Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Pat Buchanan :: Townhall.com Columnist
Ideology Was Bush's Undoing
by Pat Buchanan
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


Over lunch, a liberal friend expressed puzzlement. Citing the title of Tom Oliphant's new book about the Bush administration, "Utter Incompetents," he wondered aloud.

Like him or not, he said, Bush is not an unintelligent man, and he is a principled and energetic executive. As for Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and the others, almost all had long resumes of accomplishment in politics, government and business. Why, then, do they seem to have failed so dismally?

In my new book, "Day of Reckoning," published this week, I offer an answer. If there is a one root cause to the Bush failures, it has been his fatal embrace of ideology.

Ideology is substitute religion, a belief system based on ideas that are often contradicted by history and common sense. Yet men will adhere to ideologies with a zealotry that borders on fanaticism.

Marxism, fascism and socialism were are ideologies, gods that failed. So, too, is democratism, the Gospel of George W. Bush.

Democratism is a belief that all men are equally endowed with a desire for freedom and an aptitude for democracy. All can be uplifted, and all brought to see that democracy is the one true path to peace in our world. In democracy lies our salvation.

This conviction lay behind the invasion of Iraq, Bush's crusade to democratize the Middle East and his "global democratic revolution" to "end tyranny in our world." And, as Woodrow Wilson's crusade "to make the world safe for democracy" gave us Lenin, Stalin and Hitler, Bush's crusade for democracy is leaving us with ashes in our mouths.

Yet, Wilson's heart was pure, and he ever exhibited the serenity of the True Believer, the unmistakable mark of the ideologue. One imagines Bush will be preaching the dogma of free trade long after the last U.S. factory has closed and the dollar has reached parity with the Mexican peso.

Bush's "compassionate conservative" appears grounded in the ideological conviction that all children are endowed with the capacity to learn through the high school level. No Child Left Behind was going to raise the test scores of all our children above the national average, as in Lake Wobegon.

Why was it fated to fail? Because reality is otherwise. All children are not equal in their innate ability to learn English or math, as they are not equal in their ability to play sports, music or chess. A second-grader knows that, but our elites reject it as bigotry and blasphemy against the egalitarian dogmas that define who they are.

So we invest trillions, empower bureaucrats and enrich the education industry, demanding it produce what it has shown for 40 years it cannot produce. Today's SAT scores are far below where they were in 1964. Like socialists striving to make their system work in Cuba, China and Russia, we have been banging our heads against a brick wall of human nature.

Consider Katrina. Bush was indeed disengaged. But Katrina was a failure of government, not of Bush. The city of New Orleans, the state of Louisiana and FEMA all failed at the simple rescue of 30,000 people stranded by a few feet of stagnant water, while TV anchors boated back and forth bellowing for government to come save them.

Where were the men of New Orleans?

Why did the men of New Orleans, after getting their families out, not come back in boats to rescue the black women and children? Why did so many cops defect and start looting? And why did the National Guard and 82nd Airborne succeed and end the hysteria in hours?

In New Orleans, society collapsed because its basic building block, the family, has collapsed, for all the reasons we know too well.

Yet while civil government is failing, institutions like the 82nd, Microsoft and the New England Patriots succeed -- because they operate on other than ideological principles.

You don't vote for the head of Microsoft or choose the coach of the Patriots or commanding officer of the 82nd by elections.

These institutions reject egalitarianism. They put excellence before equality. They do not believe in a "level playing field" for opponents, but, with Vince Lombardi, that "winning isn't everything, winning is the only thing." They demand our best. You fall short, you are gone. They are intolerant of excuses and self-pity.

All who labor there know if they do not perform, the penalties are real: loss of jobs, income, prestige. In the 82nd, incompetence can mean dead comrades or your own death. They are one-for-all and all-for-one people. They are exclusive, not inclusive. They reject racial, ethnic and gender quotas and affirmative action. To the 82nd and the Patriots, there are places women simply do not belong.

Thomas Jefferson believed that in a republic a "natural aristocracy" of virtue and talent should rule. Those who run these institutions believe the same. That is why they succeed, and why government, when we ceased to be a republic and degenerated into an egalitarian democracy, so often fails.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Pat Buchanan is a founding editor of The American Conservative magazine, and the author of many books including State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America .
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Pat Buchanan's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
 
©Creators Syndicate
There is reason to hate Bush
Let me count the ways...

Supported and signed NCLB, the de facto take over of the educational system by the Federal government.

Signed McCain-Feingold which when running for President declared it was unconstitutional, yet he singed it anyway--for this he should be impeached.

Supported blanket amnesty for millions of illegal aliens. "See you at the bill signing."

The incompetence of the Iraq War.

Katrina (Brownie, you're doing a hell of a job).

The greatest runup in Federal Spending since LBJ and the Great Society Programs.

I doubt Kerry could have been much worse.

If you are a true conservative, why support Bush? He is about as much of a conservative as Clinton.

Stop drinking the Sean/Rush koolade.

Al
I finally figured it out ... dumb me! You're a damn liberal, escaped from the dailykos making obnoxious posts on Townhall's only liberal columist ... Pat Buchanan.

The mindless insults ... the tenuous relation of facts to conclusions ... it all fits!

Go back to your idiot buddies at the dailykos and spew your Bush hating BS over there!

Bush is a big time ideologue.
And Buchanan is right, it replaces religion as a moral framework.

Ideology was the most destructive force in the 20th century as it led to about 100 million deaths.

Bush's ideology (spread democracy by force) is slightly different than Marx's (spread equality by force), but both are incidious and evil.

Thank God we change of our leaders through elections or we would risk being as bad as the communists. Unfortunately, repubican rank and file are to ignorant to know that, even if they don't like Ron Paul, he is absolutely correct that we should get out of the Middle East all together.

So much for the party of God having morals.

ideologies
"Buchanan seems to say that ideology AS SUCH is to be avoided. This is a big mistake. An ideology (or philosophy) is, so to speak, simply some concepts and generalizations one accepts in order to make sense of the world. If your ideology doesn't deliver what it seemed to promise, you need to re-examine your premises."

i don't this is a big mistake because it has few consequences save for some confusion.

ideology is simply a theory of policy which assumes a certain way society works. it is pretty much impossible to have a political opinion if one doesn't subscribe to some sort of ideology, even of not well articulated.

so, ideologies are unavoidable. what is bad is when one holds to one's ideology despite overwhelming evidence that it is incorrect (see under socialists).

Ideology: Bad as such???
Buchanan is right that a big part of Bush's failure was his subscribing to the "ideology" of "democracy for everyone." (I think a big part of his failure also stems from more venal faults, but let's just examine the "ideology" issue.)

Buchanan seems to say that ideology AS SUCH is to be avoided. This is a big mistake. An ideology (or philosophy) is, so to speak, simply some concepts and generalizations one accepts in order to make sense of the world. If your ideology doesn't deliver what it seemed to promise, you need to re-examine your premises.

The idea of "democracy" necessarily being a good thing is obviously false. "Democracy" just means a majority of the people can elect leaders, good or bad, or pass laws, good or bad. Democracy, it is often said, is two wolf and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

The Founders were actually very skeptical of "democracy," which they identified with mob rule. This is why they set up systems, now long forgotten, to take important issues out of the realm of mob rule (the electoral college, for example, which was intended to be a very indirect, non-partisan way of selecting the president).

If you want to see an effective "ideology," look at Ron Paul, who advocates, rather than "democracy," a concept called "limited government."

Akagi
I'll see if I can get that book to add to my knowlege. We could probably spend the next two hours swapping titles of books about the PTO. Funny, some people today seem to think what happen in the Pacific was a minor skirmish. I blame the education system for that.

I'm familiar with the history you attempted to explain to TC and you are correct. TC doesn't know what he is talking about. There wasn't any need to drop those bombs. It would suprise him, but McArthur, among other high ranking allied commanders was against it.

Ryan...
Either you're correct or he sells hot air. No shortage of that from TrueIgnoramus.

TrueDummy...
you wrote:

you're an IDIOT, who will NEVER see reality or consider any point other than what's handed down to you by Buchanan

--really? So let's discuss facts and history. Is this quagmire a cakewalk? Is it funded by Iraqi oil revenue? How can you say the majority of insurgents are foreign to Iraq? You see, I actually analyze the news and opinions I read. You mindlessly parrot what you hear from Hannity.

By the way, Bush NEVER said it would be easy in Iraq

--yeah, and he never said it would cost in the trillions and 4000 soldiers' lives. And his admin said Saddam posed a grave threat to us, had mobile bioweapons labs, and was seeking weapons-grade uranium. None of it was true. But yet you still believe it. Moron.

As for the two trillion ... that's just a wild a** guess

--not really. Do you know how much it's cost so far? Do you have any idea when we'll leave?

a small price to pay for cutting off the terrorist threat at the knees

--what terrorist threat? When did Iraqis attack US civilians? Did Hannity tell you that? If anything, our presence only makes moderate Iraqis sympathetic to the extremists.

even the liberal media says it's mostly foreigners

--who? Is that what your hero Hannity said?

Even you admit the Sunnis are now cooperating

--yeah, after we armed the hell out of them, further alienating the majority Shiites. But remember, the Muhajadeen (soon to become al-Qaeda) "cooperated" with us in the 1980s against the Soviets. Remember that? Come to think of it, Saddam "cooperated" with us quite a bit in the 1980s. Remember that?

All in all, a lot of terrorists getting killed over there and not getting in here

--Only a simpleton like you could think we're "killing terrorists over there instead of over here." Typical mindless Hannity talking points.

--Lesson over, TrueNumbnuts. Class dismissed.

Racing the Enemy
Ryan:

Since we are doing reading lists try Racing the Enemy: Stalin, Truman, and the Surrender of Japan by Tsuyoshi Hasegawa (Harvard University Press, 2005). It givs a good account of what was going on between the three powers before (a little) and during the war especially in the closing months of the war that led to the dropping of the atomic bombs and the Soviet intention of entering the war and their motivations as well as the American and Japanese motives at the close of the war as well.

Very well done.


When is the US going into the DPRK?
Only there never was a terrorist threat from Iraq--before Spring 2003 anyway. Want to name some state supporters of terrorism: Syria, DPRK, Iran. I look forward to when the US plans to invade them.


Al
I know what type of business he has. He runs a fertilizer service. Just look at all the b.s. he has spread around on this thread! :)

Akagi
I have to disagree with you about Pat and his positions, particulary immigration. Come to think of it, I would bet a lot of Japanese would agree with Pat.

If you haven't already done so I'd recommend you get his books from the local library. They're worth the read.

Speaking of reading here is a link for you. You know a lot about Japanese history. (I note your handle) This link will take you to three online books about Japan in WWII. Check out #2 about Nomonhan and #7&8 concerning Vasilevsky's offensive into Manchuria you wrote of. I think you will find them useful. The Nomonhan book gives not only a detailed account of this little know battle of major importance, but does in through the eyes of an Imperial Army infantry battalion that later on found itself in another place much better known to historians.

Shoot, maybe True(Neo)conservative might learn something, assuming he/she can understand them.

http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/csi.asp#papers

Ryan
I just can't imagine that conservative aren't beating a path to your door to worship your knowledge! Criticize Rush, you idiot - when you have his success, then give me a call; otherwise, don't embarrass yourself with these stupid mutterings from your cave!

AL
I'll cut this one short ... you're an IDIOT, who will NEVER see reality or consider any point other than what's handed down to you by Buchanan!

By the way, Bush NEVER said it would be easy in Iraq ... he was probably surprised that the initial collapsing of the Iraqi government took so little time. As for the two trillion ... that's just a wild a** guess! I would expect cost to start declining beginning next year ... a small price to pay for cutting off the terrorist threat at the knees!

