Say Anything Blog

benefit politically from an early withdrawl from Iraq?

Republican.
They do not want to have the 2008
elections cycle decided with Iraq and Afghanistan in flames after 7 years.

Woof,

An early withdrawal from Iraq will likely result in the “flames” you speak of.

It’s not just the Left in the US benefitting from a US withdrawal / defeat in Cuba, Vietnam, Rhodesia, Somalia, Haiti, Iraq, Afghanistan, what-have-you…
their Masters benefit, as they have benefitted over the past 50 years or so.

These people are born in America, but they are not Americans.

...for great justice

Which American political party stands to benefit politically from an early withdrawl from Iraq?
Both.
Which American political party stands to benefit politically if America gives up on Iraq?
Neither. The Repubs will get the blame for fucking up and wasting a chance. The Dems will get blame for the conditions 6 months after we leave.
Which American political party stands to benefit politically from an American defeat in Iraq?
Neither. Again, its clear to anyone that’s not a dumbass that the Dems have made it too sensitive an issue to expect military success. The Repubs will get blamed for botching all the non-military aspects of the occupancy and loosing necessary trust from the Iraqis.
Which American political party stands to suffer politically from an American victory in Iraq?
Both. A victory in Iraq will be great, but then we would need another immediate war or the economy and domestic conditions may lend themselves to dems getting elected.
It then follows that whichever party answers the above questions has a vested political interest in America’s failure in Iraq.
Maybe some do. It doesn’t mean that they would like to see ‘defeat’ there so as to benefit politically. Some on both sides of the isle have no regard for anything that doesn’t advance their own, personal interests. Some on both side don’t.
What does that say about that party and its leadership?
Nothing.
What kind of party invests in the failure of its own country against its sworn enemies?
Again, you beg the question of who are we fighting in Iraq? Are they our sworn enemies or someone else’s? There is too much murk for blind obedience there Mr. Conservative… i.e. pro-individualism / non-blind obedience…

Yun Chu said, “You must strictly not express in words what is very significant. Both dragon and snake are killed in one blow.”

Sparkie,

I’ll make it simple.  The dems won both houses in the last election.  The dems already realized political gains from percieved failure in Iraq.  Anything short of clear success in Iraq will mean political success for democrats.

Your answer is exactly why liberal propoganda works in the short term.  It is nothing more than sophistry.  It may sound good and even seem to be reasonable, but it is void of reality and disproven by history.

These people are born in America, but they are not Americans.

Move_Zig,

I see no other way around it.  Historically defined, you’re right.

The Democrats benefit from the Republican mishandling of the whole business and not from the debacle itself. The funny thing is that there isn’t a great deal of difference between the two parties in terms of foreign policy but the current Administration has pushed a most peculiar agenda while an acquiescent Congress let them get away with it. Assuming a Democrat is elected President in 2008 and the current crew loses its power and influence then i’d expect the Republicans to return to more rational ways.

Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.

John Stuart Mill

In the same way that the Marxist can’t win on their own merits, but must try to subvert and undermine a superior system, the terrorists can’t win without some serious undermining of the US economic and political systems, and the Dems are doing just that.  It’s a shared goal, not a conspiracy.  Totalitarians of a feather flock together.

Hope and change, in a free world, are the private possessions of motivated individuals.

That should be: “Marxists”.

Hope and change, in a free world, are the private possessions of motivated individuals.

R108,

Hear, Hear! 

Well put.

The Democrats benefit from the Republican mishandling of the whole business and not from the debacle itself.

Mike A,

This sounds similar to supporting to troops but not the war.  This thought process attempts to create a distinction without making a difference.  On top of that it sees a debacle as being solely Republican without any credit given to those who have relentlessly fought against our efforts in Iraq.  The Dems have been all to willing to profit politically from our country’s mistakes in Iraq and their anti-war propoganda war, while all but ignoring our successes in Iraq.  This is a pathetic and ignoble display of political ambition at the expense of our military, their efforts, and our nation’s solidarity and security.  To these, there is nothing sacred but their own political power and influence.

HG...I’ll try to be clearer. The Democrats do not benefit from an Iraq in turmoil and an American withdrawal. They do benefit from the public’s recognition that the President’s policies have not solved any of the issues created since 911.

The view that failing to support Republican policies that aren’t working is ignoble and ambitious is accurate only when one believes that the Republican policies are correct.

Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.

John Stuart Mill

Mike A,

You may be quite correct in stating that,

The Democrats do not benefit from an Iraq in turmoil and an American withdrawal.

