Public Radio, Obama And The Surge

The Daily News reports Obama has scrubbed his website of his criticism of the surge in Iraq.

"The surge is not working," Obama's old plan stated, citing a lack of Iraqi political cooperation but crediting Sunni sheiks - not U.S. military muscle - for quelling violence in Anbar Province.

Check out this Public Radio report of an Obama event in New Hampshire as recently as July 2007.

Obama: Iraq Troop Surge Isn't Working

Obama told the crowd of more than 500 people that nobody wants to get U.S. troops out of Iraq more than he does, but doing so will require voters to pressure Senate Republicans, including New Hampshire Senators Judd Gregg and John Sununu, to break with President Bush.

Obama says there's no reason to give the president's troop surge more time.

"Here's what we know. The surge has not worked. And they said today, 'Well, even in September, we're going to need more time.' So we're going to kick this can all the way down to the next president, under the president's plan."

Obama claims to have judgment you can trust. I have to assume he's talking to our enemies in the Middle-East given the judgment he displayed on the surge.

Comments

[Anne]

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MmU2N2FmYjA4MDBhNDQ0MjYxZmQwMzlhODYxN2QzN2E=

"Obama spokesmen now say everyone knew that President Bush’s troop surge would create more security. This is blatantly false."

[templar knight]

We have several nitwits on this site who say the Surge is not working, and has not worked. Forget that attacks are down 90% from a year ago, that major steps to reconciliation have occurred, that the Sunnis are joining the government, the Shite death squads have been eliminated, al-queda has been defeated for the most part, the South and Sadr City are back under the government's control, the Iraqi Army is performing well, and I could go on. But to get some of these dumb asses who have counted on the US losing in Iraq to believe their lying eyes is just too much for their psyche to handle. Their tiny brains would explode. It must hurt to be a liberal.

[Anne]

Gateway Pundit has the cache (Obama's website doesn't show up in google cache?)

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/07/obama-scrubs-iraq-webpage.html

[Concerned Citizen]

Now Obama is "focusing" on Afghanistan. (which means he is giving speeches about it.)

That's priceless, considering that he chaired a committee concerning Afghanistan and did NOTHING.

Seems that all Obama wants to do is give speeches and acquire titles.

Hey, everyone, read the recent New Yorker article about Obama. A must-read, whether you like the cover or not.

[chris]

My heartfelt congratulations on your stunning victory in Iraq. And it only took 6 years! Those Iraqis will never attack us again!

[franglo]

YA OBAMA WHAT A RETARD, HE STILL WANTS TO LEAVE IRAQ THAT HOSER IRAQ RULZ SO HARD

The Wisdom of John McCain on Iraq....

On the Run-Up to War

"Look, we're going to send young men and women in harm's way and that's always a great danger, but I cannot believe that there is an Iraqi soldier who is going to be willing to die for Saddam Hussein, particularly since he will know that our objective is to remove Saddam Hussein from power."
John McCain, September 15, 2002.

"But the fact is, I think we could go in with much smaller numbers than we had to do in the past. But any military man worth his salt is going to have to prepare for any contingency, but I don't believe it's going to be nearly the size and scope that it was in 1991."
John McCain, September 15, 2002.

"He's a patriot who has the best interests of his country at heart."
John McCain, on Ahmed Chalabi, 2003.

On Saddam's Weapons of Mass Destruction

"Proponents of containment claim that Iraq is in a "box." But it is a box with no lid, no bottom, and whose sides are falling out. Within this box are definitive footprints of germ, chemical and nuclear programs."
John McCain, February 13, 2003.

"I remain confident that we will find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq."
John McCain, June 11, 2003.

On Being Greeted as Liberators

"Absolutely. Absolutely."
John McCain, asked by Chris Matthews, "you believe that the people of Iraq or at least a large number of them will treat us as liberators?" March 12, 2003.

"Not only that, they'll be relieved that he's not in the neighborhood because he has invaded his neighbors on several occasions."
John McCain, asked by Chris Matthews, "And you think the Arab world will come to a grudging recognition that what we did was necessary?" March 12, 2003.

"There's no doubt in my mind that we will prevail and there's no doubt in my mind, once these people are gone, that we will be welcomed as liberators."
John McCain, March 24, 2003.

On a Rapid Victory and Mission Accomplished

"I think the victory will be rapid, within about three weeks."
John McCain, January 28, 2003.

"It's clear that the end is very much in sight...It won't be long. It, it'll be a fairly short period of time."
John McCain, April 9, 2003.

"Well, then why was there a banner that said mission accomplished on the aircraft carrier?"
John McCain, responding to assertion by Fox News' Neil Cavuto that "many argue the conflict isn't over," June 11, 2003.

"I have said a long time that reconstruction of Iraq would be a long, long, difficult process, but the conflict -- the major conflict is over, the regime change has been accomplished, and it's very appropriate."
John McCain, June 11, 2003.

"I'm confident we're on the right course."
John McCain, March 7, 2004.

"We're either going to lose this thing or win this thing within the next several months."
John McCain, November 12, 2006.

"My friends, the war will be over soon, the war for all intents and purposes although the insurgency will go on for years and years and years."
John McCain, February 25, 2008.

On the Safe Streets of Baghdad

"[There] there "are neighborhoods in Baghdad where you and I could walk through those neighborhoods, today."
John McCain, after touring a Baghdad market wearing a bulletproof vest and guarded by "100 American soldiers, with three Blackhawk helicopters, and two Apache gunships overhead, April 1, 2007.

"There's problems in America with safe neighborhoods as we well know."
John McCain, March 8, 2008.

On President Bush and His Team

"We are very fortunate that our president in these challenging days can rely on the counsel of a man who has demonstrated time and again the resolve, experience, and patriotism that will be required for success and the hard-headed clear thinking necessary to prevail in this global fight between good and evil."
John McCain, on Dick Cheney, July 16, 2004.

"I think he strengthened our national defenses. I think he has a good team around him."
John McCain, on President Bush, September 3, 2004.

"I said no. My answer is still no. No confidence."
John McCain, on whether he had confidence in Bush Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, December 15, 2004.

On a Permanent American Military Presence in Iraq

"We cannot keep our forces indefinitely staged in the region. Were we to attempt again to contain Saddam, we would eventually have to withdraw them. The world is full of dangers and, more likely than not, we will need some of those brave men and women to face them down."
John McCain, February 13, 2003.

"We have had troops in South Korea for 60 years and nobody minds."
John McCain, June 7, 2007.

"Make it a hundred."
John McCain, told that President Bush had said American troops could remain in Iraq for 50 years, January 3, 2008.