As for what proportion of the carnage has been caused by foreign terrorists ... even the liberal media says it's mostly foreigners. Even you admit the Sunnis are now cooperating after seeing the indiscriminate killing the terrorists were doing ... including killing of Sunnis. All in all, a lot of terrorists getting killed over there and not getting in here. But maybe we could wish this problem away ... that's what you Buchananites seem to think! That's another good operational definition of insanity!

Al
I hope you have had as much fun with True(Neo)conservative as I have. I think I now where this person came up with the nonsense that most of the people the US is fighting over there is from. I bet he got it from Rush. A year and a half ago Rush was running his mouth about some column of Ledeen's where Ledeen used the term "Syran" as his clever way to confuse the reader with the b.s. that all the opposing forces were from Iran and Syria.

I love people like this. That person has the issues from being on the edge of "societal evolution" from listening to informed people like Rush and Sean. The poster can tell you everything in the world about Hillary, Obama, global warming and why Bush is great and little of anything else that might be of use. No wonder the GOP is in the mess it is.

very good points, Akagi...
yes, I certainly don't agree with Buchanan on everything (particulary free trade), but TrueNumbnuts' claim was that Pat sold out on conservative values in the realm of Iraq and foreign policy... and you and I both know that's not true.

Pat
Al:

I disagree on Pat though. Conservatives have backed free trade and legal immigration. While Pat is still conservative on issues like abortion, porn, gay marriage, and the like, he has become a John Edwards protectionist on trade and a David Duke anti-immigrant, xenophobe, nativist.

He is hardly a conservative. But he is right on Iraq.

TrueDunce (2)
The cakewalk ... what the hell DID it take to depose of Saddam and his government ... about a week?

--so why has it taken four years to stabilize the country? Why didn't the Bush Admin mention it would take as many as $2 trillion and no end in sight after four years to get out? And what about paying for it with Iraqi oil revenue?

The rest has been mopup with large amounts of FOREIGN terrorists doing most of the damage.

--Idiot. Where are you getting this number? I know - from Hannity, right? As many as 95% of the insurgents are home-grown Iraqis who aren't keen on a foreign armed occupation, according to reporters in Iraq.

Now, even the Sunnis realize the errors of their ways

--yeah, after our government armed them and joined forces with them... so they could say "the surge is working!" Good thing for you that TH doesn't have a minimal IQ threshold to post here.

like shooting fish in a barrel...
TrueDunce - this is too easy... like teaching 5th grade.

Reagan, if you read any of the books about him, was locked in the "quagmire" of the cold war

--yes, a rhetorical endeavor waged through diplomacy. He knew to get out of hot conflicts in the Middle East despite morons like you accusing him of "cutting and running."

His getting out of the MidEast was probably a mistake.

--yeah, smart point... because we really needed to get involved in an unwinnable quagmire at the height of the Cold War, right?

Your trying to debate is DEFINITELY a mistake!

--certainly not with an intellectual lightweight like you.

As for "unwinnable" ... there's absolutely NO difference between you idiot Buchanan lovers and the liberals!

--and just when I thought you couldn't be any dumber, you write this. Buchanan has been a staunch conservative for decades and has never wavered. Prez Bush has sold out his entire conservative philosophy that he campaigned on in 2000. In fact, he's become an interventionist Wilsonian Democrat. I suspect you're one of those idiots who thought Kosovo was a terrible campaign because it didn't serve our national interests, but will defend this quagmire ad nauseum.

Akagi
Maybe "that's sound strategy" ["kill enough Americans" ... and they'll run] was a huge miscalculation on the part of the Japanese war machine as it is with al queda and Osama. Maybe, as now, they were looking at liberals; but we didn't have that kind of defeatist liberal that we have today. The rest of us are made of sterner stuff and wouldn't stop until the threat was completely neutralized.

You know, this IS the 21st century, but you still have madmen bent on world domination. It would be FAR CHEAPER in the long run to slap down a few of these tyrants hard [i.e., kill them] then that may sink in to others who have the same ideas that it's a loser and personally dangerous! Let's try that, starting with the madman in Iraq ... oh, we DID do that. It already had the benefit of making Muamaar a convert to the land of the sane! I like that plan ... it's so much better than sticking your head in the sand and hoping the oceans will still protect us!

Akagi
What the hell are you talking about in our not "controlling" what happened at POW camps in Iraq. You mean a little lite hazing vs murdering prisoners? That's a tough call to make the moral distinction there! The Japanese didn't show they much gave a damn what happened to prisoners! That was generally not how we treated prisoners.

You're examples are getting lamer and lamer!

Al the FOOL
Reagan, if you read any of the books about him, was locked in the "quagmire" of the cold war [that went on for 50 years or so and cost us infinitely more than the Iraq war] where he upped the ante considerably by increasing our defense budget. He never missed an opportunity to make it more difficult for the Soviet Union to proceed with their expansionist policies. His getting out of the MidEast was probably a mistake.

Your trying to debate is DEFINITELY a mistake!

As for "unwinnable" ... there's absolutely NO difference between you idiot Buchanan lovers and the liberals! In fact, you've moved so far in that direction that you're indistinguishable from liberals!

The cakewalk ... what the hell DID it take to depose of Saddam and his government ... about a week? The rest has been mopup with large amounts of FOREIGN terrorists doing most of the damage. Now, even the Sunnis realize the errors of their ways ... I guess that's the difference between the Sunnis and you ... they can LEARN!

TrueNeoDunce (2)
Is THAT enough of a threat for you, or does it take a nuke detonating in your city before you can see?

--Typical fear-mongered Hannity parrot. It *might* be enough of a threat if any of it were true. And if so, declare war, and don't get bogged down in an unwinnable quagmire.

What were YOU doing ... apparently keeping track of timelines?

--It's really quite simple - I looked at your first post and noticed it was 24 hours before mine. Please tell me your "company" name. I like to know where not to buy before making ill-advised expenditures.

As for Reagan, you obviously didn't learn anything from him; but he's the greatest president of the 20th century and in the top 3 ever!

--Yeah, and Reagan pulled out of the Middle East once he realized how irrational the politics are. Maybe you should try to read his memoirs.

more of the typical idiocy...
from TrueNeocon.

As to the first, YES, Saddam was a threat, but we have to get beyond stage one and look down the road a bit.

--Oh, you mean like saying the invasion will be a "cakewalk"? That it would last a few weeks? Is that what you mean by "looking down the road a bit"?

He was looking to gain WMDs

--And where are they? Where are those infamous mobile bioweapons labs we heard so much about?

They DID turn over 1000s of pages of documentation of that program that Bush didn't accept was complete ... i.e., Saddam was still lying about it.

--Ahhh, yes, Bush - the paragon of correctness and virtue. Because Saddam had WMDs, the invasion would be a cakewalk lasting a few weeks, and the entire effort would be paid for by oil revenue... right?

This unstable tyrant could easily have given WMDs to terrorists

--What WMDs? Where are they?

he supported and protected them, including al queda who, I believe ran a training camp in Iraq.

--Really? Maybe this is a shocker for you, but Saddam and bin Laden were mortal enemies. Saddam was a secular tyrant, bin Laden a religious fanatic. Saddam paid members of Hamas who attacked Israelis, no members of al-Qaeda who attacked Americans. Get it?

POWs
If the US couldn't control what happened in their POW camps in Iraq or the CSA couldn't control what happened at Camp Sumter (and the Union camps were little better), why do you expect the Japanese to have? And the Japanese had bigger worries that what happened to a few gaijin who were held to be unworthy in any event.

Looking at recent history it seems the Japanese were correct. You kill ebough Americans and make propsect of victory seem dark enough, they'll run or at least be more willing to listen on how to end it. The problem for the Japanese, didn't kill nearly enough and never got to the point that the Americans felt the conflict had ground to a stalemate--without those two things, the Americans would press on. Again, the strategy was sound, just the implementation was problematic.






Al Qaeda
There was an anti-Iranian terrorist group in Iraq, known as Mujahadeen-e-Khalq but it was operating in Kurdistan and protected basically by US airpower. It's camps were pretty much wiped up after the US invasion and occupation in 2003. There has never been one credible source to link Al Qaeda to Iraq before the invasion, but they are there now for sure. Thanks to what America does best--secure borders.




Akagi
Go back and reread your last post ... all feeble excuses for fanaticism. Were not the Japanese authorities in control of all these groups? If so, then they were responsible for letting fanatics have a free run in the prison camps.

The prisoners "didn't deserve to be treated well"?
I treat my dog better! Come on, you're getting ridiculous, here! One of the problems was that the Japanese took these codes too seriously ... an operational definition of fanatic, also!

Still, that doesn't mean even a fanatic can negotiate somewhat sensibly when cornered. But, this is just semantics - you call it "sound strategy", I call it fanaticism. You sound like a reasonable person [unlike so many of the other posters here], so let's just let it go at that.

Al
You make it unanimous ... all IDIOTS present and accounted for.

Like the other idiots, you pull out three questions, the last two of which are just asininely irrelevant! As to the first, YES, Saddam was a threat, but we have to get beyond stage one and look down the road a bit. He was looking to gain WMDs [in addition to the ones he already had]. He THOUGHT he had a nuclear program and SAID so. They DID turn over 1000s of pages of documentation of that program that Bush didn't accept was complete ... i.e., Saddam was still lying about it. This unstable tyrant could easily have given WMDs to terrorists - he supported and protected them, including al queda who, I believe ran a training camp in Iraq. Is THAT enough of a threat for you, or does it take a nuke detonating in your city before you can see?

As for the "teens", you couldn't recognize intelligence if it bit you on the butt! I'm probably older [and clearly saner] than you ... not that that means anything; but YOU brought it up! No job? I have my own company ... and was probably more productive during the last 24 hours than you are in your entire career! What were YOU doing ... apparently keeping track of timelines? What a superb example of "productivity" ... not to mention, incredible pettiness ... get a life, you idiot!

As for Reagan, you obviously didn't learn anything from him; but he's the greatest president of the 20th century and in the top 3 ever!

POW
POW camps were run by the Kempeitai, a pretty nasty lot of which many would join the Yakuza after the war. So saying that Japan was infertile to democracy because of the kempeitai would be like saying that the Germans were because of the Gestapo.

Kamikaze and Kaitien were part of the same Iwo Jima type strategy--a sound strategy, even if it ultimately failed.

This didn't stop the Japanese trying to find a way to surrender with the best possible advantage now did it? If Japan was all so full of fanatics, why were they approaching the Soviets to get them to mediate an end to the war (and something the Soviets had no intention of ever doing)?

Oh the reasons the POWs were treated so poorly is because they didn't deserve to be treated well. They had dishonored themselves by not dying in battle or at least killing themselves before capture, thus they were lower than dogs and deserved the treatment of dogs. That was part of the code. You see these silly American T-shirts, death before dishonor, to the Japanese of the time, this was taken literally.

On a side note, I saw what I am sure is an ex(?) member of the Yakuza working as a fry cook at Burger King. The manager was treating him like a dog. I doubt she has even heard the term Yakuza--I'd be more polite to him if I were her.


wow...
I see that the posters here whose brains are capable of performing analytical functions realize that the quagmire in Iraq has been an unmitigated disaster that we can no longer afford. Meanwhile, the dimbulbs (thanks for that term, Ryan - good one!) are still holding on to the fact that our interventionism in Iraq was a grand idea.

