Almost....

Soon after I moved to Alaska, I decided to change my voter registration. I was a yellow dog Democrat but had started to vote for a few Republicans, and had gotten to know many up here, and I realized I was no longer a Democrat. I even voted for a Republican over a Democrat in a Presidential election.

I was disappointed with Gore, but I really didnt like Bush either. When 9/11 hit, I supported the efforts in Afghanistan, and for a few weeks after preached about Just War, and about our situation there. (And lost some liberals in my church in the process.)

Of course changing parties seemed like a pretty drastic step for me, so I became an Independent. (Up here Independents can vote in either primary, and to be honest, I was not ready to jump ship completely.)

Pretty soon though I am going to change, but not to Republican. I am moving back to the Democratic party. The reason? Iraq mostly, but also the whole Bush presidency. As far as I can see, Iraq is the most costly mistake, in terms of dollars and lives, this country has made in my lifetime (I am almost 50). I could see it would be a disaster before they invaded, and the arrogance and hubris with which they went into battle made "the best and brightest" who took us into Vietnam look positively humble.

I have done funerals for soldiers and sat with families, and I have worked with soldiers who came back with PTSD. It would be easy to say this is the mistake of a few, but the whole damn Party seems scared to admit that this was a mistake. I remember the hurrahing when, during the state of the union address, Republican senators got their thumbs purpled to show their solidarity with Iraqi voters, and wondered if they had a clue as to the fact that elections were going to be a step toward sectarian disorder, and not political unity. I watched as congressman after congressman circled the wagons around a failed policy, incompetent appointees, cronyism at appalling levels (at least for national politics), and blind arrogance ("Heckova job Brownie!")

In short, I was moving right, but Bush has made me a Democrat again. Its not that I am enamored with them, but at this point, to join in with Bush and his defenders feels a bit like selling my soul.

You almost got me. Almost.

Liberals who enter this group seem to do so with their minds already made up. That's why I have questioned why liberals enter the group. And for asking that question, I am considered intolerant. I'd like to say I have never entered the Liberal Group or Atheists group or others which I know I would disagree with.

Everyone has an opinion now on the Middle East and on military strategy. Where did all these experts come from? How did they acquire their knowledge? Are they merely bitching and moaning?

You all know what I think.

The cause was (is) just.

As for the execution of the war plans:

1) You underestimate the enormity of the task:

1a) the war against radical Islam,

1b) the difficulty of fighting local terrorists and insurgents (i.e. Iraq and elsewhere),

1c) keeping an open and free country safe during a time when most Americans consider it a God-given right to talk on a cell phone while driving. They want to sacrifice nothing, let alone some restriction on their freedom, the very sort of restrictions which are there to help keep them alive. It boggles the mind.

2) Somehow it surprises people that our government does things in a bumbling way.

2a) It must strike liberals as a contradiction, then, to be in favor of policies which expand government, therefore rendering them less likely to be accomplished -- due to bureaucracy, incompetence, and corruption inherent in large groups. At the same time, liberals expect these same bloated agencies to accomplish their tasks in a quick, efficient manner -- the kind of behavior I associate with small, decentralized groups (small companies, Al-Qaeda), not large ones (GM, the federal government).

For over five decades liberals have been telling us "the government can do it." And then when the government can't do it, they complain.

I encourage consideration of the enormity of the task and the necessity of dealing with it. It is an unusual and difficult world war that is occurring right now.

You don't need to take my word for it. The truth is out there.

I just spent the last hour with a woman who shot a pregnant civilian over in Iraq.

Do that for a while, then give me your fancy arguments.

Not to mention the absence of WMDs, the crappy way the occupation was handled, and the total lack of understanding about Arab and Iraqi culture.

keeping an open and free country safe during a time when most Americans consider it a God-given right to talk on a cell phone while driving. They want to sacrifice nothing, let alone some restriction on their freedom, the very sort of restrictions which are there to help keep them alive. It boggles the mind.

I take it you will be signing up for the fight soon?

I am probably going to regret writing this, (and it is not directed at you deniro, you just happned to be the one who yanked my chain) but I am doing my part for the war effort. I ain't there, but at least I am here to help put them back together when they get back. I would rather have gone home to be with my family at decent hour, but this soldier needed help, and I stayed until she was talked out. This AFTER leading a an hour and half group session.

So please don't lecture me about not making sacrifices. Do YOU want to spend time with someone who is working over their guilt at looking someone in the eye, then shooting them. Do YOU want to sit there and have a soldier cry...weep...sob over what they have done overseas? do you want to look in the blank eyes of man who can only say "yes sir" and "no sir" and read that his wife left him because he came back different. Do you want to sit the guy who got blind drunk and tore up his barracks, had to be arrested, tore up the MP station and ended up in the mental health ward? Do you want sit with the guy who pierced his own penis, because he said that was pain he could deal with and it could erase the painful memories of the war?

IF you are serving, or have served over there, you have my utmost respect. I mean that more than you can imagine. I mean NO disrespect to anyone serving in the military in anything I say here.

What I don't respect is chickenshit war attitudes from people who have a political agenda and not much more. What I don't respect is people who want to talk about the glorious cause, and have no idea what that cause is really about, and what it costs us, the Iraqis, and the rest of the world. On a daily basis I see divorces, trauma, substance abuse, battered wives, and broken lives.

And for WHAT? The General in charge of the whole shooting match could not say with certainty that this makes us safer.

For God's sake, for what?

And the rub is, we can't just pull out. Not now. If we cut the forces, we are asking for more American deaths. And more Iraqi deaths. If we pull out lock stock and barrel, there will be a blood bath, and Iraq will become a haven for terrorists. So more and more American boys and girls will be sent over there, and they will die, and they will come back broken, because our president has this strange notion that his actions are right because he feels good about them?

Whew....thanks for letting me vent. I am not aiming this at any one person in particular, and not at you, deniro. But sometimes life just sucks.

I take it you will be signing up for the fight soon?

This is a ridiculous cheap shot.

No, I think it's an understandably put question from someone looking at some of the real costs and traumas that - for many of us - it remains easy not to see. Furthermore, which it is easy for most of us not to pay. I'm all in favor of counselors and pastors getting to vent once in a while, and it sounds deserved in this case. A bit of latitude is, too.

For all that some valid and logical points followed, the beginning of your response was fairly arrogant and inflammatory, deniro. I think you got off lightly with the amount of response that was directed at you (- as most, Arctic-Stranger said was not).

(Sorry, duplicated.)

The "chickenhawk" accusation assumes that I can only support or have an opinion about something which I personally have participated in.

The accusation also assumes a lot about my own experience: that I know nothing about the military, don't know people in the war now, or don't know anyone who has fought in the past. You have assumed that I have neither suffered nor seen suffering up close nor considered its effect on human lives and judgment.

All huge assumptions, which are a more thoughtful person would not make. You don't know me. What I have seen or lived through. Who I know.

You admit it was a rant. It isn't enough to have strong feelings about a subject and expect that to suffice as the basis for one's judgment. Frustration is not philosophy.

All huge assumptions which are a more thoughtful person would not make.