"I asked McCain about his 'hundred years' comment, and he reaffirmed the remark, excitedly declaring that U.S. troops could be in Iraq for 'a thousand years' or 'a million years,' as far as he was concerned."
David Corn, January 3, 2008.

"The U.S. could have a military presence anywhere in the world for a long period of time."
John McCain, February 20, 2008.

[IslamoLlama]

Stoopid Lie-bruls. Don't they know that the Surge! worked so well that we can't bring our troops home for 100 years?

What wingnuts won't admit is that the Surge! only works if it creates us an exit strategy. If we can't leave because fighting will just break out again, then - by definition - the Surge! failed to create the political space needed for reconciliation and an end to violence. And the only way to test if the exit strategy exists is to begin pulling troops out of Iraq. But wingnuts are horrified that this will cause Iraq to implode into 2005 levels of anarchy and violence. Which makes me think that even THEY don't actually believe the Surge! did more than put a bigger lid on a massive boiling clusterfuck.

It's the sheer lack of confidence in their own administration that makes me think McCain is going to see record levels of failure in the fail. When given a choice between McCain and Obama, plenty of die-hard GOoPers will say they like McCain better. But do they like him enough to vote for him in the Fall? That's the million dollar question.

Wingnuts don't trust their own leadership. They won't donate money to their candidate's coffers - which is why Obama smashes McCain in the $200 or less donation bracket. Their defense of GOP policy is lukewarm at best. The "Gas Tax Holiday" was a political still born. McCain's health care and energy platforms are virtually non-existent. And the Surge! is just one in a long line of political moves that even the rank and file Republicans don't have faith in.

[Fred]

McSame is going to lose so badly, you will never recover from the ass-whooping. The MSM is in bed with McCain and the only reason he is even STILL in the race is due to the media lapdogs who want to ride in the kewl part of the plane - or on McCain's lap. McCain is the sacrificial lamb going to the slaughter and you all know it. It is giong to be brutal for your side. Fun for the entire family.

Blaming flip-flops on Obama, and ignoring the many dozens of similar moves by McCain is typical right side behavior. Pure Rovian, but it is all you got - that and racism. Just a thought? Why not focus on the facts? Oh I forgot, that won't work for your side. You better start attacking the next president - you don't have much time to continue to feel superior. After King Bush leaves office, your lives will tumble back to the worthless and uneventful spew it was before 2000.

[Porkov]

Around 390,000 members of the US Military are currently deployed in 150 countries around the world. We have been in Iraq for a lot less time than we have been in most of them. Where is the outcry to bring our troops home from Germany, Japan, and all the other places we remained after WWII (FDR's war?)and Korea (Truman's war?)? Or would you rather we treat this like JFK's and LBJ's war?

[SacTownMan]

Dang Dan what's the big deal anyway?

You darn Neocons are always "taking him out of context" (moonbat talking point #10)

After investing so much effort in the "cut and run" strategy Barry boy now is just "adjusting his position" a little.

Now it's time for plan B. You know where we steer to the center and convince those bitter, clingy white folk that we were just kidding about the whole abandoning the Iraqi civilian population to the genecide thing.

If we had just allowed the Dumb-o-crats to dictate the progress of the war like they tried ad nasium in 2006 and 2007 the world would be so much better.
You know the success of the surge is just driving the moonbats crazy. Bob/Chris craps himself everyday thinking about it. They had planned to have Iraq in total turmoil with massive civilian casualties by now. Those pesky Iraqi's were supposed to stay busy with their little "civil war". Now they're just getting in the way of the grand plan to save the world from global cooling, getting the welfare health care system, taking over congress, POTUS, SCOTUS, and impeaching Bushie.

First Barry wants to just bail out completely regardless of the impact in an effort to appeal to the base and now he will send 2 additional combat brigades to Afganistan. Which is it dumbass?

If this guy has ANY core values he has yet to show them. The MTV Manchurian Candidate simply morphs himself to fit whatever his handlers tell him to be. Must be tough putting all of those "Community Organizer" skills to work.

[Totally Heterosexual Conservative]

"Around 390,000 members of the US Military are currently deployed in 150 countries around the world. We have been in Iraq for a lot less time than we have been in most of them. Where is the outcry to bring our troops home from Germany, Japan, and all the other places we remained after WWII (FDR's war?)and Korea (Truman's war?)? Or would you rather we treat this like JFK's and LBJ's war?"

Jesus. How stupid do you have to be to buy this analogy? How many U.S. troops are regularly blown up in Germany, Japan, et al? How many U.S. troops are acting as the only force propping up a foreign government, nay, the entirety of a country?

Obama is correct. The Surge!!! has failed to bring about the political reconciliation it was expressly designed for. St. Petreaus admitted this in his initial testimony. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs has called for troops in Iraq to be deployed in Afghanistan, as have commanders on the ground in that country. But we can't. Because butt-hurt chickenhawks must have their "victory" - a victory they can not define.

The only thing Teh Surge!!! has accomplished is putting a lid on the violence in Baghadad. Iraq is no closer to being a country that can sustain itself than before Teh Surge!!!! The Iraqis have asked us to set a time-table to split. What does that tell you? Nothing, I know. Just thought I'd ask. Conservative traitors and their boot-lickers have pilfered this country, destroyed our reputation, and have not made us any safer.

[WAHOO WILLIE]

"If we can't leave because fighting will just break out again, then - by definition - the Surge! failed to create the political space needed for reconciliation and an end to violence. And the only way to test if the exit strategy exists is to begin pulling troops out of Iraq."

Couldn't have said it better myself, though I said the same thing differently many times. If we leave today or 100 years from now, in a matter of weeks those "people" will be strapping bombs to their own children and cutting each others heads off. I was right on day one and will be right in a hundred years.

"Exit strategy" I love that adorable new little term, it's as cute as "surgical strike" but not as cute as "military-intelligence"

[seekeronos]

Obama's a sad excuse for a candidate, but McCain may be even sadder still.

"--- It's the sheer lack of confidence in their own administration that makes me think McCain is going to see record levels of failure in the fail. ---"

Indeed, neither candidate, I'm afraid, has the courage nor the ability to effect the sorts of change needed to reduce the size and the annoyance of the government, to restrain the folly of the Congress, to restrict the tyranny of the Executive, and return to a sound fiscal policy.

Both parties and their candidates are bankrupt of any value to this Republic, and the only difference between the two will be the degree and the speed of the devastation that will befall the Republic under the watch of either man.

