BHS

Yippee! Actually, I don't really care. It's only the UN, after all. But the fact that it makes the Dems go bonkers is a huge source of entertainment. For instance, I can hardly wait for what Dean will have to say on the matter. Nancy Pelosi is reliably goofy in her prissy fury as well. And Tipsy and Big Frank (enstein), the daring duo from Massachusetts, should also provide some interesting fodder for Ann Coulter et al.

I've recently been reading about cases involving the 14th amendment and how it has been used to implement federal law in areas normally reserved for state lawmakers. Do you see this in any way affecting your argument? I don't think so personally, but since it's freshly in my mind I thought I'd throw it out there anyway.

I'm sorry but Wikipedia continues to make a more compelling argument.

Just like to interject here to add that I think Yaro (I believe) was technically correct about the definition of "efficiency" from an economics standpoint: if everyone got the service they required without delay, this would indicate that the service providers were being under-utilized, and this indicates inefficiency (and the converse holds that long lines indicate a more efficient use of resources). I don't think that this is what you guys are trying to say.

Thanks Argus. That was a good rebuttal post, and I particularly liked the final paragraph. You've given me things to think about. Sorry mirror. We probably shouldn't be using you as a lab specimen, but you did ask for it.

Okay, I get it. More troops would have been better, and I don't disagree. Rumsfeld used the Iraqi intervention as a test case for smaller, more nimble combat configurations, figuring that the Saddam Fedayeen would put up at least a little bit of a fight. It's kind of WMD the Second in a way: as with the weapons program, the pre-war intel lead the administration to believe Saddam had a greater capability to defend himself than he actually had. They didn't figure the Iraqi Army would surrender wholesale. I just had an interesting thought, based on a previous post by Nemo, who was quoting from Machiavelli and saying that it was obvious that Rumsfeld hadn't really studied "The Prince" et al. His point was, that an easy victory leads to a difficult occupation, because you haven't killed the enemy and he's still all around you. (I'm paraphrasing, obviously.) Doesn't this make the case for being suspicious of the Iraqi Army? I mean, what if Saddam read Machiavelli too (and who doubts that he did)? Perhaps the easy and unexpected victory was a part of Saddam's plan to plant spies and saboteurs in positions of power in the new Iraqi army, to bring down the government after the Americans had left, so that he could come out of hiding and reclaim his country. Who's to say that interviews with former officers in the early days of the occupation didn't indicate this was so? I'm not saying I stumbled onto the truth here, but doesn't it plant reasonable doubt that Rumsfeld was acting irrationally when he made the decisions he made? As to the portion of your post that I've quoted, I just want to know: are you sure the Americans even want to disarm the populace? There was some debate a couple of years ago in the states about the righteousness of such a plan. The Americans base their liberty in part on the Second Amendment, and many Americans hold this right very dearly. It would be hypocrisy to deny a similar right to a people you're trying to liberate, no? Furthermore, who's to say that having a gun in every home isn't beneficial? You won't find that argument from the Swiss, who make gun ownership manditory for every male between the ages of 20 and 42. (I know, a single example does not greatly bolster my argument, especially when the rest of the world seems bent on eliminating gun ownership among the common people. But if you're going to pick a place to carry out a series of home invasions, is it going to be Switzerland? I'd pick England, the world capital of home invasions, where private gun ownership has been outlawed.)

I'm sorry, but how is the state's interest "legitimate" and "compelling"? I don't understand your choice of words. The state's role is to supply reliable arbitration and ensure that the final agreement is upheld.

Or, it could be that they really have held a grudge against us since Andalusia. Who can tell with these guys? Whenever they get a chance to vent their frustration on tape they throw in every grievance and slight that has ever occurred to them. And really, why should we care? People like to argue about "root causes" and trying to find a rational for the what the Islamic terrorists are doing, as if it could be boiled down to a Northern Ireland or Israeli situation of cause and effect. But the things the terrorists themselves have said on the matter are completely incoherent. I'm convinced that they're acting out of deep-seated, blind rage, and that no amount of compromise or good will will placate them. Fine. Pull out of Iraq. Give the "Palestinians" whatever they want. Liquidate the Serbs and Croats and turn the former Yugoslavia over to Albania entirely. Have the Russians withdraw from Chechnya. It won't make a difference, because those "causes" are only excuses for the one true cause: to eliminate our way of life and replace it with sharia and submission, and to kill as many hated infidels as they can in the process.

To quote the Irish Spring girl from the 80's: "And I like it too!"

I think you are grossly mis-informed. Please read the following article from Wikipedia, in particular the section on Canada and the section on the US: Freedom of Speech (Wikipedia) If Wikipedia isn't your cup of tea, please at least start with the articles I've spedified and explain where they are deficient.