Of course. I'm not even certain they were made, in each case. Certainly I know very caring people more staunchly in favor of the war than I am, myself. And certainly no amount of familiarity with forum member's posts means we know them in that degree. It just seemed... understandable (vs. necessarily appropriate).

>I think the comment is offensive because it assumes I have not thought through the ramifications of this war or any other. It assumes ignorance on my part -- ignorance of pain, ignorance of war, ignorance of history, ignorance of current events.

Following this post -

>I would say you know almost nothing about the issue. Not because you disagree with me. But because you disagree in such a shallow way. Your understanding of the issue is so superficial it is beyond my ability to educate you.

Can you see a similarity?

Arctic_Stranger's decision will no doubt be mirrored by millions of Americans next year.

Liberals should get down on their knees and offer thanks to Jesus for George Bush and his friends, who have probably ensured their dominance in American politics for a generation.

And they should consider that if the last few years really had seen a neo-con conspiracy, the first thing the conspirators would have done would have been to have a "Night of the Long Knives" and eliminate the sexual deviants and thieves and scary religious lunatics from the upper ranks of the Republican Party, and then prepare for a serious Iraq occupation, with the American military enforcing on its own ranks something equivalent to Hitler's rules for the Wehrmacht in Occupied France.

Alas, they did not take my advice.

#2 posted by deniro:
1) You underestimate the enormity of the task:

1a) the war against radical Islam,

1b) the difficulty of fighting local terror and insurgency,

1c) keeping an open and free country safe during a time when most Americans consider it a God-given right to talk on a cell phone while driving. They want to sacrifice nothing, let alone some restriction on their freedom, the very sort of restrictions which are there to help keep them alive. It boggles the mind.

--------------------------

On point 1a. I thought we have been repeatedly told that this is definitely NOT a religious war nor is it a war on religion.

On point 1b. You cannot fight terror. Terror is not an enemy, terror is a TACTIC of an enemy.

On point 1c. I say let the American people keep themselves safe.

What "sort of restrictions which are there to help keep them alive" are you talking about?

deniro,

You were right in that it was a cheap shot. It was a caboose thought, tacked on the end of a rant. You are very wrong in thinking that I make assumptions about you.

Fact is, after the first paragraph of your post, I only skimmed it. I was already in rant mode. The part about sacrifice caught my eye. Believe it or not, you were not on my mind at all, so you have no reason to take it personally. I am surprised you would assume I would spend time worrying about your assumptions....especially after the first paragraph of your post.

#11: "Liberals should get down on their knees and offer thanks to Jesus for George Bush and his friends, who have probably ensured their dominance in American politics for a generation."

If we were talking about a purely political world where the only actions of consequence are those that impact popularity, then perhaps that statement would be valid. The problem with the statement is that the consequences of Junior's actions are beyond political consequences, thus making the genuflecting rather unmerited.

#12 The enemy is militant Islam, radical Islam, whatever you want to call it. I like "Islamofascism." The violent, fanatical strain of Islam (out of 1 billion Muslims, that faction is still a lot of people, and all it takes is one to do a great deal of damage).

I know that terror is a tactic. I'm talking about the difficulty of fighting terrorism and terrorists. How does one separate one from the other? Terrorism has been around for so long because it works. It is difficult to defend against. An army against a suicide bomber? Not easy.

Americans cannot protect themselves from terrorists. Only the government can. Protecting the country from outside attack is one of the primary purposes of government.

Is this a political discussion? If yes, some people will lead with their emotions, some will get around to dragging thoughts and facts kicking and screaming, into the discussion behind their emotions.

How many of us are grownups? Those under the age of twelve can skip the rest of this post, it won't make sense to you. The rest of us need to stop thinking that political discussions can be had without strong words, disdain for people and positions and so forth. This is the definition of politics. For God's sake that's why they call it politics and not statecraft.

God, I feel like i'm shouting into a black hole. Why should we have to walk on egg shells when discussing things that are as much emotional and centered deep within us as they are rational and proven to be successful(so far I don't see much that falls in the successful column on either side of the coin).

Different people lead off differently than others. Is this a crime. We have one person who tends to lead with his (her?) emotions in this group and then sharply criticizes the opponents positions. Whoop-tee-doo. If we are rational adults here, why can't we understand that these things will happen and the best way to deal with it is to address the substantive issues raised and let the rest of it run off our backs? If the group devolves into shouting past each other, and calling each other names, it won't be deniro that does it, it will be us. Remember, it takes two. Can't we all just act like mature adults, accept people for who we know they are, and move on. Sometimes, I come this close to dropping out of this group, not for deniro but because of the childish snipping and flagging that takes place. I'm going to ask Tim if he can change the flagging mechanism to allow an unflag option. Then we get a truly democratic voting process on flagged posts.

This reminds me of a football game where a defensive back makes a great play defending a pass and draws a penalty for aggressive play. My reaction is usually, "let 'em play". Well let's play.

#16 I agree with much of what say. To my some degree, we all "lead with our feelings." But I want to repeat my earlier point because I think it is important:

It isn't enough to have strong feelings about a subject and expect that to suffice as the basis for one's judgment. Frustration is not philosophy. Good intent is not philosophy. Wishful thinking is not philosophy. There has to be a firmer foundation upon which to make informed judgments.

In the realm of politics, one has to come to terms with one's own personal feelings and experience -- and then transcend them. Transcend them to make a larger, disinterested estimate of the whole, for the good of the whole. Politics is about how a society should be ordered.

I grew up in a family and in schools that were a little tougher, I guess, than what others may have experienced.

We argued. We didn't politely debate while sipping tea with our pinkies out. I grew up in a good sized Italian family where opinions flew fast and easily. We must have developed thick skins, because despite whatever insults were said (all of us are skilled in the art of going for the throat) we always came back to the understanding that we were a family, and that this glue could withstand heated moments.

You are all strangers to me. I know nothing of your histories, your problems, what you come home to. I don't even know your appearance. That is why I can't expect people to adapt to my temperament the way my family adjusted to each other. In other words, I could say things there that I can't say here. Learning that is my responsibility.

Nevertheless, I'm aware that my temperament may eventually get me thrown off this site, and I understand why that could happen, I make no excuses. I'm not the boss, I know the rules.

So if you want an email address, leave me a private message in my profile.

The U. S. military is not fighting a war, for one thing war hasn't been declared and without a declaration of war there is no war, not against terror, terrorists, or "Islamofascism". They ARE acting as a police force.

#15 posted by deniro
"Americans cannot protect themselves from terrorists. Only the government can. Protecting the country from outside attack is one of the primary purposes of government."
>End Quote

I really dont understand this group.

a) I dont care what deniro says about me. I am not offended. Hell, I am not even paying attention.

b) I took a cheap shot. (and apparently an accurate one, gauging from his response.) If I assumed anything, it was that he was young enough to enlist, which, if he is I think he should. We need people who believe in this war to fight it. I made that assumption based on the picture on his profile, which I vaguely remembered as being some punk rock band, or something. But maybe he is an old fogey like me, who likes good music.

c) Why do people here seem to get into these personal bickering matches? I post often in happy heathens, and believe me, the disagreements there are much sharper than anything I have encounted here, but we never seem to have to discuss HOW people say stuff, we just discuss what they say.

