My 135 posts on PP are the entire extent of my internet experience save an adventure or two on Ebay.

In this discussion as with most positions that people assume, extremes are the problem. Haven't we all had enough of Franken and Hannity.

Could we agree that Hubris (exaggerated self love) and autophobia (exaggerated fear of self) are the schizophrenic persona of the US that should be avoided, then perhaps we could leave it at that.

Be well

if you keep being reasonable and polite like this, I'm going to have to ban you... :p

You said ealier:
"Most of the world gets a picture of US interests from an agenda driven media that hates the very noble foundation of which you speak. Nations may not be Noble but they can certainly exhibit "noble intent." The US leads the world in this arena.
Jealousy, envy and contempt are the penalties for being the last world super power. The free nations of the world owe us their loyalty for the freedom we've protected for them in the last 100 years and the peoples of the world owe us their gratitude for the humanitarian support unmatched by any politic in the history of the world.
Could we do more? yes and will continue to..........

They hate us but they want to be us. You do what is necessary to survive and some will love you and more will hate you. The childish notions that the US is evil are just that. We are a great nation forced to play in the mud because the avoidance of getting dirty promises devastating consequence."


This is a view held by some- certainly not all- Americans. This IS the hubris that the ROW often sees and despairs of, articulated in foreign policy. Prior to Sep 11, 2001, few Americans took an interest in the what the US Govt did abroad in the their names.

If Norwegian or Philipino troops were rumbling up and down PCH in their Hummers, and kicking in your neighbours doors in the middle of the night- what would you be doing about it?

I tried to put my part of this to rest offering all involved dignity and grace but some just can't accept compromise.

In response to stuart franken, here's my answer.

I will not try to justify hypothetical scenarios.
I will say that were I repressed for decades and was offer freedom from a outside source that spent their treasure of both finical resource and lives of their finest young men and women, I would rejoice. Very much like the Kurds in Iraq have. I also believe I would pick up a rifle and fight, much like hundreds of thousand of Iraqi's have. Don't mistake the actions of a few malcontents extremist (insurgents) as being representative of the populous in general.

Understanding that freedom is what we offer is where the media has distorted our intent. Do we ask something in exchange? of course.
"It's a bad bargain where nobody gains." We ask support for our policies in the region and perhaps a friendly place from which to stabilize that very same region.

Quote is Gordon Gecko

I didnt intend to pose anything to you in an undignified or ungraceful manner. Your pointed reference to Franken is wasted Im afraid, I know nothing or little about him.

Its not good enough to say you will not condider the hypothical. We, the COTW, invaded and militarily occupied another country that posed, as we know now beyond doubt, no direct or indirect threat to our own. Now we call those resisting that invasion terrorists. I dont say that pejoritively, just as a matter of fact.

Many of us would be terrorists, I posit. Or at least say we would.

And you would blame the media for this, the greatest foreign policy disaster the US has ever faced?

Economist Adam Smith advised the British govt in the American War. Get out, he said. Even if you win, you will have a population that will take up arms against you for 100 years.

By way of explanation, Al Franken is IMHO a comedic talking head on the left that is so blinded by ideology that he is incapable of seeing both sides of any argument let alone anything like reasonable compromise.
I am saddened that you feel my response is inadequate. Perhaps a few trips to the left wing "hate on a page" blogs will equip me with the response you desire.

As for the label of terrorist. The term seems appropriate because they seek to destroy a government chosen by Iraqis in the first free elections in Iraq in 50 years.
" Iraqi election officials said that 72 percent of eligible Iraqi voters had turned out so far nationwide." If they (the terrorists) are freedom fighters what do you call the Iraqis that turn out in force (by the hundreds of thousands) to defend their new government only to be murdered while standing in line to serve their burgeoning democracy.

The US /Britain analogy seems flawed in that we are not the imperial government that Britain was in the 1700s. When we have occupied a land after conflict we rebuild that country and leave it when they are stable enough to retain there sovereignty. We offer the "blanket of freedom" now I'm channeling Jack Nicholson, for those who choose it.

