does the US have the Will to Win?

[Nelson]

My
answer
simply is no.

Does the US Have the Will to Win?

by Patrick J. Buchanan
Would that mob in Fallujah have dared treat the security men of Saddam the way they treated those Americans? Would they have danced and shouted, "Death to Saddam," as they did "Death to Bush"?

No way. For every one in those TV pictures and photos would now be in an Iraqi prison or dead. But they know Americans will not respond that way. Which raises a question: Do we have the will to impose a pro-Western "democracy" on Iraq, no matter the cost?

It is not an academic question. For Iraq is the laboratory of the "world democratic revolution" President Bush is preaching as the new purpose of U.S. foreign policy. And if Iraq dissolves in chaos and civil war, or becomes a failed state, or if we are run out and it reverts to anti-Americanism, the Bush foreign policy will be a utopian failure. He will have gone to war to make Iraq safe for democracy and only made it safe for terrorists.

As we attempt to reshape the politics of Iraq and reorient its foreign policy to American ends, we must realize that what we are practicing is imperialism. But, looking back 50 years, Western imperialism has a long record of failure in the Arab and Islamic world.

The Brits were run out of Palestine. The French could not hold onto Algeria. When the U.S. Marines were massacred at their Beirut barracks, Reagan left. Clinton retreated from Somalia after Black Hawk Down. The Israelis were run out of Lebanon by Hezbollah. To protect U.S. interests in the Arab and Islamic world, we have had to rely on monarchs, autocrats and dictators.

Who still controls Islamic lands against the will of Islamic peoples?

The Russians. Though run out of Afghanistan, they are holding onto Chechnya. China is crushing the Muslim Uighurs in Xinjiang. India yet holds Kashmir. In each case, the colonial power – Russia, China, India – believes the land belongs to them. And they have the power, the will and the ruthlessness to hold it and crush any Muslim separatists who would try to take it away.

Here is America's problem. While we have the power to rule Iraq indefinitely, we do not appear to have the stamina or will. Since the U.S. invasion, our forces have been steadily drawn down, which suggests that we really do not believe that building democracy in Baghdad is truly vital to U.S. security.

If holding Iraq were critical to our survival, we would have run an armored division through Fallujah to teach them a lesson. But we are not doing that. Why not? Because we are inhibited by our beliefs about not inflicting civilian casualties, and our awareness that for us to do to Fallujah what Sharon did to Jenin would inflame the Islamic world against us.

So, we take it. And our enemies in Iraq's "resistance" know we will take it. Thus, we are not able to end the acts of terror against us, nor do we have the will to crush a nationalist uprising as the British, French and Americans did when we all believed in the superiority of our civilization and race, and its right to rule the "lesser breeds without the law." Just ask the Indians.

From 1899 to 1902, our Army and Marines paid a price of thousands dead to crush a Filipino resistance and impose our rule on the islands. Scores of thousands of Filipinos perished in that guerrilla war. For half a century, America ruled the islands and tutored her people in democracy.

In Vietnam, we lost 150 men every week for seven years to prevent Hanoi from annexing the South. But that was a different America.

In Iraq, we have lost 600 dead, a dozen soldiers a week, in the year since the invasion, and Americans already are asking, "Are we there yet?"

There is no stomach for a new war to advance the world democratic revolution in Syria or Iran. There does not even appear to be much will in the administration to use force to destroy the nuclear weapons programs in Iran or North Korea. Is the Bush Doctrine simply rhetoric when it comes to a Third World power that can fight back?

Today, the success of our policy in Iraq depends on hope, the hope that we can create a working democracy oriented toward the West, before we turn power over to the Iraqis on June 30, and before the elections on Jan. 31. But hope is not a policy. It is a virtue.

Bush's world democratic revolution is Wilsonian imperialism, which contains an inherent and perhaps fatal contradiction. Imperialism means we decide the government a nation will have and how its foreign policy shall be oriented. Democracy means they decide.