[IslamoLlama]

"-- We have been in Iraq for a lot less time than we have been in most of them. Where is the outcry to bring our troops home from Germany, Japan, and all the other places we remained after WWII (FDR's war?)and Korea (Truman's war?)? Or would you rather we treat this like JFK's and LBJ's war? --"

Wow, neat how you left off Eisenhower as he and JFK had about equal involvement in Vietnam. Even better that you left off Nixon, who spent more time presiding over Vietnam than JFK and LBJ combined.

All that said, I've repeatedly stated that our military bases in Germany, Japan, and S. Korea are a complete waste of money and manpower. There isn't a big call for closing those bases down because people didn't consider them to be such a serious drain on the budget that it was worth the job loss and military reach such bases provide.

Now that we're running 9 figure debts on a yearly basis during an economic slump, closing those bases looks like a better and better idea. We've been guarding South Korea from a North Korean invasion for over 60 years. If the South Koreans aren't ready to stand up while we stand down, I don't think they ever will. We've been guarding Germany against Soviet Incursion for about 15 years longer than the Soviet Union has existed. I think they can come home now too. And I guess its nice to know that we're safe from the Japanese bombing Pearl Harbor a second time, but I just don't see Sony or Toyota letting their government push that particular red button.

Yes, bring them all home. First the troops in Iraq, then the rest. Bring them all home.

[WAHOO WILLIE]

Closing/reduction of OCONUS bases has been ongoing since the Clingon administration. There will be no total withdrawal for strategic reasons. While the USSR is (supposedly) kaput, there was that ugliness in Yugoslavia and more recently Putin sabre rattling. No, the Japanese wont bomb pearl again but there's all these war games around Formosa and one must wonder about millions of starving North Koreans and all that food down south. The 38th parallel is not a safe place as is. Imagine no one but a few ROK troops to guard it. I can be as isolationist as the next guy, am certainly against liberating people who dont want it and nation building but Santana was right.......

[seekeronos]

"--- Yes, bring them all home. First the troops in Iraq, then the rest. Bring them all home. ---"

I agree with this sentiment...

...mostly.

Europe is very much at a point where it can fend for itself.

The Middle East play date is something that should have never taken place: beyond setting up letters of marque and reprisal, and sourcing Blackwater or the CIA to assassinate Saddam Hussein and his immediate family (specifically, Qusay and Uday) and the top level of the Ba'ath party membership, and maybe surveilling OBL until such time as he opened himself up to a smart bomb being delivered on top of his caravan.

Beyond that, leaving the middle East to fight and squabble amongst themselves as ever they have. I'd bet we would still have $50/Bbl oil right now.

Japan/Korea: This one bears watching. If we did a 100% withdrawal-never-to-return, this could make the Red Chinese and the Norks get a bit grabby, and make the Japanese nervous enough to field a nuclear deterrent.

Now this is not a mark agaisnt the Japanese -- they are, of all the advanced Asian nations, the most trustworthy and closest to European and American values. Japan's potential rearmament would be a hedge against the aggression of China and Korea, whether it be a united Korea or the two divided states.

The minor tensions over the Senkaku islands and the Takeshima islands (Dokdo to the Koreans, Liancourt Rocks to the rest of us) and the resources fields falling under the territorial claims of all natiojns concerned could more easily flair up into regional war sans US presence to smooth those ancient ruffled feathers.

Factor in the grabbiness of the Chinese or the Koreans (specifically the Norks) without the US nuclear umbrella to help unravel things, it does a right clever job of ratcheting up tensions in that theatre to uncomfortable levels.

The Asian kitty rides on what the Norks do with themselves once Kim kicks the bucket, and even then, there is no guarantee that the Koreans - united or otherwise - would want to play nice with either the PRC or Japan.

[Anne]

THC says "The Iraqis have asked us to set a time-table to split. What does that tell you? Nothing, I know. Just thought I'd ask. Conservative traitors and their boot-lickers have pilfered this country, destroyed our reputation, and have not made us any safer."

but Amir Taheri says that Maliki has not asked us to set a timetable. So, who do you believe?

http://www.nypost.com/seven/07152008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/obama__iraq__a_dangerous_dodge_119901.htm

"Yet Maliki has made no such formal demand. Both Maliki and his security adviser, Muwaffaq al-Rubaie, have stated that they wouldn't endorse any agreement that might imply a permanent US military presence in Iraq. But neither they nor the Iraqi government as a whole has presented a demand for US troop withdrawal in the negotiations with the United States.

In fact, sources at the highest level in Baghdad tell me that the Maliki government doesn't want America to reduce its military presence in Iraq significantly before the next Iraqi general election at the end of 2009. This is also the position of Grand Ayatollah Ali-Muhammad Sistani, the primus inter pares of the Shiite clergy in Iraq."

[Totally Heterosexual Conservative]

Which is why thousands of bored, highly trained, and well-armed U.S. troops itching to get in the shit, as a deterrent a few hundres yards away, isn't that big of a deal. Because it is an effective deterrent. And not synonymous with thousands of U.S. troops effectively propping up a foreign government purely so the GOP can say that violence has been reduced and thus the surge has worked. It's a myth. It's like saying that when the cops are staring at the hoodlums on the corner, crime has been reduced. It has not, and one would have to be a child (or a candidate on the GOP ticket) to believe otherwise.

We are plain and simple occupiers / proppers-up of a foreign state, lying to ourselves that the U.S. military can magically solve centuries of ethnic, political, and religious strife among people whoes language we do not even speak. The result is that we can not get out now or 100 years from now without violence. McCain thinks its a great idea to pour more time, money, and men into that idea - while our domestic infrastructure, energy needs, et al bury us at the same time. Obama at least wants to look at the problem and talk about this issue like an adult TO adults: how can we efficiently deploy our resources to where they need to be, in order to protect our interests? Continuing this unsustainable line of neocon adventuring in foreign lands, as promised by McCain, and disavowed by Obama, will bury this country, just like Washington, Jefferson, and Madison promised.

[templar knight]

If the Surge is not working, then why has Obama erased the original conclusion that the Surge was not working from his website. Why not leave it up if he was convinced that the Surge had not worked. Obama has abandoned you moonbats on this issue, and now agrees with most of us.

"It's like saying that when the cops are staring at the hoodlums on the street corner that crime is being reduced. It has not."

Didn't I tell everyone that liberal heads were going to explode. Case in point.

Totally, that is exactly how police reduce crime, by making an appearance, by having a presence in a community, by watching the hoodlums on the corner. That is exactly the kind of community policing that has been proven to work. And you may also equate that with military action as well. The occupation of Germany, and the elimination of the Nazi "Werewolves" after the war is a perfect example. You're either stupid or retarded. I can't believe you made such a dumb statement.

