[bgates]

Hey there kristinejm. There are still two Koreas because, as I said in my post, we weren’t defeated. If we were, the peninsula would be united under the Kim family. Ask somebody from South Korea if they would be better off that way.

I’m very interested in what the Iraqi people think. So are others who have the resources to ask them. The internet has things called ‘search engines’ which can help to find answers on these topics. I used one called Google to find this. I don’t know much about the group, other than one of its advisors was Clinton’s NSC advisor. So it’s not affiliated with the administration. According to that survey, 61% of Iraqis think deposing Saddam was worth it. What do you think of their answer?

To be honest, I’m not sure that we’re winning. My major argument in this thread has been against the notion that we’ve already lost. We haven’t, but saying we have makes it more likely that we eventually will – it boosts the morale of our enemies and disheartens our allies.

It’s ok that you made some little mistakes reading my post. Don’t be embarassed to call a grown-up over to your computer to help you read the longer sentences. I think it’s great you’re making an effort.

[bgates]

Got it. You have no problem with people who share your own ‘appropriate’ views of God. It’s just when a President interprets what he believes to be God’s words to control every aspect of your life by invading Iraq that you are irate. Or when the government seeks to increase its control over our lives by not taking as much of our money – how altruistic is a government that doesn’t forcibly confiscate wealth?

[bgates]

Unilateral US victories include the Spanish-American War, Moro Rebellion, Mexican-American War, and War of 1812.I think I can throw the Civil War on that list, too. Likewise the Indian Wars of the late 19th century. These are all armed conflicts that the US won on its own.

For that matter, the Korean Conflict was every bit as unilateral as Iraq is (vast majority of casualties on our side suffered by indigenous allies, vast majority of remainder suffered by America, 5-10% by other allies) and that wasn’t a defeat.

Which argument did you find silly? Was it the US won no wars unilaterally ‘in this century’? (Did you mean to say ‘in the past 100 years’? That would look a little more reasonable.)

Yes, you do have to convince me that the Iraq war is a failure. Or rather I have not yet been convinced. You’re clearly not up to it, since you prefer insults to argument. I prefer both, but then I have both the ability to argue and the presence of facts on my side, advantages you lack.

This is fun, though – please tell me how I’ve made it clear I know nothing about history. Awe me with further display of your intellectual acumen.

[bgates]

Finally we can agree on something:
I won’t say deadzone is particularly smart, either.

I’m still curious about this ‘utter failure’ talk. When did it become obvious, even to someone of your admittedly limited intelligence, that the war was lost? What made you believe that? It can’t be because of casualty levels, which are historically low for a war. It can’t be because of mistakes, because there are mistakes in every war. It can’t be because we’re still fighting, because we’ve won war that we fought longer. It can’t be for lack of coalition support, because we’ve won wars fought completely unilaterally.

But you have no doubts in your mind. Having decided on the end state you want to see, you have no interest in competing theories or contrary data. You act exactly like your own caricature of the administration.

[bgates]

I read the posts. Like I said before, your arguments are poor, so you need to restate them to make them intelligible.

That’s a clever comment about flunking math. You do go on about the intellectual superiority of people who think like you. Do you have any kind of credential or evidence of your brainpower? Besides your posts, of course. I suppose you could let those speak for themselves.

It’s just that they don’t speak well of you.

Because you argue so very, very badly.

When I said Iraqi casualties, I was referring to the military and police of the current Iraqi government, which is an ally of ours. But I must give you credit – Iraq is indeed the coutry we invaded. A fine point. One of your best so far, I’d say.

[bgates]

Deadzone isn’t claiming the Chinese military is superior to the US, just saying that we “wouldn’t want to mess with” them, pointing out they have a 3x manpower advantage, and some technology besides.

Deadzone, remind me how China fits into your argument that the US didn’t have enough coalition support? I was under the impression that the vast majority of coalition casualties were being suffered by the Iraqi state. So, you consider the United Kingdom, Australia, Poland, and Iraq to be not significant, at least from a military standpoint. Would you like to add to your list of countries you consider insignificant, or go back to criticizing my arrogance?

