying to force American democracy on middle eastern countries with an occupying force.

If oil is taken out of the equation, the U.S. would have little or no interest in the middle east. This is why he makes a point of writing that in 1980 Jimmy Carter declared that the Persian Gulf was vital to American interests and that the US could not let any other country control that region of the world. That is Imperialism. If we were energy self-sufficient we would probably not be in Iraq.

It's a lack of a workable energy policy that he feels is causing us to lose our freedom.

Are we free nation if we have to rely on our military to ensure we have adequate oil supplies? What is the cost of that?

If we did not have an interest in Persian Gulf oil we would never have been attacked by terrorists from Saudi Arabia. That's not to say there wouldn't be other threats, but being energy self-sufficient would have reduced the chances that terrorists would have attacked us.

[highnote]

Why not extend this to taxes then? Liberals have no qualms about stealing from successful people to reward those who will not support themselves of their families.

Warren Buffett can answer your question better than I.


The free market's the best mechanism ever devised to put resources to their most efficient and productive use. The government isn't particularly good at that. But the market isn't so good at making sure that the wealth that's produced is being distributed fairly or wisely. Some of that wealth has to be plowed back into education, so the next generation has a fair chance, and to maintain our infrastructure, and to provide some sort of safety net for those who lose out in a market economy. And it just makes sense that those of us who've benefited most from the market should pay a bigger share.

When you get rid of the estate tax, you're basically handing over command of the country's resources to people who didn't earn it. It's like choosing the 2020 Olympic team by picking the children of all the winners at the 2000 Games.

They [wealthy people] have this idea that it's 'their money' and they deserve to keep every penny of it. What they don't factor in is all the public investment that lets us live the way we do. Take me for example. I happen to have a talent for allocating capital. But my ability to use that talent is completely dependent on the society I was born into. If I'd been born into a tribe of hunters, this talent of mine would be pretty worthless. I can't run very fast. I'm not particularly strong. I'd probably end up as some wild animal's dinner.

But I was lucky enough to be born in a time and place where society values my talent, and gave me a good education to develop that talent, and set up the laws and the financial system to let me to what I love doing -- and make a lot of money doing it. The least I can do is help pay for that.

[Tom]

I'm talking about income taxes - 50% pay noting and are just leeches of the other 50%. Send THEM to war.

Talk about your group who did not earn anything.

[Dave Schwartz]

John,

The military is simply not a good place for a leader (or a follower) who does not believe in the cause. Often the followers are forced to follow but the leaders are not forced to lead.

In other words, if he didn't agree with it, he should simply have gotten out. There are certainly plenty of field grade officers that are ready to move up.

Personally, I see it as a high form of hypocrisy: sending others' kids off to war then "suddenly" realizing that losing a son is unbearable. Please.

It takes a special kind of leadership ability to lead men... to COMMAND men... into battle. If you don't have the stomach for it, then you're in the wrong biz.


Remember the Jack Nicholson movie where he played the Marine colonel? ("You can't handle the truth.") While we may find his character lacking in some virtues we admire, he was right: we do want him on that wall; we need him on that wall.

I find that the great majority of L's do not value this country. How do you suppose we got this country?

I'll tell you how. Blood. It was purchased with blood. What would have happened if we had adopted the Jimmy Carter approach? (i.e. "What say we try to talk the king into just letting us have the colonies.") How do you suppose that would have gone?


Dave

[boxcar]

Warren Buffett can answer your question better than I.

SJ, oh, yes...the ol' romantic Robin Hood Syndrome, eh? Rob from the undeserving rich to give to the deserving poor. If we as individuals did that, we'd be called criminals and when caught, tried and convicted hauled off to prison. But when the government plays the role on behalf of the poor, the thievery becomes not only legal but virtuous, moral, good and just. Absolutely mind-boggling.

Boxcar

[highnote]

I'm talking about income taxes - 50% pay noting and are just leeches of the other 50%. Send THEM to war.

Talk about your group who did not earn anything.


According to an article I read some time ago, George Bush Sr. was able to avoid paying income taxes because he owned a property in the state of Texas. Texas law said that if you owned property and had the "intent" to live in Texas you could be considered a resident. The property was a tiny lot of something like 30 X 100 in a bad neighborhood. But that was enough to show he had intent -- even though he was living comfortably at his Kennebunkport, Maine compound.

Buffett claims his effective tax rate is less than the average American.

We have a gov that is bailing out investment banks who lost 100s of billions of dollars. The taxpayers will foot the bill their poor investments. Of course, when they make a profit and the executives earn huge sums of money they pay very little tax. So they get the best of both worlds -- profitable company -- big bonuses. Unprofitable -- government bailout.