[IslamoLlama]

"-- The 38th parallel is not a safe place as is. Imagine no one but a few ROK troops to guard it. --"

Well shit on a biscuit, perhaps South Korea should field more soldiers. I mean, with 49 million people living there, you'd think they would have a few to spare.

"-- Japan/Korea: This one bears watching. If we did a 100% withdrawal-never-to-return, this could make the Red Chinese and the Norks get a bit grabby, and make the Japanese nervous enough to field a nuclear deterrent. --"

And what then? Perhaps we could bring in the UN or set up a peace deal and some trading partnerships between the two countries. Or, hell, perhaps we could tell Taiwan, Japan, South Korea to form an Asian-style NATO and keep each other company.

You don't see the Germans or the British blowing hundreds of billions of dollars in defense of foreign countries. Why does Joe Taxpayer have to foot the bill or risk his neck so everyone else plays nice?

I mean, I hate to break it to you, but China's military isn't getting any smaller. Ultimately, the forces we keep in Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea are going to be token compared to the military might a fully armed China could field. Even now, with our forces stretched out in Iraq and Afghanistan, we're just pissing in the wind when we claim we can defend our allies in the East. It is, ultimately, all an illusion. Japan will develop nuclear weapons when they feel threatened, and America is serious safety-net for that. The former states of Yugoslavia are no less at risk from Soviet incursion today than they were 20 years ago.

We've all go embassies and everyone worth mentioning already has nukes - or allies with nukes - so blowing ten billion a year on a military base full of marines with thumbs up their butts doesn't actually do our country any good.

[IslamoLlama]

"-- If the Surge is not working, then why has Obama erased the original conclusion that the Surge was not working from his website. Why not leave it up if he was convinced that the Surge had not worked. Obama has abandoned you moonbats on this issue, and now agrees with most of us. --"

Good question. Barack Obama is well aware of all internet traditions. It's not like he thinks by removing quotes from his website they'll just magically go away. Nor has he changed his position on troop withdrawal.

"-- The removal of our troops will be responsible and phased, directed by military commanders on the ground and done in consultation with the Iraqi government. Military experts believe we can safely redeploy combat brigades from Iraq at a pace of 1 to 2 brigades a month that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 – more than 7 years after the war began. --"

So you can hardly accuse him on flip-flopping on policy.

Perhaps he's chosen to no longer belabor the issue. There is little else he can say that will convince the handful of hold-outs that the Surge! hasn't worked. All he can do is withdraw troops. If McCain's Surge! really was a success, then the house of cards in Iraq won't come tumbling down. We can hold Senator McCain a parade in 2010, and he can talk about running against Obama again in 2012. It'll be fun. If the Surge! was a failure, then we should see the results quickly enough when violence breaks out as US Troops are withdrawn. You all can have a good time calling Obama a terrorist-kissing surrender-monkey. And the troop withdrawal process will probably bog down or grind to a halt.

But the McCain "stick around and see what happens" approach really doesn't exploit any benefit his own Surge! was supposed to win him. The reason we dumped an extra 30k troops in Iraq was to de-quagmire the situation. If violence has dropped and political reconciliation is setting in, now is the ideal time for Iraqis to step up and Americans to step down. McCain refuses to embrace Victory With Honor, and he'll happily sit around Bagdad till 2012, by which time an Iraqi Tet Offensive will have even the GOP clamoring to get the hell out.

I don't know if you've forgotten, but Vietnam dragged on for decades. Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford - five Presidents got to enjoy that soul-sucking pit. There is only one person who wants to relive that black mark on America's record, and he's running on the GOP ticket.

[WAHOO WILLIE]

"If the Surge is not working, then why has Obama erased the original conclusion that the Surge was not working from his website."

TK the surge has "worked" only in reducing violence while we are there. Kinda like the cops staring at thugs analogy. As soon as they turn their backs, the thugs go back to business as usual. The same will happen among the observers of the peaceful religion of islam within weeks of us leaving.They like killing each other, it's easier than turning a rock pile into something useful.

[Fred]

It must hurt to be a liberal.

It does. We have been proven correct with absolutely every question concerning the War on Terror. With every question, we have been proven right about the way this debacle has gone. But, because we are not the 'serious' ones, our voices get shouted down by the volume of the Low Information Voters (you). History will consider your track record to be abysmal; perfectly horrible. Wrong on all the major issues and decisions. Wrong on how to go about the business of keeping us safe. Just wrong all the time.

It truly does hurt to know absolutely that we are 100% correct, but the right side still attempts to claim we are unAmerican. History will correct your mis-understanding. Your grand children will remind you of your cowardice. You may have to explain to them why you have been so wrong for so long. You'll probably just lie to them - you seem to be good at that.

[templar knight]

I don't want to belabor the point, willie, as the Mideast was a violent place before we got there and is likely to remain violent after we leave. However, as a student of history, it behooves us not to let happen in the Middle East what happened in Europe in the 1930s. We had about 100,000,000 people killed as a result of that miscalulation. Just imagine the numbers who could be killed today if the same mistake is repeated.

I'm not the only one to see progress in Iraq, real progress in my opinion, but progress based on a mutual respect that has been earned by our soldiers in Iraq with their sweat and blood. I honestly believe that many, not all, but many Iraqis respect our military, and the ties formed between our peoples might, just might, allow us to prevent a disaster in the Middle East. I know this. We can go away and leave Pakistan's nukes to the Taliban and al-Queda, and we can watch from a distance as India and Israel are attacked, with an exchange of nuclear weapons unthought of just 20 years ago. Or we can seek to be engaged in this region, as bad as it can sometimes be.

It's a shame, really, because the Middle East could be a paradise. But a 7th C. religion, human conditions worse than a dogs, women and children treated like cattle, slavery, disease and lunacy have reduced this region, excluding a few of the Gulf States, to a sham of what it could be. What a waste!

[templar knight]

"With every question, we have been proven right..."

You wouldn't mind giving us a few examples, as many of us won't take you at your word, nor consider you knowledgeble on the subject without some proof. As for shouting, you are the idiots who constantly shout down conservatives and seek to prevent them from speaking. Check out the FIRE website if you don't believe me.

[IslamoLlama]

"-- You wouldn't mind giving us a few examples, as many of us won't take you at your word, nor consider you knowledgeble on the subject without some proof. --"

Use a Google.
The Administration promised flowers and candy. They promised a war that would cost us a few billion dollars over the first year and then pay for itself. They promised to find WMDs. They promised to bring Democracy to the Middle East - a democracy that was supposed to spread to neighboring countries. They promised peace and security, with an end to terrorist threats. I believe George Bush specifically promised to catch Osama bin Laden "dead or alive".

