Support the Blog — Buy This Book!
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Put this ad on your blog!
Syndicate
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Junk Email Filter
It’s just a misunderstanding
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45IpBTJBObs
He is the Decider not the public or Congress. What a maroon.
3,
It’s moran!
http://tinyurl.com/33yajc
Bush may truly believe he’s right, and that’s fine, but going against the will of the American people is political suicide for his party. 73% of the public doesn’t think he’s handling the war well, and over 50% want to start bring our troops home now. This is NOT a good time to have a pissing match with Congress. He will win the battle (budget) but lose the war…literally and figuratively.
Of course Congress is making a political point. The President makes it political. They’re politicians, everything they do is political. It’s funny how Bush can control the Iraq war, but THAT somehow isn’t “politicians interfering with commanders in the field.” Bush is a politician.
Yes, Bush is commander in chief. And yes, Congress has control over spending. It was done that way on purpose, so no single man could be the complete “decider” on war. It’s supposed to be a joint decision. Congress can attach strings to the budget or cut off funding. Bush can try to keep the troops over their forever. Each will pay the appropriate political price for their actions.
Solution is, what troops? Kill them. They are no longer fetuses so the parties superstitious support no longer cares. If republican can make a buck off one, go ahead and kill him/her. It’s all about republican greed you know, nothing else.
This war is little more than a political state, really a comedy at best. Though this is not the fault of the soldiers. It is instead our fault. We are the people that actually put up with this, and elect people to office that either by faulty logic to justify a combat operation or try to ploy unrealistic guidelines after a country is in utter chaos. We are the cowards and need to be put on trial and shot. We are responsible for the problems in the Middle East (through overreaction and exploitation).
The honest truth is that we created this mess and we are going to have to solve this mess. Finally, I don’t believe any of us actual have a clue on how to go about doing it. Still, there are a few possible solutions (to this problem)…
I think now that it has been established that we are in Iraq for the long haul, we need to start planning to win. How this is possible is very much up for debate. What is clear, is that we need more soldiers on the ground. At the very least we need an army of 400,000 strong (in Iraq).
The only way to do this is to reinstitute the draft. It needs to be a serious proposal (and not the ramblings of Rep. Rangel). This of course will never happen because we are not actually serious about winning or for that matter, actually contending in Iraq.
(other possible lesser options)
A second option would be to engage in some hard core diplomacy, the problem here, however, is that we are likely in the position on on loosing the majority of the moment. This would likely turn into a Vietnam scenario. We withdraw and Iran simply takes over.
This leaves us with basically a third option. We internationalize the crisis. We increase troops but only after bringing in major Asian and EU powers. We would need to have all the major players of Europe and Asian involved (in long time diplomacy and peace keeping missions). This, however, is likely not going to happen given that other countries do not see this war as their fault or problem.
We do nothing and hope that a loss in Iraq does not transition in a full scale war in the Mideast. This might actually be our best option outside of an attempt at massive troop increases or far reaching international diplomacy.
#7 – I am 100% in favor of reinstating the draft, today, in full, with no exceptions for the rich. Do it! DO IT! It would be the greatest thing that could possibly happen in this country.
#2, sdf, that was great. Bush — where progress is our most important product !!
#8 But the worst thing that could happen to our military. If you want us to have a shitty military just get your congresscritter to de-fund the DOD. No military is better than a crappy military.
After all the sacrifices that the common American has made to support this war, of course we must stay… we have sacrifices far too much… things like…
– The “Support our troops” magnet faded the paint unevenly on our cars.
– American Idol was preempted for the President’s speech last year.
– Our young people are so interested in participating in the military, that we had to change our entry standards to accept the tougher guys also.
– I had to work overtime several times (at 1.5x pay) because the other guy is in the National Guard and has been away for 7 months now.
– The news about Iraq is curring into the time that newscasts can talk about sports.
The list of our sacrifices goes on and on and on…
So don’t let our sacrifices go to waste… keep sending troops as long as necessary. My kids will sign up as soon as they get out of graduate school and finish their internships at the RNC.
#7. “This of course will never happen because we are not actually serious about winning or for that matter, actually contending in Iraq.”
Precisely. Even the proponents of this war are not serious about winning it. Otherwise they would, like you, be demanding an overwhelming troop presence in Iraq – like that contemplated in the Pentagon’s pre-war plan – not just a “surge.”
But they don’t have the guts. They wanted to increase the # of troops in Iraq, but they sure weren’t going to go out on a limb and honestly state that the increase was going to be for the long term. Oh, no! It was just temporary. The extra troops would be coming home in short order. Now it has become clear that is not the case.
Another lie or another mistake. It does not really matter at this point, since the lies and mistakes are difficult to even keep track of anymore.
