Comments Posted By JohnMc
Displaying 11 To 14 Of 14 Comments
BUSH'S IRAQ UNRECOGNIZABLE FROM THE REAL THING
Rumsfeld Incorporated and Bush’s concrete loyalty to him got us into this mess (i.e. poor post-war planning), but I honestly think we now have the right people and policy at work in Iraq, its just about four years late in getting there.
That said, does anyone else have a better idea at how to hold off at cataclysmic and genocidal disaster that would happen if we fail at stabilizing Iraq?
Who here actually thinks that a failure and collapse in Iraq won’t have any tangible effect to them here at home?
[Crickets chirping]
I think his speech last night finally outlined a realistic end-game: hold, stabilize, drawdown, leave defensive garrisons in place for deterrence (i.e. West Germany, South Korea, etc.). No more talk about victory, democracy, etc. I think as long as Iran isn’t in the picture and the Iraqi’s aren’t shooting at each other, we can call it a draw. I doubt it will get any better than that, but at least it would be stable and hold off the real blood bath that would ensue as history has shown us.
He also played his trump card to the Democrats by making it clear that there won’t be a huge or total withdrawal of forces under his administration. He knows that if they win the White House, any significant withdrawal they order that then leads to catastrophe would put the final blame on them. I’d honestly be shocked if they did that anyway. They’ll play to their base during the election, but reality will still keep us in Iraq for years to come no matter who wins in 2008.
Comment Posted By johnmc On 14.09.2007 @ 07:57
WHY THE POLITICIZATION OF GOVERNMENT IS WRONG
I don’t think I see it as much as a politicization, because (as previously pointed out) these kinds of shenanigans have been going on throughout the history of the world, and we tend to only look at current times as more important than past history because of what the future holds.
However, I do believe that what you’ve touched on is more of an increase in political hatred of the opposing party. I think this increase in the emotions started with Clinton’s impeachment where the Republican’s were in rage that he wouldn’t resign and the staunch support of Democrats in his defense. Then, in 2000 the damn burst with the Florida recount fiasco.
Things seemed to settle down a bit after 9/11, but now there is blood in the water and the hatred has surpassed anything during the Clinton years.
Back in the 1980’s, Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill could enjoy drinks together after 5:00, no hard feelings…that’s where we need to get back to, but I just don’t see that happening anytime too soon.
No matter what happens in 2008, barring a third Clinton term, January 2009 will hopefully come as a breath of fresh air for both sides.
Comment Posted By JohnMc On 11.07.2007 @ 10:41
NEW JIHADI VIDEO GIVES HEART TO TERRORISTS
The ideology is breed in the sermons and people who follow Islam. For the most part, it transcends national boarders and will exist in a nation as long as the people who follow it, believe in it with a fiery passion. The only way to change this behavior is to crush the will of the people who believe in it.
The only way to “total victory†of a world free of Islamic terrorism, is wage Sherman’s Total War concept against the followers (civilians included) and the infrastructure who support it. You must destroy their homes and land so that nothing can sustain living, much less a will to fight. Every man has a breaking point to where he will quit the fight if pressed hard enough.
But, nothing short of a total mobilization of the US Military and it’s allies can this war be won.
This country (and the other nations) doesn’t have the stomach for such a fight. So, we can look forward to a world where we always wait for the next attack and pray that its far from our homes.You must break the will of the people to support the teachings of this perverted, blood thirsty religion. Nothing short of that will win this war. Don’t believe me? Show me a “compassionate†war that won us an unconditional surrender from the enemy… I’m waiting…
Comment Posted By JohnMc On 5.07.2007 @ 10:52
IRAN: HOW LONG DO WE REALLY HAVE?
While the points are laid out in a well thought out manner, it is very dangerous to assume anything with Iran. As to the “don’t worry, they won’t have a bomb for three to five years†thoughts, Fred Kaplan brings about the point as to why it is of utmost importance now (especially to Israel). Source: http://www.slate.com/id/2134497/
“First, it's worth emphasizing that enriching uranium and spinning gas centrifuge machines are necessary but not sufficient steps toward making A-bombs. The Iranians have to operate a cascade of machines. As David Albright of the Institute for Science and International Security points out in a paper published this month, the Iranians tried this once before, in 2003, but failed miserably and broke about a third of their centrifuges in the process. Repairing the damage and getting the machines running again will take at least six months to a year. And it will take another two years beyond that before the plant starts churning out bombs. In other words, if diplomacy has a chance to work, there is some time to make it work.
How will we know, at what point can we judge, whether diplomacy is feasible or fantasy? Several Israeli officials have said publicly that, once the Iranians successfully operate a cascade of centrifuges, even in small numbers, they will know how to operate cascades in large numbers; they will be self-sufficient in the art and science of building A-bombs; they will have crossed a "red line" or, as some ominously put it, a "point of no return." In other words, from the viewpoint of many Israelis, the question—can diplomacy work?—will be decided in 2006.â€
Comment Posted By JohnMc On 23.01.2006 @ 14:16