TrueIdiot - a few questions:

1. Do you still think Iraq posed a grave threat to us?

2. Do you think Saddam planned 9/11?

3. Do you believe Iraqis hate us for our freedom?

Something tells me that TrueConservative is in his teens and has been brainwashed to believe Bush is a real conservative. He obviously has no clue about Reagan, Goldwater, or conservative philosophy in general. Asking him to ascertain whether GWB is closer to Goldwater or FDR would be way beyond his cerebral capabilities.

Oh, and TrueNimrod - you obviously don't have a job... I think you've been posting here for a good 24 hours straight... but contributed nil.

Akagi
Bushido ... fanatic ... I don't see any practical difference. Iwo Jima wasn't the ONLY instance! How about the kamikazes? How about the brutal treatment of prisoners?

Bushido
But that was related to the cultural tradition of being a disgrace to be taken captive. This had no impact on the government itself--Japan had been trying to surrender for months when the atomic bomb was dropped.

Most of the really fanatical experience was on Iwo Jima and that was Tadamichi Kuribayashi's plan to cause as many American causlaties as possible so as to force America to end the war on the best terms possible for Japan--that losing more Americans just for the honor of claiming unconditional surrender was unacceptable. His plan was sound, but not enough troops and the total lack of air support to carry it out more effectively. Japanese forces killed less than 6% of the Americans--if he had managed to get that to say 50% or 60%, the Americans might have been more willing to talk. Being outnumbered more than 5 to 1 didn't help matters.

It was a suicide mission for Japan--less than 1/10th of 1% lived through the battle.


Akagi
One more point about your assertion that "Japan was no less fanatical than Germany at the same time"

Germany didn't routinely fight to the last man without surrendering when they were clearly beaten in battle like the Japanese soldiers did in the Pacific. THAT'S a qualitative huge difference in fanaticism in my mind!

Japan
The first bomb had an impact but it didn't have as a dramatic effect as many Americans believe.

The fire bombings at Toyko and Osaka in March 1945 were much more horrific than either Hiroshima or Nagasaki. The second bombing barely was even acknowleged by the Japanese war cabinet.

What shocked then to the core was the Soviet invasion on August 8-9, 1945. Even with the bombings, Japan hoped to get one final battle against the Americans to cause enough causalities to get the US to sit down and end the war on the best terms for Japan--the biggest issue was the status of Emperor Showa which foolishly the Americans left very vauge at Potsdam--if the Americans had stated then no intention of removing him or putting him on trial, the Japanese would have been much more willing to accept terms earlier.

But back to the case at hand, with the Soviet betrayal (and that is how Japan saw it) any such hopes were dashed and unconditional surrender was the only option left.

The Soviets would have invaded without the bombings--on August 10th or so. And the Japanese would have surrendered, but if this had happened, the Soviets would probably have had Hokkaido and perhaps northern Honshu and an occupation zone in Tokyo. Japanese history would have been much different.

And Truman dropped the bomb to end the war before the Soviets entered it. If he wanted to end the war to just to save American lives--why did the Americans have a deadline for the dropping of by August 15 (because they thought the Soviets were going to move on Japan on August 20th or so). X-day was nearly three months away.

Akagi
You miss my point completely. I'm NOT talking about the 1st gulf war, but the 2nd when we actually deposed Saddam's government.

I'm not saying quicker action in the UN would have got us in Iraq sooner. I'm saying we danced around with the UN for over a year before they reluctantly decided to sort of authorize our intervention and we went in ... more than a year after GW Bush had basically decided we needed to make a regime change there!


Akagi
Glad to see you recognize Pat for what he is! That's progress.

I don't buy the "experts" on Iraq's readiness for democracy ... I buy what I saw when the people voted! They are more than ready. And a weak democracy is a better position than what they had ... they're not going to have a mature democracy for a while ... hell, it took us a while! Give it some time. What we had been trying for decades before sure as hell wasn't working, so why the resistance to this relatively low-cost effort.

Mao miscalculated too ... but I submit he also was a madman ... which doesn't mean you couldn't deal with him at times. Anybody who unleashed the chaos he did and caused the deaths of tens of millions of his own people like he did fits any decent operational definition of madman that I know! Sane people don't try to dominate the world and fellow citizens [like Hitler, Mao, Stalin, etc.]! Just because these madmen had a strong self-preservation instinct doesn't mean they weren't fundamentally, deeply, insane!

Much sooner?
The US had assets in Iraq by the 8th of August (funny date, huh?) The UN didn't authorize force in Iraq until November 29--months after the US had boots on the ground in Saudi Arabia. The first resolution was August 2, but that was just demanding that Iraq withdraw from Kuwait. Then on August 6 (another interesting date) the UN placed sanctions on Iraq. Care to explain how quicker UN action could have got the Americans there faster, since they were in theatre a week after the invasion?



Akagi
Riiigghhhtttt! The dropping of the bomb really didn't have anything to do with the Japanese surrender, did it? Just a f'ing coincidence that they surrendered within days! I don't care what the "final order" said, we know what precipitated it!

And large scale resistance just wouldn't have happened ... absolutely NO facts to back that up ... certainly not their fanatical fighting island by island in the Pacific. Of course, it was that fanatical resistance and the highly probable extensive, huge cost of both American and Japanese lives that Truman decided to drop the bomb [although he probably didn't worry too much about saving Japanese lives].

What universe do you live in? Those assertions are beyond preposterous! Can you guys EVER connect the obvious dots?

Democracy and Japan
TC:

Japan's democracy wasn't minimal in the decades before the 1930s. And Japan was no less fanatical than Germany at the same time.

And the reason Japan was able to become democratic after the defeat was because of Emperor Showa. Again, there is no Emperor Showa in Iraq.

And I don't say Iraq isn't ready for democracy, the experts who study political development do.

A stable democracy requires a number of prerequisites which Iraq has none. In these cases if democracy is adopted, you get weak democracies that either revert back and forth between non-democratic and democratic regimes (e.g. the Philippines) or a weak, shallow democracy as in the case of India. And voting isn’t democracy.

And for China I'd say there are a bigger threat because unlike say in the 1960s, their capacities are much greater as is their national ambition of being a great power.

I never said the no-fly zone wasn't part of the cease-fire. I asked how long would the US tolerate such an act in the US? Trying to shoot down basically enemy aircraft doesn't make you a madman. Mao also miscalculated a number of times too--giving Kim the green light to invade the ROK for example, the Great Leap Forward, the Cultural Revolution, was he mad as well?

I don't support Pat. I think he is a right wing nut job with a nasty anti-immigrant, anti-trade, xenophobic, navitist streak. Basically a modern-day Know Nothing, but on Iraq hew is 100% correct--in my view at least.


Please save this for next August
BUT TC a few things.

The Americans always planned to drop two bombs on Japan, it was not the case of "well they didn't surrender let's drop a second one." The first was to show the power of the bomb (and why they dropped it on a basically untouched, unimportant city) and the second to show them the US could produce an unlimited supply of them and drop them at will.

The second bomb had little impact on Japan's decision making and The Soviet invasion was the real push that pushed Japan to surrender.

The final order ending the war which told the Japanese in Manchukuo to lay down there arms made no mention of the bombings at all and laid the case for surrender totally on the Soviet invasion, saying continued resistance was unlikely to bring about military success. The Emperor's message before did mention the bombings, but the final order did not.

The invasion of Kyushu (called X-day) wasn't set until November 1, 1945 and the invasion of Honshu which would be for the taking of the Kanto plain for March 1, 1946. We are talking months after Hiroshima. The reason they were dropped was to end the war before the Soviets entered which was going to happen by the 20th of August. By the time the bomb was dropped, Stalin had ordered the invasion to start on August 10, when he got news of Hiroshima he pushed up the invasion for the 8th. Japan had been trying to get help from the Soviets to end the war for months, but Stalin had other ideas and in his words lulled the Japanese to sleep.

Assuming that the war would have not ended without the bombings or there would have been large scale resistance assumes many facts not in evidence.

And Japan was not infertile to democracy as it had a flourshing democracy in the decades before the 1930s and anyone who knows anything about Japan knows this. Japan was no more infertile than Germany. Iraq is lightyears away from Japan 1945 from either a national identity level or a social-cultural level.


Ryan00
oh, never mind! I'm losing IQ by the minute responding to your inanities!

So our ambassador told Saddam we had no interest in his dispute with Kuwait ... that's a hell of a long way from endorsing a war with Kuwait? Got that? Any more barely relevant info you can throw in there to avoid the clear central meaning?

those angry losers
"But, I use facts, not authority opinions to base my arguments on. Unlike you Buchananites, I actually can analyze data and don't need an authority to tell me when I'm right!"

Last time I checked you were urging others to consult Thomas Sowell's opinion. It is not my fault that you weren't aware of what that opinion was.

"Can you grasp that? Before WWII, it wasn't really possible to kill in the tens of millions; now it's possible to kill in the hundreds of millions to billions! See the difference???"

It was always possible to kill almost all people living - it is just that there was much less people available. Even chimpanzees can exterminate whole groups of chimpanzees (and they do).

"If not, just stick your head back in the sand and hope for the best ... clearer heads, hopefully, will protect your pathetic backside!"

It would sound like a good plan were it not for the fact that I have to pay for that protection. So, thanks but no thanks.

Ryan the IDIOT
"Funny you bring up the UN. I think we should get out of it and only a bloody minded internationalist like you would even consider using the UN as a fig leaf for aggression."

Look, IDIOT, it's DESPITE the UN which usually caters to despotic regimes, that all those resolutions were passed constraining Iraq. Without the UN we would have been in there much sooner! Can you make an intelligent point or can you just throw out irrelevant crap?

"BTW, do you think we should engage in "regime change" with Israel? They have ignored something like 67 UN resolutions."

Are you now saying you're also antisemetic? Figures. The many UN resolutions condemning Israel are all from their enemies and ours. There's a world of difference.

"Try turning off the radio and reading some history. There is a slight chance you might learn something."

Unlike you, I can actually UNDERSTAND what I read!

Sayanora, Ryan!

Akagi,
We know the answer to that one even if our friend is clueless. I enjoyed your posts. You know history, something that is very much in short supply today. Here's a question for you.

What is the difference between a neocon and a Japanese militarist? A Japanese militarist will put on full combat gear and go off the war and fight for his beliefs. A neocon will have someone else do that while he sits on his backside here accusing everyone else of cowardice.

One columnist I read has a great name for the neocons. He calls them the "sofi samurai" It fits!

TrueConservative
I was commenting on Akagi's post, bugwit.

I will comment on your post about Saddam, though.

He started the Iran war knowing the US would support him. He thought the US wouldn't intervene over Kuwait when our ambassador, April Glaspie, told him that we had no interest in his dispute with Kuwait.

Gawd, you're dumber than a box of rocks. I've had enough of your stupidity and ignorance for now.

Akagi, peirces_gal, ryan00, et al
Sorry, I have better things to do than debate with those who cannot see simple facts. It's been fun!

Japan
Ryan:

In Germany there was the Werewolves--but their biggest claim to fame happened during the war with the murder of Dr. Franz Oppenhoff, the installed anti-Nazi mayor of occupied Aachen, Germany in March 1945.

There was no such thing in Japan. If he wanted to make a case of forced democracy and a difficult occupation, the Philippines make a better case study. It was never a country before Spanish occupataion, made up of various ethnic, lingustic and religious groups and ruled as a colony for hundreds of years. Then a number of years of a brutal occupation which at times seemed like a war of extermination sometimes known as the Filipino-American War, followed by decades more of occupation by the Americans (plus a little over 2 years by the Empire of Japan) then followed by a number of non-democratic regimes and a number of weak democratic rulers--which is what happenes when democracy comes to states not economically or socially ready for it. Now does Iraq today sound more like the Philippines in say 1898 or 1946 or Japan in 1945?


