Bush links Hezbollah to Ali-Q

[Griff]

Originally Posted by Brianna

Oh, UT, let them have their fun. It makes them feel better.

The level of hatred in this thread is nearly palpable. It saddens me.

I can understand the hate when it comes to our foreign policy, but they can feel free to hoard all the "blessings" of State Socialism. If you don't want to risk being free don't immigrate here. We have a lot of work ahead of us separating connected Republicans from the government teat but let's not compound the problem.

[Trilby]

Originally Posted by Griff

"blessings" of State Socialism

They don't mention that if you need dialysis at 70 their 'health care' system lets you die. Not cost effective. Oh, and that bypass you needed three years ago? You've been bumped again. Sorry.

[9th Engineer]

Hmmm, well if you float through highschool doing ok but nothing great, go to work at 19 because you want to be able to afford a car and your own appartment instead of taking out loans and assistance to pay university costs, and your biggest contribution to the system is stamping forms then guess what? You don't deserve the same quality of life as someone who takes the hard road for the first 30 years and puts off the car and parties and girlfriends/boyfriends and personal freedom in order to come out on top in the end.
Choose to be only average and you will be taken care of in an average manner.

where the citizens are free to fail and starve on their own terms if they don't have the sheer guts to succeed. Glory glory to that, amen.

Amen.

[Elspode]

Originally Posted by 9th Engineer

Hmmm, well if you float through highschool doing ok but nothing great, go to work at 19 because you want to be able to afford a car and your own appartment instead of taking out loans and assistance to pay university costs, and your biggest contribution to the system is stamping forms then guess what? You don't deserve the same quality of life as someone who takes the hard road for the first 30 years and puts off the car and parties and girlfriends/boyfriends and personal freedom in order to come out on top in the end.
Choose to be only average and you will be taken care of in an average manner.

My 20 year old is planning his future. His vision at this point includes living in a room in the basement, eating his parents food, and playing video games for the rest of his life. He is chronically depressed, has no insurance, delivers pizzas part time, has a broken car, and flunked out of his first year of college.

I have been trying to impart the lesson of "do for yourself or die" lately. He has responded by beginning to self harm.

Life is difficult, as a rule.

[warch]

Bashing Bush is soooo 2003.

Hey, Did anyone else catch the great Charlie Rose discussion on Iraq, Iran, the cease fire, diplomacy and military options with Richard Holbrook and Bill Kristol last night? It was terribly interesting and a discussion that should be much much more public. Charlie let them debate it out. pushed to clarify the rhetoric.

Both agree: Rumsfeld needs to go, now. Holbrook wants to devise a way out of Iraq civil war and regroup/strategize the enire region ASAP, Keep Afghanistan on the front burner, ramp up diplomacy, turn away from Rumsfeld's errors. Staying will do nothing but result in more US deaths and debt and is worse than the political embarassment of starting to pull out.
Kristol is not ready to give up and shift yet on Iraq, pushing for 30K more troops to stabilize Bagdad. Pulling out is a still worse outcome, embolding the enemy than staying.

http://www.charlierose.com/
they promise an online video soon.

[Elspode]

Rumsfeld *and* Bush will go when the last possible dollar has been bled from public coffers, and not before. Haliburton should declare itself to be either a religion or a government any day now.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Elspode

Rumsfeld *and* Bush will go when the last possible dollar has been bled from public coffers,

Appreciate the relations of senior staff. Rumsfeld is and has long been a loyal ally to Cheney. This is really a Cheney White House. Rumsfeld will not go without Cheney's specific approval. And Rumsfeld has inherited a failed strategic objective because that objective is the Cheney doctrine. Cheney depends heavily on Rumsfeld. The two are very loyal allies. Notice how even Condi Rice is extremely careful to no cross swords with these two men.

[warch]

Holbrook stated that he believed there was no longer a possible military solution/strategy for Iraq. Kristol was the optimist, but you could see his sweat. We dont have the troops to pursue the current greatly expanded mission.

Shit. So which bad outcome is better? When do you lose a battle to win a war?

[tw]

Originally Posted by warch

Hey, Did anyone else catch the great Charlie Rose discussion on Iraq, Iran, the cease fire, diplomacy and military options with Richard Holbrook and Bill Kristol last night? It was terribly interesting and a discussion that should be much much more public. Charlie let them debate it out. pushed to clarify the rhetoric.

Nightline once did this stuff (Nightline now being too much like a Barbara Walter's interview).

Kristol has been calling for Rumsfeld's resignation for well over a year now. Interesting reason why: Rumsfeld is too attached to a failed strategy. Rumsfeld (just like McNamara) is a marvelous thinker. But just like McNamara, he is not able to admit his massive failures. Kristol said that even George Jr is starting to realize this.

The strategic concept that Rumsfeld inherited was flawed - although Kristol will not openly admit this (nor outrightly deny it). Kristol says Rumsfeld's own tactical objectives and how he has engaged those objectives is also flawed - because of Rumsfeld.

Notice troop increases that Kristol calls for. 40,000 troops in Iraq. And yet Holbrook uses lessons of the Balkans to demonstrate how many troops were really needed: 500,000 to 600,000.

Both men agree that the US will never put sufficient troops into Iraq. And both men agree that the consequences of total withdrawal will be disastrous. However these are same reasons for not withdrawing from Vietnam. Just like in Vietnam, the status quo is a formula for defeat - Holbrook repeatedly used the word untenable. And just like in Vietnam, both men agreed (by their silence) that neither has a workable solution outside of more troops.

Holbrook made one other point that I have heard previously - that raised an ear. From two UNPO reports in July:

The dangerously neglected looming conflict in and around the northern Iraqi city [Kirkuk] is equal parts street brawl over oil riches; ethnic competition over identity between Kurdish, Turkoman, Arab and Assyrian-Chaldean communities; and titanic clash between two nations, Arab and Kurd.

Within a year, therefore, Kurds will face a basic choice: to press ahead with the constitutional mechanisms over everyone’s resistance and risk violent conflict, or take a step back and seek a negotiated solution.

Stepping back to a more strategic perspective, Holbrook noted that every capital from Cairo to New Delhi is only one bomb away from total war. This region has never been this unstable. Although every potential hotspot is equally dangerous, Holbrook noted the one location that has a connection to most potential disputes: Iran.

What is the greatest challenge to America? China. Why? Because of a severe decline of US presence and influence throughout the world. What Holbrook did not say, and yet what should be obvious: China is simply doing what America once did to become so powerful, influential, and so welcome everywhere in the world.

Kristol, a founding member of Project for New American Century that in part defines US policy in terms of securing oil sources at all cost, often surprises by being more pragmatic. Holbrook has always been one of the most interesting strategic thinkers I have even heard. Remember, Holbrook got Milosevic to negotiate himself out of a job. When Wesley Clark tried to continue that task, Clark could not do it. Holbrook had to be recalled from retirement.

I did not realize how much I missed Charlie Rose until his heart attack in Paris - especially with the pathetic staff that replaced Koppel. Only other place to get any such analysis is George Stephanopolis' round table or Russert interviews. The discussion with Holbrook, Kristol, etc are hard to find and essential to understanding the world.

I wish Gingrich had been there. Gingrich is better than Kristol at grasping pragmatic realities. Maybe Gringrich could have defined an exit strategy - or at least define a strategic objective for Iraq. As both Holbrook and Kristol noted by their silence (and they danced around this issue), we don't even have a strategic objective in Iraq which is a first step to defeat - another lesson from Vietnam and Somolia. Another reason why the US (Nato) was so successful in the Balkans.