Comments Posted By mannning
Displaying 441 To 450 Of 475 Comments
I agree that money is the first thing on the list for Hollywood producers. But, I feel that a near second is to make a twofer--money and political hay--and to use actors that would be attracted to left wing political statements. Attractive actors and actresses bring in the money, and all too many of them are quite leftist.
Comment Posted By mannning On 13.08.2007 @ 14:38
WAR CZAR: "IT'S A LITTLE DRAFTY IN THIS BASEMENT..."
It is a huge disappointment to learn here that our new generation of young men are not willing to be drafted, even in a homeland crisis, just as their elders tried not to be during Nam. (This, of course, is not strictly speaking their option, since the draft is a legal obligation.) So to avoid serving, they do have a few options: run to Canada; hide in the underground somehow; find a disability, or get a deferment, or perhaps a conscientious objector status.
The first two of these options would mark them for life for what they are, and would prevent them from having many opportunities later on. I for one, would not hire someone who would run from his duty to the nation, and every firm I ever worked for or with had the same policy. I respect deferments that are logical and beneficial in the long run for the nation, such as to go to medical school or a critical job, but not those given by political influence. I also respect the objectors if they are sincere and not trumped up.
As for the rest, they get selected, drafted, trained, and sent where needed. If they are demonstrably bad soldiers, they get a courts martial for their lack of military discipline.
It is up to them.To say that we should not ever have a draft because a large number of the youth would not serve is simply ludicrous. Perhaps it is those who won't serve that we should give a ticket to Toronto after their penalty has been served and recorded here in yellow ink for all posterity.
Comment Posted By mannning On 11.08.2007 @ 23:18
MAKING THE CASE FOR A LONG TERM COMMITMENT TO IRAQ
One thought that gives me some hope that, in the event of a Democratic victory in 2008, the winners would very likely change their tune dramatically. It is one thing to execute a nasty and ridiculous political war against an Administration, and something entirely different to run the nation during a real conflict. This is completely possible given the two-faced politics practiced by the Left. Thus, if they are faced with the realities in Iraq and the rest of the world, perhaps they will find the will to carry out our obligations and moral commitments to the Iraqi.
Or, maybe not...history is not kind to the Democrats on this point.
Comment Posted By mannning On 9.08.2007 @ 20:32
My bet is still that we will not withdraw from Iraq, except for some symbolic rotations home. We are caught fast in the struggle to create a new government that has the power to survive, to ensure that there will not be a genocidal conflict after we leave, and to hold off the Iranians and Syrians. Morally, to leave with these threats to the Iraqi people quite evident and real for all to see would be devastating. There would be no forgiveness for such an act anywhere in the world, except in leftist circles that desire our demise anyway.
To talk of 12 months or 18 months before "redeployment' is ridiculous on the face of it given the work yet to be done in pacification, grassroots consensus-building, government-building, oil production and revenue sharing. Well-constructed bases are essential to the effort as outlined, unless we want our troops in tents and latrine trenches for their stay, and subjected to serious harassing attacks.
It is simply disgusting to me to see others considering leaving Iraq to the tribes and factions, with no recourse except their Islamic 'friends' to the South, East and West. Such a move is cynical and immoral, no matter what the past has been. I am acutely ashamed of those who advocate withdrawal before the job is satisfactorily finished.
Comment Posted By mannning On 8.08.2007 @ 21:15
Yes, Rick, we should be dong all of those things you laid out, and more!
Have we learned yet that while war can be done on the cheap the way we fight, the occupation, security, and seeing to a stable government aftermath is darned expensive and totally absorbing of multiple talents quite beyond military competence?
Have we learned yet that to conquer a nation is to essentially own it until stability is assured?
Have we learned yet that we should control the key resources we paid in lives and money to conquer, until a proper settlement can be reached?
Have we learned yet that tribal-based nations are the classic "loose federation of warring tribes"?
Have we learned yet that Islam foments war with infidels, especially when they are flooding an Islamic country, or are stirred up by rhetoric from the likes of OBL?
We have the resources to win if we decide to use them. Let us decide!
Comment Posted By mannning On 20.07.2007 @ 13:38
ARE CONSERVATIVES REALLY HOPING FOR ANOTHER 9/11?