Wacky liberals like the 29 Senators who voted for the Iraq War or the embattled Dennis Kucinich who - even as our tanks raced towards Baghdad - prophesied a dreary end to our invasion in the heart of the Capital Building. Go pick through the CSPAN archives. It's all there.

Hans Blix was telling us that WMDs didn't exist. Numerous Congressional Democrats and even a few Republicans had their reservations that Saddam posed an imminent threat or that an AQ-Iraq link existed. And that's just on the WoT.

On the economy, Democrats had been warning against deregulation since Reagen. They argued against it during the Savings and Loan deregulation, which lead to the collapse in '87. They argued against it in the run up to energy deregulation which lead to the Enron collapse in '01. They argued against making Freddie and Fannie quasi-private unregulated mortgage lenders... and sure enough, here we are in '08.

Democrats argued that the Bush Tax Cuts were geared towards the rich, and that "trickle down economics" was going to lead to an economic slowdown and massive government debt. Go read up on Al Gore's policy platforms in 2000. Compare the Al Gore tax chart to the George Bush tax chart - they were up all over the internet for the better part of the election season. Democrats pushed for higher minimum wage, claiming that the market would not lift wages of its own accord. Sure enough, wages have barely kept pace with inflation. I'll even give you the link to that one:
http://money.cnn.com/2006/08/28/news/economy/real_wages/index.htm
Median hourly wage drops 2% compared to inflation. 9 in 10 employees making less than $80k / year have seen their buying power decrease.

All Democratic insight. All proven correct.

Peak Oil? You remember that, don't you? Jimmy Fucking Carter was telling us about peak oil in 1974, and all you conservatives called him crazy or stupid. He said we needed to curb our appetites, conserve our resources, and shepherd our capital. DOW Chemical just marked up the price of plastics 20% after raising their prices by 15% a quarter back. Oil is sitting at $4 / gallon. Copper, gold, aluminum and steel are all seeing record prices. Jimmy ain't look'n so stupid now, is he?

Yeah, conservatives - through sin or stupidity - have been wrong about virtually every metric an American could care about.

[SacTownMan]

Lame-O states,

"Ultimately, the forces we keep in Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea are going to be token compared to the military might a fully armed China could field."

So what, I'll tell you the same thing I told your wife... It ain't the quantity it's the quality!

There is no more vetted, tested, highly trained or superiorly equipped fighting force on the face of the planet than our armed forces! We took apart a Iraqi army that numbered almost 600,000 troops in 100 hours in the first gulf war.

The Chinese look really cute in their spiffy uniforms while they goose step in their big parades. Because of their numbers they are certainly a force to be respected but they are no where near stupid enough to pick a battle with America. They have never seen real combat except for murdering Tibetan priests or killing their own people and just like the Iraqi army before them they would run and hide if we ever had to engage them in a real battle.

There is no soldier in the world that wants to look down the barrel of an oncoming M1 tank because they know that their life span is going to be counted in minutes if not seconds. A stealth fighter or a Tomahawk missile is never seen until it blows the shit out of it's target.

The security in Iraq is steadily falling on the Iraqi army and they are doing a better job with each day that goes by.

Imagine just how good they will be in 100 years. (moonbat talking point #2)

[seekeronos]

"--- I mean, I hate to break it to you, but China's military isn't getting any smaller. Ultimately, the forces we keep in Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea are going to be token compared to the military might a fully armed China could field. Even now, with our forces stretched out in Iraq and Afghanistan, we're just pissing in the wind when we claim we can defend our allies in the East. It is, ultimately, all an illusion. Japan will develop nuclear weapons when they feel threatened, and America is serious safety-net for that. The former states of Yugoslavia are no less at risk from Soviet incursion today than they were 20 years ago. ---"

For starters, our involvement and engagement with China, and to a lesser extent, its occasionally willing satellite in North Korea is more necessary for Japan and Taiwan (and ultimately, much of the Pacific Rim) when China has expressed a strong interest in not only fielding a blue water navy on a scale equal to if not passing that of the USA, it has also expressed a desire to claim sovereignty over waters extending as far east as Hawaii and Australia.

Now in keeping with China's typical game of bluff and dodge, it is mainly after the deep sea oil in the waters between the Mainland and the Philippines as well as its longer range goals of reunificiation with Taiwan, and containing Japan, if not seizing Okinawa from Japan (which China believes it has a claim to).

While China will undoubtedly rise to be a superpower at the very least, if not passing the USA as the global hegemon, for her to risk her fortunes and her economy (specifically, her trade with the USA as well as Europe and Japan) on a land-grabbing war would be costly and foolish.

The US troops are there to provide an additional layer of deterrent by enforcing US interests in, and Japanese possession of, the Ryūkyū Archipelago and Taiwanese independence. This arrangement also serves as a forward ops location should hostilities erupt in Korea.

It is hard to say whether or not Japan would build a nuclear deterrent if the US military presence were to be eliminated or diminished beyond a certain functional threshold. The Japanese generation now in power (their equivalent to the US "Silent Generation" and "Baby Boomers") has some deeply-seated reservations about the deployment of nuclear weapons.

The up-and-coming generations may be less so, especially those who have found a voice of such ultra-rightists such as ISHIHARA Shintarō, who have long called for a restoration of the Japanese military along pre-war lines. Whether this will come to pass or not is hard to predict; it would also require a re-casting of the Japanese military from its role as a homeland defense only body to a deterrent and even an offensive, force projection capacity -- as well as calling for a constitutional convention to replace or delete the substance of Article 9 (the famous "no war" clause).

Even amongst the younger, more nationalistic (uyoku and Ishihara groupies aside) Japanese, there is a general reticence toward building up the military along American lines.

I think that we should look to drawing down our forces in the Pacific, but not a total elimination: the old REFORGER (REturn of FORces to GERmany) model of maintaining a small forward presence that on bases that can quickly accommodate a rapid deployment would be effective in the case of likely future crises -- particularly anything involving the succession of the DPRK regime (Kim) or a collapse of the regime itself.

Our presence in Asia, though reduced from today's levels, will be worth the cost in terms of the insurance it will (and already has) provide(d) the region.

It will also allow for a controlled, scaled build up of the Japanese military to make up for what we draw down, but with much less risk for touching off regional nuclear arms races with long time rivals, the Red Chinese and both Koreas.

Eventually, we will be able to withdraw completely as China and Japan and the Koreas learn to cooperate even more than they do today; but for now, old tensions from the early 20th century still underscore much of the harsh opinions and policies between these countries. I believe that this will be realized in about 25-30 years.

Hopefully, younger generations of Chinese and Koreans who are not so motivated or easily controlled by their governments' anti-Japanese rhetoric will rise to lead Asia into more peaceful engagements.