What do we do if we impose democracy on Iraq, and the Iraqis use their freedom to vote to throw us out and confront Israel and claim Kuwait as their long-lost province? We should be thinking about it, because it may just happen.

[L.W. Baxter]

Well, not the 4X100m relay, anyway.

[Victor]

Only someone with blinders over his rose-colored glasses would be surprised at this. What does Buchanan suggest? That we bomb them back to the stone age to give them the democracy they so obviously crave? BTW, Clinton pulled out of Somalia after Bush got us in.

[Paul Girouard]

No we are a bunch of candy arses like Victor . Send in spec ops, kill the bad guys and anyone with them heartless. Kill the beast before it kills you . We can / won't do it . BTW Clinton wouldn't give the Generals what they needed to defend thier self , and Armies are not made to fix stuff , they are / should be designed to break stuff more of the other sided stuff then you win . Patton had it right "Kill the OPSOAB before he kills you . Let him die for his country . " Or some such . Other wise what's the point , to design the war / battle so you lose or their is no losser ?? WTF Armies , war machines are / should be designed to win , any other reason is folly . IMHO . PEG

[ 08-13-2005, 01:35 PM: Message edited by: Paul Girouard ]

[LeeG]

this is an old article,,we did send tanks through Fallujah. Our will isn't in question, it's the goal.

[Victor]

Right on Paul! Glad someone around here has some balls! What big guys? I thought the whole problem was there aren't any, just lots of little ones. Guess we'll just have to kill em all, then go on to Saudi Arabia where the real problem lies. James Bond could've taken care of Saddam, but that wasn't really the plan now was it? I agree a little more muscle could've pacified Mogodishu, but we're not exactly dealing with the Nazi war machine here, although some of us obviously think we are.

[ 08-13-2005, 10:39 PM: Message edited by: Victor ]

[Paul Girouard]

So Vic what is your solution ?? Pull out and let the wack job muslims , the Jehadist have Iraq as a base to build on ? Total surrender and re instatement of Saddumb to dictatorship ?
We are more than half way down the slippery easy slope and building speed to the end of what normal life in the US has or was been . IMHO
Kill them all and let God sort it out has never worked , the Jews never could quite do it . As in 1 Samuel 15-14 "What is that bleating of sheep in my ears? What is this lowing of cattle that I hear ?" Read on at your will , we U.S. do not have the will to do it . The other guys do .

[ 08-13-2005, 01:46 PM: Message edited by: Paul Girouard ]

[Victor]

You said it yourself, we don't have the will, nor do we have the way. Bringing democracy to them wasn't the original plan anyway. We went in to get rid of Saddam and guarantee no WMDs, right? Well, we did that, mission accomplished, time to go, see ya. Or we could do it your way and spend the next 40 years spilling more and more blood until we're fighting the whole Middle East, which seems to be what some people in this administration want to do.

Halfway to where? What proof exactly do you have that there's any sign at all of the Iraqi people coming around to our way of thinking? Did anyone ask them? This is Vietnam all over again, right down to the rhetoric.

[Norman Bernstein]

Right on Paul! Glad someones around here has some balls! Ahh, I get it... this is all about being macho, right?


So Vic what is your solution ?? The most common 'defense' of the Iraq War that I get, when discussing this with conservatives, is something along the lines of 'OK, wise guy, so what would you propose we do now?'

I don't feel in the slightest bit obligated to answer thqat question, and I don't think I HAVE to answer it, in order to have a valid criticism of this war.

This is Bush's war, and HE is the one obligated to figure out how to succeed with it or end it. HE is the one who put us into such an impossible situation. If you agree that there ARE no easy answers as to what to do now, then we're in complete agreement. Part of the obligation of being Commander in Chief is taking responsibility for what you do.... and acknowledging the errors, mistakes, and shortcomings. I haven't seen ANY of that from Bush.