Ryan00
"The business about a Japanese resistance movement following V-J day is not only a lie, but a stupid lie easily proven."

Nice try ... when you can't debate the facts, make an assertion that I said something I didn't! Without the atomic bombing of two cities, we would have seen hellish resistance. Nobody EVER said there was resistance after V-J day!

I only said that Japanese were infertile soil for democracy by the standards the posters here use for Iraq! Still true, by the way!

Akagi
What's this BS about Saddam tolerating our no fly zone? Wasn't that part of the cease fire agreement, or was Saddam immune from keeping his word? I can't believe how pathetic your arguments are getting.

So Saddam was "leary" of the al queda types ... that doesn't mean he wouldn't deal with them ... especially, if he got desperate! Face it, he was a madman that grossly miscalculated TWICE [starting two wars with his neighbors] and was set on dominating the Middle East ... by force! If your whole argument depends on Saddam's not dealing with terrorists that is a toothpick trying to support the World Trade Center [to coin an analogy].

Trueconservative
Right, Saddam is going to supply this stuff to someone that hates his guts because he is a secularist. Only to a dimbulb like you would believe that. What makes you think bin Laden wouldn't use that on Saddam?

When it comes to insanity Saddam was rational compared to you.

Funny you bring up the UN. I think we should get out of it and only a bloody minded internationalist like you would even consider using the UN as a fig leaf for aggression. BTW, do you think we should engage in "regime change" with Israel? They have ignored something like 67 UN resolutions telling them to leave the occupied territories. By your logic the bombs should be dropping now.

Try turning off the radio and reading some history. There is a slight chance you might learn something.

Akagi
You think the question of WMDs is settled? It's absolutely clear he was trying to get nukes. The fact is we don't know if he had an extensive nuclear program. Given our intelligence agency's abysmal track record on predicting who had nukes and how long it would take them to develop [say Pakistan, North Korea], we couldn't continue to take the chance. Did he smuggle the nuclear and other WMD programs out of the country in the year plus we diddled around with the UN before we invaded? This is still an open question. There's NO DOUBT he had chemical weapons.

Akagi
Actually, Japan was quite FANATICAL around WWII, much more so than the Iraqis. That is why they were infertile soil for democracy. There previous democratic tendencies were pretty damn minimal!

It takes an incredible arrogance to dismiss people as not being ready or even able to have a democratic government. How do you know that? Short answer is YOU DON'T ... furthermore, you don't have a clue. All you had to see were the millions of Iraqis proudly holding up there purple fingers from their vote and that is all the evidence you need. What people want to be enslaved by a dictator, or for that matter, a king. Given the choice, damn few would opt for the slavery over the opportunity to be free. That's why people have immigrated to the US by the millions from all of these hellholes thruout the world! How you Buchanan lovers can even make such a preposterous assertion in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary is beyond common sense.

As for trade, I'll take my chances. Do you think China is more likely to cause us trouble [serious] now that we trade extensively with them?

One more thing
TC:

How long do you think the US would tolerate foreign aircraft flying over its territory to enforce a no-fly zone? Or the ability to engage in economic activity? Me thinks not very long.

If I was in his shoes, I would have tried to shoot down as many US and UK aircraft as I could as well.

Saddam was very leary of the Al Qaeda types. He even launched preemptive war on Iran because he feared the type of regime it had. There are even documents to this effect. There is no evidence that he tried or even had plans to give WMD (which he didn't have anyway) to Al Qaeda or any other terrorist group. If you are going to attack someone because of terrorism support, try Iran or the DPRK. Maybe Bush really meant to attack Iran and he just got confused on the last letter.

TC, do you know what the term myrmidon means?


Akagi
Most of what goes for knowlege over here of the Japanese comes from Hollywood. The person you wrote to represents that. What you wrote about pre-war Japan is true and that starting in the 20's the militarists started to gain traction over the civilian government in the form of groups like the expansionist Cherry Society (Tsuji) and the fight within the army over whether to establish a northern economic zone in Siberia or move south. Nonomhan decided this issue in favor of the latter.

The business about a Japanese resistance movement following V-J day is not only a lie, but a stupid lie easily proven. Anyone who does a little bit of investigation would learn that as part of a deal to avoid a war crimes trial for Hirohito that he would order his subjects to fully cooperate with McArthur's forces. There wasn't any "resistance".

Be prepared for some crude insults from the misnamed Trueconservative.

Off the subject humor,
What do the Clintons and God have in common? They are never wrong. With the same intensity that a believer may declare, "whatever God does is right" a liberal Democrat will just as vehemently declare, What ever a Clinton does is right". Just ask James Carville, Sidney Blumenthal, Harold Ickes, most professors or the liberal media elite. The disciples of each religion claim that the object(s) of their devotion can do no wrong. In both cases, right and truth are solely determined by the words and actions of the deity. Both set of worshipers believe there is no confining rule that binds the deity to certain actions or precludes other choices. In both religions is the supposition that it may be wrong to assume equality of the deity. According to the devotees of either sect, it may even be sinful to claim the right to imitate the behavior of the deity. The deity has the right to say, "Do as I say, not necessarily as I do". The god or goddess has the right to certain words, actions and decisions that are forbidden to mere common humans. It is blasphemy to invade the prerogatives of the divine one(s). Both faiths have the presence of the evil ones, whose words, actions and beliefs are always wrong. There is Satan, alias Lucifer, and his demons as the antagonist in one faith and George Bush and the conservatives as the nemesis in the other.
There is one difference. One God has the reputation of never lying, as for the incarnations of Zeus and Hera in the progressive Pantheon….Well?.........

pierces_gal
Do you think you are clever refuting facts with irrelevant drivel?

As for Sowell, this is one of the rare things he happens to be wrong on. He's not perfect; but he's almost always right on the areas he knows. But, I use facts, not authority opinions to base my arguments on. Unlike you Buchananites, I actually can analyze data and don't need an authority to tell me when I'm right!

Finally, you fools don't grasp the sea change in technology that has made evil much more dangerous than it was when we were truly protected by two oceans. It's not that human nature is the same, idiot, it's that they can do so much more damage now. Can you grasp that? Before WWII, it wasn't really possible to kill in the tens of millions; now it's possible to kill in the hundreds of millions to billions! See the difference??? If not, just stick your head back in the sand and hope for the best ... clearer heads, hopefully, will protect your pathetic backside!

Saddam
TC:

It is pretty clear now that there were no WMD in Iraq before the invasion, now the US and others believed that there were or at least programs to produce them, but they didn't exist.

Yes, Saddam did try to kill Bush 41 and Bush tried to kill Saddam countless times during the war of 1991--so, we'll call it even and call it a day.

Mao got nuclear weapons in 1962 and Stalin in 1949 and both did things far worse that Saddam ever did, were they not insane too if Saddam was? I don't recall the US invading the PRC or the USSR? If I recall, a president I am not too fond of even fired one of America's greatest generals for even considering bombing (not invading, but bombing) targets inside the PRC--before it had nuclear weapons I might add.


Jake
I see the true IDIOT section has now made it's appearance! In typical liberal fashion, you project your own shortcomings onto your adversaries. Try to get a tenuous grip on reality ... you might find it refreshing for a change!

As for obsession with intellect, I never brought it up ... but then, that would require that you could actually read and understand! So, slink back to your hellish existence. You've made your hit and run for the week!

Trade
TC:

While I reject Pat and others protectionism, the Libertarian belief you state of "People we do business with are LESS likely to cause troubles" isn't backed up by history. This is known as the McDonalds Peace Thesis...until the US started to bomb Yugoslavia, no two countries that had a McDonalds in both of them had every gone to war with each other.

Yet, trade didn't stop the US from invading the Southern states and forcing them back into a Union they wanted no part of and before the War the states of the CSA traded quite freely with those states of the Union, the US and Japan traded quite freely--especially in oil and steel before WWII, billions of NT cross the Taiwan Straits each year, yet there are 800+ ballistic missiles pointed at Taiwan from Fujian, China and the US trade quite openly but China often threatens to go to war with the US over Taiwan.

There are countless other examples as well.




Ryan Zero Zero
You are truly an idiot, full of preconceived ideas, no doubt from your hero, the execreble Pat Buchanan! You are incapable of making a cogent point, and full of anger ... just like Buchanan because Bush kicked his butt and you were dumb enough to vote for him ... not once, but THREE??? times! That's a good definition of insanity, there!

As for no threat from Saddam - as you note, as his military deteriorated, he would become increasingly desperate and would be very likely to give WMDs to terrorists. Hell, the man was insane [maybe you recognize the symptoms], trying to kill Bush's father! But, he would NEVER deal with the religious fanatics because he was secular! You blithering idiot, he would deal with ANYONE who might do what he wanted! You ignore the whole history of that evil tyrant defying the UN and the cease fire agreement from Gulf War I for years ... but he wasn't a threat. I can't imagine what alternate universe you live on, but you are an unhappy fool!

Japan
TC:

Japan actually was quite democratic in the early decades of the 20th Century. What changed was the 1930s as with Germany, Japan became a very authoritarian state which reached its peak with Hideki Tojo replacing the more moderate Fumimaro Konoe. And if you knew anything about Japan, you would have known this and not made such an foolish statement as "And yet it worked in Japan ... infertile soil for democracy if ever there was!"

To say Japan never had any experience with democracy is patently false. Also any parallels with the occupation of Japan and the occupation of Iraq is mindless.

Unlike Japan, Iraq is a country built by English colonials where tribe, clan, village, what religion or sect of a religion you belong to, etc are more important that any national identity, Japan on the other hand was and is an ancient civilization where the citizens believed in a national identity as being Japanese. Which reminds me of a quote from the movie Rising Sun, "We may come from a fragmented MTV rap video culture, but they do not.


You also had a figure that every Japanese not only revered but worshipped that did everything in his power to do whatever the Americans wanted him to do--without his support the occupation and transfer to a democracy would have been impossible and that person was the Emperor Showa or as you know him Hirohito and there is no Emperor Showa in Iraq.

True Conservative
Only a pathetic social outcast would be on his computer for fourteen hours ? Your drivel is neither interesting nor original . What happened cockroach , no friends ? Did mommy neglect to give you your daily dose of self esteem ? Maybe your boyfriend left you . Your obsession with intellect exposes your inferiority , your prose portrays an astounding lack of confidence and your self worth is nonexistent . If you weren’t so pathetic , cockroach , you’d be disgusting .

True(neo)Conservative
Yep, best war ever prosecuted in history, a real bargin! I'm still dizzy from all the success due to the brilliance of neocons like Richard Perle and Bill Kristol.

Chump change for warmongers like you, hell on those who have to go over to Iraq to do the unnecessary for for the neocon ideologues. You really do hold the troops in contempt.

Tell me, what foreign power was the one that financed WW II for the US?

"Oh, and I'm STILL waiting for any of you to identify a SINGLE lie Bush told! It must be verifiable, not some crap from a liberal rag or Dan Rather!"

How about instead of one truth Bush has told since being in office?

Everything that has ever come out of his mouth regarding Iraq has been a lie.

"There is real threat, in my judgment, a real and dangerous threat to American in Iraq in the form of Saddam Hussein."
• President Bush, 10/28/02

Right. An armed forces on the downslide due to a lack of spare parts and a lack of training. A real threat there. The idea of Saddam giving chemical weapons and other unconventional weapons to al-Qaida is sheer stupidity meant for the comsumption of children, Saddam, a secularist working with the religious version of the neocons.

My favorite Bush lie was one he told former radio talk show host Ken Hamblin. Bush answered a question posed by Hamblin about securing the border and enforcing the immigration laws and Bush said he would do this. He hasn't done a damn thing except encourage more illegals with his talk about amnesty. ("Regularized Immigration" is the newspeak term)

When it comes to lying and gross exaggeration Clinton has nothing on Bush. Bush leaned well from his predecessor.

