[NOTE: Sorry for the double post. The 'Edit' feature screwed up on me. I hate this new forum software so much General!]
Nice selective replying.
No need to apologize. My selective replies and delayed response are due to the fact that I have been doomed to a dial up connection this weekend. All my current responses are in blue due to my unorthodox response.
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com
fficeffice" /><o
></o>
<TABLE style="MARGIN-LEFT: 18.7pt; WIDTH: 100%; mso-cellspacing: 0cm; mso-padding-alt: 0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8 1pt inset; PADDING-RIGHT: 4.5pt; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8 1pt inset; PADDING-LEFT: 4.5pt; BACKGROUND: #fffef0; PADDING-BOTTOM: 4.5pt; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8 1pt inset; PADDING-TOP: 4.5pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8 1pt inset">Quote:
<TABLE style="WIDTH: 100%; mso-cellspacing: 0cm; mso-padding-alt: 4.5pt 4.5pt 4.5pt 4.5pt" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #ffffff 1pt inset; PADDING-RIGHT: 4.5pt; BORDER-TOP: #ffffff 1pt inset; PADDING-LEFT: 4.5pt; BACKGROUND: #fffef0; PADDING-BOTTOM: 4.5pt; BORDER-LEFT: #ffffff 1pt inset; PADDING-TOP: 4.5pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: #ffffff 1pt inset">Originally Posted by Phaedrus
No, I say it was a sovereign nation. Good, bad, whatever. It was a sovereign nation and now it is not. <o></o>
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Yes it is now becoming a sovereign democracy with duly elected officials, not a death camp.<o></o>
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Riiiiight. OK, one more time: how long do you think it will take to restore the Iraqi people at least to the level of misery that they had in recent years under the combination of Hussein's brutality and the economic starvation wrought on them by US-led sanctions against their country? I imagine at this point they look at even that horrid state with a touch of nostalgia. How long til we get back to the good old days? Just asking your opinion.
<o></o>
One more time. It will take years just as Bush said in the beginning. And the economic starvation of the people was implemented by none other than Saddam and his friends in the UN with the oil for fraud or oil for palaces program. Take your pick.
<o></o>
Despite the unrelenting drumbeat of bad news from a biased media at home and an even more biased international media, there is much good going on. Iraq already has more electricity than under Saddam. The periodic and planned blackouts under Saddam and just after his removal have lessened and will eventually be eliminated. Children are no longer being held in prison and mass graves are not being filled despite Zarqawi’s best efforts. Schools are being built. Irrigation systems are being reconstructed which were previously used as political weapons by Saddam. Oil refineries and oil distribution systems are being rebuilt as the terrorists try their best to disrupt it and the funds are no longer going to build palaces for Saddam.
<o></o>
Here are a few facts: Approximately 25% of Iraq’s debt accumulated under Saddam has been forgiven at the behest of the US. Approximately 100,000 Iraqi police, army and national guard troops have now been trained. Five billion in US aid alone has been disbursed, and oil revenue, which flows into Iraqi accounts via a US government trust, reached $1.9 billion in October which is higher than the $1.5 billion per month flowing when Saddam was in control.
<o></o>
A weekly update of reconstruction projects in Iraq can be located on the website of the US Agency for International Development. Give it a look. You will not find this information in the Guardian.
<o></o>
Now, before you begin speaking for the Iraqi people again about how horrible it is now maybe you should watch a documentary called "Voices of Iraq." It is a documentary based on 450 hours of actual video filmed by Iraqis with 150 cameras provided by the producers of the documentary. See how many Iraqis beg for Saddam’s return in this documentary.
Before you voice your ignorant opinion again, please do some research.
<o></o>
Quote:<o></o>
<TABLE style="MARGIN-LEFT: 18.7pt; WIDTH: 100%; mso-cellspacing: 0cm; mso-padding-alt: 4.5pt 4.5pt 4.5pt 4.5pt" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8 1pt inset; PADDING-RIGHT: 4.5pt; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8 1pt inset; PADDING-LEFT: 4.5pt; BACKGROUND: #fffef0; PADDING-BOTTOM: 4.5pt; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8 1pt inset; PADDING-TOP: 4.5pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8 1pt inset">[Iraq] will definitely improve over time as it has been doing. There will be elections this month and the terrorists will be defeated as long as people like you are not in control<o></o>
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<o></o>
If people like me were in control, "terrorist" would be something they tought in Ancient History 101.
Do you really believe that the upcoming elections will be any more effective than the ones in Afghanistan were? The administration has already tabled plans to scuttle the efficacy of those elections by trying to guarantee positions to the Sunnis regardless of the outcome of the vote. How do you make the distinction between the administration "fighting" terrorists and me "appeasing" them? I'm not the one trying to implement affirmative action in the Iraqi parliament.
<o></o>
Yes, if you were in control, terrorism would be something taught in schools as history. Of course, they would all be called madrasses, not schools.
<o></o>
I believe the upcoming elections will be just as effective as the ones just held in Afghanistan. They will most certainly be an improvement over the last election held in Iraq in which Saddam got 99.9%. I believe we have been digging up that 0.1% that did not vote for him over the last year or so. No, they will not be perfect. And yes, the administration is taking some ill-guided actions in trying to coax Sunnis into participating. And yes, precaution must be taken to prevent retribution by the Shia and Kurds on the Sunnis. No one ever said it would be easy. No one ever said it would be perfect. But you keep your doom and gloom perspective as the Iraqis continue their march to free elections with no help from perpetual malcontents such as you.<o></o>
<o></o>
Quote:<o></o>
<TABLE style="MARGIN-LEFT: 18.7pt; WIDTH: 100%; mso-cellspacing: 0cm; mso-padding-alt: 4.5pt 4.5pt 4.5pt 4.5pt" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8 1pt inset; PADDING-RIGHT: 4.5pt; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8 1pt inset; PADDING-LEFT: 4.5pt; BACKGROUND: #fffef0; PADDING-BOTTOM: 4.5pt; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8 1pt inset; PADDING-TOP: 4.5pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8 1pt inset">And we never gave Saddam the green light to invade Kuwait.<o></o>
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Already touched on I see. No offence, but you really come across as just another person with -0- knowledge of the history of the Middle East trying to look at all current events as if the region just sprang to existence in the last five years. There's certainly no shortage around here. You might consider a) sticking to some cesspool like Free Republic where everyone has the same opinion or gets banned, or b) taking the time to learn about complicated subjects before attempting to converse about them.