[bgates]

John F Kennedy?! The man who said,
“the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe—the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God.”
and
“Let all our neighbors know that we shall join with them to oppose aggression or subversion anywhere in the Americas. And let every other power know that this Hemisphere intends to remain the master of its own house.”

Why, that’s the kind of arrogant rhetoric that can lead to failed military intervention in peacable little Latin American communities like Ortega’s Nicaragua. Or Castro’s Cuba.

It’s a free country, Perry, but don’t let your friends deadzone and ps find out your views on a president who mentions God – and approvingly!

[bgates]

Deadzone, what are the Chinese doing in this discussion? You were making a poor argument that the US didn’t have enough coalition support to win a war; if you’re now claiming that the US can’t win a war without a Chinese alliance, you’ve gone from poor to laughable.

Your disparagement of dozens of other nations who support the US during time of war would be laughable if it weren’t near-treasonous. Yes, I’m questioning your patriotism. Gratuituous insults of allies serve no purpose beyond weakening those alliances, and that’s not the action of a patriot.

Why are you so excited by the size of the Chinese army?

[bgates]

CONCHO, I’m pretty sure any sailor reading this little exchange is going to take my side over yours. Saddam wasn’t a US creation, anymore than Osama. They chose anti-Americanism of their own free will. There was never any American funding of Osama, and your link doesn’t say anything to the contrary. Your French friends say that 9/11 would never have happened without American support of Osama. That’s blaming us.

[bgates]

My point is that armed big-brother type interventions never work. Well, that explains the military dictatorships in Germany, Italy, Japan, South Korea, and Panama. Clearly a world without US intervention would be more humane. Look at the two Koreas – one we pressured for years to improve its human rights record, in the other we’ve never had influence. If not for American intervention, the whole peninsula could be in the Kim family’s wise stewardship (with backing from your pals in Communist China – yet another anti-American dictatorship you’ve spoken of fondly.) Speaking of the Chinese, they’re pretty engaged with us commercially. Have they been swayed to our point of view? Ask the good people of Darfur, if there are any left.

You think Hollywood is going to get the world to embrace us? That’s funny coming from someone who considers himself cosmopolitan. Let’s sponsor showings of ‘The Birdcage’ in Cairo and ‘Thelma and Louise’ in Riyadh, and wait for the wave of pro-American sentiment. As for the rest of your consumer products, five years ago an al Qaeda operative came up with the bon mot, “The Americans love Pepsi Cola. We love death.” Maybe that guy would have felt differently if he’d studied in America, like Khaled Sheikh Mohammed (North Carolina Ag&Tech State University 1986, plot to destroy the World Trade Center 2001).

For all your so-called worldliness, you can’t seem to grasp the idea that people hate the US for reasons other than your own, and in fact for reasons in conflict with your own. You think Muslims will appreciate your desire to remove God from public life? You think the most fertile nations on earth will agree with you that having children is selfish and bad for the world? You think spreading the word about your contempt for religion is going to boost our standing in dar-al-Islam?

For a European, you have a shoddy grasp of realpolitik. There was nothing hypocritical in funding both Iran and Iraq. We wanted them both to lose.

[bgates]

CONCHO, you’re wrong. According to your own link, the French sent ‘4500 including 3500 for the Marine Nationale’, or navy. given that Afghanistan is 500+ miles from any body of water, I’d consider that 3500 less than significant.

Your other link, to the disingenuous ‘we are all Americans’ editorial, doesn’t make it 3 paragraphs before blaming the US for all the sins of the world, up to and including bin Laden.

[bgates]

The gap is shrinking? Who’s catching up? It’s ludicrous to say we don’t have the firepower to win a full scale war. We do, and we’re not in one at the moment. Counterinsurgency is not what the Army is built to do at the moment. The way o free up manpower is to ditch the Cold War setup and reorganize into smaller, lighter units. Which Rumsfeld was doing.

