political affiliation of physicians

[rgarrig]

---

Members do not see this ad.

The lack tactical knowledge of the administration and the American people are a major reason we are in this situation.

The insurgency may have been a surprise to Dick Chaney and the rest of the dunderheads, it was not a surprise to anyone who has had to study and implement tactics.



We weren't in Germany for fifty years because it wasn't stable. We were in Germany for 50 years to prevent the USSR from coming over the fulda gap.

Again, not analogous to the current situation.



According to whom? The guy who got us in this mess? You break it you buy it?

That's not a terribly nuanced foreign policy arguement.



They would run into the same problems. Especially now that Iraq has no real standing Army to prevent Saudi Arabia from financing the Sunni insurgency. Just as they did in Afghanistan in the 80s.



High corporate taxes and over regulation of the stock market? Of all the arguements for our current finanical situations, that's the first time I heard that.

When we are borrowing money we don't have to finance a war, it has everything to do with the dollar since the USD is not based on any tangible asset.

The Iraq war costs us roughly $190 million dollars per day. I'd be surprised if you can account for a similar loss due to taxes and stock market regulation.

Old Grunt, I'd enjoy hearing your take on the recent 'the surge is working' headlines. Even Murtha conceded this point. Is it true? I absolutely don't know, and I don't trust the media or liberals or repubs to tell me. I am curious what you think... drop in violence, people returning home, Iraqis turning on Jihadis, etc. Thoughts?

 

[maestro1625]

.

 

[Begaster]

It supports my thesis. Look at him. He's a mess. I don't think you can become president any longer without some sort of physical draw. Or at the very least, you can't repel people by your appearance.

Margaret Thatcher and Golda Meier.

 

[PeepshowJohnny]

Huckabee can't win the general election. He's too goody goody. It'll be Giuliani, for practical reasons if nothing else. He's the only one with the chance to beat the chick.

"Clinton, a New York senator who has been at the top of the Democratic pack in national polls in the 2008 race, trails Republican candidates Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, John McCain and Mike Huckabee by three to five percentage points in the direct matches."

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN2645320920071126

Democrats are going to have to be very careful how they approach Hillary. Although they don't have as much appeal with core Democrats, Obama and Edwards have better mass appeal.

 

[whittle]

Margaret Thatcher and Golda Meier.

21st century. Oh, and America.

 

[maestro1625]

.

 

[pntgrd]

I am a republican who will most likely vote for any republican besides Paul, but I do think Hilary is the most electable Democrat. Obama is sincere and appeals to the left of the party, but has only half a senate term of experience and not really anything substantial before that (although it's also debatable whether being the President's wife is experience). Obama should have waited till 2012 or 2016 to run. Hilary also has a lot of organizing and fund raising connections already in place from Bill.

 

[katieo]

who exactly supports Hillary? only once have I personally met a Hillary supporter. are there that many soccermoms out there to make the most unelectable candidate possible the frontrunner?

This isn't directed at you necessarily, just feeding off of what you said. Is there a reason people have such a hatred for Hillary? She gets way more s*** talked about her than any of the other democratic candidates, and I just don't understand it. As members of the same party, they're all running based on, more or less, the same stances and ideas. What makes her so much worse?

 

[pntgrd]

I am a republican but of the 3 democratic front runners (hilary, obama, edwards), I think Hilary would be the best President. Of course I hope she loses to the Republican, but she is more rational about Iraq and other foreign policy matters than Edwards and Obama.

 

[Kthanksbye]

The lack tactical knowledge of the administration and the American people are a major reason we are in this situation.

The insurgency may have been a surprise to Dick Chaney and the rest of the dunderheads, it was not a surprise to anyone who has had to study and implement tactics.

Arguing how we got here or whether or not we should be in Iraq is purely academic. It might be fun, but it is pointless.

We weren't in Germany for fifty years because it wasn't stable. We were in Germany for 50 years to prevent the USSR from coming over the fulda gap.

Again, not analogous to the current situation.

And we are in Iraq to prevent a regional war with a potential to spill into (nuclear) Israel. If we pulled out, and Israel was attacked, we'd look pretty stupid, hu? not to mention that it would probably turn into a global war. But hey, it's not our problem. We should just leave cause Harry Reid said we lost already.