<o></o>
I saw the source and you calling it a green light is typical hyperbole. Calling it a green light implies an explicit approval, which was not given. Of course, this stupendous screw up and tacit and naïve approval lends credibility to our new approach to Middle Eastern despots. We used to try to maintain the status quo in the Middle East to the detriment of its people. Thankfully, since 9/11 we have shifted our approach to Middle Eastern despots. Now its citizens have the best real chance of freedom ever. And before you begin the whining, it will not be easy, bloodless, or painless. Too many despots in region have a vested interests in maintaining the status quo. The more egregious sin was to encourage the Shias to revolt at the end of the Gulf War and then abandoning them at the behest of the UN. But it is of little relevance except for the delayed participation of the Shia after Saddam was toppled because of well-warranted concerns about our full commitment. A reluctance only exacerbated by the left’s unending carping about us needing to withdraw. Kerry’s defeat helped ease some of these concerns I am sure.<o></o>
<o></o>
And some day with great study and determination I will be able to understand the nuances of history like you and thus repeat the mistakes of the past. Of course, with unending arrogance and naivete.<o></o>
<o></o>
Quote:<o></o>
<TABLE style="MARGIN-LEFT: 18.7pt; WIDTH: 100%; mso-cellspacing: 0cm; mso-padding-alt: 4.5pt 4.5pt 4.5pt 4.5pt" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8 1pt inset; PADDING-RIGHT: 4.5pt; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8 1pt inset; PADDING-LEFT: 4.5pt; BACKGROUND: #fffef0; PADDING-BOTTOM: 4.5pt; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8 1pt inset; PADDING-TOP: 4.5pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8 1pt inset">Also, the power vacuum is being dealt with by instituting a democracy.<o></o>
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Do you think this will work? Democracy doesn't work very well in the West, and we invented the modern conception of it. i.e. we are the absolute best example that one will be able to find in the modern world of functional democracy, and it still is hardly an Utopia. "Exporting freedom" is an asinine premise, as is being demonstrated in Afgnanistan and Iraq as we speak.
<o></o>
Yes, exporting democracy is so asinine just as in Japan, for example, after WWII. Japan was a country that never before had experienced democracy. In fact, Hirohito was revered as a deity. What a disaster that is today, right? Of course, a learned historian such as you knows these things.<o></o>
<o></o>
And this point is something taught in history today. Why? Because we defeated the enemy first and left a stable country in its wake. Something you are not willing to do. Would you suggest we leave them to the whims of another despot, since “democracy doesn’t work that well.” Do dictatorships work better? If that is not your suggestion, then what is it? Have you ever given any thought to the fact that maybe the desperation that breeds the fanatics in the Middle East is due to the tyrannies that oppress them as opposed to the foreign policy of the US? What has more effect on their lives, the actual atrocities committed upon them by their own despots or the imagined oppression of America’s foreign policy and capitalism?<o></o>
<o></o>
You would rather earn your leftist merit badge in human rights by abandoning the Iraqis again. Then that civil war will happen for certain.<o></o>
<o></o>
Quote:<o></o>
<TABLE style="MARGIN-LEFT: 18.7pt; WIDTH: 100%; mso-cellspacing: 0cm; mso-padding-alt: 4.5pt 4.5pt 4.5pt 4.5pt" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8 1pt inset; PADDING-RIGHT: 4.5pt; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8 1pt inset; PADDING-LEFT: 4.5pt; BACKGROUND: #fffef0; PADDING-BOTTOM: 4.5pt; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8 1pt inset; PADDING-TOP: 4.5pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8 1pt inset">There were Nzi hold overs in Germany for several years after WWI. I believe they were called wolverines. But this is of little relevance because no amount of success will satisfy you.<o></o>
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Well, you're right inasmuch as the Nazi holdovers are totally irrelevant to the situation in Iraq right now. Do you really believe that those are all "Saddam loyalists" over there killing American troops and Iraqi civilians?
<o></o>
No, I do not believe that all of those fighting us in Iraq are “Saddam loyalists.” Probably the majority of them are imported jihadists which proves another of my points that Iraq is a central part of the war on terrorists. Thank you for making my point. <o></o>
<o></o>
The point about the werewolves (thank you jinnrikki) is that it is not unprecedented in history. And the existence of the werewolves was no excuse for abandoning Germany after WWII just as the holdovers and imports are no reason to abandon Iraq today. In fact, I would say they are a reason for renewed commitment. Less we repeat the mistakes of the past.<o></o>
<o></o>
Quote:<o></o>
<TABLE style="MARGIN-LEFT: 18.7pt; WIDTH: 100%; mso-cellspacing: 0cm; mso-padding-alt: 0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8 1pt inset; PADDING-RIGHT: 4.5pt; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8 1pt inset; PADDING-LEFT: 4.5pt; BACKGROUND: #fffef0; PADDING-BOTTOM: 4.5pt; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8 1pt inset; PADDING-TOP: 4.5pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8 1pt inset">Quote:
<TABLE style="WIDTH: 100%; mso-cellspacing: 0cm; mso-padding-alt: 4.5pt 4.5pt 4.5pt 4.5pt" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #ffffff 1pt inset; PADDING-RIGHT: 4.5pt; BORDER-TOP: #ffffff 1pt inset; PADDING-LEFT: 4.5pt; BACKGROUND: #fffef0; PADDING-BOTTOM: 4.5pt; BORDER-LEFT: #ffffff 1pt inset; PADDING-TOP: 4.5pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: #ffffff 1pt inset">Originally Posted by Phaedrus
A complete fallacy, since a) that is not what I said and b) you are equally unable to predict how many terrorist attacks, if any, have been averted by the war in Iraq..