At that time, we may complete the wthdrawal back behind our own borders in a fashion that best supports our best national interests.

[IslamoLlama]

"-- So what, I'll tell you the same thing I told your wife... It ain't the quantity it's the quality!

There is no more vetted, tested, highly trained or superiorly equipped fighting force on the face of the planet than our armed forces! We took apart a Iraqi army that numbered almost 600,000 troops in 100 hours in the first gulf war. --"

You're a 'tard. All the "quality" in the world doesn't stop a barrage of ballistic missiles.

"-- There is no soldier in the world that wants to look down the barrel of an oncoming M1 tank because they know that their life span is going to be counted in minutes if not seconds. A stealth fighter or a Tomahawk missile is never seen until it blows the shit out of it's target. --"

Yes. M1 tanks will do us all sorts of good in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. Christ, man. The least you could do is pick the right analogy and try pimping our naval gear.

Either way, a token force is a token force. We would need to massively re-deploy to any of the numerous places we claim to "defend". Japan has its own "police defense force" consisting of tanks, planes, missiles, unmanned UAVs, and what have you. If we cleared out our bases, I'm sure they'd be happy to man them back up again with red-blooded native Japanese citizens.

And "beating the Chinese" isn't the point. The Chinese aren't going to attack us. We buy all their shit. It would be like the manager from KFC going down to your house and throwing a brick through your window. Why? He doesn't want to lose your business.

The point is that we have these 10k guys here / 20k guys there military bases that aren't designed to repeal any actual assaults without massive re-enforcements. All these bases do is suck down tax payer money. They haven't been needed in decades and everyone knows it.

[Terry Gain]

Those Iraqis will never attack us again!

Posted by: chris | Tuesday, July 15, 2008 at 11:54 AM

Sore loser. And that includes WTC bomber Abdul Rahman Yasin, about whom you don't know anything including the fact he was on Saddam's payroll. It is true that al Qaeda will not again attack the United States, as it did on 9/11 because- as bin Laden stated- the United States enforced The No Fly Zones (in order to protect Iraqi Shiites and Kurds from their own government).

You are right Chris. The ceasefire didn't work. And not only have Saddam's terrorist training camps been shut down, for the past two years Iraqis have been waging war on al Qaeda -and very successfully.

The only thing missing in the prosecution of this very necessary and successful war of liberation is an effective communications strategy.

Of course there are some (idiots like you Chris-not to mention boob) who preferred that Saddam be left alone to again pursue the development of nuclear weapons as soon as sanctions ended.

[seekeronos]

"--- The point is that we have these 10k guys here / 20k guys there military bases that aren't designed to repeal any actual assaults without massive re-enforcements. All these bases do is suck down tax payer money. They haven't been needed in decades and everyone knows it. ---"

Actually, the SOFA (Status of Forces Agreement) we have with Japan provides for that the Japanese pay 70% of the costs of housing and feeding our troops. They are actually getting a good deal as opposed to having to pay for 100% for the housing and feeding and training and other upkeep of an equivalent number of Japanese troops.

We make out on the deal by only having to pay 30% of the rent and food bill.

"--- Yes. M1 tanks will do us all sorts of good in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. (blasphemy removed) man. The least you could do is pick the right analogy and try pimping our naval gear. ---"

Right you are... talking about an invasion of REd China proper is almost as ludicrous as the Reds landing an invasion army into the CONUS, or even in Hawaii or Alaska. Any future war with the Red Chinese will be fought in the water for the most part.

And the (Chinese) People's Liberation Army Navy is lags behind the Japanese Maritime Self Defense Force, and lacks any significant carrier assets. Aside from its nuclear submarine capability, at present, the Chinese PLAN would not last very long in open waters against the USN, and would be hard pressed to accomplish much against the combined forces of the ROCN, the USN, the RAN, the RNZN, and the JMSDF. This should remain the case for the near future, although the USN would do well to advance itself in terms of its ASW capabilities, as well as certain technologies which our enemies have exclusive access to, such as supercavitating torpedoes.

"--- On the economy, Democrats had been warning against deregulation since Reagen. They argued against it during the Savings and Loan deregulation, which lead to the collapse in '87. They argued against it in the run up to energy deregulation which lead to the Enron collapse in '01. They argued against making Freddie and Fannie quasi-private unregulated mortgage lenders... and sure enough, here we are in '08. ---"

And yet the S&L crisis was far larger in scope with over 1400 banks that failed, and yet we survived. So far, only 5 major banks have failed, with a potential of perhaps 30 more at the outside. Deregulation has in fact worked quite well, and would work even better, if the market were not so rigourously tinkered with with government bailouts.

"--- Democrats pushed for higher minimum wage, claiming that the market would not lift wages of its own accord. Sure enough, wages have barely kept pace with inflation. ---"

Really? What does setting the basic wage of janitors and burger-flippers have much to do with how inflation generated by irresponsible lowering of interest rates and even more irresponsible lending policies by banks which have driven down the value of the dollar?

[seekeronos]

-

[IslamoLlama]

"-- And yet the S&L crisis was far larger in scope with over 1400 banks that failed, and yet we survived. So far, only 5 major banks have failed, with a potential of perhaps 30 more at the outside. Deregulation has in fact worked quite well, and would work even better, if the market were not so rigourously tinkered with with government bailouts. --"

Yes. Watching 1400 banks fail all at once is definitely a compelling piece of evidence in your "deregulation has worked just fine" claim. What's more the 1400 banks in 1980 were small, private firms. The five banks that failed in the last year are billion dollar juggernauts. It would be like comparing the dot com bust to a simultaneous fall of Microsoft, Dell, and IBM. Because, you know, its not as bad since we would only lose three companies.

Remind me again of all the massive bank failures under Clinton. Yeah, deregulation has been a peach.

As for denying government bailouts... well, we tried that in the 1930s. Bailouts are a necessary evil to maintain a stable economic system. Letting the bottom fall out of your banking system only works if you include a Depression in your economy forecast. No sane businessman would disparage our current "tinkered with" market. It was the regulated market that gave us the last 70 years of generally uninterrupted prosperity. Suggesting we go back to Dark Ages Capitalism makes about as much sense as ditching the national highway system because it "tinkers with" our transportation infrastructure.

[Fred Be;oit]

The genius of Mr Conservative and the Left's brilliant strategical understanding is on display in this Mr Conservative statement: "Jesus. How stupid do you have to be to buy this analogy? How many U.S. troops are regularly blown up in Germany, Japan, et al?"