The terms of the 'exit strategy' were 'unconditional surrender or the resumption of hostilities'. Then, see "the Treaty of Versailles, the Yalta Conference, etc" as some 'post-victory' and temporary governance strategy' was developed in these cases. But then again, the Great War and WWII were 'official' wars. Korea really became the start of 'fighting a war without calling it one', and the smudging of the legal responsibilities surrounding a formal declaration of war, both at home and abroad, for all involved parties. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I believe the point I was responding to implied that exit strategies had to be in place before going to war, or while hostilities were in progress. Your reply defines exit strategies in a way that indicates they occur after hostilities have ceased. That's fine, I'm all for your definition. And I'll add to it that the American exit strategy for Iraq has been fairly clearly defined for those of us paying attention: a functioning Iraq constitution in place, and and Iraq police force and army up to the job of maintaining security without US backup. Both of which are approaching finalization as I write this. The American Generals in Iraq are confident they'll begin ramping down troop levels early next year, contingent on the support needs specified by the Iraqi government.

That's just how ridiculous you are - defending the credibility of a wanna-be subway cinder by slandering the leaders of the free world.

The Reform Party becomes the Alliance, and merges with the Progressive Conservatives to become the Conservative Party, all since the last time a nominally conservative party has held power. Those are a lot of changes, some of which are undoubtedly "systematic". Which leads me to my next question: just what does "systematic changes" mean, in your lexicon? Second question: what are these "systematic changes" that the Liberals have supposedly made?

Just a thought - how do you know he's not lying? Al-Qaeda operatives are trained to lie if they're captured, because they know the value of disinformation. All we have to go on is his word at this point, and what good is the word of an attempted mass-murderer? Geez, you're gullible.

Here's an interesting and newly added twist - what if two gay men who've adopted split? How do you go about determining which of them is the "mother" figure, other than their word? Do all of the stereotypes mentioned above still hold?

Whoops. takeanumber slipped in before I had a chance to hit the post button. So, you're giving the Liberals another chance to reform themselves, huh? Because the "Cons" can't be trusted, eh? Well, why not. Blind faith is as good as any other excuse I've read for why people support the Liberals.

So, now you're replying to your own posts? Okay, I'm game. I'll keep your little party going, if only briefly. So, Chuck Guite was a Quebec scumbag who came to prominence under Brian Mulroney. And the Liberals, apparently short of Quebec scumbags (who knew?), looked at him and said to themselves, "He's our kind of man!" and kept him on the payroll. My question is, why are you trumpeting this to the rest of the forum? You'd think this would be the kind of thing a red-blooded Liberal would try to keep under wraps.

a ) Waited until the international community was behind the invasion - even if that meant that the invasion could have been delayed for years. b ) Deployed troops to protect all public buildings rather than just the oil ministry c ) Keep the existing security and military forces after removing key Sunni leaders. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> a) What good would that have accomplished? It's arguable that the war would have gone more smoothly if the Americans hadn't pissed away a year and a half after 911 trying to get loser nations like France on board. What problems have resulted from public buildings being left undefended, that have led to serious difficulties in the present? I'm sorry the army didn't have the manpower to guard every scroll and tablet, but if they'd been there and shot the Iraqi civilians doing the looting, you'd be blaming their deaths on the Americans too. You can't have it both ways. c) Who knows how deep the rot went in the old military structure? Why risk handing the military back to the insurgency? Better to rebuild from the ground up.

Good points all, JOVIAC.

How has the war gone badly, in your estimation? What could have been done differently to improve the things that you believe have not gone well?

North Korea was made unwinnable by the support that China threw behind Kim Il Sung. The continuing stalemate is a relict of the Cold War, and it is the best possible solution for keeping a nuclear-armed (thanks Jimmy!) rogue regime in check. Note the ironic twist, as China is burdened with having Il Sung's lunatic son as a neighbour. Bet they didn't see that one coming back in 1950. I have the feeling, that if America commits itself to "total war" in the coming years, that you won't be very happy about it. Call it a hunch.

Thanks Shady. Your posts are always a spot of sunlight in the forum. Which is kind of ironic.

And as I stated in my previous post, history will look kindly on Bush and all that he has achieved, especially in light of the record of his immediate predecessor.

Yep. Everything's Vietnam, from now 'til forever. I don't recall the "exit strategies" for The Great War or The Second World War or Korea - how did they go again? Oh yeah, back then the US government fought for what was right without worrying about how it would look later on. What progress we've made, that we now have anti-war establishment to call every military campaign a "quagmire" from the very beginning.

Success How are you measuring Bush's success? Let's tally up: -Elected in 2000 -Re-elected in 2004 Foreign: -Two major military campaigns fought and won -Daily progress being made in elminating insurgents in both Afghanistan and Iraq -Peaceful transition to national government in Iraq and first democratic elections in that nation's history -Libya drops its WMD program -Syria out of Lebanon -Palestinian intafada on hold as Israelis move to pull out from Gaza -North Korea back to bargaining table -CAFTA looks like a go National: -Filibuster compromise puts Bush's picks into courts -too many examples of Bush getting his way on controversial legislation to mention You will probably argue that some of these items aren't because of anything Bush did, but I betting the history books are going to credit Bush whether the anti-Bush squadrons approve or not. Discredit You think that a little Democrat-manufactured scandal that isn't going anywhere is going to bring discredit to the President immediately following Bill Clinton, who's entire presidency is defined by oral sex escapades in the Oval Office? Please. Security of the Nation Aren't you the guy posting quotes of Mencken and MacArthur to prove that security issues are the bugbear politicians have chosen to keep the sheeple in line these days? Have you had a sudden change of heart?