I made one point that is demonstrably true: the economic cost of the so-called "War on Terror" has been greater than that of all terrorist attacks against America combined. I then made what I feel to be a fairly sound prediction: that before it is over with, the so-called "War on Terror" will have cost more American lives than all terrorist attacks against America combined..<o></o>
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
The economic costs you calculate just as the casualties will never be known as there is no way of forcasting what would have happened ahd we coward in a corner as you wish. We will never know about your prediction but I doubt there is anything sound about.<o></o>
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
The economic costs to which I am referring are the actual, to-date costs, not subject to speculation. The so-called "War on Terror" has cost more economically than all terrorist attacks against America combined.
I do not advocate "cowarding" [sic] in a corner (I think you meant "cowed") and your continuous assertions along these lines only reinforce the notion that you need to go play with the Freepers and leave us grownups to talk amongst ourselves.
My prediciton regarding the loss of American lives to the so-called "War on Terror" is only about a couple of thousand short of coming true. Do you seriously believe that less than say 2,000 more Americans will die in Iraq and Afghanistan prior to the "end" [sic] of the WoT?
<o></o>
First of all, I meant cowering. Second, now that I have time, my point is that your assertion is ridiculous. Let’s try this one. If we had not declared war after Pearl Harbor, we would have saved half of million of our people and billions of dollars. You cannot prove to me that if we had done nothing that Japan would have attacked again. You cannot tell me how many more or how many less of our people would have died. You cannot tell me how much more or how much less money we would have spent. Your argument is ridiculous and irrelevant. WWII cost us more money and people than all of Japan’s, Germany’s and Italy’s previous attacks. Of course, judging from some of your statements, you may be a Chomsky disciple and believe that Japan was justified in attacking us because of previous foreign policy transgressions.
<o></o>
This argument would be asinine then and it is asinine now. But I do find it humorous when leftist have a fit of fiscal responsibility. Of course, the left’s fits of fiscal responsibility only pop up when our government is actually fulfilling one of its limited constitutional requirements like national defense.
<o></o>
You also ignore a few changes with us taking the offensive as opposed to doing nothing as in the past. Here is a quote from OBL in 1997, followed by a quote in his Kerry endorsement in October 2004.
<o></o>
“The Americans are cowards, if they even think of confronting me, I will teach them a lesson similar to the lesson they were taught a few years ago in Somalia.”
<o></o>
“Your security is in your own hands. Any nation that does not attack us will not be attacked.”
In other words he now claims that if we leave him alone, he’ll stop bothering us. Sounds like it’s working. Of course, as always, the left will take the word of a mass murderer and say see we can end it now.
<o></o>
You see, OBL made a fatal mistake in assuming that all Americans were cowards when in fact it is just our leftists that are cowards.
<o></o>
When you grownups grow up and accept the responsibility of defending this country, this country will be much better off. I will not hold my breath.
<o></o>
Quote:<o></o>
<TABLE style="MARGIN-LEFT: 18.7pt; WIDTH: 100%; mso-cellspacing: 0cm; mso-padding-alt: 0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8 1pt inset; PADDING-RIGHT: 4.5pt; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8 1pt inset; PADDING-LEFT: 4.5pt; BACKGROUND: #fffef0; PADDING-BOTTOM: 4.5pt; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8 1pt inset; PADDING-TOP: 4.5pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8 1pt inset">
Quote:
<TABLE style="WIDTH: 100%; mso-cellspacing: 0cm; mso-padding-alt: 4.5pt 4.5pt 4.5pt 4.5pt" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #ffffff 1pt inset; PADDING-RIGHT: 4.5pt; BORDER-TOP: #ffffff 1pt inset; PADDING-LEFT: 4.5pt; BACKGROUND: #fffef0; PADDING-BOTTOM: 4.5pt; BORDER-LEFT: #ffffff 1pt inset; PADDING-TOP: 4.5pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: #ffffff 1pt inset">Originally Posted by Phaedrus
Regarding Afghanistan, the only fantasy at work here is that we acheived a meaningful level of success there. More than 75% of the country was totally out of the control of the Karzai government when it took office, and even now huge swaths are controlled by warlords who are only cooperative with Karzai and NATO as long as the cheques don't bounce. Parliamentary elections have been repeatedly postponed, which puts that portion of Afghanistan which is under nominal control by Karzai in the position of having a ruler and not a leader. The Taliban continues to agitate, and al-Qaeda continues to launch terrorist attacks. bin Laden is still at large, and our erstwhile ally in Pakistan is embattled by Muslim hardliners.
This is reality. Fantasy is "Mission Accomplished." Fantasy is George W. Bush having the audacity to say, "There's no such thing as a Taliban anymore."
I am quite certain that you have no idea at all which way I advocate taking.
I do have high standards for success, you got that one right. Congrats.
I don't think that anyone on the "left" believes that, but in any event it is not what I believe.
I do not believe that anything short of perfection is failure. I also do not hate the president. I think that he is a bad president, one of the worst we've had, but by no means the worst and I do not hate him for it in any event. <o></o>
The American government has spent the last several decades practicing policies in the Middle East that have led to hatred of the U.S. in general, and provided fodder for the crazed rhetoric of radical fundamentalism Muslims. It's been at it a long time to have learned so little.Phaedrus<o></o>
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
The New York Times disagrees with you on Afghanistan and they are no fans of the President.<o></o>
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
What the hell are you talking about? The vast majority of Afghanistan is not under the control of the Karzai administration. Fact. Parliamentary elections in Afghanistan have been postponed repeatedly (they are currently set for April.) Fact. This means that the Afghan people do not have any sort of representation and are living under the rule, however well-intentioned, of Karzai and his cabinet. Fact. The Taliban continues to agitate. Fact. al-Qaeda is still launching terror attacks in the region. Fact. The Musharraf government in Pakistan is under huge pressure from hardline Muslim factions. Fact.