I enjoy coming here because, while I am not conservative like many of the people here, I am perhaps a kindred spirit, and there are a lot of intelligent people here who say things that help me think through issues. But the bickering really puts me off.

I apologize to deniro. I didnt realize my offhand comment would set him off. He does not need to apologize to me for anything. As I said before, I really dont care what he thinks of me.

Can we do this without having to talk about how we are talking about things? Please?

"The U. S. military is not fighting a war, for one thing war hasn't been declared and without a declaration of war there is no war . . ."

A formal declaration of war is not necessary for the United States to be at war. Supreme Court precedent on this is clear. In Montoya v. United States, the Court held that a state of war may exist even in the absence of a formal declaration of war - and further - that such a war may involve non-state actors ("marauders").

See Montoya v. U.S., 180 U.S. 261, 266-67 (1901) ("Whether a collection of marauders shall be treated as a 'band' whose depredations are not covered by the act may depend, not so much upon the numbers of those engaged in the raid, as upon the fact whether their depredations are part of a hostile demonstration against the government or settlers in general, or are for the purpose of individual plunder. If their hostile acts are directed against the government or against all settlers with whom they come in contact, it is evidence of an act of war. . . . We recall no instance where Congress has made a formal declaration of war against an Indian nation or tribe; but the fact that Indians are engaged in acts of general hostility to settlers, especially if the government has deemed it necessary to despatch a military force for their subjugation, is sufficient to constitute a state of war.").

In the context of the undeclared "Quasi-War" with France, the Court held that Congressional authorization of hostilities is equivalent to war:

"What then is the nature of the contest subsisting between America and France? In my judgment, it is a limited, partial, war. Congress has not declared war in general terms; but congress has authorized hostilities on the high seas by certain persons in certain cases. There is no authority given to commit hostilities on land; to capture unarmed French vessels, nor even to capture French armed vessels lying in a French port; and the authority is not given indiscriminately, to every citizen of America, against every citizen of France, but only to citizens appointed by commissions, or exposed to immediate outrage and violence. So far it is, unquestionably, a partial war; but, nevertheless, it is a public war, on account of the public authority from which it emanates." Bas v. Tingy, 4 Dall. 37 (1800) (Chase, J., seriatim).

More recently, dicta in lower courts confirm the Supreme Court's 'undeclared-war' jurisprudence. See, e.g., Doe v. Bush, 323 F.3d 133, 150 (1st Cir. 2003) ("The plaintiffs appropriately disavow the formalistic notion that Congress only authorizes military deployments if it states, 'We declare war.' This has never been the practice and it was not the understanding of the founders. See J.H. Ely, War and Responsibility 25-26 (1993). Congressional authorization for military action has often been found in the passage of resolutions that lacked these 'magic words,' or in continued enactments of appropriations or extensions of the draft which were aimed at waging a particular war.").

In short, no formal declaration of war is necessary for the United States to be at war (the AUMF may suffice), and war may assuredly be waged against non-state actors (e.g. terrorists).

"NO POLICE ACTION FOR OIL" just doesn't have quite the same ring to it.

An inflammatory comment like this is made ...

I would say you know almost nothing about the issue. Not because you disagree with me. But because you disagree in such a shallow way. Your understanding of the issue is so superficial it is beyond my ability to educate you.

... and yet another conversation that starts out well devolves into bickering about who can say what to whom.

Rather than allow one poster to disrupt the tenor of the entire thread, why not ignore divisive and/or belligerent elements? If people do more than flag such messages, all a poster who

a) craves attention,
b) wishes to distract the group from the original topic, or
c) both

needs to do is drop some tedious, antipodean post into the mix and voila the topic is derailed to focus on that post.

Can we please return to a discussion of Arctic's message? i was moved by Arctic's description of the impact of the war on those who are often voiceless:

I just spent the last hour with a woman who shot a pregnant civilian over in Iraq. .... this soldier needed help, and I stayed until she was talked out .... Do YOU want to spend time with someone who is working over their guilt at looking someone in the eye, then shooting them. Do YOU want to sit there and have a soldier cry...weep...sob over what they have done overseas? do you want to look in the blank eyes of man who can only say "yes sir" and "no sir" and read that his wife left him because he came back different. Do you want to sit the guy who got blind drunk and tore up his barracks, had to be arrested, tore up the MP station and ended up in the mental health ward? Do you want sit with the guy who pierced his own penis, because he said that was pain he could deal with and it could erase the painful memories of the war? .... On a daily basis I see divorces, trauma, substance abuse, battered wives, and broken lives. And for WHAT? The General in charge of the whole shooting match could not say with certainty that this makes us safer.

1) Is anyone having similar experiences?
2) What ways have you found to help returning soldiers bearing the brunt of the war?

(* fixed misspelling)

1) Is anyone having similar experiences?

I'm not, that is not to say that they are not out there. Even the Greatest Generation had soldiers who returned from war and could not readjust to civilian life.

2) What ways have you found to help returning soldiers bearing the brunt of the war?

I'm buying a lot of beer rounds for returning friends and cooking a lot of BBQ. Does that count?

I'm also listening to their stories and letting them know they are doing the right thing. And when mistakes occur I let them know that it is sometimes necessary to err on the side of personal safety and the protection of those around you. I don't doubt the pregnant Iraqi story is something along those lines. Can't imagine something much harder than that to get beyond. With the exception of the female soldier who chose NOT to shoot the supposedly pregnant Iraqi and lost her entire squad and assorted civilians because it was in fact a suicide bomber.

Does beer and BBQ count? Hell yeah!

It goes a long way towards making sure the discomfort discussed in this article about challenges faced by returning vets doesn't happen:

"They think, 'There's no telling what this person has been through. Should I ask about it or not? Can I still joke around, or do I have to watch everything I say?'" The veteran, meanwhile, may have no idea why everyone is acting so awkward and stilted. All the vet knows is that people aren't treating him or her the same as before.

i'm looking at ways to volunteer for a local VA hospital. Any other ideas?

I really dislike the Chicken Hawk argument, even as someone who currently opposes the Iraq War and wishes for our troops to bug out as soon as possible.

The argument is based on the idea that those with military experience or those that have served in a combat zone are the sole individuals with the moral authority to discuss matters pertaining to war.

I respect our men and women in uniform. What they go through to protect this country is tremendous. But still, doesn't anyone find the Chicken Hawk argument just a tad fascistic? Hell, since our soldiers are the ones willing to sacrifice their lives for this land, why not give them the sole right to vote as well! God knows they have earned it.

The Chicken Hawk argument is an interesting argument to say the least--one that is emotionally satisfying at a deep, primitive level. Instead of simply calling someone a hypocrite for advocating war and not participating in it themselves, one can rhetorically jab their opponent with "Chicken Hawk."

However, upon further inspection, the argument will quickly strike one as childish.

"One who advocates X ought do everything in his/her means to participate in X"

"I believe there should be a strong police presence in my neighborhood to deter crime. Therefore I should become a cop."

Hogwash.

Anyway, what does one call an individual with ample military experience that sends our troops into a bloody quagmire (e.g. Kennedy, Johnson, Truman, Bush the elder etc.)?

While military service is not required for decision making when I comes to foreign policy, I dont think you can dispute that is puts one ahead of the game.

