See Online Stream Videos At http://www.Bestvideosclip.com...

You are suggesting some big time force in blockading Iran. That’s definitely a use of force, and we had better mean it if we are ever going to do something that bold. Such an action could lead to the necessity to use even more force if we were to be able to maintain the blockade.

Diplomacy isn’t worth the paper the word is written on if its not back by the ability to use force and a credible threat to do so.

Your response to Rick sort of demonstrates my point, tangentially anyway. The “dont f— with us” message is not resonating with our enemies because they don’t see any threat from us as credible. Given all the half-measures we have used in fighting this war (where we have sometimes even given priority to saving their civilian lives over our own soldiers lives, as in Fallujah) feeds right into that.

The first step to us gaining credibility is accepting that showing that we mean what we say will require us to do some pretty nasty things. Until then, we’ll just keep twiddling our thumbs, while the problems in Iraq and Lebanon and elsewhere continue to simmer until they erupt again.

Sorry, you don’t get off that easy honora – next question (which leads to where I am going):

What is necessary to make diplomacy effective?

thirteen28 on August 16, 2006 at 4:32 PM

In a word, credibility. Gotta run 13/28, catch you tomorrow.

I guess my point (I get a bit wordy!!) is that your strategy simply isn’t working, and at the end of the day, isn’t the measure of a strategy?

What is necessary to make diplomacy effective?

-stop buying Iranian oil. Blockade Iran to prevent them from selling oli to anyone. If Russia and China don’t like it, tough.
-rediscover the art of diplomacy.
honora, do you see any contradiction there? Or is there some kind of logic that can reconcile these two statements?

(there is a good answer to the question, but I’m going to see if you or anyone else gets it on their own).

thirteen28 on August 16, 2006 at 11:12 AM

Not at all. Practicing diplomacy is not the same as bending over. You would have to be willing to go down a path of trying to negotiate with Iran (regardless of how futile you think this is) but move steadily down the road of taking this sort of action based on a timetable. At the same time you need to take real action to reduce the US consumption of oil–tax it to $5/gallon, immediately legislate minimum fuel mileage standards.

Ok 13/28, now don’t keep us in suspense, what is your answer? (Open to any and all!!!)

What I like about our system which derives from the British system of two houses, is the way it averages participation. We have a Senate to give equal voice to regions, and a House, to give weight to the higher population areas. The two are forced to hammer out each law. The British system resolved the power of the Lords vs the masses. We balance region, vs population. It makes our Seantors powerful, which is very fair to small states, which would have no say in a democracy.

Secondly, we have a strong leader. The electoral college creates a population weighted winner take all basket of votes at the state level. When its over, its over. The President gets it all for 4 years.

Every new nation is being massaged by the U.N. and the globalists into parlimentary systems which have surface appeal (no ‘winner-take-all) so the smallest mite can be a key player everytime they need a new coalition government. You get a government of the lowest common denominator, where a mainstream leader has to coalition with the deadliest antithesis of his philosphy to hold his power. A ‘McCain’ style of governing.

Iraq’s system was voted on enthusistically. Now the leader has to jockey and jump to hold his leadership.

It takes maturity to accept ‘winner-take-all’. You have to bite it for four years. In return you end up with a powerful nation that gets things done.

IMHO – parlimentary systems are for weenies and create weenie nations.

I think it’s just sloppy to use the term democracy to mean a free, liberal society. Hong Kong under the Brits was never a democracy, but it was (and pretty much is) a free society. Here’s a nice piece on the subject. Wouldn’t a temporary constitutional dictatorship of some kind with a clear path to a more representative government later have been a more effective way to deal with Iraq? Too many cooks are spoiling the soup over there.

We were targeted by Islamic terrorists. We invaded a country that was first, not part of that action against us and secondly, invaded with this Disney notion of planting the seeds of democracy, totally ignoring the specific history and culture of that country. And here’s the part that bugs the hell out of me: there were plenty of people who were pointing out the folly of this action at the time. How were these arguments treated? They were ridiculed and often greeted with the old unpatriotic bromide. Had there been a meaningful discussion, that would have been one thing, but there wasn’t.