However, the more significant question remains whether or not Democrats are smart enough to recognize that fact.  Thus far, the prospects are not encouraging.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

The Democrats do not benefit from an Iraq in turmoil and an American withdrawal. They do benefit from the public’s recognition that the President’s policies have not solved any of the issues created since 911.

Mike A,

Can you have one without the other?

The view that failing to support Republican policies that aren’t working is ignoble and ambitious is accurate only when one believes that the Republican policies are correct.

Not true.  The policies may not be perfect and yet still be worthy of support when considering the consequences of failure.  War is not perfect, and comittment to the fight is absolutely necessary.  Working to thwart the effort altogether is what the Dems have done and continue to do. There is little if any loyalty to America’s cause on the left.

HG
I still stand by everything I said. Your sophistry accusation is crap. You oversimplify (Simple Question posts seem to be loaded!?!) and run away with it. If only the world were as simple as you seem to think it is judging by this post and your last ‘simple question’ post. You need to do some frigging digging so that you are able to apprecite things with the appropriate amount of detail. I feel that would lend itself less to your oversimplified, partisan sentiments.

No matter how hard you guys try, the dems are not terrorists. Nor do they want the terrorists to win. Period. If you think otherwise, you are intentionally being stupid and nothing I can type will help you.

Yun Chu said, “You must strictly not express in words what is very significant. Both dragon and snake are killed in one blow.”

Furthermore
If you want to talk about people who coddle our sworn enemies, lets put Iraq aside and talk about Saudi Arabia and Pakistan ok? Which political party licks their bums for them while they hide, sponsor, and breed terrorists by the truckload? Which President’s family is in bed with them financially and otherwise? Which President has a cute little crush on Musharef despite the fact he is a liar, a non-democratic military dictator, and refuses to crack down within his own borders where, arguably, there are the most terrorism-related problems going on… although Suadi Arabia is a close second? Which party/president is that? Huh? Oversimplifying partisan hack?

Yun Chu said, “You must strictly not express in words what is very significant. Both dragon and snake are killed in one blow.”

I’ll make it simple.

You are unable to make it anyway else.

Yun Chu said, “You must strictly not express in words what is very significant. Both dragon and snake are killed in one blow.”

HG...I’ll try to be clearer. The Democrats do not benefit from an Iraq in turmoil and an American withdrawal. Of course they do; they even claim that their midterm election victory was a “mandate” on the war in Iraq. I think winning an election could be considered a “benefit”, don’t you? They do benefit from the public’s recognition that the President’s policies have not solved any of the issues created since 911. This illusion has been created by their toadies in the MSM lying and fabricating news that says we are losing in Iraq, which is the source of the public’s belief(not “recognition") that the President’s policies aren’t working.  Not only that, but the steady drumbeat of lies and undermining from the Dems, combined with their jihad against the President, have also helped to give the mistaken impression that the President’s policies aren’t working.  In other words, defeat in Iraq is the key element in the Dem strategy to seize power in the US govt.

Hope and change, in a free world, are the private possessions of motivated individuals.

HG said

The policies may not be perfect and yet still be worthy of support when considering the consequences of failure.

That’s true in theory but when a policy is not merely short of perfect but just plain wrong then it is not worthy of support. The Iraq operation is wrong because it didn’t address the important issues post 911, it facilitated increased instability in the Middle East and it was poorly executed to boot.

Short of a desire to see a job finished, what is there to support?

Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.

John Stuart Mill

r108 said

Of course they do; they even claim that their midterm election victory was a “mandate” on the war in Iraq. I think winning an election could be considered a “benefit”,

I would agree with you if i thought that the Democrats and the Media were so consumed with defeating Bush that they were prepared to act against America’s interest and manipulate the public perception of what is happening in Iraq. My opinion is that the Democrats, and indeed now most Americans, see Bush’s Iraq policy as contrary to America’s interest, they wish to see it end and the way to do that in a democracy is to vote accordingly.

Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.

John Stuart Mill

I would agree with you if i thought that the Democrats and the Media were so consumed with defeating Bush They are; a fact that should be obvious to everyone with a brain. that they were prepared to act against America’s interest and manipulate the public perception of what is happening in Iraq. They have been doing this all along; it’s not even in doubt.  The disconnect here is that they compartmentalize(similar to their mantra that they are “for the troops, but against the war") and pretend that undermining the President in time of war is “good for the country”. My opinion is that the Democrats, and indeed now most Americans, see Bush’s Iraq policy as contrary to America’s interest, they wish to see it end and the way to do that in a democracy is to vote accordingly. If they depended on telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, I might agree with you, Mike, but that is very far from the reality.  It’s not that complicated; if the US wins in Iraq, the Dems lose, big time.  If the US loses in Iraq, the Dems win.  It couldn’t be more obvious. Of course, they are doing a lot more than “voting”.  They are telling lies, half-truths, and fabricating news on a daily basis, all in order to advance their political agenda.