What does the New York Times editorial department have to do with any of these facts? My opininon, their opinion, your opinion all moot -- the info above is factual, not subject to "well that's just like your view man" sort of spin. <o></o>
I am about as moderate as I am left-leaning.
What the hell I am talking about is an extremely leftwing paper having to admit the obvious because it is so glaring. Women are working and going to school in Afghanistan. Women are not being shot in the head in soccer stadiums for public sport. Forty percent of all Afghanis voted, when only sixty percent were of voting age. Yes, Parliamentary elections have been postponed and I am sure there will be other setbacks, but we must go forward. Your whining about the problems and imperfections is akin, once again, to rushing forward in 1946 and declaring the rebuilding efforts in Europe and Japan a failure.<o></o>
<o></o>
In fact, the left was doing just that in the years after WWII. Of course, you’ve learned nothing and are doing it again.<o></o>
<o></o>
Karzai controls Kabul, most of the major cities and much in between. And he is successfully leveraging his power to gradually extend his authority as he has to create entirely new federal institutions and an entirely new military. <o></o>
<o></o>
What should Bush have done? Send another 100,000 troops to put down warlords with local roots, local legitimacy and a ton of firepower?<o></o>
<o></o>
I know that there is nothing Bush could do to satisfy you. But where Afghanistan is today is a miracle when you look at their history. Let’s take a look.<o></o>
<o></o>
In the 1920’s, Afghan King Amanullah attempted to decrease the power of militant religious leaders, but he was quickly deposed. His cousin, Muhammad Nadir Khan, tried to continue his reforms but was assassinated as a result. Throughout the remainder of the 20th century, Afghanis continued to suffer under the grip of regional warlords. <o></o>
<o></o>
For the past quarter century, Afghanistan has been at war. Soviet troops invaded in 1979 and for 10 years fought the Mujahideen. (And please don’t give me that crap about how we armed them as if that delegitmizes our actions.) By 1996, fundamentalist students calling themselves "the Taliban" took power and subjected the Afghan people to Sharia. And a sporadic civil war broke out with the Northern Alliance resisting. <o></o>
<o></o>
It was under the Taliban that Al Qaeda set up terrorist training camps that produced the terrorists responsible for 9/11. But let me cut you off at the pass and empahsize that this is not the only source of terrorists.<o></o>
<o></o>
Three years later, the Taliban has been toppled, the training camps are gone and the Afghan people are rejoicing that their US liberators as expressed through their votes.<o></o>
<o></o>
After all, the women in Afghanistan, have, in the space of just three years, progressed from an environment in which they were treated like chattel to one in which they are helping to decide the future and fate of their country. <o></o>
<o></o>
But you keep up the good fight that will return them to this living hell.<o></o>
<o></o>
Just in case you missed it, let me end with a few suggestions not from me, but from an historian much more learned than you or I, Victor Davis Hanson.<o></o>
<o></o>
“As the old politics lie in ruin from hypocrisy and incoherence, the Left needs to get a new life. Here are a few more suggestions:<o></o>
<o></o>
“Remember that multilateral inaction — whether in the Balkans, Rwanda, or Darfur — is often calculated, selfish, and far more lethal to millions than risky interventions like removing the Taliban and Saddam. <o></o>
Quit idolizing Europe. It was a far larger arms merchant to Saddam than was the United States; it supplied most of Dr. Khan’s nuclear laboratory; it financed much of the Oil-for-Food scandal; and it helped to create and tolerate the Balkans genocide. It has never freed any country or intervened to remove fascism and leave behind democracy — silly American notions that are to be caricatured except when it is a matter of saving Europeans. <o></o>
Stop seeing an all-powerful United States behind every global problem. China is on the move and far more likely to disrupt environmental protocols, cheat on trade accords, and bully neighbors. The newly expanded Europe has a larger population and aggregate economy, stronger currency, and far less in trade and budget debts than does the United States — and is already using that economic clout for its own interests, not global freedom from dictators and autocrats.<o></o>
Don't believe much of what the U.N. says anymore. Its secretary general is guilty of either malfeasance or incompetence, its soldiers are often hired thugs who terrorize those they are supposed to protect, and its resolutions are likely to be anti-democratic and anti-Semitic. Its members include dozens of nations whose odious representatives we would not let walk inside the doors of the U.S. Congress. The old idea of a United Nations was inspiring, the current reality chilling.<o></o>
Stop seeing socialists and anti-Americans as Democrats. When a Michael Moore compares beheaders to our own Minutemen and laments that too many Democrats were in the World Trade Center, he deserves no platform alongside Wesley Clark or a seat next to Jimmy Carter or praise for his pseudo-dramas from high Democrats. Firebrands like Al Sharpton and Michael Moore are the current leftist equivalents of 1950s right-wing extremists like the John Birchers. They should suffer the same fate of ostracism, not bemused and tacit approval.<o></o>
Ignore most grim international reports that show the United States as stingy, greedy, or uncaring based on some esoteric formula that makes a Sweden or Denmark out as the world's savior. Such "studies" always ignore aggregate dollars and look at per capita public giving, and yet somehow ignore things like over $100 billion to Afghanistan and Iraq or $15 billion pledged to fight AIDS in Africa. These academic white papers likewise forget private donations, because most of the American billionaires who give to global causes of various sorts do so as either individuals or through foundations. No mention is made of the hundred of millions that are handled by American Christian charities. And the idea of a stingy America never mentions about $200 billion of the Pentagon's budget, which does things like keeping the Persian Gulf open to world commerce; protecting Europe; ensuring that the Aegean is free of shooting and that the waters between China, Korea, Taiwan, and Japan are relatively tranquil; and stopping nasty folk like the Taliban and Saddam from blowing up more Buddha monuments, desecrating Babylon, or ruining the ecology of the Tigris-Euphrates wetlands.<o></o>
Action and results, not rhetoric and intentions, are what matter. Cease blaming others for declining popularity. There is neither a Karl Rove conspiracy nor an envisioned red-state theocracy. No, the problem with our Left is what killed the dinosaurs: a desire to plod on to oblivion in a rapidly evolving world.”<o></o>
Nice selective replying.