That’s the thing. they simultaneously assert that, if we fail, the Middle East would go up in flames and the terrorists would “follow us” back to the US. But they are also virtually insistent upon failure by refusing to take the country (and not just the military) onto a genuine war footing.
why is that? From the beginning, they have been afraid to ask the general public for any sacrifice for this war. (as #11 hilariously notes) go shopping! has been the battle cry. if we repeal the tax cuts, the terrorists win!
this war was to be fought on the cheap because the Bushies feared that support for the war would collapse if sacrifice was called for. How wrong they were. It has been the lies and the mistakes and the futility of it all that caused support to collapse. If sacrifice meant success, the American public would have embraced it. but no. war on the cheap has meant failure, and the American people will not embrace failure.
In sum – if this is an existential peril for the US, then let’s get down to it. If it is not, well then let’s get the hell out.
The most obvious message is, “It’s time to cut and run”
Gerrr.. the Add should say:
President Bush has clearly stated he does not care about the troops as he has chosen to veto a spending bill that would have provided funding for the troops who are in harms way.
Bush should have signed the bill, and then over the course of the next few months haggled with congress to adjust it if it looked like no progress was happening and if he wanted to keep troops over there.
Focusing on the “bringing troops home” part won’t help gain the support of those who are not sure if we can safely bring them home right now or somehow those crazies who don’t want to even think of bringing them home even if it is/was safe to do so. But focusing on the fact the Dems said “We want to fund our troops and support them every way we can by providing the funding for their equipment, food, and other supplies” and Bush said, “No way unless I can keep them over there forever and start a few more wars while I’m at it”
I think that as long as Bush refuses to sign a bill providing the military with the funding they need for the actions Bush has ordered them to do, he should have to, allong with the VP, go and live on the battlefield with them and only have them and the same equipment as them, to protect him. If he was living there in Iraq with the troops, maybe he would see things a bit differently than he does just reading, or pretending to read, all the reports about the war that go across his desk. Then maybe progress would happen over there, or if it is to late, steps would be taken to minimize loss of life on all sides of the conflict and bring it to as quick of an end and to the best possible result now possible and he would be willing to sign funding bills even if he doesn’t like all the conditions
it would send a really bad message to any would-be aggressors if they know they need only wait for the war to become politically unpopular back home for it to end.
the major problem with this war is that it has no “head” anymore. -which is very convenient if you want to maintain a state of war for an extended period.. -on that note, i find the motives of the whitehouse suspect.. however..
we should stay until the new Iraqi government is firmly intact and has the means to keep it that way without our assistance. after that… we go. -not one minute sooner..
To just up and leave now would embolden the enemy, demoralize our troops and make the deaths of all those who have died during this event meaningless.
relatively speaking.. we have lost very little life in the 4yrs of this war.. i see no reason we should just quit. -other than to appease those who use the war for political gain..
using the death toll as the main reason for withdrawal only serves to show the reasons for withdrawal are political and self-serving in nature.
in the same time, far more people have died in the USA from say, drunk driving than in this war.. why no outrage from the dem’s on this? answer: no political gain.
i’m sure i could find 100’s of other USA death toll stats that far outweigh the death toll from the iraq war.. -but none of those are as politically tasty and divisive. -as usual, the dems want people to vote with their heart and not their brains. -irrelevant but noteworthy.
-I myself do not like how the war has been handled, nor where it has taken us. -but pulling out just to appease some political opportunists and especially without achieving the objective is just plain wrong, let alone stupid. it would null and void all that has been achieved to date.
etc etc..
-s
#15. Just a couple of things:
“in the same time, far more people have died in the USA from
say, drunk driving than in this war.. why no outrage from the dem’s on this? answer: no political gain.”
Well, more people die at the hands of other Americans every year than died in 9/11. Why did we bother getting upset about it? Just political opportunism?
“-as usual, the
dems want people to vote with their heart and not their
brains. -i”
wrongo. The Dems – and realist Republicans on the Iraq Study Group – want the US to cold-bloodedly abandon a failed policy. It is the pro war bunch whose sole appeal is to the fears and heart-strings.
(BTW, people who make pro war arguments like withdrawal would “make the deaths of all those who have died during this event meaningless.” should not tar others with emotionalism. On that argument, I refer the readership to the theory of “sunk costs.”)
and
“we should stay until the new Iraqi government is firmly intact and has the means to keep it that way without our assitance.
after that… we go. -not one minute sooner..”
staking foreign policy success on the abilities of the government or military of a 3rd World country is just a BAD idea. The Iraqi government is displaying scant interest in (or ability to make) reconciliation with the Sunni minority that fuels the insurgency.
If we insist upon staying until they succeed, they can hold us hostage indefinitely, having us pay in both lives and treasure to keep them in power.
That is how weaker powers have traditionally controlled their patrons throughout history. “Do what we say, or we’ll collapse!” The greater power does not have the guts to call their bluff. This is true whether it be the Bush Administration and the Maliki government, or Wilhelmine Germany and Hapsburg Austria-Hungary.
The Bushies talk big about keeping “flexibility” and maintaining the “offensive.” But just as the use of force should never be taken off the table, the cessation of force should similarly not be removed as an option. That is inflexibility – at any cost for as long as it takes, we must continue to fight. And remaining on the offensive? So long as our objective is defined as defensive (propping up the Iraqi government) we will be on the defensive.
and not only on the defensive, but on the defensive and dependant upon a government we do not control for our success. bad, bad, bad, bad.