Given an even break (simple, honest, unbiased reporting of both sides) by CNN, BBC not to mention AlJazeera might cool the coals rather than fan the flame of intolerance.

Yeah, well we'll need to disagree on the meanings and validity of the Iraqi elections and the installed govt. You are aware gthere is civil war going on, ofcourse.

But here is my prediction. Just as in Germany, Italy and Japan- The US wont be leaving Iraq soon or even in our lifetime.

One media bias is another mans..... I can only respectfully suggest that if you spent more with sources like the Beeb and Al Jazeera, and maybe a little less with ol Unc Rupert over at We Report, You Believe, you might have a different view.

Civil war is a matter of debate (religious conflict stirred by outside influences may be more accurate) but if, in the spirit of compromise, I give you that there is a civil war, I have a question for you.

Not bait or right wing rhetoric just a serious question. Why wouldn't we help a newly developing democracy survive a civil war? A stabilizing benevolent influence might be exactly what the situation and regional politic demands.

Then there's Germany, Italy and Japan. Perhaps the best examples of how well US influence can work. I would argue financial success because of US influence not in spite of. One would hope that along with financial productivity comes human dignity. We're working on China.
The top ten ranked by GDP
1. USA
2. Japan
3. Germany
4. UK
5. China
6. France
7. Italy
8. Canada
9. Spain
10. Mexico

As for my news input, I get most of my pertinent input from Speed Channel. Tonight we learned that Ferrari sans Michael is still on pole. Question is do you believe?

Can I just point out the bleeding obvious? There was no terrorism in Iraq, there was no civil war in Iraq, there was little religous fundamentalism in Iraq prior to the COTW invading Iraq. (And no, SH was not good guy, he was ruthless despotic dictator, but unless the COTW intends tro remove all despotic dictators....)
You are working on China? I think China is working on you.

However, in regard to the F1. I do believe. I think day belonged to rookie Lewis Hamilton. P4 is very impressive.

Good point. Maybe the US needs to employ genocide, like Saddam did, to keep people in line. What do you think, stu . . . a couple nukes do it? Or are you thinking we also need to also feed a few quirky Iraqis to the lions too. ...for the pshyc effects. After all, those operations sure woould be better than terrorists trying to start civil war; right? :rolleyes:

Beats me Island.

Who do you want to invade today?

So if you don't know . . .can't/won't assess the alternatives, then you are just complaining to complain.

Iraq had no 'good' solutions . .. but the genera here can come to the conclusion that war is ugly. -wow :rolleyes:

Do excuse me, Island. I didnt reaslise you being serious with the nuking and the lion feeding.

Ive expressed my views on the basis of this war here before. As have you. We both know we where we stand.

You apparently remain in the ever shrinking minority that thinks it was a good idea. Good for you.

When it comes to completing difficult tasks, it's not uncommon for the populous in general to surrender the task the those with a stronger will.

In war, the task is not only difficult but ugly and heart damaging and those with the courage to complete the task we label heroes.

I draw no conclusion about those who choose to quit but quitting in mass is still quitting.

A group of people working in concert to achieve a misguided goal is no more correct than one misguided sole.

Mob mentality (a ground swell of agreement) is so often wrong thinking that it's tantamount to a metal defect in some criminal trials.

Remember, the majority of the OJ jury said OJ was innocent. Sometimes it's scary how easy it is the persuade the majority.

Jim-Why do so many of you guys - you guys being the ones that are so keen to wage war in far flung corners of the globe- use the language of sthn Baptists firebrands?

Dress it up in all the sonorous solemninity you wish. All the "those we would call heroes stuff". There are no WMDs, there are ALQ links and regime change is just a sad sad joke. This is about hegemony, this is the neo Con PNAC agenda. And god only knws how Iraqis are dead because of it. There is very easy way to stop young American men, these heroes, dieing in far flung places. Stop sending them.

Are you safer tonight?