See the reason we have military forces, even 100% voluntary one (no draft)at such a high cost, is to station them in garrisons here and around the world. The idea that they should actually be sent anywhere in the world to fight is simply incomprehensible to idiots like Mr Conservative. "What, fight a war? Are you all stupid?"

[Fred Be;oit]

IslamoMoe might be interested in this. A Washington Post editorial kicks Obie in the butt. Yea even the Washington Post.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/15/AR2008071502531.html

[seekeronos]

One good Obambi-kicking deserves another:

http://www.townhall.com/blog/g/296259ef-d66e-4ccb-b338-a81d591fd36c

[IslamoLlama]

"-- Really? What does setting the basic wage of janitors and burger-flippers have much to do with how inflation generated by irresponsible lowering of interest rates and even more irresponsible lending policies by banks which have driven down the value of the dollar? --"

I think doubling the national debt has done as much to raise inflation as lowered interest rates. And, again, we have these controls for a reason. We lowered interest rates because inflation was preferable to a massive recession. And why have we been running 9 figure deficits since 2001? War on Terror + Bush Tax Cuts = Unsound fiscal policy. The dollar is worth less when you print more of it. And we need to print more because we spend like drunken sailors under a supposedly-conservative President and Congress.

GW handed you back a few grand in kickbacks, and the greenback lost a third of its value. I hope you're turning a 33% profit on every unspent dime, because otherwise the GOP has actually cost you money.

[Fred Be;oit]

Moe say: "Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford - five Presidents got to enjoy that soul-sucking pit."

Take Eisenhower off the list, Moe. This little smear was invented by Kennedy hacks to deflect attention from the fact that Viet Nam was a Kennedy plan. No matter how many times it is said it is still a lie, even though I know I am going against moonbat doctrine, i.e., "Tell the lie, tell it again, do they disprove it?, tell it again, tell it once more, tell it until their your brains burn in the flames of your desire that it were true."

[IslamoLlama]

"-- See the reason we have military forces, even 100% voluntary one (no draft)at such a high cost, is to station them in garrisons here and around the world. The idea that they should actually be sent anywhere in the world to fight is simply incomprehensible to idiots like Mr Conservative. "What, fight a war? Are you all stupid?" --"

I guess that explains why we have an army. Although, it still begs the question of why anyone else would have an army, since it appears the US is the only country required to have military bases on the other side of the globe.

Furthermore, it begs the question of why we suddenly become a World Police Force. London has been bombed numerous times in the last twenty years. Who has England invaded? Spain had a train bombing in 2005. What country did they proceed to occupy for 6 years? China has its fair share of terrorist incidents and resists the urge to try and conquer its neighbors. The American Drug wars, stretching from Alaska to Chile, haven't results in various Latin or South American nations conquering their neighbors. Greece, Italy, Hungry, Turkey - they've all managed to keep their armies more or less within their own borders for the last 50 years. Am I missing something. Is there a reason that France or Germany can sit back and relax while the US does all the heavy lifting? Wasn't all this talk of United Nations and NATOs and European Unions and OPECs designed to get the world back to a state where it didn't need a trans-continental empire to oversee it all?

Why does 50 cents on every tax dollar I spend need to go into "Defense"? The only other countries that pay that kind of premium are in the Third Freak'n World.

[IslamoLlama]

"-- Take Eisenhower off the list, Moe. This little smear was invented by Kennedy hacks to deflect attention from the fact that Viet Nam was a Kennedy plan. --"

Read a god-damn history book. Eisenhower sent in the Military Assistance Advisory Group to train the ARVN in 1955, mid way through his tenure in office. If you want to get really, really technical the whole mess starts with Truman backing up the French. Then you can add another Democrat to the list and sleep easier. But claiming that Eisenhower's involvement was "invented by Kennedy hacks"... wow, that's a new level of delusional.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_United_States_and_the_Vietnam_War#Dwight_D._Eisenhower_.281953.E2.80.931961.29

And I do love how you completely ignore Nixon, the President who was elected largely in protest to the Vietnam War, who got to ride the damn thing out until his successor Ford finally ended it. Nixon was the dickwad who invented the whole "We can still win it!" myth that turned Kennedy / LBJ's disgrace into one of the biggest black marks on his own record.

[Fred Be;oit]

Wahoo, you seem to be making the case for our continued presence in Iraq.

"The same will happen among the observers of the peaceful religion of islam within weeks of us leaving.They like killing each other, it's easier than turning a rock pile into something useful."

It is possible you could be right, but that happening would not be in our national interest. You remember our national interest, don't you? You remember your geography, don't you? You remember pincers don't you? What is between Iraq and Afghanistan?

[Fred Be;oit]

"And I do love how you completely ignore Nixon," Your brain is over-fevered again, Moe. I didn't "ignore" Nixon on your list. I agreed with him being legitimately on it. But you forgot to put FDR on there and Truman and Lincoln. "Chain of events" is no mere expression. If you pick your favorite historian you can trace back just about any old A to any old B.

[Anne]

Obama in his own words

http://patriotroom.com/?p=556

[Fred Be;oit]

Here is an example of the tangled tracings of history.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/VietnamWar.htm

[Fred Be;oit]

Perhaps, Moe, you would prefer anecdotal evidence to the politically fogged up opinions of historians. You Dems love tear-jerking anecdotes. This one isn't tear-jerking but nevertheless.
In the spring of 1961 there was, stationed at Fort Ord, CA, a second lieutenant of Infantry whom we shall call Lt Fuzz. We shall call him Lt Fuzz after the Beatle Baily cartoon strip because he looked so very young. Lt Fuzz was serving a tour of active duty for six months after which he was to return to his home and to reserve duty. One day Lt Fuzz told his comrades that he had received orders to report to the Ft Ord hospital to receive all approved shots for duty in Southeast Asia. None of Fuzz's comrades had ever heard of such orders before. Kennedy was POTUS at that time. End of anecdote.

[Totally Heterosexual Conservative]

"See the reason we have military forces, even 100% voluntary one (no draft)at such a high cost, is to station them in garrisons here and around the world. The idea that they should actually be sent anywhere in the world to fight is simply incomprehensible to idiots like Mr Conservative. "What, fight a war? Are you all stupid?""

Fred, I know that you are incapable of grasping even the most basic points, or at distinguising clearly distinguishable scenarios, or at making anything but lame straw-man arguments, but if you don't see the plain differences between Germany/Japan and Iraq, I don't really know what to tell you: defeated enemy; formal surrender; no shots fired; homogenous cultures; totaly monopoly of the use of force; in Germany's case a society with a history of western industry and values generally - the differences go on and on. Your "retort" doesn't even make sense even if we accept the terms in which you have painted it.