...
"You Buchananite isolationists think we are in the 1600s yet safely tucked behind two oceans that take at least a week to cross.

if you think so you don't understand the reason why people think that the rules of conduct transcend time. and the reason is that some of us think that the biggest threat to peace and prosperity is human nature - and not technology. since human nature remained the same, whatever worked 200 years ago will work today.

"It takes 30 stinkin' minutes to send a missile from the opposite side of the world. Like it or not, the world has shrunk."

we are all aware of it and it has been that way for a while. that's the reason to focus our energies on defense as opposed to improving the world and making iraqis happy. as mr buchanan recently said - we should be #1 army, navy, air, space and technology. that will make us safe (not 100% safe but safe enough), and not having a small and vulnerable groups of soldiers spread all over the world who are not even allowed to use full force.

"And this jewel, "We can now add the track record of Iraq to the list of disasters." Usually, only morons are willing to declare defeat at the first sign of trouble."

oh, so now mr sowell is joining the ranks of morons, and - let me guess - liberals?

"what's he polling now ... is he up to a whole percent yet?

he has been around 5-6% on national polls recently. whom are you going to vote for in the primaries?

An American -Swiss canton or Dutch Repub
Thanks talent scout.
What if we had a real 17th Century Dutch or Swiss Canton Style republic with real 10th Ammendment and rest of Bill of Rights? Eacg state would be an experiment. The influx of capital, population and the general prosperity of the citizens would determime which policies are worth immitating and which are to be avoided. Gay matrriage, amounsof Gun control, even universal health care could be state issues. "Congress shall make no law", that should also include the Judiciary and non-elected bureaucracies and Departments.
Ammendments and earmarks should be restricted to legislative topics. This potpourie of pork and power to non-elected agencies would be curtailed, if all legisaltors and Senators were employees of the state. In light of a President who has abjured and abdicated line item veto, we need an Ammendment demanding all amendments and expenditures be relavent to the title of the Bill.
re instate tariff , outlaw foreign money. Lobbying is a euphemism for bribery, prevent George Sorros and Communist China from renting our politicians.

I love reading your posts
Conservative Cassandra writes: 11:52 PM
Recolonization of America, ......
------

You sum it up so well, and see through the propaganda with the eye of the Eagle.

Recolonization of America, UN neo-Tories
Feudal Europe had contentions between the Estates, the aristocratic caste often quarreled, The Papal cclesiastic order, the nobility , kings and the merchant or banking dynasties struggled for supremacy and hedgemony. None of these elite estates cared for their peasantry. This struggle continues today. Hillary is an entitled elite Machiavelian duchess contending for the throne of of a neo-Hapsburg empire. (The UN resembling the Holy Roman Empire) Regardless of whether it is George Bush's free trade plutocrats or Hillary'progessive bureaucrats who gain supremacy, it is serfdom for those citizens with republican ideals. Mike Guy
This country began its ascendency with Alexander Hamilton's policy of tariff not the advocated poloicy of British author, Adam Smith. In fact one of the five slave stae union's policies that obviously worked well, was tariff. It was the South, brave defenders of the Tenth Ammendment that they were, that advocated free trade, Cheap labor, and an agrarian plutocarcy. This resembles Bill Clinton's and later george Bush's constant aquiesence to the large corporate agri-business interest at the expense of factory workers and owners. Free trade merely replaces negroe slaves with Mexican illegal aliens.And moniacal, diabolical Hillary at least recognizes this capitulation to the new corporate plantation system for what it is,

Ryan Zero
"What planet do you live on? It's a lot more than a "few billion bucks" that have been wasted on this modern day version of the Syracusan expedition. Try around $495 billion dollars and rising."

Yeah, and 13,000 billion is ONE YEAR'S GDP. The 495 billion has been spent over more than five years during which the GDP was OVER 60,000 billion. So we're spending less than ONE percent to prosecute this war ... do you have ANY idea what it cost us to do WWII in terms of GDP? OBVIOUSLY, not! Let me tell you, it was a hell of a lot more than 1%! This war is a blip, pocket change; and the benefits could vastly exceed the cost ... unless you LIKE being bombed and taking casualties on our own soil!

The costs will also start going down or maybe you haven't heard about the recent successes in routing al queda [who were mostly the fanatical elements killing indiscriminately]. Even Bush and Petraeus are talking about withdrawing troops as Iraq is now becoming more capable of providing their own security. I LIKE the long term cost benefit on this one ... stopping tyranny BEFORE the death toll hits a million, let alone ten million or a hundred million [like in the past - see, for example, WWII].

Oh, and I'm STILL waiting for any of you to identify a SINGLE lie Bush told! It must be verifiable, not some crap from a liberal rag or Dan Rather!

peirces_gal
"Trying to create democracy in places where it has never existed -- and where the prerequisites for democracy may not exist -- has been a needless gamble."

And yet it worked in Japan ... infertile soil for democracy if ever there was! And our previous policies had worked so damn well ... no point trying anything new that also had the bonus of getting rid of one of the world's worst petty tyrants who just happened to have started two wars with his neighbors! But, let's just hope the same old failing crap will work THIS time ... sounds like the liberals and socialism!

And then THIS jewel of anti-cogency, "remind me - what were we doing overseas, again?" We are in the 21st century now, people do business all over the world. We are not the ONLY country doing business all over the world. It's a benefit to BOTH sides of these business transactions. People we do business with are LESS likely to cause troubles. You Buchananite isolationists think we are in the 1600s yet safely tucked behind two oceans that take at least a week to cross. It takes 30 stinkin' minutes to send a missle from the opposite side of the world. Like it or not, the world has shrunk.

Pat just can't get his sorry a$$ out of the 16th century and wake up to today's reality! Apparently, neither can you ... but then what would you expect from supporters of Ron Paul ... what's he polling now ... is he up to a whole percent yet? Talk about a waste of time ... just like the votes for Buchanan were a complete waste!

And this jewel, "We can now add the track record of Iraq to the list of disasters." Usually, only morons are willing to declare defeat at the first sign of trouble. Give it some time ... a decade or two and then let's see about what a "disaster" Iraq was! I won't be holding my breath for your's or other Buchananite's apologies, though!


Peirces_girl
I noticed. I have been following your dialog on this thread and thinking about what you have been writing.

...
"Now that doesn't mean I agree with everything you say."

i know! thank you very much, nevertheless!

i hope you saw that, in the last three posts i was merely quoting thomas sowell. i am actually not a native english speaker so your compliment means a lot to me :)

peirces_girl
Now that doesn't mean I agree with everything you say. Just wanted to compliment you on some fine writing and a fine intellect.

peirces_girl
I like your style, your writing and your good ol common sense.

sowell on sharansky
"If nothing else comes out of the Iraq war, it should banish the concept of "nation-building" from our language and our minds. "The track record of nation-building and Wilsonian grandiosity ought to give anyone pause," as was said in this column before the Iraq war began.

We can now add the track record of Iraq to the list of disasters.
...
Iraq is an object lesson in another sense. You seldom hear about the area of the country controlled by Kurds because that has been the most peaceful and orderly part of Iraq, and the media are drawn to death and destruction. In his insightful new book, "Mugged by Reality," author John Agresto says: "I do not believe one American, soldier or civilian, has been killed or even hurt in Kurdish Iraq since the war began -- or maybe ever."

The Kurds are a people. They are not just some folks thrown together by others who drew lines on a map. They had their own leaders before there were any national elections in Iraq.

As Agresto points out, democracy is a means, not an end in itself. Natan Sharansky's book "The Case for Democracy" argues persuasively for the international, as well as internal, benefits of democracy, seeing it as the kind of government that reduces the dangers of war

President Bush became an enthusiast for the idea and spent hours talking with Sharansky in the White House.

Perhaps he should have spent a little time talking with Amy Chua, whose book "World on Fire" points out that democracy -- in certain kinds of societies -- is a recipe for disaster, despite how valuable it has been in Western nations..."

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/column.aspx?UrlTitle=mug ged_by_reality_part_iii&ns=ThomasSowell&dt=09/20/2007&page= 2

True(neo)Conservative
You're right. I am not happy about being lied to and if you had any sense you would be angry as well.

"If spending a few billion bucks out of an economy of 13000 billion is a problem, then we are indeed in deep trouble ..."

What planet do you live on? It's a lot more than a "few billion bucks" that have been wasted on this modern day version of the Syracusan expedition. Try around $495 billion dollars and rising. This could wind up costing 2 trillion dollars, but no sweat to you, even with the dollar losing its value. You'll be able to come up with some b.s. statistic "proving" that it means nothing.

You keep listening to that radio and what few brain cells you have left will be toast.

our overseas boundaries
"Now, follow me closely here ... al queda, one of many fanatical terrorist groups, hit us overseas quite a few times over about 10 years..."

remind me - what were we doing overseas, again?

con't
"Trying to create democracy in places where it has never existed -- and where the prerequisites for democracy may not exist -- has been a needless gamble.

Among those prerequisites are a toleration of different views, an accommodation of different interests, and a willingness to put the national interest above one's own.

The Middle East is the last place to look for such qualities. Such things evolved in the West only after centuries of different religions and peoples trying unsuccessfully to destroy each other.

Many have argued that democracies tend not to start wars, so that having more democracies in the world is in the interest of peace-loving people.

But that is vastly different from saying that we know how to create democracies -- or that so much blood and treasure should be gambled on that long shot."

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2007/07/18/ after_iraq_part_ii?page=full&comments=true

mr sowell would be a perfect VP for dr paul.

mr sowell for ron paul's VP
Read Sowell, for instance, and you might catch a clue!

if i may interrupt - i actually read sowell voraciously. pat buchanan fits perfectly into the "tragic vision" from one of his best books ("the conflict of visions").

why don't you mr sowell's column on nation-building. he is very much opposed to sharansky-bush thesis.

" The great tragic failure in Iraq has been political failure, not military failure. At the heart of that failure have been two lofty notions -- "nation-building" and democracy.

Nations cannot be built.

You can transplant institutions from one country to another, but you cannot transplant the history and culture from which the attitudes and traditions evolved that enable those institutions to work.

It took centuries for democracy to evolve in the Western world. Yet we tried to create democracy in Iraq before we created the security -- the law and order -- that is a prerequisite for any form of viable government.

Having made democracy the centerpiece of the reconstruction of postwar Iraq, Americans have been hamstrung by the inadequacies of that government and the fact that our military could not simply ignore the Iraqi government when its politicians got in the way of restoring law and order."

peirces_somewhat_thick_gal
You are just SO clever ... clearly demonstrating a high IQ? Nahhh, your conclusions are borderline idiotic; but you do know some terminology so no doubt you have been educated ... the problem is that little of it took and you can't actually APPLY it to real situations.

For example, you seem unable to make reasonable predictions about the future ... even with the many precedents in history where fanatics went unstopped until millions paid with their lives and hundreds of millions paid with complete disruption of their lives. Now, follow me closely here ... al queda, one of many fanatical terrorist groups, hit us overseas quite a few times over about 10 years and hit the World Trade Center even previous to 9/11, then hit us hard on 9/11 ... remember any of these? They said they will kill as many of us as possible and then proceeded to try and succeeded rather spectacularly on 9/11. Now let's see ... is it reasonable to extrapolate they will try to hit us again with even greater casualties if they can? According to you, just can't make THAT leap of logic, I'm just making a wild guess, looking into that ol' crystal ball. OK - we know what you are now ... a fool with strong idealog leanings!