No need to apologize. My selective replies and delayed response are due to the fact that I have been doomed to a dial up connection this weekend. All my current responses are in blue due to my unorthodox response.
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com
fficeffice" /><o></o><TABLE style="MARGIN-LEFT: 18.7pt; WIDTH: 100%; mso-cellspacing: 0cm; mso-padding-alt: 0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8 1pt inset; PADDING-RIGHT: 4.5pt; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8 1pt inset; PADDING-LEFT: 4.5pt; BACKGROUND: #fffef0; PADDING-BOTTOM: 4.5pt; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8 1pt inset; PADDING-TOP: 4.5pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8 1pt inset">Quote:
<TABLE style="WIDTH: 100%; mso-cellspacing: 0cm; mso-padding-alt: 4.5pt 4.5pt 4.5pt 4.5pt" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #ffffff 1pt inset; PADDING-RIGHT: 4.5pt; BORDER-TOP: #ffffff 1pt inset; PADDING-LEFT: 4.5pt; BACKGROUND: #fffef0; PADDING-BOTTOM: 4.5pt; BORDER-LEFT: #ffffff 1pt inset; PADDING-TOP: 4.5pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: #ffffff 1pt inset">Originally Posted by Phaedrus
No, I say it was a sovereign nation. Good, bad, whatever. It was a sovereign nation and now it is not. <o
></o></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Yes it is now becoming a sovereign democracy with duly elected officials, not a death camp.<o
></o></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Riiiiight. OK, one more time: how long do you think it will take to restore the Iraqi people at least to the level of misery that they had in recent years under the combination of Hussein's brutality and the economic starvation wrought on them by US-led sanctions against their country? I imagine at this point they look at even that horrid state with a touch of nostalgia. How long til we get back to the good old days? Just asking your opinion.
<o
></o>One more time. It will take years just as Bush said in the beginning. And the economic starvation of the people was implemented by none other than Saddam and his friends in the UN with the oil for fraud or oil for palaces program. Take your pick.
<o
></o>Despite the unrelenting drumbeat of bad news from a biased media at home and an even more biased international media, there is much good going on. Iraq already has more electricity than under Saddam. The periodic and planned blackouts under Saddam and just after his removal have lessened and will eventually be eliminated. Children are no longer being held in prison and mass graves are not being filled despite Zarqawi’s best efforts. Schools are being built. Irrigation systems are being reconstructed which were previously used as political weapons by Saddam. Oil refineries and oil distribution systems are being rebuilt as the terrorists try their best to disrupt it and the funds are no longer going to build palaces for Saddam.
<o
></o>Here are a few facts: Approximately 25% of Iraq’s debt accumulated under Saddam has been forgiven at the behest of the US. Approximately 100,000 Iraqi police, army and national guard troops have now been trained. Five billion in US aid alone has been disbursed, and oil revenue, which flows into Iraqi accounts via a US government trust, reached $1.9 billion in October which is higher than the $1.5 billion per month flowing when Saddam was in control.
<o
></o>A weekly update of reconstruction projects in Iraq can be located on the website of the US Agency for International Development. Give it a look. You will not find this information in the Guardian.
<o
></o>Now, before you begin speaking for the Iraqi people again about how horrible it is now maybe you should watch a documentary called "Voices of Iraq." It is a documentary based on 450 hours of actual video filmed by Iraqis with 150 cameras provided by the producers of the documentary. See how many Iraqis beg for Saddam’s return in this documentary.
Before you voice your ignorant opinion again, please do some research.
<o
></o>Quote:<o
></o><TABLE style="MARGIN-LEFT: 18.7pt; WIDTH: 100%; mso-cellspacing: 0cm; mso-padding-alt: 4.5pt 4.5pt 4.5pt 4.5pt" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8 1pt inset; PADDING-RIGHT: 4.5pt; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8 1pt inset; PADDING-LEFT: 4.5pt; BACKGROUND: #fffef0; PADDING-BOTTOM: 4.5pt; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8 1pt inset; PADDING-TOP: 4.5pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8 1pt inset">[Iraq] will definitely improve over time as it has been doing. There will be elections this month and the terrorists will be defeated as long as people like you are not in control<o
></o></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<o
></o>If people like me were in control, "terrorist" would be something they tought in Ancient History 101.
Do you really believe that the upcoming elections will be any more effective than the ones in Afghanistan were? The administration has already tabled plans to scuttle the efficacy of those elections by trying to guarantee positions to the Sunnis regardless of the outcome of the vote. How do you make the distinction between the administration "fighting" terrorists and me "appeasing" them? I'm not the one trying to implement affirmative action in the Iraqi parliament.
<o
></o>Yes, if you were in control, terrorism would be something taught in schools as history. Of course, they would all be called madrasses, not schools.
<o
></o>I believe the upcoming elections will be just as effective as the ones just held in Afghanistan. They will most certainly be an improvement over the last election held in Iraq in which Saddam got 99.9%. I believe we have been digging up that 0.1% that did not vote for him over the last year or so. No, they will not be perfect. And yes, the administration is taking some ill-guided actions in trying to coax Sunnis into participating. And yes, precaution must be taken to prevent retribution by the Shia and Kurds on the Sunnis. No one ever said it would be easy. No one ever said it would be perfect. But you keep your doom and gloom perspective as the Iraqis continue their march to free elections with no help from perpetual malcontents such as you.<o
></o><o
></o>Quote:<o
></o><TABLE style="MARGIN-LEFT: 18.7pt; WIDTH: 100%; mso-cellspacing: 0cm; mso-padding-alt: 4.5pt 4.5pt 4.5pt 4.5pt" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8 1pt inset; PADDING-RIGHT: 4.5pt; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8 1pt inset; PADDING-LEFT: 4.5pt; BACKGROUND: #fffef0; PADDING-BOTTOM: 4.5pt; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8 1pt inset; PADDING-TOP: 4.5pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8 1pt inset">And we never gave Saddam the green light to invade Kuwait.<o
></o></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Already touched on I see. No offence, but you really come across as just another person with -0- knowledge of the history of the Middle East trying to look at all current events as if the region just sprang to existence in the last five years. There's certainly no shortage around here. You might consider a) sticking to some cesspool like Free Republic where everyone has the same opinion or gets banned, or b) taking the time to learn about complicated subjects before attempting to converse about them.