We're not talking about building armies to fight wars. We're talking about post-war occupations. Can you get this basic notion through your thick skull?

[Totally Heterosexual Conservative]

"Totally, that is exactly how police reduce crime, by making an appearance, by having a presence in a community, by watching the hoodlums on the corner. That is exactly the kind of community policing that has been proven to work. And you may also equate that with military action as well. The occupation of Germany, and the elimination of the Nazi "Werewolves" after the war is a perfect example. You're either stupid or retarded. I can't believe you made such a dumb statement."

Yeah. Police stay in the community in which they police. They are OF the community. That's the point, detective. The U.S. military is not OF the Iraqi community. It is an occupier and a propper-up of a sectarian government not especially OF Iraqi society. This isn't a police action. This isn't a round up the dead-enders and put them in jail deal. It's the sole propping up of a state.

Why can you folks not admit that the stated goal of the surge has not occured? Any reduction in violence is based solely on an increase in numbers and a willingness to wait out our presence.

Or we stay forever, like you and John McCain would like, always pretending that it's just like Japan and Germany.

[seekeronos]

"--- Yes. Watching 1400 banks fail all at once is definitely a compelling piece of evidence in your "deregulation has worked just fine" claim. What's more the 1400 banks in 1980 were small, private firms. The five banks that failed in the last year are billion dollar juggernauts. It would be like comparing the dot com bust to a simultaneous fall of Microsoft, Dell, and IBM. Because, you know, its not as bad since we would only lose three companies. ---"

You are mixing apples and ranges here. I can't answer at length now, but the failures of the S&L and the current mortgage crisis have different causes and the way that each one is dealt with differs as well.

Additionally, the failure of so many of those dot-bomb companies after 2000 is based upon market fundamentals that would not affect the well-grounded and heavily capitalized IT giants like IBM, MS, and Dell.

"--- Remind me again of all the massive bank failures under Clinton. Yeah, deregulation has been a peach. ---"

I do not recall Reagan's deregulation being largely reversed by either Clinton or the Democratic Congress prior to 1994. I may be mistaken though, but we did have something of a recession that took until 1995 to climb up out of: perhaps we could have experienced the economic growth we had under Clinton much sooner, had Clinton been not such a tax-and-spend liberal.

"--- As for denying government bailouts... well, we tried that in the 1930s. Bailouts are a necessary evil to maintain a stable economic system. Letting the bottom fall out of your banking system only works if you include a Depression in your economy forecast. No sane businessman would disparage our current "tinkered with" market. It was the regulated market that gave us the last 70 years of generally uninterrupted prosperity. Suggesting we go back to Dark Ages Capitalism makes about as much sense as ditching the national highway system because it "tinkers with" our transportation infrastructure. ---"

Bailouts are a sort of a drug, and are necessary only to the degree that we are addicted to them: if not for the creation of the Federal Reserve, which exists primarily for the purpose of providing a hidden "inflation tax" by its exclusively monopoly over the currency and specie of the United States.

Fraction Reserve banking and the elimination of sound, metallic-based specie (gold, silver, platinum) has resulted in unconscionable and even *evil* burdens upon the taxpayer, who must not only deal with taxes (a necessary burden for the maintenance of government) but also this hidden tax by way of federal seignorage adds an even more burdensome weight upon the lower and middle classes.

Wealthier investors will seek to preserve their wealth from the deleterious effects of this inflation tax by hedging their investments, especially in commodities during bad times. This in turn, contributes to speculative bubbles and wildly fluctuating economic cycles, one of the worst of which we are starting to see come to bear - no pun intended - right about now.

Hence the perceived "need" for bailouts: with entrenched and institutional and fundamentally broken monetary policies (to which further regulation within the same system will only further complicate and break the system) bailouts are needed to preserve the assets of the wealthiest investors.

The regulation may have a knock-on effect of helping the lower and middle classes, but monetary policy is seldom enacted solely in the interests of the working classes; when it is, it is often with a staunchly socialist bent, which may not be a guarantee that it is truly in the interests of the people, but rather, the party membership.

Removing regulation, and better still, removing the fundamentally broken monetary system and reverting to sound, gold and silver based specie would be the only effective way of restraining bot run-away government and bad business decisions and speculation.

[seekeronos]

"--- I think doubling the national debt has done as much to raise inflation as lowered interest rates. And, again, we have these controls for a reason. We lowered interest rates because inflation was preferable to a massive recession. And why have we been running 9 figure deficits since 2001? War on Terror + Bush Tax Cuts = Unsound fiscal policy. The dollar is worth less when you print more of it. And we need to print more because we spend like drunken sailors under a supposedly-conservative President and Congress. ---"

You're preaching to the choir on that regard, although I would much prefer a recession to continued economic stupidity. Those of us Austrian School-minded people may see a nasty recession that will be as informative to us as the Great Depression was to our grandparents' generation.

And I'll disagree with you on the tax cuts, if only they were accompanied by and equal and opposite reduction in government spending. Unfortunately, the butcher's bill for these wars of empire we love so much will come with interest that even my future grandchildren may have little hope of ever paying off.

What I am questioning is the need for a monetary system that actually *encourages* governmental interventionism (both foreign and domestic).

And both Democrats AND the GOP have failed to deliver on any promises to trim spending, much bring our boys and our toys back home to put a stop to the invasion of illegal immigrants and other criminals.

When we cannot even repel Mexican special forces (!) from raiding over the border in support of their drug-money drenched clients because our military is keeping Iraq under wraps, it is a sad day.

[Fred Be;oit]

Thank you so much for the courteous response. I am amazed that a person of your elevated intellect would be so patient and kind with your corrections to my flawed reasonings. But I fear one can notice a slight, very slight naturally, gap in your logic on the issue of why the military exists. Namely, this gap causes one to venture the proposition that you are not sane, not in the usual way at any rate.

You are a pacifist. As such you oppose war. To oppose war is to oppose the military, because the purpose of the military is to get ready to make and to make war. Both parties in war "make war" whether on the defense or the offense. To take positions on a volatile line, such as that between the Koreas, is to be prepared to make war on any attackers. Because an attack could take place at any time or not at all does not take away from the fact that the military is there to make war.

Now I confess I am not articulate, but try to get my meaning through the bad prose...to agree to a military presence is to agree to make war. A pacifist does not agree to make war. You contradict yourself.

Now you may say, with your gentle way, now, my good friend Fred, whatever gave you the idea I was a pacifist? Simply because I oppose all wars does not make me a pacifist. Yes, you may say it. You are quite capable of saying this in spite of your record here. That is why one might question your sanity. Only the insane are unable to recognize the correctness of most logical arguments.