According to whom? The guy who got us in this mess? You break it you buy it?

That's not a terribly nuanced foreign policy arguement.

They would run into the same problems. Especially now that Iraq has no real standing Army to prevent Saudi Arabia from financing the Sunni insurgency. Just as they did in Afghanistan in the 80s.

Except that Afghanistan has no resources except opium. Iraq would be a highly valued prize and would be fought for in a protracted war that would have the potential to go global.

High corporate taxes and over regulation of the stock market? Of all the arguements for our current finanical situations, that's the first time I heard that.

Really? Read the Economist or the Wall Street Journal some time. This weeks economist is all about the value of the dollar, perhaps you could learn something. High corporate tax rates prevent global companies from opening up shop here, and the intense stock market regulation prevents them from listing on our exchanges. We are seeing a mass exodus of companies to Dubai and the London Exchange.

When we are borrowing money we don't have to finance a war, it has everything to do with the dollar since the USD is not based on any tangible asset.

The Iraq war costs us roughly $190 million dollars per day. I'd be surprised if you can account for a similar loss due to taxes and stock market regulation.

The loss from companies not doing business in our country is not something that can be tallied. You never know what you never had. The cost to the world and the U.S. of us leaving Iraq would be much more than we are currently spending. Really, what do you envision would happen if the U.S. left now?

 

[maestro1625]

.

 

[45408]

The second amendment is the stupiest thing I have ever heard of.

Then please try to amend the Constitution rather than making unconstitutional regulations against it.

 

[45408]

Yes. But clearly I can't be talking about such an extreme form of isolationism if I also mentioned he supports free trade. Stop arguing semantics with me. I meant what you term as non-interventionism, though it's merely a less harsh form of isolationism. Shades of grey, if you will.

Non-interventionism is also not supporting any action to stop the Darfur genocide. It's also not using trade as a leverage to push China towards accepting human rights. It's pulling out of the UN and other world bodies. I can't see how anyone with a conscience would be for the first two, and how anyone at all can be for the last one.

It's not semantics, which is why I'm irritated. He's deliberately addressed the issue repeatedly, and you're ignoring his rebuttals. I like how you're insinuating that he has no conscience, but the president's responsibilities are to his own people first, not the rest of the world. We're wasting money at a breakneck pace, our dollar is circling the drain, and we have a lot of work to do.

 

[TRAMD]

Then please try to amend the Constitution rather than making unconstitutional regulations against it.

There are a lot of stupid things that frankly just don't bother me enough for me to have any motivation to really do anything about them. I simply form my opinion and accept them.

 

[pseudoknot]

No, but it would resolve some of your ignorance. Google Hitler.

Godwin's Law.

 

[45408]

Godwin's Law.

 

[TRAMD]

Godwin's Law.

Hitler is the most famous person of modern times. He is second only to JC all-time.

 

[whittle]

Godwin's Law.

You obviously read nothing up to that post. In fact, I cited Hitler for the very reason that he should be cited.

Dummy.

 

[unsung]

There is profound social pressure within the academic elite that essentially demands people not talk about the issue of innate differences. The reaction to Summers' speech is one example.

Another example is Bruce Lahn who made the genetics breakthrough of the last several years when he discovered the genes called microcephalin and ASPM, which lead to larger brains and happen to be correlated with European and Asian ancestry, but gave up his research because it became "too controversial."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Lahn

http://online.wsj.com/public/articl...vnwqOdVvsP_XSVG_lvgik_20060628.html?mod=blogs

The total “marginalization” of Murray is another example.

Interesting. This reminds me of the guy that did the "Rat Park" experiments that showed how addiction was NOT inevitable... but of course, that's not really a popular message.

 

[whittle]

You obviously read nothing up to that post. In fact, I cited Hitler for the very reason that he should be cited.

Dummy.

My bad. I digress. It is Godwin's Law.

 

[Gold 5]

The lack tactical knowledge of the administration and the American people are a major reason we are in this situation.

The insurgency may have been a surprise to Dick Chaney and the rest of the dunderheads, it was not a surprise to anyone who has had to study and implement tactics.



We weren't in Germany for fifty years because it wasn't stable. We were in Germany for 50 years to prevent the USSR from coming over the fulda gap.

Again, not analogous to the current situation.



