Option #1 sounds good to me.
The Democrat position on this has been incoherent. Sometimes they say we should have listened to Shinseki and sent in a larger number of troops to obtain stability. At other times they make Rumsfeld's argument for a light force so we're not seen as an occupying power.
Everyone agrees we need to leave. We need to be just as careful getting out as we should have been getting in. Winning requires a military solution, specifically one that involves Iraq assuming its security commitments.Comment Posted By J.H. Bowden On 8.06.2007 @ 16:19
I must dissent.
While we should sympathize with American Indians, is it wrong to sentimentalize them. Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee is a cartoonish sob story about the death of the Noble Savage. I would recommend Utley and Washburn's Indian Wars as a more sober and detailed presentation the actual history involved. Hell, if the United States systematically used the tactics American Indian tribes used on one another, there would not be any American Indians left today.
The real conquerors of the west were not the soldiers of the United States army, nor were they Christian missionaries. They were the thousands (and later millions) of immigrants that made tribal life impossible, who then by their sheer numbers (along with illegal immigration on Indian terrories) made upholding previous treaties on the frontier impossible.
How people reacted to this matters too. Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse were warlike religious fanatics, while Black Kettle is an example of a more rational approach to the changes of his time. But you really don't get the details and the feel for the people involved in Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee, which is geared toward making guilty people have orgasmic grief-offs, rather than analyzing the events in the historical record in a coherent manner.Comment Posted By J.H. Bowden On 6.06.2007 @ 16:46
Joe, Nikolai, neoconhunter---
People who think Ahmadinejad is Gorbachev, and this includes Condaleeza Rice who is educated as an expert on Russia, are not squaring up to the nature and goals of the Iranian regime.
The Iranian regime, if the Iran-Iraq war teaches us anything, has no problem with mass martyrdom of its citizens. Add the fact that Ahmadinejad has repeatedly said it is his duty to lead the final jihad against the infidel at the end of times so the 12th Imam and Jesus can come back to exterminate the Americans and Jews, then mutually assured destruction looks completely ineffective as a deterrent.
The Iranian regime has stated explicitly that they do not intend to stop their nuclear program, and that they intend to wipe Israel off the map. Iranian officials have said a world without America is not only possible, but feasible. Diplomatic solutions in this context is like talking to yourself-- to have diplomacy, you need two parties working for a compromise, not one party signing a death sentence.
Perhaps regime change isn't the answer. However, airstrikes at minimum will be required against the nuclear program of the Iranian regime at some point if we want to live in a world where Tel Aviv, London, Los Angeles and so forth still exist in the upcoming decades. This will create a depression by spiking gas prices, and it will create complete chaos in Iraq, but I don't see an alternative course of action consistent with our survival. Perhaps one of you enlightened souls can set me straight.Comment Posted By J.H. Bowden On 1.06.2007 @ 23:59
The reports of the GOP's death have been greatly exaggerated. The current baby-fit over immigration will pass.
And here is some news from the real world. No one is going to be deporting 12,000,000 souls anytime soon. Again, this is categorically not going to happen. Deal with it.Comment Posted By J.H. Bowden On 1.06.2007 @ 23:41
Last month America lost over 100 people in one month, but we killed over 3,000 enemy combatants. That is indeed a bitchslapping. For *us*. Only your liberal friends in the media can turn that into a defeat. The same thing happened back with the Tet Massacre-- 1,500 Americans dead versus 50,000 communist combatants dead, and Kronkite spun it as a victory for the communists.
I'm not certain why the media feels the need to help our enemies. My best guess is they feel they should try to minimize American successes since if we report the facts as they are, and they favor us, that is now seen as "yellow journalism." One could also try to argue that blood and death sells, which won't do, because victory and stories of America kicking ass would sell just as well.Comment Posted By J.H. Bowden On 1.06.2007 @ 23:22
Damn, I wish blogs had an edit function!Comment Posted By J.H. Bowden On 1.06.2007 @ 08:16
All of this Gloom and Doom over the border issue? Sheesh.
I wish we would have seen people up in arms over the prescription drug benefit, or No Child Left Behind.
In contrast, the socialcons have gotten *everything* their from abortion to gays to judges to stem cell research to faith-based government handouts. Now they are crying like spoiled children because they can't deport 12,000,000 people.
Cry me a river. What a bunch of jackasses.
Bush has done a respectable job on defense, and his economic performance has been decent, given what he is not doing (raising taxes, government takeover of healthcare and energy, Kyoto) is just as important as what he could be doing (liberalizing social security, abolishing the department of education, reforming medicaid along the lines of welfare, et cetera.)
And the irony is that if the social cons had the muscle they once had, Allen and Talent would be in the Senate today. If their platitudes about conservativism working every time it is tried were true, then Arnold would have lost in California, and people like Ehrlich and Hayworth would have won. Some conservatives think it is their birthright to hold office, and feel it is beneath them to make the case to the people to secure unimportant things like, let us say, Congressional majorities.Comment Posted By J.H. Bowden On 1.06.2007 @ 08:16
Good point Dale.
The Dems this round are stuck choosing between Comrade Clinton, Osama Obama, and the Silky Pony. And we think *we* have problems!Comment Posted By J.H. Bowden On 1.06.2007 @ 08:21
Well, I was skeptical of Thompson at first, but after seeing a few vids of him on youtube, he seems like the right candidate to support at this point.
In comparison to the other major candidates, Thompson has little personal baggage, can unite the party going into 2008, and has a solid conservative vision while speaking in sensible ways.
Only two major downsides I come to mind. One, this means a competitive election in 2008 which means the Republicans will have to muscle it out like 2000 and 2004. A unified party has its advantages, but one doesn't want a passive candidate like a John Kerry that can't respond effectively to vicious attacks either. Time will tell if Thompson is ready to rumble or not.Comment Posted By J.H. Bowden On 31.05.2007 @ 09:48
"We subsidize housing and families. Why not health insurance?"
Because when you give things away for free, you increase demand without limit, which creates market distortions throughout an economy. The government underwrites almost 50% of health costs in the United States.
"Now clearly, market forces alone wonâ€™t work to insure the uninsured or bring better health care options to those whose current plans are inadequate."
Sure they can. Look at how the cost of LASIK surgery has plummeted over the last few years. Get the government to butt out, and then the market will work like it always does-- high costs bring in more suppliers who try to grab market share increasing quality and/or quantity, or doing the same thing cheaper.
Putting the uninsured on a government waiting lists is not the correct way to fix the healthcare crisis. We need to reform Medicaid along the same lines of welfare, we need remove the restrictions on HSAs, and we need change the tax policy to remove the incentives to place third parties between doctors and patients. The Democrats' plan will turn our country into Europe, with which will virtually eliminate choice, kill innovation, drastically reduce the development of new high tech treatments and medications, and enforce the use of less technology. In short we need to preserve what is correct about American health care -- the market -- and reduce the monster that is causing the problem: the government.Comment Posted By J.H. Bowden On 30.05.2007 @ 11:28