You go right ahead and keep being a fool. I will push the government to take prudent measures ... like start taking down despotic governments that actively support terrorists! Hell, we can limit it to those that SAY they support terrorists and the rest should get the message soon enough to reassess their losing strategy.

Ryan00
Just like the liberals, and Buchanan, all you have is anger and hate!

If spending a few billion bucks out of an economy of 13000 billion is a problem, then we are indeed in deep trouble ... however, to put it in the form of an analogy, it's like spending $10 out of $13,000 ... will that bankrupt you ... or the country? OBVIOUSLY NOT! Get some perspective and quit hanging around with your fellow Buchananite idiots - read Sowell, for instance, and you might catch a clue! Voting for Buchanan three times ... bleepin' insane!

Ideology?
I've never understood these political thinkers who rail against ideology. You normally expect this from Liberals. To have political ideas or beliefs at all is to be ideological. And Pat Buchanan has plenty of beliefs about trade, immigration, abortion, nationhood, religion, and on and on. Bush and co. failed because their ideology was rife with errors. Bush I don't think cared so much for ideas as much as using power to manipulate people. That was his ideology, and that is perfectly compatible with Neoconservatism.

100 over 100 Pat
The late Marine Major General Smedley D. Butler, twice awarded the Medal of Honor, gave a speech on interventionism in 1933, a part of which is excerpted at:
http://www.fas.org/man/smedley.htm

He was not only a warrior but a prophet.

Invade the World.
Invite the World.
Be in debt to the World.

We the Serfs of the United States.

True(neo)Conservative
Fight terror? Sure and the opportunity was there in Afghanistan to kill bin Laden until Bush got the bright idea of invading Iraq. I personally thinks Bush couldn't care less about him and is really more interested in pursuing empire abroad and a police state at home. The Bush family, like the Kennedys, have been an absolute disaster for this country.

"Bush's actions are practical because they will REDUCE long term costs of defense ..."

Like hell they are. Those actions will only bankrupt us long before any "victory" occurs. I hate to think of the billions that are going to have to be spent repairing or replacing all the equipment that has come out of Iraq. What a bloody waste and this is just one aspect of this stupidity. I hope one day to see Bush (and Clinton too) and his advisors held accountable for their conduct in a court of law.

...
"Even if it's high your posts just demonstrate that IQ is not common sense."

my posts suggest the opposite, but as a general statement you are correct. very clever people can be very foolish. but lest you start hoping, the fact that you are not very clever doesn't make you wise.

"How is the "burden" on me to prove those are the odds ... I'm not waiting until those are the odds."

oh, i see. what you are saying is that the actual odds - of 0.00001 according to you - are irrelevant. what matters is some future odds that you assessed by the means of your crystal ball.

For SteveL
I appreciate your response. I'm aware of the role Ataturk played in the establishment and development of Turkey, I almost mentioned him in my post. However, I think that he was part of a bigger picture in the formation of Turkey, especially in its first years. Further, I never claimed he was a "democrat" or that he never violated democratic principles (this is an area where Pat's article is right).

In the years following the First World War Turkey had enormous pressure from inside and outside the country for division. Much of the Turkish unification in the first years came from the internal conflict stemming from multiple insurgencies trying to break off, and the Turkish peoples' response of independence. Ataturk was the leader of this movement through the formation of the Republic in 1923. Of course Turkey is not a perfect example of nationalism, as seen with the Greeks, Kurds, and Armenians.

I agree with you that Ataturk held Turkey together, but he himself grew out of a nationalist movement. As for the country's development to a democracy, that certainly required a leader such as Ataturk, in addition to the points you mentioned. I didn't make myself clear the first time.

As for Iraq, I believe the Bush Administration was hoping the Arabs would mirror this movement, which hasn't so far happened. Thus the formation of Iraq is hindered due to sectarian violence overcoming a sense of (possible) Arab nationalism. As for the development of Iraq as a democracy, that will require a strong leader and a flexible nation. That will certainly take time.

Well stated
As the usual suspects bash Pat, his premise is well stated. A number of Republicans are bailing out of running again and the Party is in trouble as they chose to embrace liberal dogma

Actually Pat rather sounds like the great Thomas Sowell today with his reference to the insane desire for equal outcomes despite the impossibilities of such a quest.

peirces_gal
Re your IQ ... RIIIIGGGHHHHTTTTTTT! Even if it's high your posts just demonstrate that IQ is not common sense. Your CSQ has got to be about ZERO!

How is the "burden" on me to prove those are the odds ... I'm not waiting until those are the odds. I would say the burden is on you to show that the fanatics will stop short of attempting to kill millions ... but then they say just the opposite ... given their track record so far; I'm giong to take them at their word and encourage our government to eliminate that as a threat. As I said, your CSQ is abysmal!


Akagi: Going into Iraq! We'll have to

disagree on that..



Ryan01
What is it about you guys that when someone wants to do something about fanatical killers it's because they "frighten" easily? It's called being PRACTICAL, Ryan, a true conservative trait. Just like I support a police force to keep the crime down so civilization can progress instead of everyone spending their time protecting their lives and property and, consequently, getting nothing productive done.

I believe in limited government, but defense of it's citizens is one of the functions clearly covered in the constitution. Bush's actions are practical because they will REDUCE long term costs of defense ... much like Reagan's increase in the defense budget paid off hugely when the Soviet Union went defunct! That's a practical investment and the essence of [true] conservatism ... or is Reagan not conservative enough for you?

...
"It's "impossible" to have a couple of standard deviations on your IQ? ... just because you know yours?"

yes.

"Why should I let the odds become MUCH higher by letting fanatics get away with it? If they manage to nuke a city and kill a million or so, then the odds will be down to 1 in 300 ... Is THAT low enough odds to get you off your complacent butt and want to do something?"

yes, that would be low enough. now the burden is on you to demonstrate that those are the odds we are facing. i am listening.

peirces_gal
It's "impossible" to have a couple of standard deviations on your IQ? ... just because you know yours? You'd better be Marilyn vos Savant or whatever her name is! Do you have an IQ over 180? Didn't think so!

Furthermore, I know my IQ but am not going to parade it around. It's quite decent, however.

Your statistics still suck by the way. Why should I endure a 1 in 100,000 chance of being killed by terrorists [probably considerably higher in the cities]. Why should I let the odds become MUCH higher by letting fanatics get away with it? If they manage to nuke a city and kill a million or so, then the odds will be down to 1 in 300 ... and THAT wouldn't necessarily mean they were done as they have said they want to kill every one of us! Is THAT low enough odds to get you off your complacent butt and want to do something?

I'm not seeking perfection; but what can be reasonably obtained economically. So far, we are doing just about right in prosecuting the war on terrorists - the cost is quite reasonable to prevent that million casualty attack.

Chinese
In 1987, Taiwan made it legal to visit China for the first time and allowed for some business dealings. Today, billions of NT cross the strait and since the mid-1990s, the national security implications of "mainland fever" has concerned the government--both under Lee Teng Hui and now under Chen Shui-bian.

The US might well ask the same question as Taiwan. Back then a government official in Taiwan said you don't feed your babies on the enemy's milk and you don't buy your enenmy's stuff and pay for it on a credit card and let him pay the bill either.


Pat is
a paleoconservative. You, on the other hand, are a full blown neocon. Nope, it didn't get me far, but it is still votes I can be proud of. Unlike you I don't frighten easily to the point where I'm willing to give up the Bill of Rights in the name of the b.s. "GWOT". Too bad the rest of the nation got it wrong on that one, but they are learning. It is only a few dead enders like you that still believe the neocon party line.

I find it laughable that you claim to believe in limited government with all the garbage you've posted on this thread.

Sure, the debt isn't a big deal with you for you create your own reality. It's not like the Chinese might get mad and start dumping dollars in protest of Bush policy in regard to Iran. Yeah, let's keep borrowing that money from them and see what happens. Can't you people ever think ahead on a problem and maybe look at the worst case scenario instead of assuming everyone else is as ignorant and stupid as you are?

Israel
is not there OWN friend...I will agree,
but if pushed out of a plane in the
mid-east, where would you rather land--
The democracy or something else????
Democracy is no bed of roses, to be sure....
but the thorns of any alternative have proven much more costly!

...
"all within a period of about 10 years, then that's a reasonable time frame to use as the basis for calculating the probability!"

i didn't say it was unreasonable - just that your reaction was out of proportion as it that was the only possible frame. besides, i already told you i wasn't trying to estimate the probability - just to illustrate how minuscule it is. it is irrelevant for my point whether the "true" probability is 0.000001 or 0.0000001.

what is interesting on the other hand is that you you are claiming that the probability of an average person being killed in a terrorist attack is in fact 0.00001. if so - what you are afraid of? you are much more likely to by hit by a car on your way home.

"As for IQ which you seem quite preoccupied with; I'll bet I have a couple of standard deviations on you!"

that is actually impossible. since i happen to know my score you simply can't beat me on any standardized test.

"There's little reason to not reduce murders to zero except for the odd family thing which is fairly rare and doesn't"

you are seeking perfection. murders and terrorist attacks will keep happening no matter how much money we pour into it. and we already poured way more than we could afford.

Israel is NOT America's friend
Liberius:

On this we agree.

Anne:

I don't buy his tripe at all, but going into Iraq is one thing he is right on. It was planned by idiots, executed by idiots and continued by idiots. I don't know if Bush thinks he is the head of the new Kwangtung Army or what, but he seems to be going down the same path.






9/11
But Iraq as has been proven over and over had little to do with Iraq. If you wanted to do something about those that were behind 9/11, you should invade Saudi Arabia or Pakistan.

And the US airline industry deserves to go bankrupt--every last one of them--then replace them with Singapore, Evergreen, China Airlines, etc where you actually get customer service. The only reason I fly US-based airlines inside the US is because I am forced to. If Evergreen had domestic US routes, I'd fly them everytime.

Oh and the Thousands Standing Around (TSA) make flying in the US a real treat too.


Israel is NOT America's friend
Israel has it's own interests which conflict those of the USA. Israel actually attacked the U.S. Liberty killing many sailors. See also the Lavon affair, AIPAC, traitor-spies like Jonathan Pollard etc.

The neocons advised the war in Iraq as a way to protect Israel with American blood and American treasure.

We should stop being gullible goyim.

Amazing how many acutally buy Buchanan's

tripe!

The only question is ronpaul more like PatBuchanan or is PatBuchanan more like ronpaul?

Neither one is much of a bargain to say the least.




Israel
Since Israel has sold advanced weapons jointly developed by the US and itself to China, a possible foe in the future and the fact it continued to build settlements when the US almost begged them to stop, I am not so sure how that democracy has been much benefit to the US or its interests--one could argue the it has been counterproductive to US interests. Oh this, Pat and I would agree.




Ryan01
So, the truth is out ... voted for Buchanan 3 times? That got you a lot, didn't it? Pat is also no longer a conservative ... he's let Bush hatred sway his positions to where they are unrecognizable as conservative! That says something about your common sense, too, doesn't it ... as in you don't have any!

What is this "bankrupt" BS. What we are spending on this war is a pittance compared to what we spent on WWII, WWI, and the Korean War [as a share of GDP so you don't come back comparing pre-inflationary apples with oranges]. We went into debt then ... did it bankrupt us? Have we been bankrupt for the last 90 years or so? In a 13 TRILLION dollar economy, we can afford less than 2 percent for fighting the fanatics. Did you pay more than 2% of your income for your mortgage? Undoubtedly! Can you Buchananites EVER see reality?