According to whom? The guy who got us in this mess? You break it you buy it?

That's not a terribly nuanced foreign policy arguement.



They would run into the same problems. Especially now that Iraq has no real standing Army to prevent Saudi Arabia from financing the Sunni insurgency. Just as they did in Afghanistan in the 80s.



High corporate taxes and over regulation of the stock market? Of all the arguements for our current finanical situations, that's the first time I heard that.

When we are borrowing money we don't have to finance a war, it has everything to do with the dollar since the USD is not based on any tangible asset.

The Iraq war costs us roughly $190 million dollars per day. I'd be surprised if you can account for a similar loss due to taxes and stock market regulation.

Old Grunt,
While I might not agree with all your thoughts, I do enjoy reading them. With the war in Iraq, could it not be possible that America is practicing an old trick called containment. This time instead of USSR but Iran?

As for the economy that business cycle thing comes to mind. If you lend money to people who don't have a chance of paying you back, why should it shock anyone when they default? I believe this plus the administrations attempt to de-value the dollar (thought they could never admit to it) to decouple it from Asian currencies has a larger affect on the economy than the war.

 

[Kthanksbye]

Old Grunt,
While I might not agree with all your thoughts, I do enjoy reading them. With the war in Iraq, could it not be possible that America is practicing an old trick called containment. This time instead of USSR but Iran?

As for the economy that business cycle thing comes to mind. If you lend money to people who don't have a chance of paying you back, why should it shock anyone when they default? I believe this plus the administrations attempt to de-value the dollar (thought they could never admit to it) to decouple it from Asian currencies has a larger affect on the economy than the war.

I got a call from Cindy Sheehan. She wants her conspiracy theory back. Seriously, where are you getting this?

 

[Gold 5]

I got a call from Cindy Sheehan. She wants her conspiracy theory back. Seriously, where are you getting this?

It was an article from Time magazine or the Wall Street Journal. I forget. Since I haven't seen Ben Bernanke or Paulson making a push to strengthen the dollar I would assume they are hopping that increased exports will help the economy out of it's sticky patch.

 

[Kthanksbye]

It was an article from Time magazine or the Wall Street Journal. I forget. Since I haven't seen Ben Bernanke or Paulson making a push to strengthen the dollar I would assume they are hopping that increased exports will help the economy out of it's sticky patch.

First of all, polar opposite news sources. Secondly, hard to comment on without link, sorry. If you want some insight on the dollar, this weeks Economist has a front page story on it. They never mentioned that the administration was trying to tank it, however, or that the war in Iraq has anything to do with a weak dollar. The cheap dollar is not all bad. No one is going to switch to euros, they're too expensive. And economists have been calling for China to end its peg to the dollar for years. Now China is realizing that it is causing uncontrolled inflation in their own country. Ideally, any real currency should float. Yuan are just dollars in a different color. China has trillions of dollars in cash to prop up their own currency, and when the dollar goes down, so does the value of this stock pile and their own currency in turn. And they are not the only country. So they do not want to see a weak dollar either. But they won't dump it, because it would hurt them as well. What they could do, for the benefit of all, is to unpeg their currency.

 

[Kthanksbye]

Actually, as far as news sources go, the times and the WSJ are not exactly polar opposites. The times and the national review are probably polar opposites, while the WSJ is just a bit right of center. The economist is a bit left of center. Everyone should know the biases of your sources.


But now I see that you actually said Time magazine, which is....ahem....just shy of being a tabloid...and very left of center. Newsweek is it's partner in crime.

 

[Drogba]

First of all, polar opposite news sources. Secondly, hard to comment on without link, sorry. If you want some insight on the dollar, this weeks Economist has a front page story on it. They never mentioned that the administration was trying to tank it, however, or that the war in Iraq has anything to do with a weak dollar. The cheap dollar is not all bad. No one is going to switch to euros, they're too expensive. And economists have been calling for China to end its peg to the dollar for years. Now China is realizing that it is causing uncontrolled inflation in their own country. Ideally, any real currency should float. Yuan are just dollars in a different color. China has trillions of dollars in cash to prop up their own currency, and when the dollar goes down, so does the value of this stock pile and their own currency in turn. And they are not the only country. So they do not want to see a weak dollar either. But they won't dump it, because it would hurt them as well. What they could do, for the benefit of all, is to unpeg their currency.