We have a war in Iraq that will cost 3 trillion dollars after all is said and done. Who pays for that? The taxpayer. The average American taxpayer has a higher effective rate than the highest income earners. And in some cases, those with the most income pay zero income taxes.

[Tom]

We have a war in Iraq that will cost 3 trillion dollars after all is said and done. Who pays for that? The taxpayer. The average American taxpayer has a higher effective rate than the highest income earners. And in some cases, those with the most income pay zero income taxes.

I never said we should ignore that, but at least we are not also paying for the rich in the form of welfare. And the wealthy also pay taxes through their corporations, and create jobs, fund retirement accounts, etc.

[highnote]

John,

The military is simply not a good place for a leader (or a follower) who does not believe in the cause. Often the followers are forced to follow but the leaders are not forced to lead.

Agreed.




Personally, I see it as a high form of hypocrisy: sending others' kids off to war then "suddenly" realizing that losing a son is unbearable. Please.

I don't know that that is how he actually feels.



I find that the great majority of L's do not value this country. How do you suppose we got this country?

Through the extermination of native people.


What would have happened if we had adopted the Jimmy Carter approach?

??? It is because of the Carter Doctrine that we are fighting in the Persian Gulf now. He said 30 years ago that the Persian Gulf was vital to our national interests and that we would not let any other nation control the region.

That's the whole problem. Neither Carter, Bush I, Clinton or Bush II has taken the time to lay out a national energy policy. Our policy now is "get more oil from wherever we can and at whatever cost in order to maintain the lifestyle to which American's have grown accustomed."

Bacevich argues that our troops are paying with their lives for the lack of an energy policy.

It would not be a popular notion for politicians to tell voters that they are going to have to start sacrificing until we find a way to be energy self-sufficient. It's much easier to go to war in the middle east to make sure the region stays stable so that we can be assured of a supply of oil to run our empire and main the American lifestyle.

Unlike other liberals, I don't think there was a vast right wing conspiracy to attack Iraq just to get at their oil. I do believe the Bush admin thought they had the best interests of the American people in mind. But that doesn't mean there were not other, better ways to approach the situation.

One reason the world economy has grown so much is due to consumption. Americans buy a lot of crap. The number of toys my kids have would boggle your mind. I didn't buy most of them. They were gifts. When I was a kid we sure didn't have that many toys. But all that buying drives the economy.

So if Bush would have said after 9/11 we need to start conserving oil, saving more money, buy smaller cars, etc that would actually have a negative effect on the economy and instead of a recession we might have had a depression. Depressions are caused by lack of economic activity. If no one is buying then a depression will follow.

I would like to see us get out of Iraq. We were right to take out the terrorist training camps in Afghanistan. We could use intelligence agencies, special ops and cooperation with the police and military forces of our allies to battle organized terrorism.

We should take the $3 trillion we will spend on middle east wars and use that money to fund a self-sufficient energy program. That alone would create a lot of jobs. We could beef up our homeland security and secure our borders.

While we're busy fighting in the middle east our borders are being overrun with illegal aliens.

But what do I know. I'm just a horseplayer with an interest in the off-topic section.

[boxcar]

??? It is because of the Carter Doctrine that we are fighting in the Persian Gulf now. He said 30 years ago that the Persian Gulf was vital to our national interests and that we would not let any other nation control the region.

That's the whole problem. Neither Carter, Bush I, Clinton or Bush II has taken the time to lay out a national energy policy. Our policy now is "get more oil from wherever we can and at whatever cost in order to maintain the lifestyle to which American's have grown accustomed."

And you have mainly the Liberals to blame for this because they have adamantly refused to allow the U.S. to compete in the world's oil market and to become significantly less reliant upon foreign oil supplies until we technologically advance to the point of efficiently producing our own alternate energy supply at affordable prices. All the politicians have to do is allow the oil companies to drill for oil. It's that simple. When Bush recently rescinded his father's executive order for a moratorium on drilling, the price of oil started to come down immediately -- just the mere threat that the U.S. would start to produce its own oil drove prices down. But what did the Libs do when it came time for an up and down vote in the House on drilling? The Madam got her little panties in a wad, put the lights out and went on vacation -- essentially flipping the bird at 75% of Americans who want us to start drilling. Elitism and Arrogance at its best.


It would not be a popular notion for politicians to tell voters that they are going to have to start sacrificing until we find a way to be energy self-sufficient.