I disagree. Yes, we were and continue to be targeted by Islamic terrorists (no question), but we didn’t just jump into Iraq because of WMDs (and flawed intelligence). The administration, after 9/11, and stated who the “axis of evil” was (Iraq, Iran and N. Korea) – more importantly, the most blatant and obvious state sponsors of terrorism.

Iraq was first on the list (and the easy choice) because we knew the lay of the land (continued no-fly zones, Gulf War, etc.), and not to mention they continued to play the cat and mouse game regarding WMDs. By the way, Al-Qaeda did have camps up in northern Iraq, and Zarqawi was already there.

We had to send a message and continue to take the fight to them. At that time, Afghanistan was cleaned out of Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. We had to keep the momentum going and keep these guys on their heels and, more importantly, focused on fighting us there instead of here. Despite what anyone says, it has worked (and has continued to do so).

People tend to forget that they are fighting our military right now, and not our civilians – I don’t know about you, but I’ll take that any day. This is not something that needs to be treated as a law enforcement problem.

The message has been sent to the rest of the world, you f*ck with us and we’ll get you. It’s plain and simple. I’ll take the present day policies over the ignore it and it will go away policies of the ’90s. If people don’t like us because we are trying to protect ourselves, such is life. You can’t please everybody all the time – better safe than sorry.

Mr. Rumsfeld could have easily stayed retired on his beautiful ranch in New Mexico. Instead he worries 24 hrs a day on how to not only fight this war, but plan for 20-30 years ahead. He is one of the smartest people in this country and doesn’t suffer fools lightly. That’s why he gets maligned by those inferior to his intellect.

Good thing he’s not bothered by fleas and ticks!

Rumsfeld is the reason I have faith in our military. I believe he would not stand for abuse of our soldiers, or improper use of the military.

I wish I could get a CD of all his post 9-11 press conferences. He made absolute monkies out of the MSM, to the extent that his press conferences are rarely allowed on tv. If you worry about modern day America, remember it can still produce guys like Rumsfeld.

I went outside, the sky was grey
Fire Rumsfeld Hey, Hey, Hey
I came inside, the room was cold
Fire Rumsfeld like you’re told

His Ugly Face it makes me sick
Fire Rumsfeld you right wing Tick
Rumsfeld you have power over me
Beat old Rumsfeld in-to Jellie

If we could wipe his Ugly Face
We could save the human race

Chorus
He’s eeeee-vil, He’s eeee-vil
He ruins all known life on earth
Mother Cindy help our cause
Bite old Runsfeld with your Jaws
(repeat)

America, the only right government on earth and it is not a democracy. It is a Constitutional Republic!

The rest of the World (roW) would love for us to become a parliamentarian government. Fly a kite roW!

Note to Bush Admin. – fire cabinet and nominate our very own honora to most strategic positions.

Honora, I don’t disagree with all your suggestions and, above all, I really give you credit for suggesting ideas, aside from just harping, and for wishing to continue dialogue across the isles. Unfortunately you are an exception. Both parties are poisoned and America and the world suffer.

For 5 years I’ve heard nothing but criticism of Mr. Bush, no matter what gets decided, even if it’s 180 degrees different to accommodate your side. The ads now on security are the most bizarre b.s. I’ve ever seen/heard. If this is the ’stroke of genius’ on the Left, I’m content. Until I hear more concrete suggestions on how to make this country better, I ignore your side. You, it seems, are genuinely determined to help your party see this light.

-stop buying Iranian oil. Blockade Iran to prevent them from selling oli to anyone. If Russia and China don’t like it, tough.

-rediscover the art of diplomacy.

honora, do you see any contradiction there? Or is there some kind of logic that can reconcile these two statements?

(there is a good answer to the question, but I’m going to see if you or anyone else gets it on their own).

And for the love of God, encourage dialogue and discussion across the political spectrum. We have seen the folly of doing otherwise.

Honora – you miss the point. Nothing is absolute. Take a step back and look at the big picture.

Have we as Americans (all of us) supported dictators in the past? Sure! But have we ever had anything but the spread of Democracy and Freedom as being our long term goal? Never!

The world can’t change overnight – although liberals will throw their hands up at actually having to deal with difficult issues and “call it” instant change.