And for the record, my cheap shot was not the chicken hawk argument that you portray. You seemed to be saying that it is a fallacy that one cannot wage war if one has not served their country.

what I said was that if you really did believe in this war, you would be prepared to do your part, even unto service, to see it to a successful conclusion.

Which, given recent recruiting figures, many people are not willing to do. Although I hear they are on the rise again.
\

I would certainly argue against the notion that serving in the military necessarily puts one ahead of the game in making foreign policy decisions. It really depends on where one is in the military. A soldier in the Defense Intelligence Agency or Military Intelligence might have some inkling of the geopolitical realities facing our country, but I doubt those serving on the front lines as 11 Bravos or Patriot Missile Battery operators will.

(That's not to say our infantrymen or Patriot Missile Battery operators are less intelligent. No way. The dirty little secret about why our military is so effective is that the military takes intelligence very seriously. Quite simply, as years of psychometric testing (ASVAB, AFQT) and experience will show, dumb people cause more accidents and get more people killed than smart people. That's why our battle ready soldiers tend to be smarties.)

Being on the frontlines will give a soldier experience of the horrors of war; it will expose him to the dark side of human nature.

Being in the military itself can instill in an individual with discipline, a sense of pride, and a direction in life.

It won't, however, give him an leg up over a well read and well traveled civilian.

(1) Perhaps the "Chickenhawk" epithet wouldn't have arisen if certain rightwingers did not so quickly resort to questioning the patriotism and manhood of their leftwing opponents.

(2) History teaches us that societies which farm out the making of war to a small elite live to regret it. Democratic societies should be defended by their own citizenry.

(3) Sacrifices should be evenly spread. If our country is in a war, then all should sacrifice. It is natural to see a situation where poor kids join the military to pay for their college education, while rich kids gambol on the beach and look for jobs as Republican tax-cut advisors, as obscene.

(4) Liberals hate war and distrust the American military and dislike America. Of course they will not serve. Conservatives should. We should pledge never to vote in future for any candidate who had a chance to serve in this war and who preferred to let others do it. People like Dan Quayle and George Bush and all the others who dodged their chance to go to Vietnam, while 'supporting' the war there, should arouse a feeling of contempt and disgust in any patriot.

(5) War and defense of the homeland are not just questions of rational calculation. Since it involves the possibility of death or disfigurement, there is necessarily an element of sub-rational motivation on our part, to put the interests of others above our own. The Left works overtime to destroy this element, by its debunking studies of history and its continual vilification of everything American. Conservatives should be in the forefront of those who demonstrate by their actions that there is more to life than individual calculation of self-interest.

>Conservatives should be in the forefront of those who demonstrate by their actions that there is more to life than individual calculation of self-interest.

I'm not sure Ayn Rand would agree with you.

Doug1943 at #28:

The shift from "liberals" at #4 to "the Left" at #5 was a nice bit of rhetorical sleight-of-hand. . . but "...to put the interests of others above our own. The Left works overtime to destroy this element..." is nothing but slander.

Now I'm dizzy: you're saying that the Left is working to build selfishness?? I can't say that I've ever heard that particular charge, and I've heard a lot of calumny - including charges of outright treason - heaped upon what passes for "the Left" in this country.

I thought the usual charge was that Lefties overemphasized the communitarian impulse that people have to help build a better society - and it was the stereotypical Right that prided itself upon emphasizing rational self-interest and cold, dispassionate analysis. You seem to be inferring that concepts and motivations such as 'working together for a common goal', 'building a better society', or 'self-sacrifice for a better future' are somehow foreign to the Left. I've never heard that one before.

Though I tend to agree that "Conservatives should be in the forefront of those who demonstrate by their actions that there is more to life than individual calculation of self-interest."

Oh, and as long as I'm here, I might as well take exception to the first sentence of Doug's point #4: it's mostly a lie.

Liberals happen to love America, and simply want a government that actually acts in the interest of Americans. We don't as easily conflate the actions of the American government with "America" as the Right apparently does.

Disapproval of criminal activity undertaken by our government is not actually the same thing as "disliking America". I personally get tired of being accused of "disliking America" simply because I want to hold America to its ideals.

Oakes,

Nothing odd about it. I once made the mistake of replying in kind to a personal attack - my reply was flagged, the original attack wasn't.

It's this sort of petty, selective flagging that people are annoyed about.

As for deniro, I think it's pretty clear some person or persons are waging a flagging vendetta against him (while ignoring equally egregious personal comments from others).

They know who they are.

Jesse: Ayn Rand was no conservative. You ought to read the classic denunciation of her by Whittaker Chambers in National Review: he said that "from almost any page of Atlas Shrugged, a voice can be heard, from painful necessity, commanding: 'To a gas chamber -- go!'" Rand, like the libertarians and the Left, does not understand the living reality of historic communities. She drew her ideas from abstract principles. But of course the reality of human nature could not be avoided, and she created around herself a totalitarian cult. (Further discussion of social conservatives and-or-versus-libertarians can be found here.)

Bob: I know that liberals generally have no set of well-founded guiding ideas about human nature, society, or the state, and are to be understood as mainly being motivated by good wiill towards all, sympathy for the underdog, etc.

So I try to distinguish between them, and the Left, who do have such a set of guiding ideas: human nature is infinitely plastic; the state is the instrument of the ruling class, which is the ruling class because of its ownership of the means of production; capitalism must be replaced by a system of state ownership of the means of production; this is to be done by mobilizing the non-owners, initially in campaigns to restrict the owners of capital; and so on.

However, I will grant that I am using what is to a large extent my own private vocabulary here to make a distinction that in my opinion is important but not widely understood -- especially on the Right.

And I do sometimes slide between "liberals" and "the Left". If I were being absolutely precise, I would use "the Left" to mean the whole spectrum which starts from liberals in the center and moves left to end out where the various communist sects are, spanning various the more or less consciously anti-capitalist tendencies in between, and I would call the latter "the hard Left" or "the far Left".

Now what is meant by "hating America"? Rather than extend this post with long essay, let me just ask you a few questions:

Do liberals such as yourself have the same attitude -- not the same detailed political diagnosis, but the same general attitude -- towards the American state that, say, Noam Chomsky does? (I know you are familiar with his writings.)

Do liberals who read Howard Zinn's People's History fo the United States think that it is a pretty good book, and one that should be used in our schools?

If the American military wishes to come on campus to recruit, do American liberals facilitate this, or oppose it?

When a radical burns an American flag, how do liberals react? (I do not mean, do you beat him up, but rather: what is your emotional response? Indignation? Anger? Or a sad understanding of the terrible crimes committed in America's name by its selfish rulers which drove the young radical to do this, and which have identified our flag with imperialism and oppression?)

When you see a formation of American fighter jets fly past, does your heart lift? Or do you shake your head sadly at the terrible waste of money, and the illusion that having a huge military can really buy us security?

Are you happy that our Navy has enough money for its ships, or do you wish that our schools had all the money they needed, and that it was the Navy that had to have bake sales to get money for a new carrier?

I will happily admit that there are liberals who are patriotic and pro-American in every sense of the word, who think Chomsky is a fool, Zinn is a destructive enemy of our nation, that the military is the only thing standing between us and some very unpleasant people and of course should have privileged access to our campuses, that the flag should be honored and defended, and that carriers and fighter jets are the necessary pre-condition for the existence of schools.