<o
></o>I saw the source and you calling it a green light is typical hyperbole. Calling it a green light implies an explicit approval, which was not given. Of course, this stupendous screw up and tacit and naïve approval lends credibility to our new approach to Middle Eastern despots. We used to try to maintain the status quo in the Middle East to the detriment of its people. Thankfully, since 9/11 we have shifted our approach to Middle Eastern despots. Now its citizens have the best real chance of freedom ever. And before you begin the whining, it will not be easy, bloodless, or painless. Too many despots in region have a vested interests in maintaining the status quo. The more egregious sin was to encourage the Shias to revolt at the end of the Gulf War and then abandoning them at the behest of the UN. But it is of little relevance except for the delayed participation of the Shia after Saddam was toppled because of well-warranted concerns about our full commitment. A reluctance only exacerbated by the left’s unending carping about us needing to withdraw. Kerry’s defeat helped ease some of these concerns I am sure.<o
></o><o
></o>And some day with great study and determination I will be able to understand the nuances of history like you and thus repeat the mistakes of the past. Of course, with unending arrogance and naivete.<o
></o><o
></o>Quote:<o
></o><TABLE style="MARGIN-LEFT: 18.7pt; WIDTH: 100%; mso-cellspacing: 0cm; mso-padding-alt: 4.5pt 4.5pt 4.5pt 4.5pt" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8 1pt inset; PADDING-RIGHT: 4.5pt; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8 1pt inset; PADDING-LEFT: 4.5pt; BACKGROUND: #fffef0; PADDING-BOTTOM: 4.5pt; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8 1pt inset; PADDING-TOP: 4.5pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8 1pt inset">Also, the power vacuum is being dealt with by instituting a democracy.<o
></o></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Do you think this will work? Democracy doesn't work very well in the West, and we invented the modern conception of it. i.e. we are the absolute best example that one will be able to find in the modern world of functional democracy, and it still is hardly an Utopia. "Exporting freedom" is an asinine premise, as is being demonstrated in Afgnanistan and Iraq as we speak.
<o
></o>Yes, exporting democracy is so asinine just as in Japan, for example, after WWII. Japan was a country that never before had experienced democracy. In fact, Hirohito was revered as a deity. What a disaster that is today, right? Of course, a learned historian such as you knows these things.<o
></o><o
></o>And this point is something taught in history today. Why? Because we defeated the enemy first and left a stable country in its wake. Something you are not willing to do. Would you suggest we leave them to the whims of another despot, since “democracy doesn’t work that well.” Do dictatorships work better? If that is not your suggestion, then what is it? Have you ever given any thought to the fact that maybe the desperation that breeds the fanatics in the Middle East is due to the tyrannies that oppress them as opposed to the foreign policy of the US? What has more effect on their lives, the actual atrocities committed upon them by their own despots or the imagined oppression of America’s foreign policy and capitalism?<o
></o><o
></o>You would rather earn your leftist merit badge in human rights by abandoning the Iraqis again. Then that civil war will happen for certain.<o
></o><o
></o>Quote:<o
></o><TABLE style="MARGIN-LEFT: 18.7pt; WIDTH: 100%; mso-cellspacing: 0cm; mso-padding-alt: 4.5pt 4.5pt 4.5pt 4.5pt" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8 1pt inset; PADDING-RIGHT: 4.5pt; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8 1pt inset; PADDING-LEFT: 4.5pt; BACKGROUND: #fffef0; PADDING-BOTTOM: 4.5pt; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8 1pt inset; PADDING-TOP: 4.5pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8 1pt inset">There were Nzi hold overs in Germany for several years after WWI. I believe they were called wolverines. But this is of little relevance because no amount of success will satisfy you.<o
></o></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Well, you're right inasmuch as the Nazi holdovers are totally irrelevant to the situation in Iraq right now. Do you really believe that those are all "Saddam loyalists" over there killing American troops and Iraqi civilians?
<o
></o>No, I do not believe that all of those fighting us in Iraq are “Saddam loyalists.” Probably the majority of them are imported jihadists which proves another of my points that Iraq is a central part of the war on terrorists. Thank you for making my point. <o
></o><o
></o>The point about the werewolves (thank you jinnrikki) is that it is not unprecedented in history. And the existence of the werewolves was no excuse for abandoning Germany after WWII just as the holdovers and imports are no reason to abandon Iraq today. In fact, I would say they are a reason for renewed commitment. Less we repeat the mistakes of the past.<o
></o><o
></o>Quote:<o
></o><TABLE style="MARGIN-LEFT: 18.7pt; WIDTH: 100%; mso-cellspacing: 0cm; mso-padding-alt: 0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8 1pt inset; PADDING-RIGHT: 4.5pt; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8 1pt inset; PADDING-LEFT: 4.5pt; BACKGROUND: #fffef0; PADDING-BOTTOM: 4.5pt; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8 1pt inset; PADDING-TOP: 4.5pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8 1pt inset">Quote:
<TABLE style="WIDTH: 100%; mso-cellspacing: 0cm; mso-padding-alt: 4.5pt 4.5pt 4.5pt 4.5pt" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #ffffff 1pt inset; PADDING-RIGHT: 4.5pt; BORDER-TOP: #ffffff 1pt inset; PADDING-LEFT: 4.5pt; BACKGROUND: #fffef0; PADDING-BOTTOM: 4.5pt; BORDER-LEFT: #ffffff 1pt inset; PADDING-TOP: 4.5pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: #ffffff 1pt inset">Originally Posted by Phaedrus
A complete fallacy, since a) that is not what I said and b) you are equally unable to predict how many terrorist attacks, if any, have been averted by the war in Iraq..