The problem is that it is not working (the current administration’s policies in Iraq). You don’t really need to rehash all the arguments made by a number of political pundits on the right. Most of us have heard them all before. We know that the democrats not not have a strategy for Iraq, but never did, nor does the Bush administration. No one outside of a select few intellectuals has made what could even be considered a reasonable articulation on how to solve the problem.
Further, it is not a liberal media conspiracy that we are losing the war in Iraq. The fact is the country is not stable, and is no more stable today than it was a year ago. This is why we are losing. In this respect it is Vietnam all over again. The government is never going to become stable (because it is corrupt), the military is never going to be able to fight (on their own). They have more to lose than we do, and, therefore, have a vested interest in their countries outcome. We do not, some of us (don’t even see them as part of the human franchise unfortunately).
If we are going to win this war, we are going to have to bring the troop strength up to what is necessary. It needs to be at around 400,000 (from most estimates that I’ve seen). If you factor in Iran and Syria, maybe 600,000. We might even have to use tactical nuclear weapons.
We need a draft…and we need to expect this war, rebuilding process to take time (at least twenty years or more if you factor in peace keeping duties). The initial war would take about four years and would require us to reconstitute the Iraq government and maybe a few other select states as well.
This will never happen, however. Everyone knowns this. We need to stop fooling ourselves and come to terms. This is not defeatism, but rather being realistic. The best solution, therefore than is to internationalize the issue and leave. We could leave a small contingency force left behind, maybe 20,000.
Picked this up off of CNN I think….
What happens in those rare instances when someone says, “I was wrong”? Surprisingly, forgiveness is granted and respect is elevated. Imagine what would happen if George W. Bush delivered the following speech:
This administration intends to be candid about its errors. For as a wise man once said, “An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it.” We intend to accept full responsibility for our errors…. We’re not going to have any search for scapegoats … the final responsibilities of any failure are mine, and mine alone.
Bush’s popularity would skyrocket, and respect for his ability as a thoughtful leader willing to change his mind in the teeth of new evidence would soar. That is precisely what happened to President John F. Kennedy after the botched Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba, when he spoke these very words.
203 members of the house voted against overturning the veto of the spending bill. Hopefully people will change their minds before the current funds dry up leaving those in harms way without the equipment and supplies they need to have in order to follow their orders. At the same time hopefully those orders will change to something that will work for a better end for all involved than the orders of the last several years.
15# “it would send a really bad message to any would-be
aggressors if they know they need only wait for the war to become politically unpopular back home for it to end.”
The Iraq never did anything against the USA. They are not aggressors. The USA is the aggressor. Just see the 60 minutes of last Sunday with Tenet.
Has everyone forgot their damn civics class? When this country was founded there were 3 branches of government formed to create a system of checks and balances. The president wont listen to the Majority in this country anymore so congress is trying to.
In all the war talk NOBODY has ever answered this question.
Why did Bush and Cheney and the others have such a hard on to invade Iraq well before 9/11. What is it with Iraq?
Steve,
Dontcha know? Bush went to war with Iraq, because Saddam threatened his daddy!
Actually, it is part of the plan by the Project for an New American Century. In their view, we have to take over the Middle East, so that we can have ALL their oil, and corporations here can prosper.
Impeachment — It’s not just for sex any more.
#18, jm, (quoting JFK) We’re not going to have any search for scapegoats … the final responsibilities of any failure are mine, and mine alone.
That makes entirely too much sense. Too bad we’ll never hear that from this administration…
#18, jm, and the reality is, …
This administration intends to be candid about its errors. [giggle] And when we make an error, heads will roll. [serious frown, smirk] For as a wise man once said, “An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it.” [smirk, giggle, smirk] So Congress is still trying to micro manage the war. They shouldn’t do that! [giggle, smirk] We intend to accept full responsibility for our errors…. I hope the Democratic Congress will accept their mistakes. We’re not going to have any search for scapegoats We can all see the Democrats putting our troops in harms way. [smirk, giggle, smirk, serious frown] If Congress won’t fund our troops, we know that Nancy Pelosi won’t be saying [smirk]… “the final responsibilities of any failure are mine, and mine alone.” We know she and the Democrats won’t admit their failing our troops. [smirk, giggle]
An idea that I’ve heard: to pay for the war, increase the gas tax $1/gallon. This can be added to the supplemental bill We burn about 140 billion gallons of gasoline a year, so the tax will pay for the war. Gas usage will be cut, which can’t be that bad (and the net will be gas prices will go up 70 cents or so). Supporters of the war can indicate so with their right foot! When the troops leave, remove the tax. Just gasoline, not diesel or jet fuel; yeah we’ll hurt short-term but we won’t keep building up the public debt and hammering the grandkids.
Even some of my convervative friends agree with this–that floored me!
26, ever seen a tax removed? Once enacted it’s there forever (well, except for that old war tax on telephones – oh boy, I get $40 back this year, WooHoo.)