Whoa, I didn't realize their entire print edition is published online for free. I had always read the hard copy, that is before my subscription ran out.

http://www.economist.com/printedition/
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=10215040

 

[Kthanksbye]

Whoa, I didn't realize their entire print edition is published online for free. I had always read the hard copy, that is before my subscription ran out.

http://www.economist.com/printedition/
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=10215040

I don't think it's all free. They do have a lot of free content, however.

 

[Drogba]

I don't think it's all free. They do have a lot of free content, however.

They seem to suggest its not all free but I can't seem to find any restricted content, at least as far as pertains to the current print edition. Do you have any idea what isn't free there?

I can't believe I haven't been reading the economist this whole time. Probably my favorite news source.

 

[Kthanksbye]

They seem to suggest its not all free but I can't seem to find any restricted content, at least as far as pertains to the current print edition. Do you have any idea what isn't free there?

I can't believe I haven't been reading the economist this whole time. Probably my favorite news source.

I think most of the current issues are free, maybe not the special reports, don't really know. I don't think you can get back issues without a subscription. I get the print edition, which gives you access to the website as well. But until finals are over, I'm not reading it much....
Clearly it's one of the best news sources in the world. WSJ is a close second. Time magazine.....doesn't make the list.

 

[45408]

You obviously read nothing up to that post. In fact, I cited Hitler for the very reason that he should be cited.

Dummy.

It can fulfill Godwin's law even if it's an apt comparison, but as a thread grows, so too does the likelihood of a mention of Hitler or the Nazis. And sho' nuff...

 

[Kthanksbye]

And then there's National Socialist...I mean Public Radio, which was independently found to be the most bias mainstream news source in America, topping the NYT, which is saying a lot. And, you guessed it, they're very very left.

Links to articles on harvard study of media bias.

http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=16&issue=20071109

http://www.thebulletin.us/site/news.cfm?newsid=18999392&BRD=2737&PAG=461&dept_id=576361&rfi=6

 

[45408]

I think most of the current issues are free, maybe not the special reports, don't really know. I don't think you can get back issues without a subscription. I get the print edition, which gives you access to the website as well. But until finals are over, I'm not reading it much....
Clearly it's one of the best news sources in the world. WSJ is a close second. Time magazine.....doesn't make the list.

Surely Newsweek makes the cut though!

 

[Drogba]

I think most of the current issues are free, maybe not the special reports, don't really know. I don't think you can get back issues without a subscription. I get the print edition, which gives you access to the website as well. But until finals are over, I'm not reading it much....
Clearly it's one of the best news sources in the world. WSJ is a close second. Time magazine.....doesn't make the list.

I've not read WSJ, but I might give it a try. I don't know much about Time, nor am I interested. I pretty much read the economist, BBC and occasionally the guardian but not often. I also read a couple of blogs mostly in a hope that they will reference me to something more valid then their own opinions.

 

[Kthanksbye]

I've not read WSJ, but I might give it a try. I don't know much about Time, nor am I interested. I pretty much read the economist, BBC and occasionally the guardian but not often. I also read a couple of blogs mostly in a hope that they will reference me to something more valid then their own opinions.

BBC and the Guardian, while entertaining, are both extremely left wing. I might temper that exposure with something a little more centrist. Just a suggestion.

 

[Drogba]

And then there's National Socialist...I mean Public Radio, which was independently found to be the most bias mainstream news source in America, topping the NYT, which is saying a lot. And, you guessed it, they're very very left.

Links to articles on harvard study of media bias.

http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=16&issue=20071109

http://www.thebulletin.us/site/news.cfm?newsid=18999392&BRD=2737&PAG=461&dept_id=576361&rfi=6

I guess the public doesn't read much news then, cus we've elected been in a republic dream line for almost 8 years now. Whats more interesting is that the studies they quoted assert that a vast majority of journalists are liberal. I wonder why that is.

 

[Drogba]

BBC and the Guardian, while entertaining, are both extremely left wing. I might temper that exposure with something a little more centrist. Just a suggestion.

I know they are thats why I read the economist and why I'm considering adding the WSJ to my list.