I made one point that is demonstrably true: the economic cost of the so-called "War on Terror" has been greater than that of all terrorist attacks against America combined. I then made what I feel to be a fairly sound prediction: that before it is over with, the so-called "War on Terror" will have cost more American lives than all terrorist attacks against America combined..<o
></o></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
The economic costs you calculate just as the casualties will never be known as there is no way of forcasting what would have happened ahd we coward in a corner as you wish. We will never know about your prediction but I doubt there is anything sound about.<o
></o></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
The economic costs to which I am referring are the actual, to-date costs, not subject to speculation. The so-called "War on Terror" has cost more economically than all terrorist attacks against America combined.
I do not advocate "cowarding" [sic] in a corner (I think you meant "cowed") and your continuous assertions along these lines only reinforce the notion that you need to go play with the Freepers and leave us grownups to talk amongst ourselves.
My prediciton regarding the loss of American lives to the so-called "War on Terror" is only about a couple of thousand short of coming true. Do you seriously believe that less than say 2,000 more Americans will die in Iraq and Afghanistan prior to the "end" [sic] of the WoT?
<o
></o>First of all, I meant cowering. Second, now that I have time, my point is that your assertion is ridiculous. Let’s try this one. If we had not declared war after Pearl Harbor, we would have saved half of million of our people and billions of dollars. You cannot prove to me that if we had done nothing that Japan would have attacked again. You cannot tell me how many more or how many less of our people would have died. You cannot tell me how much more or how much less money we would have spent. Your argument is ridiculous and irrelevant. WWII cost us more money and people than all of Japan’s, Germany’s and Italy’s previous attacks. Of course, judging from some of your statements, you may be a Chomsky disciple and believe that Japan was justified in attacking us because of previous foreign policy transgressions.
<o
></o>This argument would be asinine then and it is asinine now. But I do find it humorous when leftist have a fit of fiscal responsibility. Of course, the left’s fits of fiscal responsibility only pop up when our government is actually fulfilling one of its limited constitutional requirements like national defense.
<o
></o>You also ignore a few changes with us taking the offensive as opposed to doing nothing as in the past. Here is a quote from OBL in 1997, followed by a quote in his Kerry endorsement in October 2004.
<o
></o>“The Americans are cowards, if they even think of confronting me, I will teach them a lesson similar to the lesson they were taught a few years ago in Somalia.”
<o
></o>“Your security is in your own hands. Any nation that does not attack us will not be attacked.”
In other words he now claims that if we leave him alone, he’ll stop bothering us. Sounds like it’s working. Of course, as always, the left will take the word of a mass murderer and say see we can end it now.
<o
></o>You see, OBL made a fatal mistake in assuming that all Americans were cowards when in fact it is just our leftists that are cowards.
<o
></o>When you grownups grow up and accept the responsibility of defending this country, this country will be much better off. I will not hold my breath.
<o
></o>Quote:<o
></o><TABLE style="MARGIN-LEFT: 18.7pt; WIDTH: 100%; mso-cellspacing: 0cm; mso-padding-alt: 0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8 1pt inset; PADDING-RIGHT: 4.5pt; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8 1pt inset; PADDING-LEFT: 4.5pt; BACKGROUND: #fffef0; PADDING-BOTTOM: 4.5pt; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8 1pt inset; PADDING-TOP: 4.5pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8 1pt inset">
Quote:
<TABLE style="WIDTH: 100%; mso-cellspacing: 0cm; mso-padding-alt: 4.5pt 4.5pt 4.5pt 4.5pt" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #ffffff 1pt inset; PADDING-RIGHT: 4.5pt; BORDER-TOP: #ffffff 1pt inset; PADDING-LEFT: 4.5pt; BACKGROUND: #fffef0; PADDING-BOTTOM: 4.5pt; BORDER-LEFT: #ffffff 1pt inset; PADDING-TOP: 4.5pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: #ffffff 1pt inset">Originally Posted by Phaedrus
Regarding Afghanistan, the only fantasy at work here is that we acheived a meaningful level of success there. More than 75% of the country was totally out of the control of the Karzai government when it took office, and even now huge swaths are controlled by warlords who are only cooperative with Karzai and NATO as long as the cheques don't bounce. Parliamentary elections have been repeatedly postponed, which puts that portion of Afghanistan which is under nominal control by Karzai in the position of having a ruler and not a leader. The Taliban continues to agitate, and al-Qaeda continues to launch terrorist attacks. bin Laden is still at large, and our erstwhile ally in Pakistan is embattled by Muslim hardliners.
This is reality. Fantasy is "Mission Accomplished." Fantasy is George W. Bush having the audacity to say, "There's no such thing as a Taliban anymore."
I am quite certain that you have no idea at all which way I advocate taking.
I do have high standards for success, you got that one right. Congrats.
I don't think that anyone on the "left" believes that, but in any event it is not what I believe.
I do not believe that anything short of perfection is failure. I also do not hate the president. I think that he is a bad president, one of the worst we've had, but by no means the worst and I do not hate him for it in any event. <o
></o>The American government has spent the last several decades practicing policies in the Middle East that have led to hatred of the U.S. in general, and provided fodder for the crazed rhetoric of radical fundamentalism Muslims. It's been at it a long time to have learned so little.Phaedrus<o
></o></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
The New York Times disagrees with you on Afghanistan and they are no fans of the President.<o
></o></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
What the hell are you talking about? The vast majority of Afghanistan is not under the control of the Karzai administration. Fact. Parliamentary elections in Afghanistan have been postponed repeatedly (they are currently set for April.) Fact. This means that the Afghan people do not have any sort of representation and are living under the rule, however well-intentioned, of Karzai and his cabinet. Fact. The Taliban continues to agitate. Fact. al-Qaeda is still launching terror attacks in the region. Fact. The Musharraf government in Pakistan is under huge pressure from hardline Muslim factions. Fact.