But I reckon that theirs is not a very strong voice within American liberalism today, especially in those times and places when elections are not looming.

Fifty years ago those sorts of patriotic liberals were the great majority of liberals. Unfortunately, for a long time they have not set the tone for liberals as a whole, who are very strongly influenced by the New Left generation.

Anyway, there are my questions.

I'm not Bob, but I can take a stab at a couple of those...

>Do liberals such as yourself have the same attitude -- not the same detailed political diagnosis, but the same general attitude -- towards the American state that, say, Noam Chomsky does? (I know you are familiar with his writings.)

Aren't you conflating "America" and the "American State" again? There are many facets to this nation, and many tarnishes on it's shine. It's not all or nothing.

>If the American military wishes to come on campus to recruit, do American liberals facilitate this, or oppose it?

I guess it depends which campus you're talking about.

>When a radical burns an American flag, how do liberals react? (I do not mean, do you beat him up, but rather: what is your emotional response? Indignation? Anger? Or a sad understanding of the terrible crimes committed in America's name by its selfish rulers which drove the young radical to do this, and which have identified our flag with imperialism and oppression?)

False dichotomy. Probably a bit of both. I've a story for you, Doug. When I was in High School, I went to a basketball game with one of my friends. We were about 15 (I think Josh had just gotten his learner's permit for driving). When the national anthem was played before the ball game, Josh remained seated.

The people around us displayed anger and indignation. They cursed Josh. We're talking the parents of my fellow students. Forty and Fifty year olds cursing a fifteen year old. Josh was astounded. I thought he was going to cry. I'd like to say that I sat down next to Josh as the anthem played. This may just be my memory playing tricks on me and substituting what I hope I did for what I actually did.

You may wonder why I would wish to "disrespect" the flag in such a way. You see, my friend Josh is a Jehovah's Witness. His religion forbade him from displaying that sort of deference to any temporal symbols. It's one of those freedoms that are guaranteed by our Constitution.

Ever since then, I've had a very low tolerance for people that get angry and indignant and demand respect for a piece of cloth.

>When you see a formation of American fighter jets fly past, does your heart lift? Or do you shake your head sadly at the terrible waste of money, and the illusion that having a huge military can really buy us security?

Another false dichotomy, Doug. Does my heart lift? Probably not. Do I shake my head at "the terrible waste of money"? Nope. I view it as a necessary evil, at best.

>Are you happy that our Navy has enough money for its ships, or do you wish that our schools had all the money they needed, and that it was the Navy that had to have bake sales to get money for a new carrier?

Again with a false dichotomy. How's this? You give the navy the money they need for ships and then warp us back in time, undo the half-assed war that we're in and then take some of that money and pay for education.

Can you please stop posting really lousy either/or questions?

Jesse: Good responses, honest, and I suspect pretty typical of liberals and of most of the intelligentsia of most advanced countries today.

And even admirable. The tiger who carries off the child from an Indian village does not intend evil; it was his land before the humans arrived; he only kills and eats his prey, he doesn't torture it for pleasure; he is just trying to live. And he is an Endangered Species. Surely, while erecting unforunately-necessary defenses against the tiger, we can see his side of the story.

If a tiny stratum of Bohemians think in this lovely and very civilized way, no problem. When such thinking permeates a whole nation, you had better hope that all other poentially-powerful nations feel the same way -- which is the logic of the Bush Doctrine. they don't of course, nor will they, even in the best of futures, for many decades to come.

In the meantime that village had better have lots of people who just hate tigers.

Back to Artic's original post. It was a coincidence that I was reading it just as I was reading Thucydides: Pericle's Funeral Oration. I think we should emulate the ancient Athenians and re-institute the practice of collective funerals each year to honor all of the soldiers who have died in the war.

That war is ugly business is a truism known to all. The soldiers who volunteer to enlist and to fight deserve respect, not pity. They are not victims, but men and women of action, who acted on their on volition.

It may be worthwhile for many of us to re-read the oration, from which this comes:

"For the whole earth is the tomb of famous men; not only are they commemorated by columns and inscriptions in their own country, but in foreign lands there dwells also an unwritten memorial of them, graven not on stone but in the hearts of men. Make them your examples, and, esteeming courage to be freedom and freedom to be happiness, do not weigh too nicely the perils of war. The unfortunate who has no hope of a change for the better has less reason to throw away his life than the prosperous who, if he survive, is always liable to a change for the worse, and to whom any accidental fall makes the most serious difference. To a man of spirit, cowardice and disaster coming together are far more bitter than death striking him unperceived at a time when he is full of courage and animated by the general hope."

I just wanted to answer and comment on some of Doug's questions.

"When a radical burns an American flag, how do liberals react? (I do not mean, do you beat him up, but rather: what is your emotional response? Indignation? Anger? Or a sad understanding of the terrible crimes committed in America's name by its selfish rulers which drove the young radical to do this, and which have identified our flag with imperialism and oppression?)"

My reaction to the sight of someone burning the flag of the U. S. would pretty much be an "understanding of the terrible crimes committed in America's name by its selfish rulers which drove the young radical to do this, and which have identified our flag with imperialism and oppression".

"Are you happy that our Navy has enough money for its ships, or do you wish that our schools had all the money they needed, and that it was the Navy that had to have bake sales to get money for a new carrier?"

What kind of question is this? The federal government has a responsibility to provide for the common defense, they have no choice. The federal government has no authority in the area of education, they have no authority to spend the taxpayer's money on education.

"which drove the young radical to do this"

So much for personal responsibility. Again, let's look at Thucydides:

"Our form of government does not enter into rivalry with the institutions of others. Our government does not copy our neighbors', but is an example to them. It is true that we are called a democracy, for the administration is in the hands of the many and not of the few. But while there exists equal justice to all and alike in their private disputes, the claim of excellence is also recognized; and when a citizen is in any way distinguished, he is preferred to the public service, not as a matter of privilege, but as the reward of merit. Neither is poverty an obstacle, but a man may benefit his country whatever the obscurity of his condition. There is no exclusiveness in our public life, and in our private business we are not suspicious of one another, nor angry with our neighbor if he does what he likes; we do not put on sour looks at him which, though harmless, are not pleasant. While we are thus unconstrained in our private business, a spirit of reverence pervades our public acts; we are prevented from doing wrong by respect for the authorities and for the laws, having a particular regard to those which are ordained for the protection of the injured as well as those unwritten laws which bring upon the transgressor of them the reprobation of the general sentiment."

A spirit of reverence. Ah, the good old days. Someday the young radical will grow up, and instead of burning flags will find a much better way to voice his/her dissent: using well chosen words* and carefully crafted argument.

*they last longer, just ask Pericles.

"Hate America" is a very poor phrase, easily used by jingoist demagogues, and I am never happy using it, but it has come to mean something rather specific and I have invented enough private vocabulary as it is.

So let me clarify what I mean by the phrase.