The cost of letting terrorists keep hitting us in this country would be staggering ... just look at what happened after 9/11 ... the entire airline industry nearly went bankrupt. That had to be stopped by stopping the terrorists and the regimes that support terrorism. If you want to see REAL bankruptcy let the terrorists continue without meaningful opposition! Bush is RIGHT, at least on this one ... give me some arguments about how he doesn't believe in limited government and I'll heartily agree with THAT!

strategic democracy
A democracy here and there is a good thing!
That democracy in Israel is working out rather well; and attempting to establish another, in a war-torn area, is ideology that makes good sense.

Not the globe....strategic portions of the globe!
I vote for that type of thinking....

Pat
Pat is saying the the US is dead if you listen to his interviews. That the US as it exists today won't exist in 50 years. The Southwest will be part of Mexico or at least a non-US entity and due to liberal policies of abortion, porn, birth control and other social experiments, the US as a whole will break apart because it won't have the moral fiber to resist the coming challenges.

Basically same thing he has been saying for 25 years and what the KKK said in the 1920s and the Know Nothings said in the 1840s and the Anglo-Americans said in the 1790s. On Fox he said the largest growth in size of TV stations were all Spanish. And in the 1860s some of the largest newspapers in the US were German and entire regiments of Union troops spoke nothing but German and were given commands in German.

Haven't seen too many German newspapers in my travels recently.


peirces_gal
Why not calculate the probabilities for the past 10 MILLION years, which you apparently did to come up with a number 10 million times lower than a reasonable time frame! I may be naive, but when a group says they're going to kill us, try to kill us several times, succeed several times, and then manage to kill 3000 of us, all within a period of about 10 years, then that's a reasonable time frame to use as the basis for calculating the probability! I don't know what kind of statistics you had; but they apparently left out common sense!

As for IQ which you seem quite preoccupied with; I'll bet I have a couple of standard deviations on you!

As for being unwilling to pay $10K to reduce murders in your neighborhood from 10 to 9 a year; that's probably a helluva bargain for the 10th victim which just might be you. However, the cost would probably be a lot less than that when spread over the entire neighborhood. There's little reason to not reduce murders to zero except for the odd family thing which is fairly rare and doesn't threaten outsiders! All of which are different from the terrorist murders!

Chinese Banks
It is the Chinese Central Bank (The People's Bank of China (Zhong Guo Ren Min Yin Hang) among others that are buying the US debt. Chinese banks themselves using western standards are bankrupt and China has economic problems much larger than what is facing the US.

The Taliban has been making a comeback for quite sometime in Afghanistan and Iraq while not as bad as before, saying you are winning is a bit of an overstatement--you're no longer losing is a better description.

The economy is okay in somne ways, but consumer spending is down, and the housing market in a steep decline--entire new subdivisions being foreclosed on. The economic news is mixed.

The war in Iraq was mismanaged badly, no plan what to do after Saddam was gone and how to leave. The roses at the feet thing never really worked out. To quote Frankie the Frog and the T-Rex from the movie "Meet the Robinsons" '...I'm just not sure how well this plan was thought through.'



What's Pat saying ???

The best I see... He is explaining that we should not allow government workers to unionize?

Sounds confusing? Someone explain.

TrueConservative
Compared to you I am the sage of all times.

I got news for you, stupid. I'm not a "liberal". In fact, I have voted for the writer of this column three times. Of course anyone who disagrees with you is a "liberal".

When it comes to being stupid and a moron you take the cake. Don't hand me that b.s. about the GDP. The country is bankrupt thanks to neocon idiots like yourself. I can imagine you as president. All I have to do is look at the simian in the White House the nation is cursed with.

One other thing, you bugwit. We ain't fighting WW II and there is no comparison between that and the 4th generation warfare we are dealing with today. We were a creditor nation back then as verses a debtor nation today. Who do you think is paying for Bush's fine Middle East adventure, you jackass? The Chinese and the Asian banks, that's who. Keep drinking that neocon kool-aid and maybe you can be one of the Fox News "All Stars".

TrueConservative
Have you any inkling of the costs of this war? The effect it has had on our military, or the costs we will be having to pay, for generations?

It is in the trillions, and before it is all over, will be in the tens of trillions of dollars.

That is our tax money.

We could have spent some of that money on refurbishing our electrical grid, subway systems, bridges, roads, sewer and water systems. Or, we could have put some of that money on medical research, scientific and technological innovation, research on alternative energy...just to name a few.

This war and its aftermath has been a blunder of truly historic proportions, and it has limited, and even foreclosed, the choices we can make for building a brighter future for ourselves, our nation.

And Bush will be so judged(harshly)by future Americans...his legacy will be one where his decision to go to war in Iraq has limited the choices our nation could have made.

...
"Yeah, that's a really, really difficult mathematical chore ... like dividing the 3000 deaths by the 300 million population to compute the probability ... that long division can be REAL DIFFICULT."

the division is not a problem as your example - a person with obviously no knowledge of statistics - demonstrates. there are other problems in estimating the probability of very rare events. one is in deciding the time-span in which your computation is based. you are assuming that the probability of death should be based on 300 million people that (have) lived in the past few years. but that is an arbitrary cut-off point - i can calculate it for the span of the past year or 100 or 200 years.

"... as in this case your prediction of my IQ is about as good as the rest of your reasoning ... unbased on any kind of fact!"

it is not a prediction, it is a guess. of course i don't know what it is for a fact. do you?

"So, basically, your argument is nobody can predict the future accurately; so we just ignore such things as terrorist attacks?"

for the time being, yes. it is not like there are that many to ignore.

"I suppose you would rather wait for several more murders in your neighborhood before the police resorted to the expense of trying to do something about them ... who knows, the killers may stop?"

the example is ill-posed. if i already paid for police they should be making "the expense" to lower the murder rates - so yes, i would request to get the service that i paid for. but would i accept to pay 10k more a year in order to decrease the number of murders from 10 to 9 in my neighborhood? probably no.

Trueconservative
No. I have never said and I never will say that these criticisms apply to ALL Jews. Nor do I believe that it applies to MOST Jews. But I am conviced that it does apply to an extremely disproportionate number of Jews.

Bottom line, there are some dark ethic motivations that need to be acknowledged.

Jake
Exactly WHAT has Bush lied about? Can you name a single damn thing? Didn't think so, so shut up!

"Incompetent" ... and yet we are winning two wars and have a thriving economy, thanks to Bush's tax cuts. My guess is that you couldn't carry his jock strap, intellectually!

Liberius
Oh, please! You can find deranged writings from any culture. Your incredibly dumb mistake is assuming this applies to all Jews!

peirces_gal
"bringing the dead back to life" ... now THAT'S a leap even liberals may fear to make! How do you possible construe my comments to that? Answer, you can't and can't argue successfully, so you resort to this kind of fantastic baloney!

I was thinking of FUTURE losses of your family members! I would like to see it NOT happen via terrorists!

I Agree Pat
Brilliant . As someone who went to Catholic schools , was in the military and worked in the private sector , I understand what Pat is saying about today’s leaders and those responsible for tomorrow’s decisions .

Without discipline , respect and an implacable dedication to accomplishment , we fail to inspire and get saddled with administrations like the previous three .

Bush is incompetent , he is also a chronic liar . He is supported by a horde of privileged opportunists . Pelosi and the Democrats are no better, they sputter the same chatter and partisan bellyaching that I’ve heard for thirty years . The current crop of candidates are an embarrassment . Politicians view the American citizen as an uninterested , self absorbed , ambivalent obligation , driven by herd mentality . I think we can do better . A strong leader like Teddy Roosevelt , someone to infuse optimism and hope like Churchill , someone to challenge us like JFK . America deserves it .

Jewish quotes: is Mel Gibson really so
crazy?

Marcus Eli Ravage, a Jewish author, writing in the January 1928 issue of CENTURY MAGAZINE, boasted: 'We Jews are at the bottom of nearly all your wars; not only of the Russian but of every other major revolution in your history . We did it solely with the irresistible might of our spirit, with ideas and propaganda."

The Jewish author Oscar Levy, in the preface to his book THE WORLD SIGNIFICANCE OF THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION, said: "There is scarcely an event in modern Europe that cannot be traced back to the Jews. We Jews today are nothing else but it's worlds seducers; it's destroyers; it's incendiaries; it's executioners.''

Count Mensdort, the Jewish Ambassador from Austria to London, stated in 1918: "Israel won that war (WW I), we made it, thrived on it; profited from it. It was our supreme revenge on Christianity."

http://www.scripturesforamerica.org/html2/jm0056.htm

The Jew Maurice Samuel added:

"Jew and Gentile are two worlds, between you Gentiles and us Jews there lies an unbridgeable gulf...There are two life forces in the world: Jewish and Gentile...I do not believe that this primal difference between Gentile and Jew is reconcilable..." - You Gentiles, page 9

"In everything, we are destroyers--even in the instruments of destruction to which we turn for relief... We Jews, we, the destroyers, will remain the destroyers for ever. Nothing that you will do will meet our needs and demands." - You Gentiles pages 152, 155, and 147.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Samuel



peirces_gal
"i didn't even attempt to give an exact probability because that was irrelevant for my point - it is vanishingly small in either case. also, it estimating it is a difficult task for various reasons that i am payed to enlighten others about so i am not going to provide the service to you for free."

Yeah, that's a really, really difficult mathematical chore ... like dividing the 3000 deaths by the 300 million population to compute the probability ... that long division can be REAL DIFFICULT. So save your inane comments about "low IQ" ... they may come back and bite you in the butt ... as in this case your prediction of my IQ is about as good as the rest of your reasoning ... unbased on any kind of fact!

So, basically, your argument is nobody can predict the future accurately; so we just ignore such things as terrorist attacks? Maybe we should have ignored Hitler's attacks ... who knows, maybe they would have stopped? If you're going to debate, at least try to put up a sensible argument!

I suppose you would rather wait for several more murders in your neighborhood before the police resorted to the expense of trying to do something about them ... who knows, the killers may stop?

Can reality get thru to you Buchananites?

Correction
Meant "fear" not "free" in the above post. Should have read "The US must be a pretty weak-kneed country to fear the economic might of Chile."



Trade
Eben:

The balance of trade is actually improving. And yes, the Yuan should be allowed to rise, but that is an issue with the PRC--not Chile which people like Pat opposed or an FTA with Taiwan (gone noplace) or the ROK. The US must be a pretty weak-kneed country to free the economic might of Chile.

And before you talk about a level playing field, the Americans are no mere innocents in this regard. Just look at sugar for example and a host of other anti-free trade farming supports it maintains.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmGkFghUa
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmGkFghUadc

...
"But what the hell, I thought you liberals cared ... as long as YOUR chances of being killed by terrorists is low you don't give a damn about the 3000 or so who have already been killed and the much more in the future?"

i feel sorry for them, but thousands of people die gruesome deaths every day and i can't empathize with all of them. all of us endure tragedies at one or another point in our lives and we don't expect the rest of america to help us in any way. we suck it up and keep going forward.

so, weird as this sounds to you - i care most about myself and my family and friends and much less about strangers and especially of those strangers live on the other side of the world. i dont' have the emotional resources to feel the pain of 7 billion people.

"You people just can't see beyond the current picture, can you?"

no i can't - but neither can you. nobody can see beyond the current picture with any accuracy. almost nobody predicted the fall of soviet union, and most of those who predicted merely made a lucky guess. so please pretending that you **know** what will happen. you don't.

"Why should we put up with even ONE American citizen being killed by terrorists, especially, on our own soil?

because it is impossible to prevent terrorism completely. there is no magic bullet that can wiped it out as a long forgotten disease - there will always be some evil people around. and, unlike you, i don't want to let, as mr buchanan likes to say, "the perfect be the enemy of the good". i can live with a risk of a terrorist attack in the same way i can live with a risk of dying in a traffic accident, being hit by a lightning or being shot by a criminal - all of which are much higher.