Hope and change, in a free world, are the private possessions of motivated individuals.

MikeA: I fail to understand how you haven’t noticed that the Dem’s entire election strategy is to claim that Iraq is a failure, and it’s “Bush’s war”, as if it has nothing to do with the American people or with America’s interests.  One might reasonably disagree, but that isn’t what the Dems are doing.  They are attempting to isolate the President from the American people.  On their side, there is no reasoned debate; it’s all emotional mudslinging.  Failure in Iraq is the center of their political strategy. The MSM is helping them by reporting only bad news from Iraq, and by ignoring anything favorable from there.  They also seem to think that mistakes in war are something unique to Iraq and to this President, which is completely untrue.  There are no “neat and tidy” wars; never have been, and never will be.  In spite of this fact, our MSM thinks mistakes are newsworthy.  Of course, exaggerating mistakes is the ideal way to turn a population against something.

Hope and change, in a free world, are the private possessions of motivated individuals.

That’s true in theory but when a policy is not merely short of perfect but just plain wrong then it is not worthy of support.

Dem hindsight ...

The dems have jumped on the bandwagon of criticizing without offering an alternative.  There is nothing helpful about their efforts whatsoever.  They don’t offer a better way to win, only a better way to lose (from their perspective).  This, they offer, not in the spirit of solidarity, but in the spirit of animosity coupled with an unashamed grasp for political power to boot.  It is the epitome of self-aggrandizement and evidence of the point of this post.

HG
and of those kind to our sworn enemies? of saudi arabia and pakistan? eh? those seem to be the brunt of your argument here no?

Yun Chu said, “You must strictly not express in words what is very significant. Both dragon and snake are killed in one blow.”

Sparkie,

I’m not interested in diversions.  The fact of the matter at hand is the behavior of an American politcal party in a time when America is at war. 

Mike A,

Remember when the Dems critized and fought against Clinton’s decision to use “unilateral” military force against Milosevic?  Remeber how they fought to require a UN resolution before Clinton could strike?  Remember how the MSM and the dems fought Clinton all the way?  Remember how they condemned Clinton’s cowboy, unilateral military action?

Me neither.  There was no political ‘money’ in it.

However, the more significant question remains whether or not Democrats are smart enough to recognize that fact.

Bat One,

Judging by their stepped up efforts to tie the President’s hands in Iraq, they not only don’t get it, but think their efforts will secure the Presidency for their nominee in ‘08. 

They are not only ignorant of the fact you state, but are forced to continue their destructive efforts because that is the political bed they have made for themselves.  If they relent, the gig is up, and the political cost could bankrupt them beyond ‘08.

However, their efforts will eventually cost them much.  Eventually, we will see through the sophistry, unfortunately with hindsight, and realize the left can only govern from a position of weakness, and that position puts our nation at and unacceptable level of risk.  If not by 08, then by 2010.  Hopefully sooner than later.

They do benefit from the public’s recognition that the President’s policies have not solved any of the issues created since 911.

Mike A,

So America’s foreign policy failures in Iraq, which failures are supposedly evident by our inability to militarily secure Iraq (i.e., military defeat), are politically beneficial to the democratics?

Didn’t I just say that?

Now, what exactly have the democratics done to prevent such failures?  What have they sincerely brought to the table?

Nothing but blind accusations and snarling contempt for our efforts in Iraq.

So where does that leave the democratics?  Pretty much where this post sees them.

The fact of the matter at hand is the behavior of an American politcal party in a time when America is at war.

this sentence is nonsense. reread it. meaningless nonsense. make sense.

anyway. right. the war on the terror! the behavior of the repubs is totally contrary to all their stated stances. no?

Yun Chu said, “You must strictly not express in words what is very significant. Both dragon and snake are killed in one blow.”

Sparkie,

The matter at hand is the fact that the behavior of the democratic party, during a time when America is at war, serves their political interest above all else.

Sorry about the conflated thoughts.

HG asks

So America’s foreign policy failures in Iraq, which failures are supposedly evident by our inability to militarily secure Iraq (i.e., military defeat), are politically beneficial to the democratics?