Where is the sin in playing one bad guy off the other? When does it ever make sense to abandon a clear set of priorities? You’d rather persue Democracy and Freedom in the Congo right now? You think the fight for freedom is just as important in Malaysia is just as important as the fight for freedom in Iraq right now? I’d say you have your priorities screwed up if you do – either that or you’re not bothering to set any at all for yourself.

Your sitting across the table from two evil men – one is empty handed, the other has a suitcase full of money. Who do you take out first? Don’t tell me it doesn’t matter because they are both just as evil as the other.

Think Long Term. The man with the money represents the greatest long term threat.

And if you’re digging for a diamond in a ditch full of shit which end do you start at? You can’t take trial and error along with human judgement out of the equation. But what are you digging for in the first place?

You’re digging for a diamond.

You may feel comfortable in your short-term mindset, thinking that “It’s just not right” to expect everyone can be free. That “One size doesn’t fit all”. Personally for my own sake, and for the sake of future generations of my family (and all humanity) I will never believe that.

Have fun staring at that tree. There’s a whole f*ckin’ forest on the other side of it.

venmax on August 15, 2006 at 9:27 AM

What obfuscation. Or bullshit if you prefer.

The fact is the invasion of Iraq was premised on deeply flawed logic and plain old ignorance. Talking about digging for diamonds and sweeping statements about the Congo and two evil men–yada, yada, yada.

We were targeted by Islamic terrorists. We invaded a country that was first, not part of that action against us and secondly, invaded with this Disney notion of planting the seeds of democracy, totally ignoring the specific history and culture of that country. And here’s the part that bugs the hell out of me: there were plenty of people who were pointing out the folly of this action at the time. How were these arguments treated? They were ridiculed and often greeted with the old unpatriotic bromide. Had there been a meaningful discussion, that would have been one thing, but there wasn’t.

All this philosophizing is great, just several years too late. Where were you when Bush was wrapping himself and his half-baked ideas in the flag?

What a colossal waste.

That is the very point, democracy is mob rule. It is nothing more than majority rule. If we had this here in America, Gore would be president right now.

Really? How do you figure?

Democracy isn’t going to erase the problems that Islam has inflicted upon these societies, but it may still prove to be the antidote. Palis may love voting for Hamas, but will they continue to love having Hamas for a government when they start bearing the consequences of electing Hamas?

We don’t know yet. We won’t know for quite some time. We probably won’t know for another generation or two.

Right on about the chances for real democracy in the middle-east. People should realize that that is the toughest battle. Our founders believed, as you say, that their rights and liberties came from God, and that government is instituted among men (and women, for you PC folks) to protect those rights. Do the democratically elected leaders in Iraq really believe this? I wonder. The Islamic world-view does not seem to support it, otherwise there would not be such insistence on Sharia law, while at the same time claiming to protect other faiths’ freedom.

Let me add also, in response to LZV: You tending to aregue semantics a little. I don’t think there is anyone here who doesn’t realize that when we say “democracy” we mean “representative democracy.” Pure democracy has never existed, not even in ancient Greece. I might also say that you’re right in one respect – these are simple ideas. Simple enough that they helped a frontier country of tiny colonies throw off the despotism of the largest power in the world.

AllahPundit over at Hot Air has a great piece about how he feels the ceasefire is a win for Hezbollah simply because they survived and a loss for Israel because they couldn’t kill every last man in Hezbollah. He goes on to speculate that Lebanon bein….

[cross posted at my other Cake or Death]AllahPundit over at Hot Air has a great piece about how he feels the ceasefire is a win for Hezbollah simply because they survived and a loss for Israel because they couldn’t kill every last man in Hezbollah…….

Hoping that it wasn’t ruined by a few ‘girs’ chiming in today, I must say this is one of the most thought-provoking threads. Thank you Bryan!

venmax, I enjoyed your post, from which this excerpt:

Ask yourself this question – what would Europe look like today if Napoleon had had the humility and the wisdom not to invade Russia?

It would be a lot more French let me tell you that.

The same can be asked “…if Hitler…not to invade Russia?” – we’d be eating a lot of Sauerkraut. Well, I could take some of that, but never his dictatorship. Thus, what a glorious thing that history turned out differently.