What does the New York Times editorial department have to do with any of these facts? My opininon, their opinion, your opinion all moot -- the info above is factual, not subject to "well that's just like your view man" sort of spin. <o
></o>I am about as moderate as I am left-leaning.
What the hell I am talking about is an extremely leftwing paper having to admit the obvious because it is so glaring. Women are working and going to school in Afghanistan. Women are not being shot in the head in soccer stadiums for public sport. Forty percent of all Afghanis voted, when only sixty percent were of voting age. Yes, Parliamentary elections have been postponed and I am sure there will be other setbacks, but we must go forward. Your whining about the problems and imperfections is akin, once again, to rushing forward in 1946 and declaring the rebuilding efforts in Europe and Japan a failure.<o
></o><o
></o>In fact, the left was doing just that in the years after WWII. Of course, you’ve learned nothing and are doing it again.<o
></o><o
></o>Karzai controls Kabul, most of the major cities and much in between. And he is successfully leveraging his power to gradually extend his authority as he has to create entirely new federal institutions and an entirely new military. <o
></o><o
></o>What should Bush have done? Send another 100,000 troops to put down warlords with local roots, local legitimacy and a ton of firepower?<o
></o><o
></o>I know that there is nothing Bush could do to satisfy you. But where Afghanistan is today is a miracle when you look at their history. Let’s take a look.<o
></o><o
></o>In the 1920’s, Afghan King Amanullah attempted to decrease the power of militant religious leaders, but he was quickly deposed. His cousin, Muhammad Nadir Khan, tried to continue his reforms but was assassinated as a result. Throughout the remainder of the 20th century, Afghanis continued to suffer under the grip of regional warlords. <o
></o><o
></o>For the past quarter century, Afghanistan has been at war. Soviet troops invaded in 1979 and for 10 years fought the Mujahideen. (And please don’t give me that crap about how we armed them as if that delegitmizes our actions.) By 1996, fundamentalist students calling themselves "the Taliban" took power and subjected the Afghan people to Sharia. And a sporadic civil war broke out with the Northern Alliance resisting. <o
></o><o
></o>It was under the Taliban that Al Qaeda set up terrorist training camps that produced the terrorists responsible for 9/11. But let me cut you off at the pass and empahsize that this is not the only source of terrorists.<o
></o><o
></o>Three years later, the Taliban has been toppled, the training camps are gone and the Afghan people are rejoicing that their US liberators as expressed through their votes.<o
></o><o
></o>After all, the women in Afghanistan, have, in the space of just three years, progressed from an environment in which they were treated like chattel to one in which they are helping to decide the future and fate of their country. <o
></o><o
></o>But you keep up the good fight that will return them to this living hell.<o
></o><o
></o>Just in case you missed it, let me end with a few suggestions not from me, but from an historian much more learned than you or I, Victor Davis Hanson.<o
></o><o
></o>“As the old politics lie in ruin from hypocrisy and incoherence, the Left needs to get a new life. Here are a few more suggestions:<o
></o><o
></o>“Remember that multilateral inaction — whether in the Balkans, Rwanda, or Darfur — is often calculated, selfish, and far more lethal to millions than risky interventions like removing the Taliban and Saddam. <o
></o>Quit idolizing Europe. It was a far larger arms merchant to Saddam than was the United States; it supplied most of Dr. Khan’s nuclear laboratory; it financed much of the Oil-for-Food scandal; and it helped to create and tolerate the Balkans genocide. It has never freed any country or intervened to remove fascism and leave behind democracy — silly American notions that are to be caricatured except when it is a matter of saving Europeans. <o
></o>Stop seeing an all-powerful United States behind every global problem. China is on the move and far more likely to disrupt environmental protocols, cheat on trade accords, and bully neighbors. The newly expanded Europe has a larger population and aggregate economy, stronger currency, and far less in trade and budget debts than does the United States — and is already using that economic clout for its own interests, not global freedom from dictators and autocrats.<o
></o>Don't believe much of what the U.N. says anymore. Its secretary general is guilty of either malfeasance or incompetence, its soldiers are often hired thugs who terrorize those they are supposed to protect, and its resolutions are likely to be anti-democratic and anti-Semitic. Its members include dozens of nations whose odious representatives we would not let walk inside the doors of the U.S. Congress. The old idea of a United Nations was inspiring, the current reality chilling.<o
></o>Stop seeing socialists and anti-Americans as Democrats. When a Michael Moore compares beheaders to our own Minutemen and laments that too many Democrats were in the World Trade Center, he deserves no platform alongside Wesley Clark or a seat next to Jimmy Carter or praise for his pseudo-dramas from high Democrats. Firebrands like Al Sharpton and Michael Moore are the current leftist equivalents of 1950s right-wing extremists like the John Birchers. They should suffer the same fate of ostracism, not bemused and tacit approval.<o
></o>Ignore most grim international reports that show the United States as stingy, greedy, or uncaring based on some esoteric formula that makes a Sweden or Denmark out as the world's savior. Such "studies" always ignore aggregate dollars and look at per capita public giving, and yet somehow ignore things like over $100 billion to Afghanistan and Iraq or $15 billion pledged to fight AIDS in Africa. These academic white papers likewise forget private donations, because most of the American billionaires who give to global causes of various sorts do so as either individuals or through foundations. No mention is made of the hundred of millions that are handled by American Christian charities. And the idea of a stingy America never mentions about $200 billion of the Pentagon's budget, which does things like keeping the Persian Gulf open to world commerce; protecting Europe; ensuring that the Aegean is free of shooting and that the waters between China, Korea, Taiwan, and Japan are relatively tranquil; and stopping nasty folk like the Taliban and Saddam from blowing up more Buddha monuments, desecrating Babylon, or ruining the ecology of the Tigris-Euphrates wetlands.<o
></o>Action and results, not rhetoric and intentions, are what matter. Cease blaming others for declining popularity. There is neither a Karl Rove conspiracy nor an envisioned red-state theocracy. No, the problem with our Left is what killed the dinosaurs: a desire to plod on to oblivion in a rapidly evolving world.”<o
></o>