If I follow your logic then i should vote for the party in power, especially when it’s screwing up big time, because I shouldn’t let the opposition benefit from the fact that the government is screwing up so badly. Our differences, as I see them, are this:

You think that Iraq should have been invaded and that it is incumbent on everyone to support the government in time of war.

I don’t think that Iraq should have been invaded and thus I decline to support your government’s prosecution of the war.

If I was American, then you would see my opposition as disloyal because you think the government’s policy is right. Some might even question the integrity of my opposition and claim that it is based on partisan considerations, that I oppose the war because I hate the President and that I’m putting my party’s interest before the country’s. OTOH, some might question the integrity of your continued support of the war and claim that it is based on partisan considerations, that you hate the Democrats and that you’re putting your party’s interests before the country’s.

Which wouldn’t really leave us very much to talk about.

Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.

John Stuart Mill

r108 said

They are; a fact that should be obvious to everyone with a brain.

I have a brain and it’s not obvious to me so you better rethink that opinion or else this is snide sarcasm in which case I wonder why you feel you have to resort to such tactics.

Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.

John Stuart Mill

MikeA: No “tactics” necessary, unless you regard telling the truth as a “tactic”.  For just one example, read an article on SA today about the biased reporting(or non-reporting) of the reduction of the violence in Iraq.  It should be front page news, but it isn’t.  Doesn’t that suggest something to you?  There are the out and out fabrications by Dan Rather, AP and Reuters, and the daily non-reporting of good news from Iraq, while exaggerating anything that can be spun against the President.  If the public consistently hears only one side of the story, they tend to forget that there is another side.

Hope and change, in a free world, are the private possessions of motivated individuals.

I’m going to go on record here and say that I agree with MikeAdamson’s comment.

It’s analogous to a kid and his or her parent. The example here is that the kid does something the parent does not agree with. The parent will not support the kid’s action, but will still support the kid.

It’s not the best example, but the point is that one can support the troops while not supporting specific actions those troops might engage in.

There are actions that this country has taken that makes me hang my head in wonder (this puts it in the same league as every single other country out there). Pick the drug war for an easy example. I cannot, under any circumstance, support it. Yet I support the police. I cannot, under any circumstance, support local law enforcement forcibly taking private property under the ridiculous Kelo vs. New London “public good” precedent. Yet again, I support law enforcement. It’s the same thing with the troops and the war policy.

Now granted, many on the left who do not support this current action hate America and all things troop related. That’s obvious from their many written works and attitude. But I wouldn’t throw MikeAdamson into that category. As much as we all disagree with the guy, he doesn’t hate the troops or America. He just disagrees that this is a good action. Give the guy some credit.

MikeA: After reading your next-to-last post, I think I understand your position.  You regard everything from a philosophical point of view, as if the world is run by philosophers, and relativist argument is all that is necessary to solve the world’s problems.  When you have savages who think that the solution to their problems is to kill you, philosophy is useless.  Unless you enjoy dying, in which case philosophy is just the ticket.
One question: Have you really considered all the philosophical arguments for the actions in Iraq, or do you just reject them out of hand?

Hope and change, in a free world, are the private possessions of motivated individuals.

It’s the same thing with the troops and the war policy.

I don’t think so.  It’s not a good analogy, especially since the police do many things besides the things you don’t like, and are generally beneficial to society.  Our military, as Rush puts it, has only one job, and that is to “kill people and break things”.  If you support them, you support them to do their job, and right now, that job is to kill terrorists and break their things in Iraq.  Also, unlike the Dems, you aren’t willing to defund the police, no matter how much you may disagree with some of the things they do.  Like it or not, Kelo is the law, and drug possession and use is also the law, and it is the job of the police to enforce all the laws, not just the ones you like.
Strangely enough, I would require the Dems to take a strong stand against the war, instead of trying their backdoor crap.  They should stand up and be counted by the American people.  Majority rule is established by voting, not by popularity polls.

Hope and change, in a free world, are the private possessions of motivated individuals.

Like it or not, Kelo is the law, and drug possession and use is also the law, and it is the job of the police to enforce all the laws, not just the ones you like.

Right. And one day, the military action very well may be another cut and run. In that case, both you and I will not support the military action. Yet we will both still support the military and troops. It’s the same thing, albeit in reverse.