Consider the most rabid member of the Revolutionary Communist Party you can imagine. He supports all forces fighting against the United States anywhere in the world. He considers the American government the very embodiment of evil, since it is responsible for preventing the victory of world communism. He sees the history of this country as simply one long narrative of genocide and cruel exploitation of the weak. He looks forward to the destruction of the American government and its replacement by the dictatorship of the proletariat, which will truly represent the interests of the oppressed and exploited.

But "Hate America"? He does not hate the geography. He does not even hate the American working people. He just hates the system and the state.

He doesn't see the system and the state as an imperfect, but slowly improving, construct in a far worse world. He doesn't see it as something that can be made better over time, staffed with individuals whose motives have not always been of the best, but which have not always been of the worst either. (Fluff, fluff.) He sees it as something to be destroyed, root and branch, and he knows that it will take a lot of violence to do so.

Now, that is a perfectly consistent view of the world, even if it is wrong. (Most of the small number of people now holding that view could argue rings around your typical young liberal or conservative.)

And you can be a very decent person and hold essentially this view. It usually entails a lot of self-sacrifice to hold such a view. (The idea that far Leftists are motivated directly by a desire for the perquisites of power is silly: people who want to enjoy being in the hierarchy, and perhaps stealing from the commons, join the Republicans, not the Reds.) In fact, one of my two or three best friends in the world -- a Canadian -- holds just this view. And ... confession-time ... it is the view I held for two decades of my life.

If a significant section of the American thinking elite hold this view, or an approximation of it, or serious elements of it, or have a lot of sympathy with it, then we are doomed. And that is independent of the truth of any part of that view.

We would be doomed not because we would "go communist". We would be doomed because we would have powerful intellectual arguments to rationalize the sort of self-interested avoidance of duty that will allow stronger forces to rule.

If the dominant mood of the citizens of a country toward that country becomes simply one of mild affection, because it's the one they are used to, combined with rational calculation of what is best for their personal self-interest ... that country is doomed, if it exists in a world where other countries of equivalent military strength are peopled by those with an ardent love of their country, or of some trans-national political or religious ideology which can motivate them to act the way patriotism can motivate people to act.

Right now, we are far ahead of any competitors in the military field. This will change. China, India, Turkey, Iran and its satellite Iraq, are going to come onto the world stage. None of these nations have reason to love us. And nuclear weapons, and perhaps biological weapons, are going to make a big difference in calculating military strength.

If the best among us lack all conviction, we are going down.

Quite a straw man.

Does anyone, besides Arctic and MajGross, wish to discuss ways we can support returning vets?

All of the contentious discussions break out while I'm away or simply oblivious to the fact that they are taken place (I need to check into P.C. more often)... Anyway, in order to avoid repetition, I'll restrict myself to the last two messages:

>40 Doug1943:

"China, India, Turkey, Iran and its satellite Iraq, are going to come onto the world stage. None of these nations have reason to love us."

All of these nations know that we, along with Russia, can and will obliterate them if they employ nuclear or biological weapons against us. China and India have made serious moves to develop modern conventional armies, but they have never attempted--and will never attempt--to build a nuclear arsenal which is the equivalent of ours or Russia. Such a development would lead to a tactical alliance between the two great powers which have, in fact, learned how to live in peace (regardless of our many differences). The Turkish military has long been our ally, and, while it does oppose our intervention in Iraq, its opposition is explicitly due to the nation's ever present "Kurdish problem." As for the ascendant Turkish faithful, they are more interested in joining the EU than they are in jihad. As for Iran, well, its government wants a dominant position in the region. It also wants to continue to sell us (and our allies) its oil. It wants us out--and will agitate to get us out--of the region. It's a risky self-serving game, but, given a rudimentary education in military history, not one without reason. Unless we make explicit moves to destabilize their government, they have no reason to bring their war across the Pacific.

As a born-again conservative, I would have assumed that you, of all people, would remember that strong economic ties which are mutually beneficial limit a nation's willingness to engage in warmongering.

>41 NativeRoses:

Well, we could start by injecting more funding into Vet related social services and rebuilding decrepit barracks...

Ah, BGP. Me fears that someday, long after I have passed to Judgement, you will come to agree with me. I am going to escape the coming Interesting Times, but you may well see them.

Note that I am talking about several decades from now. Everything will be different. The Chinese military establishment will be an order of magnitude, maybe two, stronger than it is now. Turkey and Iran will be unrecognizable, as will India. Europe will be dribbling in its senility, and Russia will be the sick man of Asia, looked at hungrily by the above-mentioned powers. (It is instructive, and sobering, to talk to those intelligent Chinese and Turkish nationalists who disdain to cloak their national ambitions in the pieties of the UN, world peace, and The New York Review of Books. I have a couple of links if anyone wants to see what the intelligentsia of a rising new power really believes.)

Of course, nuclear weapons change a lot. Which means the Chinese can someday, for example, re-take Taiwan, because they know the Americans will not initiate a nuclear war over Taiwan. Nuclear weapons allow people with strong conventional armies, who are willing to take the risk, to gobble up bits of the world which their nuclear-armed but conventionally-weak adversaries see as peripheral to their core interests.

But who knows? No one can predict the future. In 1847, Germany was just a quaint and archaic collection of principalities. The big players in Europe were France and Russia.

An interesting book to read is Barbara Tuchman's The Proud Tower, about pre-WWI Europe. She has a nice collection of quotes from all the rational optimists of the time, who knew that the growing economic interdependence of Europe, combined with the enormously-increased power of modern weaponry, made another war impossible.

Well, we could start by injecting more funding into Vet related social services and rebuilding decrepit barracks...

Are you kidding? I can't believe how great the barracks are today! We are already building new model barracks as fast as we can.

#43:
"Ah, BGP. Me fears that someday, long after I have passed to Judgment, you will come to agree with me. I am going to escape the coming Interesting Times, but you may well see them."

Yes, actually I call you two Doug and Little Doug, in me head.

Really, perhaps a long lost son from one of the wives? It is charming to watch you two, parrying over - Trotsky - of all things!

Sorry for the digression.

A) Why does anyone feel #8 should be flagged?

b) Of the countries mentioned (China, India, Iran, Iraq, Turkey) China is the one I fear the most. Turkey is bifurcated, and is, like Russia, barely Asian, and barely European. Unlike Russia, which tipped the balance toward Europe, Turkey tips toward the Mid-Asia, and does not have an overriding leader (Like Peter the Great) or viable political ideology repressive and imperialist such as communism under Lenin.

China on the other hand, already can destroy our economy simply by cashing in all their T-bills. While they tend to be xenophobic to a fault, and often misunderstand other nations, and have shown little propensity toward international domination, with the exception of their border counties, they hold the most cards. They are totaliterian, but also can accomodate a free economy, at least to a certain extent. They have decent resources, but not enough to maintain a higher standard living over time.

And they are inscrutable.

My dad tried to do some business with them. He walked away from the deal, because they did not know how to compromise. Turns out they didnt need to. They just waited, and ten years later, got exactly what they wanted in terms of mining equipment. On their own terms.

That war is ugly business is a truism known to all. The soldiers who volunteer to enlist and to fight deserve respect, not pity. They are not victims, but men and women of action, who acted on their on volition.