He might have paid a bit of attention to Colin Powell, the only guy in his administration who didn't have his head up his butt... until they gave him the sorry task of mouthing those trumped-up intelligence figures about the PRECISE numbers and kinds of WMD supposedly in Iraq, to the U.N. I bet he's REALLY sorry he agreed to it.

Earlier on, Powell's speeches and writings made perfect sense, namely, if it's worth going to war, then it is worth going in with MASSIVE and UNDEFEATABLE forces, quickly and surely securing the country... something that Rumsfeld overruled him on, beliving that the war could be conducted 'on the cheap'....and fired any generals who agreed with the Powell doctrine... and THAT is why we have had 1700 deaths and rising.

However, if someone pinned me to a wall and DEMANDED that I come up with a course of action to finish this disasterous war, I might propose the following:

1) First and foremost, admit and acknowledge just how wrong Rumsfeld and his chosen commanders were...publicly, and without equivocation. SOMEONE has to take responsibility.

2) Raise taxes massively, to pay for the war. Borrowing to finance the war is nothing more than mortgaging my children's future. You think taxes are too high? Tough s#$t... war costs money. Blame it on the guy who STARTED it.

3) Reinstate the draft, and draft 500,000 people... without any exclusions that would keep the sons (AND daughters) of the wealthy out of the fighting.

4) Flood Iraq with forces and lock down the damned country. Secure the borders. Eject all foreign nationals. Concentrate on training the Iraqi army and police (something you CAN'T do while getting bombed and shot at).

5) The minute the constitution is in place, and there are reasonable numbers of Iraqi security forces adequately trained and equipped... GET OUT. Completely. NO remaining military bases or airfields. NO American nationals left behind as 'advisors'. Just GET THE HELL OUT.

6) Expect Iraq to nonetheless collapse into civil war... and expect some fundamentalist Shiite theocracy to take control... expect the Kurds to resume fighting for independence.. expect the Sunni Baathists to continue to plot to sieze control... and just let it happen, because in the long run there isn't a damned thing we can do about it... nor SHOULD we!

[ 08-13-2005, 02:22 PM: Message edited by: Norman Bernstein ]

[George.]

Originally posted by Norman Bernstein:
1) First and foremost, admit and acknowledge just how wrong Rumsfeld and his chosen commanders were...publicly, and without equivocation. SOMEONE has to take responsibility.

2) Raise taxes massively, to pay for the war. Borrowing to finance the war is nothing more than mortgaging my children's future. You think taxes are too high? Tough s#$t... war costs money. Blame it on the guy who STARTED it.

3) Reinstate the draft, and draft 500,000 people... without any exclusions that would keep the sons (AND daughters) of the wealthy out of the fighting.

4) Flood Iraq with forces and lock down the damned country. Secure the borders. Eject all foreign nationals. Concentrate on training the Iraqi army and police (something you CAN'T do while getting bombed and shot at).
(1) to (4) is exactly what I have been calling for. NONE of the so-called "conservatives" who pretend to support this war has commented. NONE of them has a position on this, or on any other idea, beyond "Bush is always right" (or was it Napoleon?).

You neocons pose as a bunch of die-hard machoes, but you do so upon other peoples' lives and fortune. You are really a bunch of cowards. You don't even have the balls to discuss alternative approaches to the burnt mission American troops were sent to lose.

Make no mistake: if America loses this, it will be VERY bad for ALL of us. All you blind and stupid sycophants are nothing but traitors - traitors to the true cause of democracy and the West. Traitors to what America truly stands for - not the "modern" neocon America that appears to have lost her bearings, but the old America that was the light for all the world.

[Donn]

Originally posted by George.:
(1) to (4) is exactly what I have been calling for.Hey Senor, that's astute. Why don't you two get together and call yourselves an institute? The IILLP! The Institute of Impotent Loud-Mouthed Liberal Pussies.

[Meerkat]

S'matter Donn: the shrew not putting out - or did she bite you last time you tried a little Monica with her? tongue.gif :D

[Donn]

Gonna insult my wife now, rodent?