Sadly Stuart you have mischaracterized me and perhaps many of those who post in favor of ideas with which you disagree.
First, I am not keen to wage war either in "far flung place" or here on PP. Understanding a conflict and articulating that understanding does not suggest or imply that you are delighted by that conflict. You know better than to make these types of inflammatory assumptions. As for SB firebrands, I'm not sure what that means. Since my exposure to SB is nonexistent, use of similar language would be coincidental at best. I will say that passionate expressions of ones belief when devoid of hate language is something I find inspiring.

"Stop sending them ?' Wouldn't that be the easy solution? When and where the commander and chief chooses to send our armed forces is not my call but there are conflicts in the world and civilized peoples will need our assistance. At this moment there are untold number of innocents dying every day in Darfur and I would put our young men and women in harms way to mitigate that situation. That's just me but what that shows is I am willing to fight for those who need help.


The typical question from the left is "Are you safer tonight?" My answer is simple. On a day to day basis I don't look to world politics/conflicts to establish a sense of well being for me or my family. My feelings of safety come from my support of local standards and our proximity to reasonable people. I.E. Good neighborhood devoid of people seeking to remove my head plus a responsive fire and police force. I would envision this for everyone, even Iraqis.

If you're asking "is the world safer" on some levels it is. 140,000 troops, bases and military logistical support on the boarder of Iran (arguably the most hostile nation to western interests and the notion of peaceful coexistence) seems both thoughtful and necessary. If you're looking for a conspiracy, I'm surprised you think this out come is not the original plan. You lefties are so willing to call Bush and his staff stupid that you are unwilling to believe that troops and bases in the middle east was their plan from the start.

At this point it seems we will not agree on much. I've tried my best to respond to all of your questions and you seem unwilling to respond to the direct questions I pose for discussion, so I will await your final thoughts and withdraw from this discussion.
Cheers

if you ask, "are you safer?", I'd consider who owns the lionshare of this countries debt, and what happens when a *real* correction in world markets happens.

As for ME "plans", some of you guys seem to think we didn't know nothin' about nothin'. Interesting combination of incompetence and malice aforethought.

Some factoids (old news to the people who don't depend solely on Faux/Drudge/NewsMax):

* The rate of terrorism fatalities for the 59 month period following 11 September 2001 is 250 percent that of the 44.5 month period preceding and including the 9/11 attacks. This figure has been adjusted to account for the different length of the two periods and it implies an increase in average monthly fatalities of 150 percent. (Only in January 1998 did the database begin to include both national and international terrorism incidents.)
* The rate of terrorist incidents for the post-9/11 period is 268 percent that of the period prior to and including 11 September 2001. This implies a 167 percent increase in what might be called the average monthly rate of incidents.
* A fair portion of the increased activity is related to the war in Iraq – but not all. Removing Iraq from the picture shows an increase in the average monthly rate of terrorism fatalities of more than 10 percent for the post-9/11 period. The increase in the rate of incidents not counting Iraq is 75 percent.

Another way of analyzing the data is to treat the 9/11 attacks as a dependent variable or as a "pivot point". This allows us to ask: "What was the baseline incidence of terror prior to 9/11 and how has it changed since?" The baseline prior to 9/11 is indicative of the level of organization, capability, and activity that eventually expressed itself in the 9/11 attacks.
* Removing 9/11 from the picture shows a 300 percent increase in fatalities for the post-9/11 period (including Iraq) or an 80 percent increase (excluding Iraq) when compared with the pre-9/11 period. The comparable change with regard to incidents is 168 percent increase with Iraq and 76 percent increase without.

That's his shtick.

Regarding Iraq; I'll say it again, If one can't/won't (honestly) assess the alternatives, then you are just complaining to complain. It doesn't make you appear more compasionate, or smarter than President GW Bush.

I have not seen this particular perspective articulated before. It seems to make sense.
I noticed that Jim has proposed this idea more than once and neither loonies on the left nor crazies on the right seems willing to comment on it.

Could it be that neither left or right has talking points that address this contention. Let's see some original thought from you ideologues on both sides.