I agree totally with the respect, but
I doubt the recruiters tell people that they will have to fire guns into crowds, shoot the occasional civilian, or act as a police force after they have trained to be a fighting force. We have no business training soldiers to be soldiers, then expecting them to be international police. we have outsourced everything else; we should outsource the peacekeeping to the brits, who, after years of practice with the Irish, are pretty damn good at it.

You really think they want the job?

>43 Doug1943:
"She has a nice collection of quotes from all the rational optimists of the time, who knew that the growing economic interdependence of Europe, combined with the enormously-increased power of modern weaponry, made another war impossible."

That is all well and good, but, if you are to use her thesis to defend your previous argument, you cannot simply gloss over the following points: 1) the three major powers in the region in question (Britain, France and Germany) were not, by modern standards, economically interdependent; 2) Germany possessed imperial ambitions which it was given, thanks to an archaic network of international treaties, full reign to explore; 3) after the war, Germany was punished, and, again, the three major powers did not pursue economic interdependence; 4) after the second war, Germany was aided, and the nascent European Coal and Steel Committee was formed to ease both France and Germany into, for the first time, genuine economic interdependence; 5) there is one only realistic scenario that you have suggested, the possibility of China at some point moving against Taiwan, and such a move--the continuation of the Chinese Civil War which was put on ice in 1949--would not be taken lightly by the market friendly leaders of the Communist Party of China. Can we rule such a possibility out? Of course not, but we can attempt to bridge relations between a belligerent Taiwan and a Chinese Communist Party which has already offered to accept a "One Nation, Two Countries" solution to the political stand off.

As for your other nations, well, I will repeat that: none of the nations in question have any reason to pursue a total victory over us; as tempting as Siberia's resources may be, none of the nations in question have any reason to risk a hailstorm of 5,000 to 10,000 nukes; to this day, India is still facing 14 different domestic insurgencies, and, as such, it is far more likely to face a major domestic crisis or a war with Pakistan than it is to become embroiled in a conflict with any of its other neighbors; the vast majority of the Muslim Turks are dedicated to democratic political reform, and the secular Turks are dedicated to resisting the smallest move toward Islamist politics--if there is a crisis, it will be a regional conflict with Kurdistan; and Iran wants us out of the region, not waging a war within its borders.

There are war hawks in all of the major powers, let alone the developing powers within the world. Are we to believe that there are destined to triumph? I would argue no. Political developments can be tempered through practical policy and diplomacy; that is, if we stop electing Presidents who believe that practical diplomacy consists of the distribution of nicknames and a blind refusal to consistently communicate with any of our least favorite nations...

>44 MAJGross:

I checked into it, and I think I may have conflated the state of the British barracks with that of our own (see link below). Regardless, if Walter Reed is any example, there is some serious housecleaning in order, and all my post was suggesting is that a majority of Democrats and a minority of Republicans need to pull their respective heads out of their behinds and make sure that a respectable amount of our ever increasing war funds are going to take care of those soldiers who have yet to leave and, more importantly, have now returned.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6993931.stm

>45 enevada:

Hah! Enevada, Doug and I may be interested in the same topics, but, from what I've read, Young Doug and I would have been at daggers drawn (proverbially if we were in the West, and quite literally if we were in the more rough and tumble corners of the world).

#46 "outsource the peacekeeping to the brits" = tidying up the difficult bits after you've come in taken the glory and buggered off again. NO THANKS.

China - don't confuse China into 1 large entity, it is currently very very diverse, far more so than the US.

IF and only IF china can bring its population upto a "western" standard without changing its style of government or cultural mores, will it be a problem as described above. I'm doubtful this will happen smoothly or quickly. There are vast numbers of chinese who are really living subsitance hand to mouth farming, without the social security that our societies oprovide. The richest houses in the village do have a television, sometimes.
Contrast that to Shanghai and Beijing where business people chinese live very affluent lives. But the numbers although small are growing and starting to demand the comforts after their years of toil. ... I'm not convinced that China won't also be suffering fragmentation in a decade to two.

ENevada: Young Doug/Old Doug? No, I am afraid BGP is far wiser than I was at his age. By the time he has reached my age, he will be a prodigy of political wisdom.

As for China/Russia/Turkey etc.

No one can predict the future.

But over 100,000 years of human history, man has made war when it has appeared to be to his advantage to do so.

A country which is wealthy, but militarily weak, is placing a very risky bet on the future. A country which has conflicts of interests with other countries, and which is military weak, is running a huge risk.

Edwardian Germany had a huge and growing socialist movement which was resolutely anti-war. The Russian government faced all kinds of internal tensions which should have, to anyone with a brain, militated strongly against getting involved in a war -- especially since the Japanese had handed their heads to them in 1905, provoking an upheaval in Russia. Why should the English care who was the dominant power in AbSerbistan?

And it is true that there are tremendous internal problems in China. Same for Turkey, same for Iran, same for India. (War against an external foe is a good way to divert attention from them.)

I don't expect any of these countries to even contemplate "conquering" the United States. Even Hitler did not do that.

Wars don't happen, in general, by purely rational calculation. Their causes are a mixture of understandable material motivations plus unpredictable contingent factors, such as having leaders who are morons ... I speak here of Nicholas and Wilhelm, of course, no one else.

And the United States now has a huge nuclear arsenal and the means to deliver it, which should be a deterrent to any rational state which wants to fight a nuclear war against us. Non-nuclear wars are something else -- we have had a couple of those since getting the atom bomb (and have not won a single one of them).

What will the United States be like in fifty years? I believe that each American generation is getting more tolerant, less warlike, more peaceloving, more internationally-minded, more racially diverse ... in a word, more liberal. The folks who run San Francisco show us our future. Day Care Centers and not aircraft carriers.

Have a look at the discussion started by some hateful provocateur in Message #28 on liberals' attitude to America. I predict that there will be few responses, because the questions posed there force liberals to face this terrible dillema: how can they believe that a racist,capitalist, bully-power should also be militarily strong?

Cindy Sheehan grasped one horn of the dilemma a year or so ago when she blurted out that "this country isn't worth dieing for". (Yes, I know she quickly claimed the worthless country in question was Iraq -- it's called lying for the greater glory of God.)

Add to this global warming and the draining of oil reserves, mix in more and more non-state and crypto-state actors with access to increasingly-lethal technology ... and you ought to conclude that we are in for interesting times.

"China on the other hand, already can destroy our economy simply by cashing in all their T-bills. . . . They have decent resources, but not enough to maintain a higher standard living over time."

Why?

"Destroying" the US economy seriously undermines their own. Almost like cutting off your nose to spite the face. Their Central Bank is hardly going to precipitate a meltdown that could have dire consequences for the export-led Chinese economy, especially over something as petty as Yuan-valuation. The only instance where I can see this form of economic warfare happening is over Taiwan - where China is indeed quite prepared to cut nose and spite face. Don't get involved and you'll be fine.

Can you also explain why you think resources are a critical determining factor of long term sustainable growth?

Hong Kong has no natural resources to speak of, yet "maintains a higher standard living over time". Same goes for Japan. Resource and mineral-rich Africa wasn't doing too well the last time I looked.

"The federal government has no authority in the area of education, they no authority to spend the taxpayer's money on education."

Except Congress has had that authority under the Spending Clause since U.S. v. Butler: "the power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution."