[Norman Bernstein]

Yup, about the reaction I expected... just some more name-calling.... but you DO get a creativity award for 'Impotent Loud-Mouthed Liberal Pussy'.

[Con LanAdo]

meekrat that is even way beneath you.
Per the thread - my fortitude does not weaken yet one must consider that those who have gotten us there sure do have their heads somewhere else.
Donn i doubt our man in Brazil is a pussie.
I do hope the new dems will institute the draft quickly and as stated w/o exemptions.
Normy - please consider while slammin D you include the one who was way off base

[ 08-13-2005, 07:03 PM: Message edited by: Con LanAdo ]

[Meerkat]

Originally posted by Donn:
Gonna insult my wife now, rodent?Why not? You do!

[High C]

Originally posted by George.:
...NONE of the so-called "conservatives" who pretend to support this war has commented. NONE of them has a position on this, or on any other idea, beyond "Bush is always right" What we Conservatives understand, is that we don't get to micromanage this war, or any other apsect of what government does. Neither do you, nor does any regular Jose from anywhere.

We elect people we think will do a better job than the twit who runs against him, and put or support behind that man.

You guys can blow on and on about what you'd do if you were in charge, but it's just empty talk. You don't know what to do. None of has access to the tools and knowledge necessary to call the shots.

All we can do is put into office who we believe to be the best of the few choices we're offered in the voting booth, and support the guy as long as he's in charge.

I have no interest in commenting on your ideas for strategy and decision making because it's a fruitless exercise. The guys in charge are the guys in charge. I think they're doing a better job than would have the guys who lost, and I choose to support them, rather than cut their knees out from under them by screaming about how I'd micromanage the world if I were in charge.
I'm not, and you're not either.

[ 08-13-2005, 07:10 PM: Message edited by: High C ]

[Meerkat]

Yeah, HiC, I'll bet you were a real big Clinton supporter when he was in charge... tongue.gif

How many troops have to die, how much environment has to be trashed and how much debt do we have to incur before it becomes obvious that George Bush is a disaster of a president?

[Victor]

So a) the people in charge know what they're doing, b) we don't have the right to criticize. The democrats never would've gotten us into this mess in the first place. Maybe we'll have to wait for one of THEM to pull us out so we can blame him for losing Iraq.

Nixon had a secret plan. It worked too, kinda, sorta. There'd still be a South Vietnam if there were still American troops there. Maybe Rumsfeld knows what he's doing too. I hope so, but I doubt it. As I recall they were supposed to welcome us with open arms.

[Phillip Allen]

"The democrats never would've gotten us into this mess in the first place."

Actually you guys did...by not giving the rest of us a reasonable choice...

[High C]

Originally posted by Victor:
So a) the people in charge know what they're doing, b) we don't have the right to criticize.... a) Yes, I think they do.
b) Of course you do. I said nothing to the contrary. I merely explained to George Dot why this particular Conservative finds his challenge to argue the details of his (or Norman's) multi point plan to
win the war to be a boring waste of time and energy.

Criticize away. I often find it quite amusing.

[Donn]

Originally posted by Meerkat:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Donn:
Gonna insult my wife now, rodent?Why not? You do!</font>[/QUOTE]I won't...actually, I can't stoop to your level. Enjoy yourself.

[Paul Girouard]

Originally posted by Victor:

[ doubt it. As I recall they were supposed to welcome us with open arms.[/QB]Vic the soldiers I personally know and have talked with in the past two to three months . Who
all have been in country , once , two of them are going back soon . Sept .( I do pray for them and for all the others involved .)
One Staff sgt , neighbors kid , one LT met him at church , one a E-4 , what ever that is in the army , I was navy and don't know all the army designations. They all ,two men, one women , said the kids of Iraq loved them , they loved the kids . Some day the kids will be in charge , and the tide will turn . Give up now and it won't even have that chance . . Daily loss's are tragic , but they are what thet are , sorry , in war some losses are projected . One day in training for D day we lost I believe 900 + troops training, :( tragic :( , but the war went on .
I have friends / family in at least the USN and USMC, and USArmy :cool: smile.gif . They all signed up smile.gif , sorry, no draft. tongue.gif tongue.gif
Go piss up a rope , it is what it is, deal with it. Go vote , stop wyning , it hurts my ears .
Now I'm done :rolleyes:

[Victor]

I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just saying part of Rumsfeld's plan was that they'd welcome us with open arms. Seems to me there isn't much of ANY plan going on over there right now, but what do I know?

I grew up during Vietnam and heard all of this then. We know what we're doing, we've got em on the run, etc., etc., then, with Tet, suddenly everyone realizes it's all a crock of sh*t. The powers that be were just as surpised as everyone else. I also recall a lot of Europeans were surprised the US was in Vietnam at all.

In Iraq the stakes are high enough that it would be nice to think the people running things have actually thought about the ways it could go bad. We certainly do hope they're not just pissing up your rope. If they are they may be stirring up a hornet's nest that'll stay stirred up for God knows how long.

[Phillip Allen]

"...then, with Tet, suddenly everyone realizes it's all a crock of sh*t"

Imagine, if you will, this attitude after the battle of the bulge...

[Victor]

That would be difficult. It was a surpise because no one thought Hitler would be stupid enough to squander forces he desperately needed in the east in an assault which could not possibly change the course of the war.

I can rest assured anything that develops out of Iraq that, to paraphrase Hirohito, "is not necessarily in our best interests", will be everyones' fault but Bush's.

[ 08-13-2005, 11:36 PM: Message edited by: Victor ]

[Peter Malcolm Jardine]

Let me know what the US is trying to win will ya? :rolleyes:

[Cuyahoga Chuck]

Trying to compare Iraq with WWII is a crock.
First, we were lead by men who were around when we were suffering more than 5000 dead per month in our 1st World War battles. Nobody had any illusions of winning in a walkover.
The WWII effort was an all out effort from the begining. Even tho' we were short in many ways we always put as much into a campaign as we dared. Our enemies were calling the tune early on, but, once we got up to speed we made maximum efforts on every front. In less than 3 years we crushed our enemies.
The war was won at a severe price, but, it was the dictates of intelligent military policy that cause the price to be so high. Not the duplicitous schemes of our leaders.
Charlie

[George Roberts]

This week the south portion of Iraq wants autonomy and control of what amounts to most of the oil in the country.

Democracy works only when all want to be in the smae boat and share the pain.

I expect Iraq will see many bad years ahead. I expect the US will bear most of the pain. At the moment I see no other option.

[jaburgin]

As an ex-paratrooper i had the better part of my known life pounded into my mind the cold war and commie threat as the single greatest threat! so whats all this reference to commies i read , when i all knowning leadership has choicen to disregard the blood and sweat of 50 years and in an instant sell us out for the god all mighty dollar to the biggest friggen communist nation there is CHINA!!!

so dont call or refer to commies as a bad thing unless you are anti american according to our corporate owned leadership ..ihahahahahaha!and by the way i miss the big red machine it help define us , it gave us a purpose ,it made us better and it sure made the olympics more enjoyable to watch.!

[Paul Girouard]

Originally posted by Peter Malcolm Jardine:
Let me know what the US is trying to win will ya? :rolleyes: Remember that freedom shadow from Canada day . Your basking in it right now . :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Paul Girouard]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Victor:

[QB]I'm not disagreeing with you,

Yes you are .

In Iraq the stakes are high enough that it would be nice to think the people running things have actually thought about the ways it could go bad.

No one can think of everything .

We certainly do hope they're not just pissing up your rope.

Vic it was your rope and you who I suggested do the pissing up there of. Please reread that post.