Yes, the Libs excel at telling us how we must lower out demand. To them, it's all about DEMAND. What about supply? There is plenty of oil out there to be had. All we have to do is drill for it while we simultaneously develop affordable alternatives -- which is something that is not going to happen overnight, incidentally.

Boxcar

[Secretariat]

I'm talking about income taxes - 50% pay noting and are just leeches of the other 50%. Send THEM to war.


Jeez Tom, you'd have to send 2/3rds of corporations.

[highnote]

Elitism and Arrogance at its best.

That is one area I agree with Bacevich on -- congress' primary job is to see to it that they get re-elected -- the party of the incumbents.



What about supply? There is plenty of oil out there to be had. All we have to do is drill for it while we simultaneously develop affordable alternatives -- which is something that is not going to happen overnight, incidentally.

Boxcar

We're not going to develop affordable alternatives overnight and the oil we drill offshore is not going to be available for 10 years, from what I've read.

One thing is clear, unless we want to fight the Long War in the middle east we are going to have to find alternative sources of energy.

[highnote]

I never said we should ignore that, but at least we are not also paying for the rich in the form of welfare. And the wealthy also pay taxes through their corporations, and create jobs, fund retirement accounts, etc.


I agree everyone should have to work -- no free lunch. My wife is a vocational rehabilitation counselor. Her job is to make sure people with disabilities can work. Say a person gets suffers a traumatic brain injury or becomes paraplegic. She helps them become rehabilitated. I think most people would agree that is money well spent by the government to help people find work and become productive members of society again.

Or take the homeless person with severe schizophenia. It's good that there is government money to pay for institutions to care for these people. You can't just let them wander the streets. Although, I can remember seeing a lot of them back in the early '80s in NYC. I'm talking severe, severe cases of mental illness. It was tragic. I wandered what happened to them in the winter. Maybe they just froze to death?

The people who simply don't want to work and want to stay home and collect welfare that is wasteful. It benefits no one. In fact, it is a disservice to the person who is getting the welfare.

[Dave Schwartz]

I would like to see us get out of Iraq.

We should take the $3 trillion we will spend on middle east wars and use that money to fund a self-sufficient energy program. That alone would create a lot of jobs. We could beef up our homeland security and secure our borders.


See? I knew we could find something that we totally agree on.

These are not unique to the liberal point of view.

[highnote]

SJ, oh, yes...the ol' romantic Robin Hood Syndrome, eh? Rob from the undeserving rich to give to the deserving poor. If we as individuals did that, we'd be called criminals and when caught, tried and convicted hauled off to prison. But when the government plays the role on behalf of the poor, the thievery becomes not only legal but virtuous, moral, good and just. Absolutely mind-boggling.

Boxcar


Box,

I don't think he's saying anything like Robin Hood. I think what he's saying is that our society has set up a system that gives the next generation a fair chance.

We could live like Afghanistan where there is no gov, where no money gets plowed back into education, no money plowed into creating infrastructure -- everyone for themselves.

All he is saying is that the people who benefited most from the capital markets should pay a bigger share. He is saying that you have to factor in the public investment that came before you. If not for the investment of previous generations then a person who has a talent to allocate capital would not have the opportunity to be as successful.

Buffett has about 50 billion dollars that he was able to acquire because every taxpayer before him contributed helped contribute to this society. He has a talent for allocating capital. He probably doesn't have a talent for being a great high school principal. But that great public high school principal plays a role in shaping the education of people, perhaps Buffett. It was taxpayer money that allowed Buffett to become well educated. It is taxpayer money that builds roads and bridges over which his company's trucks ship their goods.

So what he is saying that it was with the help of a lot of government institutions and that he was able to acquire billions of dollars of personal wealth. He says the least he can do is help pay for that.

The high school principal doesn't have a talent for accumulating wealth. But they can help turn out students who make huge contributions to society.

I don't think there is anything Robin Hood-like about that notion at all. It makes sense that you need to give back to society to make sure the society can continue to grow.

Of course, we could become a nation of aristocrats and let money pass untaxed to our offspring like they do in Dubai, Saudi Arabia and some of the other kingdoms in the middle east.

[highnote]

See? I knew we could find something that we totally agree on.

These are not unique to the liberal point of view.


As Tom pointed out, there is not middle ground for the Left and Right. But maybe there is middle ground for liberals and conservatives.

[Dave Schwartz]

As Tom pointed out, there is not middle ground for the Left and Right. But maybe there is middle ground for liberals and conservatives.

I do not understand that statement.

[highnote]

I do not understand that statement.