 

[Kthanksbye]

I guess the public doesn't read much news then, cus we've elected been in a republic dream line for almost 8 years now. Whats more interesting is that the studies they quoted assert that a vast majority of journalists are liberal. I wonder why that is.

Not that they don't read it, but that many of them can still see through it. I think that most people who have been around the block a few times can read between the lines. It's easy when you're talking to people you know will nod their heads reflexively when you spout the common catch phrases that no one in your group will argue with. In such circles, starting any news rant with the phrase "the bush administration" immediately shuts off everyone's critical thinking abilities and gets them frothing at the mouth before they even finish the sentence. This works for the target audiences of NPR and NYT, but it doesn't always translate well across America, many of whom are not drinking from the same punch bowl.

 

[Kthanksbye]

Surely Newsweek makes the cut though!

Well....there was the Newsweek riots, if anyone cares to remember....

Newsweek published a false story about the Koran being flushed down the toilet at Guantanamo, 17 people die. oops.

And yes I realize that the weekly standard is pretty right of center, so here is an article about it from CNN, or, as some call it, H-CNN (Hillary Clinton News Network), just for balance.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/05/15/newsweek.quran/

 

[Drogba]

Not that they don't read it, but that many of them can still see through it. I think that most people who have been around the block a few times can read between the lines. It's easy when you're talking to people you know will nod their heads reflexively when you spout the common catch phrases that no one in your group will argue with. In such circles, starting any news rant with the phrase "the bush administration" immediately shuts off everyone's critical thinking abilities and gets them frothing at the mouth before they even finish the sentence. This works for the target audiences of NPR and NYT, but it doesn't always translate well across America, many of whom are not drinking from the same punch bowl.

Oh cmon this is giving the voting public way too much credit. You think the majority of those that voted for Bush did so because they saw his political and economic plan for the US and agree or because of their moral values and religious inclination? Mass appeal has so little to do with intelligence.

I'd say a small and insignificant percentage of people look at both candidates analyze all their proposed social and economic policies, read commentary on their proposed reforms by bipartisan commentators and then cast their vote. People vote more on morality than anything else. The religious and conservative will almost always vote right and those that vote left will do so because they don't want a religious conservative at the helm. Even if you agree with some candidates policies their social orientation can easily render them unelectable.

 

[Kthanksbye]

Oh cmon this is giving the voting public way too much credit. You think the majority of those that voted for Bush did so because they saw his political and economic plan for the US and agree or because of their moral values and religious inclination? Mass appeal has so little to do with intelligence.

I'd say a small and insignificant percentage of people look at both candidates analyze all their proposed social and economic policies, read commentary on their proposed reforms by bipartisan commentators and then cast their vote. People vote more on morality than anything else. The religious and conservative will almost always vote right and those that vote left will do so because they don't want a religious conservative at the helm. Even if you agree with some candidates policies their social orientation can easily render them unelectable.

So people would vote liberal if they were more intelligent? That's a pretty elitist argument. Personally, I dislike the religious right influences on the GOP, but they probably don't have as much pull as the left believes. At any rate, most of the religious right issues are politically untouchable anyway. Yes, Bush would probably like to reverse Roe v. Wade and make abortion illegal. But he just can't touch it without sending the GOP down in flames. It's too hot. The next person in office will not be able to touch it either, no matter what he says now. I was disappointed that Bush vetoed stem cells, but I think there are bigger fish to fry. A social democrat would do things that are much worse, like socialize medicine, expand government welfare programs to unsustainable levels and be forced to raise taxes to support it, killing the economy. I do not think that the religious right is choosing our presidents. And no matter what people such as Geraldine A. Ferraro say, the blue states are not the epitome of American intelligence. That's just insulting, and it's why Kerry lost, because he exudes this type of snobbery and the fly over people didn't like it.


"You know what? Just let me make one point. You were talking about the map before. If indeed all those blue states all got together and seceded from the union, think what would be left for those red states, nothing. There would be no educational system. You would have nothing. What would be left to you? I mean, where is all of this talent in this country? It's on both sides, the Northeast corridor."
-Geraldine Ferraro to Sean Hannity on Hannity and Colmes, November 6.