If the Dems take over and we get to watch as the military gets managed like it was in the 90’s, be prepared to say “I don’t support this war, but I support the troops”. You know how the Democrats run wars and you should know what kind of wars (or “conflicts” as we sometimes call them now) the Dems get this country into. You remember the 90’s run under Clinton. Did you support all of those actions? I sure as hell didn’t. And yet, as a military brat, I couldn’t do anything but support the troops and not the mission.

Majority rule is established by voting, not by popularity polls.

Well,..it is today. Again, remember the 90’s and how the federal branch ran everything by opinion polls. Should that sorry spectacle ever repeat itself, I’m sure we’ll see some military actions that neither you nor I will agree with. And yet at the same time, we’ll remain staunch military supporters.

You think that Iraq should have been invaded and that it is incumbent on everyone to support the government in time of war.

Mike A,

The point of this post pertains to our American democratic party and its leadership.  Your opinion, or other individual’s opinion about the war is not addressed in this post.

Regarding your comment.  You don’t follow me.

You see, not only did the dem party disagree, they vehemently and, rhetorically speaking, violently disagree with our efforts in Iraq.  Such animosity has prevented them from being an active part of any solution.  They have purposely distanced themselves for political gain as well.  There is a difference between what lik speaks of and what the dems are doing.  Lik is right when he speaks of supporting law enforcement but not all of the tactics or policies they practice, but lik doesn’t hatefully demand we stop enforcing the law in situations where these tactics or policies are practiced.  Lik hasn’t expressed his utter contempt and defeatism for what law enforcement is trying to do with the practices and tactics.  Instead, lik supports the purpose and efforts of law enforcement but simply disagrees with some of the things they do or how they might do them.  This keeps him on the same side as law enforcement and makes his criticism constructive.  The dems on the other hand have purposely isolated themselves from any constructive purpose.  Instead, they offer only destructive criticism which intends to profit them politically.  Sen. Biden has flat out said that the dems need to distance themselves from the President on Iraq.  How the hell does that benefit our country?  If the dems simply disagreed, they could have demonstrated their sincerity by a spirit of solidarity not animosity.  It is this vehement hatred for the President and our military efforts in Iraq coupled with positioning the dem party to gain politically from our nation’s failures militarily which qualifies the point of this post. 

Such support for our nation and our nation’s military efforts in war time does not require one’s vote for the majority party, it requires character and patriotism, it requires our nation’s interests be place above political self-interest.  The dems haven’t done so.

Such support for our nation and our nation’s military efforts in war time does not require one’s vote for the majority party, it requires character and patriotism, it requires our nation’s interests be place above political self-interest.

Something else to add to that - it’s one thing to have heavy discussions and fight a little amongst ourselves. That can be healthy if done constructively. It’s quite another to egg on the entire world against one’s own country and demonize it to the point of no more discussion. So many on the left have done exactly that. It’s no wonder that I don’t often bring up the views I just brought up. The left makes it so hard to argue the point.

It’s almost like siblings who will pick on each other and fight amongst each other, but if someone else picks a fight with one of the siblings, watch out because that brother or sister will have his or her back. The political left is largely not doing that. Instead, they’re going overseas and speaking ill of this country in front of the UN and in large crowds. In many ways, they’ve effectively turned their backs on this country and have reached out to who are often our stated enemies. People don’t help this country when they do such actions.

And one more point for robert108 - I’m envisioning a scary future where we have another Dem in office who enjoys putting our troops into useless “peacekeeping” missions where they do little but get shot at. We’ve been there before a little less than a scant decade ago. I’m a young guy and I’ll probably see that situation again in my life. I don’t support those kinds of missions. So I ask myself: at that point, what is the conservative argument? If people insist that one can’t support the troops while opposing a war, we’re effectively argued into a box where we can never again oppose any mission. I don’t accept that.

lik...pardon my delay in responding but I’ve just recovered from the shock of seeing us in agreement. I think your analogy is just fine and I’m grateful that you get my point.

r108 said

You regard everything from a philosophical point of view, as if the world is run by philosophers, and relativist argument is all that is necessary to solve the world’s problems.

I’m not sure how to take your comment. If you’re saying that I try to look at a situation as objectively and dispassionately as I can in order to ascertain the facts then apply my personal moral and political philosophies in order to make sense of the facts before reaching some conclusions then I agree with you. I appreciate that it may be easier to start from one’s conclusions and shoehorn the facts into a package that don’t negate my starting premises, I did it myself when I was younger, but I believe such an approach leaves me a poorer person.

One question: Have you really considered all the philosophical arguments for the actions in Iraq, or do you just reject them out of hand?