Tom wrote:

"Sorry John there is no common ground between the left and right anymore."

then you wrote:

"See? I knew we could find something that we totally agree on."

then I wrote:

"As Tom pointed out, there is not middle ground for the Left and Right. But maybe there is middle ground for liberals and conservatives."

I understood Tom to be saying that if you're on the left there is no middle ground with the right -- and vice-versa.

I assume you are more conservative than liberal. But you said you knew we could find something to agree on.

If Tom is correct then either you or I is not right or left.

So maybe liberals don't have to hold only left beliefs and maybe conservatives don't have hold only right beliefs. Which means not all liberals agree with everything the left believes and not all conservatives agree with everything the right believes.

[Dave Schwartz]

Ah, I get it.

I thought you were saying that "liberal" and "left" were not synonymous (and "conservative" with "right").

See, to me, you may be l-l-l-liberal, but you are not LIBERAL. I am conservative but not CONSERVATIVE. Between capital C's and L's, as Tom says, there is no middle ground.

I truly wish there was a moderate party (that had some clout).

You can tell when you are talking with a "capital" if could have a conversation with them without them actually being present. They simply take the extreme party line on everything, so you could respond for them.


Dave

[highnote]

This short review of Bacevich's book is a nice summary.

"Arguing that the tendency to blame solely the military or the Bush administration is as illogical as blaming Herbert Hoover for the Great Depression, Bacevich demonstrates how the civilian population is ultimately culpable; in citizens' appetite for unfettered access to resources, they have tacitly condoned the change of military service from a civic function into an economic enterprise."

[Tom]

How about this for common ground, John: At all levels of economic position, we have people who cheat the system and take advantage of those who contibute to the success of our nation. No matter who they, or what level they occupy, they must be flushed out, made to contribute fairly, or banished from the society. That appies to WalMart greeters and CEO's equally. No one gets a free ride except that minority that truly cannot accept responsibility for themselves and thier families. We could actually free up much more to help those who really need it are not shorted by greedy SOBs who are lazy or corrupt.

Basically, what the pioneers used to do - no worky, they pushed you outside the gates and said, "Buh bye. We have two oceans and lots of rafts. Buh bye. :cool:

[highnote]

Works for me. Now how to do we find a politician with the backbone to put it into legislation. All those greedy SOBs won't vote for a policitian like this and those greedy SOBs probably outnumber the responsible people! :eek:

[Tom]

Sadly, the only thing that is really bi-partisan is corruption.

[rastajenk]

We should take the $3 trillion we will spend on middle east wars and use that money to fund a self-sufficient energy program. That alone would create a lot of jobs. We could beef up our homeland security and secure our borders. Energy self-sufficiency is a pipe dream. If it were feasible, it wouldn't take $3 trillion of public money to make it happen, it would be happening already. Public money built the TVA, but it didn't invent electricity or the means to distribute it; it was done with private research and development.

Climate is global, economies are global, energy production and consumption is global. Other parts of the world have more resources for energy production; we have more resources for food production. Instead of chasing down the wrong path toward self-sufficiency, we should be encouraging better market efficiency. And we do that by establishing free democratic societies that encourage investment and reward, and by isolating tyrannies that starve their people with gross inefficiencies.

[equicom]

Energy self-sufficiency is a pipe dream.

Not if the nanosolar technology works. Then your car might be powered by a special coat of paint one day.

[highnote]

And we do that by establishing free democratic societies that encourage investment and reward, and by isolating tyrannies that starve their people with gross inefficiencies.


I don't recall reading in our constitution that it was the role of the United States to establish free democratic societies or isolate tyrannies.

The constitution does mention preventing tyranny here at home. But nation building in foreign lands? Is that in the constitution?

[rastajenk]

Nothin' in there about energy self-sufficiency, either.

[highnote]

Nothin' in there about energy self-sufficiency, either.


I'm pretty certain the founding fathers were more concerned about stopping tyrannical leaders from taking over their country than putting forth a workable energy policy.

On the other hand, the Europeans have been trying to conquer the world and expand their territory since the time of the Gauls, Britons, Germans, and Goths invading Rome.

When they ran out of space there, they attempted to conquer the new world.

Manhattan was bought for some beads. The natives of this country were pushed farther and farther west. And if they didn't go willingly they were annilated in a holocaust.

So now that we are out of land to the west, it makes sense to conquer Iraq and Afghanistan. Watch out Canada and Mexico -- you could be next. Of course, Mexicans are kind of rushing through our back door while our front door is blocked in the fight against terrorism.

I'm just being facetious, of course. But there is also some truth to it.