What would count as a coalition of some significance? We had Britain and Australia, plus smaller contingents from dozens of countries. Who’s missing that would make it ‘significant’? Aren’t you ashamed of your arrogance calling a coalition of two UN Security Council members plus dozens of other sovereign states insignificant?

Was the war against Japan a failure? That was the US, UK, and Australia as well.

[bgates]

It may be clear to you, but it wasn’t to CNN, whose exit polls “showed that 42 percent of voters called corruption an extremely important issue in their choices at the polls, followed by terrorism at 40 percent, the economy at 39 percent and the war in Iraq at 37 percent.” I’m sure I’m not as smart as you think you are, but even my meager counting skills put Iraq in 4th place in that list.

I’m glad you threw in that side note. The New York Times managed to interview a couple of those retired generals. Guess what? They want to continue the war, and they want more troops.
One of the most resonant arguments in the debate over Iraq holds that the United States can move forward by pulling its troops back, as part of a phased withdrawal. If American troops begin to leave and the remaining forces assume a more limited role, the argument holds, it will galvanize the Iraqi government to assume more responsibility for securing and rebuilding Iraq.

This is the case now being argued by many Democrats, most notably Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, the incoming chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, who asserts that the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq should begin within four to six months.

But this argument is being challenged by a number of military officers, experts and former generals, including some who have been among the most vehement critics of the Bush administration’s Iraq policies.

Anthony C. Zinni, the former head of the United States Central Command and one of the retired generals who called for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, argued that any substantial reduction of American forces over the next several months would be more likely to accelerate the slide to civil war than stop it.

John Batiste, a retired Army major general who also joined in the call for Mr. Rumsfeld’s resignation, described the Congressional proposals for troop withdrawals as “terribly naïve …There are lots of things that have to happen to set them up for success,” General Batiste, who commanded a division in Iraq, said in an interview, describing the Iraqi government.

Yet somehow media coverage before the election convinced even sophisticated people like yourself that the generals’ position was closer to the Democrats’ than to the administration’s. Do you still think their recommendations are sacrosanct, now that you know what they are? Do you still trust the New York Times as much?

I didn’t miss your point on the foreign press. Your writing isn’t so bad, it’s your reasoning. Australian journalists have views on topics like global warming, free trade, the war on terror, etc. Their views tend to go in lockstep with those of self-styled free thinkers the world over. They can identify which American political party better matches their own views, and color their writing correspondingly. To the extent an Australian paper is critical of John Howard, who’s a strong conservative, it will be critical of Bush.

Or do you turn to FNC to find out about Paris?

[bgates]

Perry, are there any anti-American dictators you don’t like?

I’m surprised to see you bring up Iran-Contra. I mean, haven’t you and other leftists conclusively demonstrated that an Islamic group like al Quada could never cooperate with someone who doesn’t share their theology, like Saddam? That being the case, how could the Islamists in Iran ever have cooperated with Reagan? No, by your own reasoning, Iran-Contra must never have happened.

[bgates]

deadzone, that’s a poor argument on several levels. First, the war is still ongoing, and it can’t be a success or failure until it’s over. Would you have advocated surrender in WWII in 1943 because the war was not yet won?

When you say newspapers from other countries have no interest in American politics, how do you square that with the assertions of several people on this thread that people from other countries are worldly and cosmopolitan? Wouldn’t such people have knowledge of American politics, and given their knowledge and our power wouldn’t they have to have an interest in who runs this country? I bet if I held up Fox News as a source of unbiased opinion on Australian politics you’d disagree. Why should Australian or British journalists, who tend to hold the same views on common domestic issues as American journalists, view American foreign policy any differently?

Finally, exit polls say the primary issue in the Republican defeat was corruption. I won’t defend them there, they deserved to be hit on that score. I wish there was a better alternative to turning the country over to the party of Alcee Hastings (removed from the federal bench for perjury and bribery) and William Jefferson (in whose freezer the FBI discovered $100,000 in alleged bribe money).

[Author]

Posts