My objections to the Iraqi action are primarily pragmatic rather than philosophical. I opposed it first because Iraq was an illogical target at the time while the incompetence of the planning and execution of the post victory period convinced me that the current group can not be trusted to get it right. Getting rid of Saddam is a laudable accomplishment but it’s done little in terms of fighting terror and the cost to Iraqis seem to mount almost daily.

The philosophical underpinnings of the Iraqi action appear to be the need to defend the West against Islam, which I reject, and the desire to bring democracy to an authoritarian society, which I support with the understanding that it’s a very long term undertaking. The war supporters have never appreciated what a monumental task building a democratic society is and that it entails much more than elections and purple thumbs.

Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.

John Stuart Mill

My objections to the Iraqi action are primarily pragmatic rather than philosophical.

My support for our actions in Iraq, as well as for the overal war on the terrorists is pragmatic, rather than philosophical, so now maybe you understand my original question.

You choose your approach, apparently, on some internal basis, rather than being consistently either pragmatica or philosophical.  When I was younger, I also considered myself “objective” and “dispassionate” by not making any value judgments about anything, but have learned since that there is actually good and evil in the world, and they are not equivalent. In my experience, philosophy is only worthwhile for intellectual discussion; the real world requires a pragmatic approach.

Hope and change, in a free world, are the private possessions of motivated individuals.

Mike A,

If I may… I believe the most virulent, long-term threat where Islamist terrorism is concerned is still the radical theocracy in Iran.  They are now the closest to acquiring nuclear weapons, and they have certainly been most vocal in threating the destruction of Israel and the US.  Allowed to continue unchecked, they could easily threaten the entire region directly, or turn a loose some over to one terrorist group or another which they are currently funding.

In response, the US has stationed three carrier battle groups to the south and east to protect the Straits of Hormuz and the Gulf, and experienced, battle-tested troops to the west in Iraq and to the east in Afghanistan.

As was discussed yesterday, negotiation with little or no credible threat to back it up, amounts to nothing more than window dressing for surrender.

Seems to me we are now well positioned to credibly deal with the threat posed by Iran.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

The philosophical underpinnings of the Iraqi action appear to be the need to defend the West against Islam, which I reject…

What is your philosophical reason for rejecting the very pragmatic need to eliminate Islamic terrorism?(I’m certainly not limited by your mistaken idea of conflating terrorism with all of Islam)

Hope and change, in a free world, are the private possessions of motivated individuals.

r108...it is the Islamic terrorism that we have to focus on and eliminate so I don’t reject it. What I do reject is the idea that the West can overturn Middle Eastern societies and expect the people there to accept it...change imposed from outside doesn’t last. Ask the average Iranian if he’d like his country to be bombed and he’ll say no but ask him if he’d like to live in freedom and he’ll say yes.

Bat One...the notion of a nuclear Iran is extremely unappealing and hopefully the Ayatollahs will put an end to the program.  If placing some boats off their coast helps shut down their program then I’m all for it but the sooner America starts talking with the Iranians the better.

Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.

John Stuart Mill

What I do reject is the idea that the West can overturn Middle Eastern societies and expect the people there to accept it.

Mike A,

Your observation might be a good deal more meaningful if the point of departure was a society and a government that was a good deal less brutal and autocratic.

The fact is there is not a single Muslim majority country that I can think of that is not brutal and autocratic.  And that includes our “allies” Egypt, Jordan, and Pakistan.

Overturning a brutal dictatorship, by force is (most likely) necessary is not a morally repugnant action at all.  The trick is in shaping the resultant chaos into a workable and self-sustaining chance at individual liberty.  And that is simply going to take some time and some effort.  I doubt that the owners of those 12 or 13 million purple fingers have all changed their minds.

As for talking to the Iranian Mullahs, I can’t help wondering if you were one of those who was simply beside yourself in horror when President Reagan walked away from Gorbachev at Reykjavik.  Funny how that turned out despite all that wasted angst on the Left.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

What I do reject is the idea that the West can overturn Middle Eastern societies and expect the people there to accept it.

Nice, but that isn’t what we did; we overthrew a brutal, murdering, totalitarian dictator, which afforded the previously oppressed 80% of the population the opportunity for self-determination.  The evidence that they accepted our gift to them is the millions of upraised purple index fingers. The other 20% doesn’t like being out of power, and is trying like hell(along with some foreign terrorists) to regress to a state of dictatorship.  You just have it wrong.

Hope and change, in a free world, are the private possessions of motivated individuals.