 

[Drogba]

So people would vote liberal if they were more intelligent? That's a pretty elitist argument. Personally, I dislike the religious right influences on the GOP, but they probably don't have as much pull as the left believes. At any rate, most of the religious right issues are politically untouchable anyway. Yes, Bush would probably like to reverse Roe v. Wade and make abortion illegal. But he just can't touch it without sending the GOP down in flames. It's too hot. The next person in office will not be able to touch it either, no matter what he says now. I was disappointed that Bush vetoed stem cells, but I think there are bigger fish to fry. A social democrat would do things that are much worse, like socialize medicine, expand government welfare programs to unsustainable levels and be forced to raise taxes to support it, killing the economy. I do not think that the religious right is choosing our presidents. And no matter what people such as Geraldine A. Ferraro say, the blue states are not the epitome of American intelligence. That's just insulting, and it's why Kerry lost, because he exudes this type of snobbery and the fly over people didn't like it.

I never suggested that I was just using the party in power in my example. My point was the voting is more on instict than anything else, which I thought I captured with:

The religious and conservative will almost always vote right and those that vote left will do so because they don't want a religious conservative at the helm. Even if you agree with some candidates policies their social orientation can easily render them unelectable.

 

[Kthanksbye]

High corporate taxes and over regulation of the stock market? Of all the arguements for our current finanical situations, that's the first time I heard that.

A primer on corporate tax rates for you.

Sarbanes Oxley info

 

[45408]

"You know what? Just let me make one point. You were talking about the map before. If indeed all those blue states all got together and seceded from the union, think what would be left for those red states, nothing. There would be no educational system. You would have nothing. What would be left to you? I mean, where is all of this talent in this country? It's on both sides, the Northeast corridor."
-Geraldine Ferraro to Sean Hannity on Hannity and Colmes, November 6.

I'd like to find her and spend some quality time explaining how my opinion differs from hers.....

 

[Kthanksbye]

Oh cmon this is giving the voting public way too much credit. You think the majority of those that voted for Bush did so because they saw his political and economic plan for the US and agree or because of their moral values and religious inclination? Mass appeal has so little to do with intelligence.

I'd say a small and insignificant percentage of people look at both candidates analyze all their proposed social and economic policies, read commentary on their proposed reforms by bipartisan commentators and then cast their vote. People vote more on morality than anything else. The religious and conservative will almost always vote right and those that vote left will do so because they don't want a religious conservative at the helm. Even if you agree with some candidates policies their social orientation can easily render them unelectable.

I never suggested that I was just using the party in power in my example. My point was the voting is more on instict than anything else, which I thought I captured with:

Forgive me for taking your argument to its logical extreme.

 

[Kthanksbye]

I'd like to find her and spend some quality time explaining how my opinion differs from hers.....

Yea, I watched that and I was like, wow, did she really just say that!

 

[45408]

Yea, I watched that and I was like, wow, did she really just say that!

"Ferraro and running mate Fritz Mondale were defeated in a landslide by incumbent President Ronald Reagan and Vice President George H. W. Bush in the 1984 election."

Oh, fancy that. What did Hannity and Colmes have to say to her?

EDIT - you've got to love how you can make blanket statements like that about people's location, but had she said: "If indeed all those white people all got together and seceded from the union, think what would be left for those black people, nothing. There would be no educational system. You would have nothing. What would be left to you? I mean, where is all of this talent in this country? It's the white people." She'd have been lynched (and rightly so), but I haven't heard anything about this until you just mentioned it.

 

[Kthanksbye]

"Ferraro and running mate Fritz Mondale were defeated in a landslide by incumbent President Ronald Reagan and Vice President George H. W. Bush in the 1984 election."

Oh, fancy that. What did Hannity and Colmes have to say to her?

EDIT - you've got to love how you can make blanket statements like that about people's location, but had she said: "If indeed all those white people all got together and seceded from the union, think what would be left for those black people, nothing. There would be no educational system. You would have nothing. What would be left to you? I mean, where is all of this talent in this country? It's the white people." She'd have been lynched (and rightly so), but I haven't heard anything about this until you just mentioned it.

I was looking for a video clip, but unsuccessfully. I saw this episode personally, but got the quote from some web site. It's quoted on a lot of web sites, but no clip. 🙁 It'd be great to find it. Oh, well, I have a final tomorrow, so can't search more. I think it was on or about November 6, 2004.