[Victor]

Well they can rest assured that people like you will assume they know what they're about, just as they did in Nam. This is looking more like Vietnam all the time, only then the big shadow was from Russia and China. This time it's from Iran, Saudi Arabia, and all the Muslims around the world, like the London bombers. 60% of the Muslims living in Britain thought the bombings were justified. Go piss up your own rope, especially since if things blow up, or I should say when things blow up, you and all the other brainless necons will say it was because the "left" didn't support the war effort or some such bull****.

[ 08-14-2005, 10:35 AM: Message edited by: Victor ]

[L.W. Baxter]

Now the women get disqualified from the 4X400 for wandering out of the lane on the first leg.

I don't know about the will to win, but a little more concentration might help...

[Paul Girouard]

It did blow up remember 9/11? So it all is a big pile of poop , so what , Go vote for who will do it better . Thats all little people like you and I can do . Or as Dems like to say vote early vote often , even if your dead tongue.gif

As Wild dingo has been know to say ****e Mate , I've never been called a brainless necon . Man thats status :cool:

If I might ask what has your service to the USA been ? Not that it matters , with or without you have all the same rights . Goes to motive IMHO .

[ 08-14-2005, 01:57 AM: Message edited by: Paul Girouard ]

[Meerkat]

Originally posted by Meerkat:
Yeah, HiC, I'll bet you were a real big Clinton supporter when he was in charge... tongue.gif

How many troops have to die, how much environment has to be trashed and how much debt do we have to incur before it becomes obvious that George Bush is a disaster of a president?Selective support HiC? tongue.gif

[JimD]

Originally posted by Paul Girouard:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Peter Malcolm Jardine:
Let me know what the US is trying to win will ya? :rolleyes: Remember that freedom shadow from Canada day . Your basking in it right now . :rolleyes: :rolleyes: </font>[/QUOTE]I thought I felt rain

[Paul G]

gee, sounds like you guys are having fun!

Fact 1. Bush started the war
Fact 2. It aint over
Fact 3. Since it aint over then the guys who started it (the US of A ) better damn well finish it and quit whining amongst themselves about who screwed the pooch.

[Phillip Allen]

Originally posted by Paul G:
gee, sounds like you guys are having fun!

Fact 1. Bush started the war
Fact 2. It aint over
Fact 3. Since it aint over then the guys who started it (the US of A ) better damn well finish it and quit whining amongst themselves about who screwed the pooch.I agree mostly with Paul...(one slight variation)

Sadam started the war when he invaded his neighbor and murdered many...MANY

At this point, however, the "who started it" is academic only

[Paul G]

Phil,

You are spot on, as the finger pointing can go on forever, but no one seems to have a long term, skilful way of ending the hostility. Its going to be very difficult to get out without paying a huge price in human suffering, as for the economic and social implications who can say?

[Phillip Allen]

I am sorry for the whole mess...

In the end I don't think we can bring their nearly aboriginal society up to speed with the rest of us...some people prefer the dark ages (like our own Bible belt) probably because it offers the delusion that things can be spelled out in a sort of recipe for life and no uncomfortable thought is required.

[Trevord]

Steady on fellas, you have allies, small though some of us are. If the US is beaten in the middle east it wont be by Bin Ladin and co. it will be by US voters ovewhelmed by left wing defeatists as in the early 1970s.

[Phillip Allen]

I understand this thoroughly...the people who lost the Viet Nam war by requiring us to give up are either in denial or just lying about it...most are fools or at least fooled...which amounts to the same thing. It hurts my feelings to think on the stupidities and therein lies their grubby little victory.

[George.]

Originally posted by High C:
All we can do is put into office who we believe to be the best of the few choices we're offered in the voting booth, and support the guy as long as he's in charge.
I don't agree, High C. That is not how democracy works - vote on election day and then become alienated until the next time.

Citizens can and must participate. Politicians will do what the polls tell them to do. If they realize that most people are oblivious and just trusting them blindly, they'll act in their own self-interest - not in the best interests of the nation.