From the background picture I paint in #5 above, I believe that conservatives are quite frustrated. At least I know that I am! The question posed in this thread is a valid one: many of us conservatives have had the thought that the next bombing (or whatever!) would reflexively turn liberals to the right on defense.
I wish it were so! Give the liberals a few days to absorb the shock and extent of the next disaster, and their information machine will find the way to co opt the event, and absorb it into their system of thought--something like: "it is our fault, our administration's fault, and we shouldn't blame the agents of our downfall." We should pull back to Fortress America, and change our policies, our government, and our attitude of aggressive defense. This makes perfect sense to them, and then they will open the doors to further immigration from the lands of our enemies.
No conservative that I know wants an attack on the US, but many see such an event as perhaps the only way to polarize the nation towards a sound defense. I may be wrong, but I think we are at considerable risk of losing even that chance to sort ourselves out after 2008, if the liberals are at the controls everywhere then.
Comment Posted By mannning On 14.07.2007 @ 17:46
There is nothing new in a large part of the public being apathetic, passive, head-in-sand, fearful, anti-war, self-centered, pleasure-seeking, busy making a living, raising kids, and sitting stateside being quite xenophobic. Many women fit that description by their very nature, since they are the nurturing ones. Add the real and not-so-real intellectuals, and wannabe leftists to the pot, stir with socialistic pepper and MSM bias sauce, and you get liberal stew.
First of all, liberals seem to have slipped the bonds of religion, or at least have begun to listen to Hitchins or the like. Second, they hope, fearfully, that being kind and nice and turning the other cheek will reduce Islamic terrorists to blubbering recidivists. Third, they appear to want a social revolution in the US to redistribute the wealth of the nation across all of us, turning a stratified wealth system into a poverty-driven, socialistic nothingness. Fourth, they want to stock up on goodies, such as free college, free health care and medicine, free vacations, free housing, and subsidized food and gasoline. They want to reeducate our children into the dream of utopia on earth, and in that they seem to be winning. Fifth, they lovingly support movements to install a World Government with its own army and its own ability to tax the nations. If you believe I am exaggerating, go Google and read the Humanist Manifestos I, II, and III, and then find out how many of our intellectuals, legislators, judges, democrats and bureaucrats have signed up as members in good standing of the secular humanist (SH) movement. There is a lot more to the credo of the Humanist movement, but these few elements will do to show what Christian, conservative and common-sense people are up against. Finally, to bring this into focus on the thread, they are violently opposed to war, believe in massive reductions in our military, and definitely want us to stop fighting right now--no matter what.
I submit that these Humanists are practicing their own religion, and to accede to common-sense or, radical conservative ideas is a violation of their deepest beliefs.
On the other hand, conservatives have their strong belief system also, which amounts to an adjunct to their mostly Christian belief system, and will not give their beliefs up willingly. (I will not list here the elements of conservatism, as on this site they are well known.)
The conclusion I seem to be reaching for is that the SH crowd will not react patriotically to further attacks on America, and would welcome the further chaos and deconstruction of our present society in favor of creating out of the rubble a new Utopian day where they are the masters, or the puppet-masters at least. (If this sounds like Marx, you are well up on your reading.)
Thus, I see a direct conflict of immense proportions being conducted, largely in the shadows, but increasingly in the open,between those who follow SH to the letter, and those who are dedicated American Conservatives, Republicans, and Christians who are trying to hold the traditional line.
May God help us.
Comment Posted By mannning On 14.07.2007 @ 15:23
You are right, leo, Iran would use some other proxy. Anyone would do, so how about Hamas. I have a sneaking feeling, however, that when it comes to striking Israel or the US, there might be considerable, but guarded, cooperation between the various sects, particularly within the US itself.
With the deep divisions that exist inside Iraq that we cannot heal, my idea was to disengage our troops to a large degree, but to still be there in numbers sufficient to the tasks I have stated previously, especially keeping bloodshed down between Sunni and Shiite, protecting the borders and oil., and defending ourselves. If there is to be a common government in Iraq, it will be formed by Iraqis, not the US, in my opinion, so they need the space and time to sort that out--or not. If such a joint government cannot be formed and cannot show success in managing the national situation, there will come a time for us to simply leave them to their fate, with due warning to them all.