 

[Kthanksbye]

The religious and conservative will almost always vote right and those that vote left will do so because they don't want a religious conservative at the helm. Even if you agree with some candidates policies their social orientation can easily render them unelectable.

What seems to render lefties unelectable is their constant penchant for sticking their foot in their mouth. Kerry put the nails in his coffin with this little gem:

[YOUTUBE]vLuMWiQ6r2o[/YOUTUBE]

They appear to be so used to preaching to the choir that they forget themselves when they try to speak to people outside their head nodding crowd. You can dress them up, but you can't take them anywhere.

 

[Old Grunt]

Old Grunt, I'd enjoy hearing your take on the recent 'the surge is working' headlines. Even Murtha conceded this point. Is it true? I absolutely don't know, and I don't trust the media or liberals or repubs to tell me. I am curious what you think... drop in violence, people returning home, Iraqis turning on Jihadis, etc. Thoughts?

I never served in Iraq, so I don't have any special perspective on that situation. That being said, I am skeptical that the insurgency has been as successful as we have been led to believe. In fact, In regards to combat, I am skeptical about anything that comes out of the mouth of anyone above the rank of LTC and below the rank of Sergeant. I am not hearing such a rosy perspective from the people I know who have come back recently.

If it is working, that brings up larger issues. We can't sustain it, so the whole point was to create enough space for the Iraqi parliment to make some political inroads. That has not happened at all. Thus, we have essentially cemented our role as a police force.

On a larger and more academic perspective, I am dour about our nations ability to successfully fight and win an unconventional war. The very things that make us a great nation (free press, elected officials that are accountable and responsive to the will of the people) put us at an inherent disadvantage when it comes to asymmetric warfare. We are great at conventional war, but have not been successful with unconventional war (unless we were the guerillas).

That's a much larger arguement, and I don't have the time, or really want to bore people with it now.

 

[Old Grunt]

Arguing how we got here or whether or not we should be in Iraq is purely academic. It might be fun, but it is pointless.

Actually not. As much as the current administration would like us to forget about the distortions (whether intentional or not) that put us in this current situation, we have a duty to keep the issue current to prevent the same mistakes from being made again.

I assure you, at the Army War College the issue is not regarded as pointless.

And we are in Iraq to prevent a regional war with a potential to spill into (nuclear) Israel. If we pulled out, and Israel was attacked, we'd look pretty stupid, hu? not to mention that it would probably turn into a global war. But hey, it's not our problem. We should just leave cause Harry Reid said we lost already.

Soldiers take an oath to support and defend the constitution of the United States. As best as I can remember, I never swore allegiance to the state of Israel. Israel is a valuable ally, but dumping 200 million dollars a day into Iraq to prevent the possibility violence spreading into Israel is a stretch.

Israel has one of the best Armies in the world, the best intelligence apparatus in the world and is nuclear. They will be fine.

Except that Afghanistan has no resources except opium. Iraq would be a highly valued prize and would be fought for in a protracted war that would have the potential to go global.

You are somewhat correct about that. Afghanistan lacks an economy and that (not the Taliban) is the biggest barrier to peace there.

Iraq doesn't have that problem, they have oil. Since you broached the subject, can we at least be honest and admit that this conflict was driven in large part by oil?

Really? Read the Economist or the Wall Street Journal some time. This weeks economist is all about the value of the dollar, perhaps you could learn something. High corporate tax rates prevent global companies from opening up shop here, and the intense stock market regulation prevents them from listing on our exchanges. We are seeing a mass exodus of companies to Dubai and the London Exchange.

Well, that and cheap labor.

Coincidentally, we have the lowest tax rate of any industrialized nation. That kind of refutes your point.

I would still be surprised if you can make the arguement that those factors are costing us $200 million dollars a day.

The loss from companies not doing business in our country is not something that can be tallied.

Yep, that's what I thought you'd say.

You never know what you never had. The cost to the world and the U.S. of us leaving Iraq would be much more than we are currently spending. Really, what do you envision would happen if the U.S. left now?

I imagine the region would destabilize and another strongman would emerge. However, that's what will happen whether we leave tomorrow or in two decades.

The notion of spreading democracy at the barrel of a gun was a romantic one dreamed up by eggheaded intellectuals who hadn't spent a day in combat. The truth is, the desire for self-determination has to come from within. It can't come from an outside actor.