If the people discuss an issue and demand solutions, such solutions will be forthcoming. If the people disagree with an approach and demand something better, politicians will try harder. If the people trust their leaders blindly, they'll be taken for a ride. It is thus in every nation. Noble, wise, and selfless leaders are a fairy tale. Politicians work for us, and they need supervision.

[Cuyahoga Chuck]

I got the will to win! What's the prize?
Charlie

[Paul Girouard]

Originally posted by Paul Girouard:

If I might ask what has your service to the USA been ? Not that it matters , with or without you have all the same rights . Goes to motive IMHO .[/QB]Vic - so quick , well not on this question tongue.gif Hiding something :rolleyes:

[Cuyahoga Chuck]

We have elections not coronations. There ain't no "divine right of presidents" in any government book I ever read. And that should be evident to any of you Neocons who hurrahed when Pres. Clinton was hauled in front of the Senate for not keeping his fly zipped.
The difference now is those in the Congress, both right and left, are not going after a president but running from him. It's that old ,"success has many fathers but failure is an orphan" syndrome. Since Bush never had more than a smidgen of a
majority at the polls his fall should not be of any surprise. Using the goodwill he generated at 9/11 to leverage a dubious war was like drawing to an inside straight. He never had the cards and his bluffs didn't make the opposition fold.
I'm sure that when he follows his mentor, Karl Rove, off into the sunset he will still be softly chanting , "we're working hard to .....".
A little acoustic guitar and some jingling spurs please.

Charlie

[Keith Wilson]

We left Vietnam because most Americans thought it wasn't important enough for the US to do what it would take to win, that it wasn't worth the cost. They were right; it wasn't. It never was; we should never have gotten so deeply involved, but by the time most folks realized that it was too late.

We will probably leave Iraq because most Americans think it isn't worth the cost, either to the US or to the Iraqis, to do what it would take to win militarily against these people. Unlike the invasion of Afghanistan, this war was sold to the public under false pretenses, and run with pathologically deluded optimism by those at the top. It's certainly starting to seem that it never was worth the cost, that we should never have gotten so deeply involved, but by the time most folks realized that it was too late.

Some wars are worth it; some aren't. Removing Saddam Hussin from power was certainly a good thing, but was it worth what it will take? Kennedy's "we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe" is lovely rhetoric, but completely absurd practical policy.

[ 08-15-2005, 01:41 PM: Message edited by: Keith Wilson ]

[Osborne Russel]

The will to win what? A secure empire?

How about the will to win the struggle over self-interest and become the true champions of the rights of man, to live up to our own principles and fulfill our own potential, instead of a pack of fat ass oil addicts wrapped in a flag and chasing the quick buck?

How about the will to quit lying to ourselves? You're so tough, itching to go to work on the bad guys, how tough are you willing to get on yourself? What's that? Not very? I thought so. Let's quit importing oil. It will require sacrifices, but we're tough. Right? Ha ha ha you're pathetic.

[Osborne Russel]

Originally posted by MIke:
Selfish? I don't think so, just rational and reasonable about controlling my own destiny, something I can control, with full control over it each and everyday.[/IMG]Your "control" is an illusion built on cheap oil and two myths:

1. America is not an empire dedicated to keeping oil cheap by force and

2. You could go sailing without that oil.

[PatCox]

I think many may be misreading Buchanon. He was completley and totally against the war and criticized Bush and the neocons viciously before and after the start of it.

He is a firm believer in the "the Israelis hijacked our foreign policy and borrowed our military for a few years through the influence of their agents, Pearle and Feith and Wolfowitz" theory.

He is not, I think, criticing america for not haveing the will to "win" (whatever that means" but rather criticizing the administration for conducting the war in such a fashion that a majority have naturally turned against it.

[Keith Wilson]

Forecast for today; snow flurries in Hell, with the possibllity of some accumulation.

I find myself at least partly agreeing with Pat Buchanan, not about Israel, but the rest of it.