Which position you hold is irrelavant. The lights are going out, one by one, & they have been since I was a kid.
In terms of American projection of military force abroad, I don’t see that. The trend is rather the reverse.
I heard on the radio this afternoon, when announcing the military buildup, W said “we are at the beginning of a long conflict.” :eek: 
:mad: :mad: :mad:
No argument either way, merely an observation. Every empire eventually deems it necessary to reinforce its economic hold over outlying provinces by military means, and hardens its shell at just beyond its furthest point of reach, whereupon it commences rotting from the inside. Why should we be any different?
The people who know anything about the military think that this is a stupid idea. The people who don’t know squat about the military but are in a position to call the shots recognize it as a politically suicidal idea.
Because we have the option of letting go of the provinces, and still remaining strong, rich, safe and free.
Think relative, not absolute. Strong, probably, but certainly less so, both in the short term and in the long term; rich, less in the short term and possibly though not certainly the long term; possibly less safe in the short term, probably more safe in the short term. See any of the former colonial/imperial powers whose larger domains have withered: Britain, France, Japan, Portugal, the Ottomans, yada yada yada.
The fact that strength, wealth, and safety, after being reduced, are still at acceptable levels is not what is significant; the fact that they’re being reduced at all is what makes your suggestion anathema. And not just to the elites, either, but to the population at large. Of the precedent powers, some surrendered their holdings only when they accepted the painful realization that they lacked any rational alternative; the rest simply lived in denial and eventually lost their grip. Not one had the wisdom to choose your path while other short-term options were available, not one. There’s no reason to believe that we will be the first.
But… as for more free? What the hell, sure, that I’ll stipulate. It can’t be boiled down to an objective metric, so no point in arguing about it.
I was wondering not only where we would get the bodies, but where we would get the $ to pay for them. So I was reassured this morning in the paper when I saw that Bush was proposing to attach additional tax cuts to any minimum wage legislation. It all makes so much sense.
Was really disappointed in the Daily Show the other day. When JD’s guest said we had to salvage the chance to “win this war”, JD asked “what does ‘winning’ mean?” - but then didn’t press him to answer.
Relevant cartoon.
Logic and the truth of what is actually happening in Iraq have no effect on Bush. When he has said god chose him at this time to be president,how could simple reality compete. He will not stop until impeachment slows him down . He is planning on going into Iran too . Why not we are winning in Iraq.(he thinks so)
No, we do not have the option to walk away. We DO have the option not to fight. Is standing and being pummeled better in your worldview than fighting back?
If we withdraw our troops from Iraq, the insurgents are not going to chase them home. As for the “War on Terror,” that’s an entirely different matter (I hope everyone understands that by now) – and an entirely different kind of problem. Outside of exceptional circumstances like Afghanistan in 2001, using an army to fight terrorists is like using a machine gun to rid a house of termites.
And, in obviously unrelated news :dubious: the Selective Service System is undergoing a massive readiness drill.
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061224/NEWS07/612240542/1009/NEWS07
'Course we do. It’s easy. It’s just difficult to accept that it’s the best thing to do.
OK, we CAN walk away, what we cannot do is walk away and expect not to be attacked. Peace through Strength works.
Don appears to be confusing the Iraqi adventure with the war on terrorism. Well, I guess they are now, in that we shouldn’t be surprised if a major act of terrorism on American soil will someday be set in motion due to an Iraqi terrorist. We sorta have it coming.
The Iraqi Adventure (sounds like a bang up ride at Universal Studios) as you call it has ALWAYS BEEN nothing more than a battlefront in the War on Terror.
Thanks, George, but Babs and Laura miss you at the holiday table. Best get back to them. We’re smarter than that here, anyway, so you’re wasting your time. Merry Christmas!
Your are certainly entitled to hope.
I’ve nothing to add, but to lend support to this statement.
I am a graduate of the Command and General Staff College. If we forced to politicians to pay a political and economic price for their follies, perhaps there would be fewer of them.