"Would it matter if one of the 3000 had been one of YOUR family?"

oh, i get it. so war in iraq is not only protecting us from future attacks but is also bringing dead back to life?

...
"decreasing the probability of me dying in a terrorist attack from 0.000000000001 to 0.0000000000000001" ... Aside from your obvious lack of mathematical skills [3000 dead out of 300 million is a probability of .000001 (1 in 100,000), not 1 in a TRILLION like you idiotically asserted and is 10 MILLION TIMES less than the actual odds ... but that's close enough for liberals, I guess];

i am not a liberal - i think that socialism is the biggest social evil in the history of mankind. my intellectual hero is hayek, and i like mr sowell and mr buchanan a lot. and yes, i will be voting for ron paul.

your comment about my probabilistic calculations illustrates rather strongly a main trait of those with low IQ - incapacity to discriminate relevant from irrelevant.

i didn't even attempt to give an exact probability because that was irrelevant for my point - it is vanishingly small in either case. also, it estimating it is a difficult task for various reasons that i am payed to enlighten others about so i am not going to provide the service to you for free.

"what you seem to be INCAPABLE of grasping is that was the FIRST salvo ... your odds of dying in a terrorist attack would increase dramatically in the future if we rolled over and did nothing!"

there is nothing there to grasp - really. nobody can predict the rate of terrorist attacks with any certainty. you behave as if you have an access to the future, but you don't. it is just your hypothesis based on wild extrapolation from one case and some dubious theorizing.

i would rather wait for several more attacks, yes, and then start thinking about it. to commit oneself to a very costly strategy (for which it is very unclear whether it works at all) because of one event is - basically - insane.

Terrorism
There is no evidence that Saddam had any links to Al Qaeda or any other terrorist groups. he did pay the relatives of suicide bombers in Israel/Gaza/West Bank, but so do members of the Saudi Royal family. Not only is China and the DPRK hell bent on getting WND, they have them. China has even threatened to use them on the US.

And yes, TC, if the killing doesn't have an impact on me, I don't pay it much mind frankly. The US can't nor should it be the policeman of the world. Saddam could have been contained as he was since 1991 and it was a mistake to go into Iraq--a bad mistake. The US preemptive war was as big of a mistake as Japan's China adventure starting in 1931 and we both know where that ended?

Sorry, if the slaughter doesn't have an impact on the US or it's interests it should stay out of it--no matter how many are killed, raped, tortured. Rwanda was not America's business and it rightfully stayed out, nor was Bosnia or Kosovo and it foolishly got involved and nor is Darfur now.

Iraq at least has a strategic interest to the Americans, but invading it and becoming its colonial master was not the road to take.






Bush fell for Jewish ideology
I agree with most of what Buchanan says but of course he cannot go far enough without being bashed so I will say what he can't say:

Bush was too influenced by his Jewish advisors and too much involved with trying to please the Jewish media. I'm not trying to relieve Bush of his guilt but the Jewish influence here was critical just as it was for our involvement in WWI.

We Goyim need to stop being so gullible.

I Tend To Fall Somewhere Between...
Bush and Buchanan. I guess I'm a diet Neo-Con.

I'm not a big fan of nation-building, and I tend to think that Iraq needs a Musharraf/Ataturk, not the squishy, feel-good rhetoric of Bush.

Conversely, I'm not "non-interventionist." My global military strategy would be to completely obliterate the next tin-pot dictatorship that makes a lot of noise about destroying us or one of our allies *cough*Iran*cough*. No nation building, just a complete destruction. Kill until the ones that want to survive bury themselves in the sand, shoot the sand a few times, and leave. If Russia and China complain, tell them to split the oil between them and I bet they'll cheer up.

Ryan01
Gee, Ryan, why don't YOU run for president ... your qualifications [and brilliance] are SO obvious [as is your liberal bent]! We were well on our way to ceasing to be a superpower when ... who was President then ... could it have been Jimmy Carter ... the master of scheduling white house tennis courts! But then the country got fed up and elected Reagan. Or was it Bill Clinton who looked the other way for 8 long years until al queda had gathered enough strength to hit us hard. Overreach and bankuptcy ... are you a complete IDIOT ... we are fighting this at a TINY fraction of GDP as opposed to say what it cost to fight WWII. Do you guys have ANY historical perspective at all? It's just frightening that your vote counts the same as mine!

Akagi
Economics is indeed the dismal science, business, however, is not. A level playing field should be a precondition of trade agreements, but too often it has not been. Too much is made of low cost Chinese labor. I buy engines in China. The cost of labor is factored in at 15% vs 25% if made here. However, I pay 40% less. The refusal of the Chinese to float there currency makes up much of the difference. If they floated it, the difference would be such that we'd buy them here. We export to Europe. However, we pay a 20% VAT. The Europeons who export to the US have that VAT rebated. This gives them a 20% advantage. Then, you talk about exports. However, you do not talk about the balance of trade, which has not gone down in relationship to the rise in exports. When oil went to $65 a barrel, 5 years ago, it stabilized in the $60's. In the last few months, it has moved over $90. The reason is that 5 years ago, the dollar was at parity or above the Euro. Today, in has dropped over 30%. The oil nations who were getting paid in dollars saw most of their gains wiped out. So, they're taking it back. And that $90 + per barrel rate we are beginning to pay for oil offsets a substantial portion of the rise in exports. Regardless of the lower value of the dollar, we are not regaining the manufacturing jobs we have lost, nor do we any longer export much of those products in those sectors.

The markets fine - but only if you ensure a level playing field. We sign so-called free agreements with countries who continue to pursue their own protectionist policies, yet refuse to protect our own markets until they equally remove their own barriers. And so it goes. Pat's protectionism is generally couched in the concept of ensuring level playing fields before - not after we sign agreements.


BS
"I am quite confident that history will see this as a very good move!"

I'm even more confident that history will record this stupid action by Bush and his ignorant neocon advisors as the time period the US ceased to be a superpower due to military overreach and bankruptcy. The US hasn't done anything this dumb since it entered WW I.

heresyarch
Not to worry ... we don't impose our presence by controlling other countries once the people have control thru a democracy; so the recruitment possibilities for the fanatics will be quite limited.

You didn't need a crystal ball to see where things were going after 9/11 ... the current situation is much better ... and, we haven't been hit since in this country and last I heard Osama was hiding out in a cave in the mountains of Pakistan ... disorganized and marginalized. We just need to keep the pressure on the fanatics!

jerebaub
Get a grip. The extremely negative consequences of removing Saddam will be short term and I doubt that Bush ignored this ... he just saw a considerably greater benefit for some short term pain. As wars go, this is a very modest one with very light casualties. Bush is hardly a "zealot" ... he's a regular guy and DID manage to get elected twice ... somebody must have preferred him and supported him over the liberal candidates the dems [dums] put up against him! I am quite confident that history will see this as a very good move!

We would happily get out of Iraq when they can defend themselves against the fanatics who will stop at nothing to take power again. That should not take too much longer at the present rate as even the Sunnis could not tolerate the fanatical, indiscriminate killings from al queda! For that matter, we are still in Korea ... but it has long ceased to be a problem with the North Korean fanatics held at bay! That's what Iraq will likely turn into with a small troop presence just in case. Don't think that's going to "wear out our welcome"!

TrueConservative writes:
"and down the road, when the current crop of fanatics there have been killed the death rate will drop way off ... long term there will be a HUGE REDUCTION of killings! Get the picture? Can you liberals EVER manage to see beyond stage one?"

I hope you are right. I wish I had a crystal ball to be so certain. But with Islam, I fear you are probably wrong. Picture the US, big "satan", the infidel, projecting its power over Muslims, in Muslim lands. All I see is a recruitment tool for more terrorists.

The hope for moderation might come from good will from US troops towards the iraqi children, that when they grow up, they may not be so influenced by the lies of islamic propagandists....but the longer we stay to distribute candy, and soccer balls, the longer we may wear out our welcome.

TrueConservative
Saddam oversaw a brutality in northern Iraq that created a forced stability, at least in Turkish eyes. While Saddam was in power, the Turks understood he would rein in Kurdish national aspirations. The Turks depended upon Saddam.

The instability occurred after Saddam was removed, for it reinvigorated a nascent and suppressed Kurdish desire for independence.

We can argue as to whether it was beneficial to remove Saddam, and more importantly, the cost it will incur for us, and our offspring, for generations to come. What I am saying is it had a number of extremely negative consequences.

Bush, being the zealot he is, either ignored the consequences or was totally ignorant of them.


Akagi
Most of the other places you mention [especially, Taiwan and China] are NOT exporting terrorism or killing Americans ... unlike al queda. And Saddam supported terrorists and was hell-bent to acquire WMDs. THOSE are the regimes we needed to do something about quickly! As for Rwanda and Darfur, those could be stopped on the cheap with hardly any military presence so why not stop the slaughter there? Or can you tolerate a considerable amount of killing as long as it's not here? Should the police calculate whether prosecuting killers

There's a practical side to this that seems to escape most posters on the Buchanan articles ... will we avoid long term blowback by intervening and is the calculus that the damages will be less. THAT's conservatism ... what works best in the long run. The rest of the world should intervene in some of those places as we probably can't do it all; but there has to be a limit on how much slaughter we will tolerate no matter where it is!

Life
"I value ALL life, even Iraqis who you seem willing to have let Saddam and his evil sons continue to kill FAR MORE than have been killed in the aftermath of the war."

So TC when do you support the US doing something about Xizang then? And should the US have invaded Indonesia to stop what was going on in East Timor (which the US supported in case you were curious). How about Rwanda? Darfur?

If the US wants to get involved in conflict after conflict and make the world safe for democracy, the US is going to meet a very bad end--a slow death of death by a thousand cuts or a thousand conflicts. Maybe the US should change its name to the United States of Po-han right now.


Despots
TC:

There are many despots in the world--Hu Jin Tao, The Dear Leader Kim of the DPRK, among others.

Tell me when the US plans to invade the PRC or Cuba or the DPRK or Saudi Arabia.


Bush and Democracy
Bush seems to have selective application on democracy. He doesn't even support Taiwan holding a referendum demanding China remove the 800+ missiles pointing at Taiwan from Fujian. Or the one for 2008 over Taiwan's joining the UN.

Taiwan's entry into the UN doesn't violate the terms of the TRA and before Chiang pulled Taiwan out of the UN before the vote on Resolution 2758, Bush's father was working on keeping Taiwan in the General Assembly. Bush's displeasure over Taiwan's referendum was made in front of Wen Jiaobao, the Premier of that very democratic country the PRC--oh wait..my mistake, the PRC isn't a democracy is it, so if Bush cares so much about democracy and freedom why is he rebuking the freely elected president of the ROC in front of the representative of a repressive regime?

Utahnotmormon
I believe the PKK now strives for an independent Kurdish nation. But it still had a Marxist or leftist genesis.

I am not anti-Kurdish. I believe the Kurds are among the most civilized of Iraqis. And, I don't subscribe to the naivete of some on this board that Turkey is a moderate nation, an example of what a Muslim nation can attain.

In fact, its military has repeatedly either directly intervened, or threatened to intervene, to prevent radical Islam from gaining asendancy within Turkey. In so doing, its secularist leanings often are at odds with prevailing Turkish notions of more fundamentalist Islam.

Ataturk was after all a secularist, relatively speaking.

But the recently elected Turkish prime minister, while publicly declaring he has no intention of undoing Ataturk's somewhat secularist(for Islam anyway)orientation, the default position is always one of extremism. The new prime minister's party is a pro-Islamic party, not secularist.