I still believe that managing the oil revenue sharing and protecting the oil infrastructure is key for us, but this is not on, I believe, because we would then undercut the current Iraqi government completely and be back to square one, with loss of credibility. Unless, of course, we could persuade them that we would be an honest broker and distribute their revenue fairly to all, since they can't seem to do it for themselves, and they do want us to stay around for a time...
Then comes the Iranian affair to the front, with some sort of shouting match kind of showdown with us over their potential nukes taking place, perhaps as early as August, or September, 07. What follows after that, will be up to Bush and Cheney.
Comment Posted By mannning On 9.07.2007 @ 21:13
I likewise appreciate your voice of moderation. After all, it may well be the course of action we take after the elections of 2008. A draft, for example totally depends on the Congress to vote it back, and our current passives will not go along. I also agree with your assessment of the lack of understanding our public has of the importance of ME oil to the world, ourselves included. And, I agree with the importance of
China to this issue, but would add Russia as well.This adds to the complexity of the situation mightily. The one possible change, therefore, could be allowing the sale of oil to China, or Russia, but not allowing the import of refined products, if even that is possible, considering the pipeline developments underway between Russia, Iran, and eventually China. There are undoubtedly great risks in this factor.
As to the shutdown of the Gulf by Iran, I have two reactions. It cannot be total, since they have to sell their oil. but if they try that, we can interdict their vessels. So, no Iranian oil to market. The second reaction is that the US Navy would strive to put Iranian missile launch sites out of action by air attack, and there would be special forces actions on the ground to find, fix, and destroy them as well.
So in my opinion, for them to close the gulf would be to either deny themselves revenue, or to expose their weapons systems to full precision-weapon attack. Their choice.The threat we see from the Iranian nuclear weapons developments is quite clear. Beyond acting as a defensive shield for Iran, such weapons would be eagerly received by AQ, passed to them in secret by Iran. This is entirely in accord with the Iranian support for terrorist organizations worldwide, and gives them a denial capability in case of AQ use of such weapons on us. One must admit the horror of an AQ armed with nukes. It would put our major cities under the threat of total destruction. (We may see this anyway if Pakistan turns around, which is yet another major issue.)
The mindset of Mullahs is not something I would bet on to be rational, either. We made the mistake of ignoring the threats of OBL, and got death and destruction for our lack of attention. Likewise, the collective mindset of the Iranian population is not exactly what I would want to rely upon to help the peace process in the ME.
We have practiced a multilateral approach to Iran, and to the NK as well, for over 4 years. We stood aside (as the bad boy)to allow the UK, Germany, and France(as the good boys) to attempt to solve the nuclear question in Iran. They have produced exactly one thing--sufficient delay and obscurantism for the Iranians to proceed at great speed to produce weapon grade material. When do we stop talking while allowing the Iranians to complete a cache of nuclear bombs for use by AQ?
As I said in my earlier post,perhaps obscurely,significant augmentation of the forces is not politically possible as things stand. It will require far more provocation than we have seen so far to open the closed minds we have here and elsewhere. We will have to wait, perhaps, for the loss of one or two of our cities, and a million of our citizens, before we will respond adequately.
Unless, of course, Bush and Cheney live up to their threats, which places us back to the beginning of this discussion.
One sees many, many ostriches these days.
Comment Posted By mannning On 9.07.2007 @ 13:24
I likewise appreciate your voice of moderation. After all, it may well be the course of action we take after the elections of 2008. A draft, for example totally depends on the Congress to vote it back, and our current passives will not go along. I also agree with your assessment of the lack of understanding our public has of the importance of ME oil to the world, ourselves included. And, I agree with the importance of
China to this issue, but would add Russia as well.This adds to the complexity of the situation mightily. The one possible change, therefore, could be allowing the sale of oil to China, or Russia, but not allowing the import of refined products, if even that is possible, considering the pipeline developments underway between Russia, Iran, and eventually China. There are undoubtedly great risks in this factor.
As to the shutdown of the Gulf by Iran, I have two reactions. It cannot be total, since they have to sell their oil. but if they try that, we can interdict their vessels. So, no Iranian oil to market. The second reaction is that the US Navy would strive to put missile launch sites out of action by air attack, and there would be special forces actions on the ground to find, fix, and destroy them.
Comment Posted By mannning On 9.07.2007 @ 12:30