In other words, Congress's enumerated powers do not constrain its spending power outside of the areas so enumerated.

This was affirmed in Helvering v. Davis, reaffirmed in South Dakota v. Dole, and taken for granted in Rumsfeld v. FAIR.

As Helvering notes, Congress may spend money in aid of the "general welfare". Spending on education is therefore claimed under the Spending Clause power to "provide for . . . the general welfare".

Federal funding of education is codified under Title 20. Are you saying that's unconstitutional? If so, the courts disagree with you.

#51 - Resource and mineral-rich Africa wasn't doing too well the last time I looked

I just finished up The Bottom Billion, and Paul Collier contends that the fact that Africa is resource rich is one of the reasons it's not doing so well. He contends that the reasons the poorest countries are so poor are the presence of civil wars or long-term war with neighbors, an economy built around natural resources, being landlocked, bad neighbors (defined as being next door to another poor nation), and bad government. I'm still thinking about these to decide whether there's really a cause-and-effect relationship or whether he's confounding things with common-cause relationships. Unfortunately, his book doesn't have a shred of actual analysis in it, just a simplified expounding of his ideas.

Let me see, now. The Peloponnesian War. Wasn't that the war in which a small colony of Athens across the Aegean in Asia wanted to take advantage of its own hard word and resources for itself rather than send their profits to the fat cats in Athens? Didn't Athens then destroy them in a particularly heinous way for wanting nothing more than their own freedom? Wasn't that the war started by businessmen who could not hold their businesses themselves so they petitioned the government to do it for them? Isn't that the war that after thirty years destroyed the Athenian league and set the stage for Alexander?

It's too bad Pericles didn't live long enough to explain to the Athenians in another speech, probably one that would have been ultimately far more important to history, what had gone wrong, how the greed of Athens wound up destroying themselves.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Well, Geneg, I was going more for sentiment than context, but yes, I suppose you are right.

And after all this time the only thing left are the words, and the words are quite beautiful, are they not?

Words - we begin and end with them. Perhaps that is enough.

Speaking of outsourcing, I ran across this quote in Salon, and something did not seem right....like the number.

The Blackwater mess has roiled Capitol Hill and shined light on the many questions surrounding the legal status, management, oversight and accountability of the private military force in Iraq, which numbers more than 160,000 -- at least as many as the total number of uniformed American forces there.

Could this be?

Back in the olden golden days soldiers for hire were called mercenaries. I prefer to call them mercenaries myself. It has a certain negative ring, changing the name is meant to soften the way we think of this private army.

To whom are these mercenaries loyal? The US or Blackwater? If I believe everyone should not work on Sunday can I hire Blackwater to enforce my belief?

Private armies have never been a good idea and if we sink into a state where I need a private army to enforce my will on others, we are in deep doo-doo.

I've given my opinion on mercenary armies elsewhere, but beware. BTW, I just saw a prominent spinmeister try to tell me how much I should appreciate the work these people do on my behalf. It is completely irresponsible to contract for armed troops outside the purview of the US government.

One thing I appreciate about the private armies is their ability to procure the right equipment for their troops. They're much more streamlined and efficient in contrast with their lumbering, inefficient counterparts in the Pentagon.

When you learn that we are in a continuous state of war for the purpose of making sure our mercenaries continue to be fed, you might think twice about them.

Mismanagement at the Pentagon is typical of Republicans. They mismanage things and then tell you government won't work. That's BS it won't work because they sabotage the government. Self-fulfilled prophecy.

Read your history. Learn what mercenaries do when they run out of wars.

They start small communal farms in the Pacific Northwest?

And for the record, I don't like the idea of having large, US funded, private armies roaming around in Iraq. It gives me the creeps

However, I have conversed with several of these so called "mercenaries" on the web. Aside from being a bit foul mouthed at times, many will likely take their earnings and spend them on a nice bass-boat.

These men are hardly the insurrectionist types you seem to be implying they are.

Well, yes and no. When a soldier is done, there is a whole support system to help them make the transition from military to civilian life. We train them to kill, make them "veterans." The transition can be rocky, and at times they get little or no support, but it is better than nothing.

You leave Blackwater, and you are unemployed. Who is out there to make sure all you want is a bass boat? What services are available to you?

Actually though I was wondering about the numbers.

With the pay rates these men receive (~$1000/day), they can afford their own private shrinks.

Anyway, this New York Times states that the combined manpower of these PMCs is roughly 20,000-30,000.

I heard 180,000 contractors with 1,000 being Blackwater. I don't know who the other 179,000 are. I got this from MSNBC.

The numbers I've heard are in the same ballpark as #62 & #63:

a total of around 160,000 civilian "contractors" in Iraq, of whom 10,000 are Blackwater, and 10,000 are empolyees of the various other 'security' firms.

Geneg, there is part of your problem! You are the guy still watching MSNBC! But really, CSPAN was showing the Blackwater CEO testify before congress and either he or one of the others mentioned the number 45K. I believe that was the total Blackwater in the area.

For the record, mercenaries typically have no allegiance, that does not describe BW. I know many of the operators in that company and have known them since Clinton was giving them no bid contracts in the former YU. So please lets stop impugning the patriotism of these former service members and law enforcement personnel just because they got tired of making such a low base pay to be shot at.

They work under contract to the State Dept with the responsibility to account for their every deed and every bullet fired. They are overwatched in that manner much more than the service. And they do not make $1000 a day. No where near that. Also their procurement system is as bad as our! They complain about it just as much as we do. After all, they have to go through State reviews to get anything.

Paul Collier contends that the fact that Africa is resource rich is one of the reasons it's not doing so well. He contends that the reasons the poorest countries are so poor are the presence of civil wars or long-term war with neighbors, an economy built around natural resources, being landlocked, bad neighbors (defined as being next door to another poor nation), and bad government.

I doubt it though. For everyone of those reasons (except bad government) you can find a counterexample to confound the thesis. The United States has abundant resources, has fought greater and lesser wars for much of its history (sometimes with her neighbors - mostly not), and is doing mighty fine. Israel too is in an intermittent state of war, has bad neighbors who are not merely poor but hostile, yet thrives despite its challenging geostrategic environment.

Some of the richest countries in the world are landlocked: Switzerland, Austria, Luxembourg. And some of the Gulf emirates have economies built around oil but are relatively prosperous (and prudently beginning to diversify). So at least 4 of 5 factors can be discounted. Bad government does seem to be a constant however.

Personally, I think culture is decisive (acceptance of the market economy, a mercantilist outlook, acceptance of the rule of law, entrepreneurship, openness to trade, and so on). In other words, human ingenuity plays a far more critical role than resources or geography in the long run.

MAJGross, The Blackwater hearing was on C-SPAN3, we only get C-SPAN and C-SPAN2. I only relate what was told to me by the chinese plate. Forty five Thousand sounds like a lot.

>52 enthymeme: The US courts, Supreme or otherwise, can not make constitutional what is not constitutional. If they can, then the constitution is useless, meaningless, and worthless. It’s like saying, “Ok, here is the rule book, but really you can do whatever you want.”

If “the power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution,” then what IS it limited by? Their own desire for power? The good will they have towards the American people? They will spend (and have spent) us broke in their desire for power and in the name of “for our own good”.