Friends, stay allert, stay realistic (not pessimistic and not overly optimistic), stay focused, keep our good convictions and support our troops, our country and our values. In the long run we’ll win this one too, with a few setbbacks in between. Our survival is at stake and we have no other choice.

Who do you crush in the war on terror.

Going forward, it’s not yet obvious where, but I there are situations we’ve face in the war in the past where we should have used a big stick, and it didn’t exactly take genius level foresight to figure it out.

One such instance was Fallujah. After the contractors were killed and mutilated for the death porn media, we should have absolutely flattened the city, Dresden like, with absolutely no mercy whatsoever. We knew Fallujah was a Sunni/insurgent stronghold. These ‘insurgents’ (more properly known as ‘terrorists’) can’t move around and operate in a place like that without significant support of the wider population. And believe me, a majority of people in Fallujah supported the insurgents. As such, they are every bit as guilty as those who carry out the violent acts themselves, for they enable them to do so in the first place.

Another example was that roly poly Shiite icehole al-Sadr, who (along with his militia) should have been turned into worm-food via daisy cutters and MOAB’s a long time ago. And no, I don’t give a flying fornication if he was using a mosque to hide out in – if he does, we should destroy the mosque itself (and under the Geneva convention, this would be permissible).

Instead, in both cases we used restraint, and look where it got us. With respect to Fallujah, we were in the process of taking it by ground assualt in April 2004, but pulled back. Does it take a genius to see, in foresight (as many did), that this was a disasterously stupid move? It resulted in the insurgents fearing us less, knowing that we didn’t have the stomach to follow through with extreme measures, while allowing Fallujah to provide an excellent base of operations for them for many more months on end. When we finally did go into Fallujah in November 2004, we did so at the cost of many American lives. Had we turned Fallujah into rubble, as we should have in April 2004, we would have killed a lot more Iraqis, but would have saved American lives. So basically, we traded our soldiers lives for “innocent” Iraqis, many of who’s innocence was highly debatable. Was restraint worth it in Fallujah?

With al-Sadr, we’ve left him around and all he’s done (and this was easily predictable going forward) is cause trouble and act as a conduit for Iranian influence to affect Iraq – and thus the U.S. Was it worth it to be restrained an allow al-Sadr the chance to live to fight another day?

Some will say such harsh and overwhelming retaliation would only make them more mad at us. Horse dung, I say, to any such response. The reason so many muslims feel they can be so open about their anger and hatred towards us is that they don’t fear us, and don’t fear harsh retaliation – and given how we’ve conducted this war, we’ve certainly not given them any reason to re-evaluate that position. Had we flattened Fallujah the moment they had their uprising in April 2004, it would have sent a powerful message to others in (and out of) Iraq that we mean business and were willing to back it up. And those so call ‘innocent’ civilians who offer aid, comfort and cover to the insurgents (but are afraid themselves to fight) would have likely have been far less likely to do so knowing that they had orders of magnitude more to fear from our retaliation than any by the insurgents.

As such, we’ve lost two golden opportunities to make a difference in the thinking of our enemy, and in doing so, we’ve only encouraged more aggression from them. We will have more opportunities, but since we are so afraid of not being nice or of being disproportionate in our response, we will probably let those pass too, at least until one of our own cities or somewhere in Israel is leveled by a massive attack.

Until we stop worrying about trivial stuff such as whether others like us and stop prioritizing the saving of muslim lives over that of our own citizens (and particularly, our own soldiers on the front lines) we will continue to lose this war. Until they fear us more than their own leaders (as the Japanese and Germans did in the wake of WWII), we will end up with nothing but more discouraging news on our side and more aggression from theirs.

This is war, and the ONLY thing that matters is winning. Any effective means is justified.

I’ll close my long-winded rant with a couple of quotes from two people who would know how to win this war, and would have done so long ago:

“In war, then, let your great object be victory, not lengthy campaigns.” – Sun Tzu

” … and men have less scruple in offending one who is beloved than one who is feared, for love is preserved by the link of obligation which, owing to the baseness of men, is broken at every opportunity for their advantage; but fear preserves you by a dread of punishment which never fails.” – Machiavelli