Readers’ Responses to Our Question (206)

Victoria

You have the podium. I'll wait for your response.

tom- this is an amazing discussion here-

are you aware that i have not posted any opinion at all so far?

so far, ive asked you what your knowledge was-

your response is that you didnt bring the subject up-

i posted 3 seaprate times where you did indeed bring the subject up and make the contentions that the US went to kosovo and bosnia as humanitarians-

i dont see what accusing me of lying has to do with anything- since i havent really said ANYTHING yet!

my statemnt-
"...The fact that you seem to believe intervention started with Clinton, as a distraction favors my initial reaction that you have no clue..."


was a response to your statement-

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"3. Some wars are fought for humanitarian reasons.... Is intervention for humanitarian reasons justified....Another example is Kosovo?
Was Clinton hiding his Presidential troubles? Or did we intervene to gain favor with Islamic people i.e., to show people of Islamic faith that we are fair? Of course, that would be in our interest, as well.
~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Of course, I never said the intervention started with Clinton. Another distortion and lie."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

it seemed to me like you were giving this example- since it was your first reference-

you have many opinions tom- but your proofs seem to lack any cohesion.

peppered with crazy accusations of being high on meth and lying etc...it is almost comical.

your posts dont make any kind of sense-

now im very busy these days-
but possibly insha'alla on saturday my holiday will be winding down and ill have some free time to post an ACTUAL RESPONSE WHICH I HAVENT EVEN GIVEN YET!

but it has been interesting watching you spin and twist beyond all logic and reason- when NOTHING HAS BEEN SAID YET!

from your comments- well documented here i think- it was obvious to me that you know nothing about the subject.

im guessing youve run and done some quick googles, learned a little about it- got ewmbarrassed by the truth- and came back with bush visiting the tiny country of albania and getting a stamp printed with his likeness.

even that is kind of funny- because you put in "heros welcome" when all that was actually said was,
"the greatest and most distinguished guest we have ever had in all times."

ill be back with some actual history-
it is just your blind characterization of the united states as the bringer of good to all the world that seemed one-sided, and frankly goosestep party line to me.

while being completely devoid of any facts-

go do some research tom.

by the way, richard holbrooke- im sure you know, was an aide to ronald reagan- a conservative- and even HE called it the "greatest failure"

when your own conservatives are admitting this fact- it seems incredible that you (who have no kknowledge) persist in trying to justify a point that has been- called into question.

you are funny tom

QV:

By Michael A. Fletcher
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, June 11, 2007; Page A13:

"...But in this former communist nation, Bush was accorded a hero's welcome. He was awarded the Order of the Flag medal, the nation's highest honor. His visage is on a new line of commemorative postage stamps, and the street in front of the parliament building has been renamed in his honor...Later at a news conference, Albanian Prime Minister Sali Berisha hailed Bush as "the greatest and most distinguished guest we have ever had in all times."

Bush returned the love -- or some of it. He repeated his public endorsement of Albania's bid to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. He also reiterated his support for the independence of Kosovo, a Serbian province under U.N. supervision. Ethnic Albanians make up the vast majority of Kosovo's population..."

More evidence of the humanitarian intervention provided by the US in the Balkans. A hero's welcome in Albania for Bush.

Victoria

From 91089: Bosnia - Former Yugoslavia and U.S. Policy Updated December 20, 1996.

Steven J. Woehrel and Julie Kim
Foreign Affairs and National Defense Division

"...The conflict in Bosnia was a key foreign policy priority of the Clinton Administration when it first came into office in 1993. In Spring 1993, the Clinton Administration advocated lifting the arms embargo against the Bosnians and threatening air strikes against the Bosnian Serbs, but this option stalled out of strong opposition in Europe..."

American military involvement might have occurred earlier in the conflict except for EUROPEAN OPPOSITION.

Bearing the cost of keeping the peace (not to mention the risk to American soldiers in a war zone):

"...The United States completed deployment of its forces to IFOR in February 1996. In mid-1996, over 22,000 U.S. personnel were deployed in the region, of which about 16,000 were in Bosnia. Estimated U.S. costs to IFOR for one year are $2.2 billion for FY1996 and $0.7 billion for FY1997. Funding has come from reprogramming previously appropriated funds and supplemental appropriations. On the civilian side, the State Department estimates U.S. contributions to total some $580 million for FY1996. This amount includes the U.S. pledge of $200 million made at the Brussels donor conference on April 12-13, as the first tranche of a three-year, $600 million pledge..."

How many ways would you like me to show you how US involvement in Bosnia benefited the people?

Queen Victoria

I can't figure out if you are high on meth, are really not American and therefore do not understand English or you distort and omit information because winning the argument supersedes everything (which also exposes your political persuasion).

Regardless, somehow you jumped from the genocide to 70,000 American peacekeeping troops in Bosnia and skipped the part where we bombed the Bosnian Serbs. How convenient for your anti American rhetoric. I really suspected you wouldn't reply because you knew that you were wrong.

Distortions by Queen Victoria:

"...The fact that you seem to believe intervention started with Clinton, as a distraction favors my initial reaction that you have no clue..."

Of course, I never said the intervention started with Clinton. Another distortion and lie.

"..."By now, over 200,000 Muslim civilians had been systematically murdered. More than 20,000 were missing and feared dead, while 2,000,000 had become refugees. It was, according to U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Richard Holbrooke, "the GREATEST FAILURE of the West since the 1930s."...i find it alarming that you think it is a success..."

Another lie, Ms. Queen Victoria, as I never implied that the Bosnian conflict was a success only that US involvement "BENEFITED" Bosnia.

I sincerely hope that you find another site to inject your intelligent views on choking and vomiting and your distorted left wing political views. You are a card carrying member of the lying left.

Victoria

Thanks for finally posting something besides “I know what I know”. At least I have something to work with.

I agree with you that much too much time was wasted by the do nothing world, but the bombing led by the US FORCED Milosevic and friends to the peace table. The UN, which deployed troops, was not allowed to engage the Serbs, so what good were they? The UN was a total failure in the mediation of the war.

I find it astonishing that you didn’t even mention the bombings conducted primarily by US (and other NATO members) jets in Bosnia and Kosovo. Did you know about the air campaign?. The US (NATO) bombing campaign helped end the war. They bombed the Bosnian Serbs for over a month while flying over 3500 missions (sorties). US actions benefited the Muslims in Bosnia. How many more people would have died without the intervention? How much longer would the war have lasted?

It seems odd to me that the US led a coalition (Bosnia and Kosovo) in Europe's BACKYARD.

From the “United Human Watch Council”:

“…On August 30, 1995, effective military intervention finally began as the U.S. led a massive NATO bombing campaign in response to the killings at Srebrenica, targeting Serbian artillery positions throughout Bosnia. The bombardment continued into October…Faced with the heavy NATO bombardment and a string of ground losses to the Muslim-Croat alliance, Serb leader Milosevic was now ready to talk peace…”

Thanks for the post.

TOM- your reply

"I can't even find where I said the US intervention in Bosnia was for humanitarian reasons. Were you referring to Kosovo?"

here they are-
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Future historians in no way will view the US as war mongers, that is, if Columbia University isn't involved in writing history.
Certainly much of the world was only too happy to have the US take the lead, for example in NATO, to counter the Soviet THREAT. The US took the lead after WWII, and other countries around the world EXPECTED the US to lead (Korea-UN, Kuwait, BOSNIA and Kosovo etc.).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

AGAIN-

How many would have died due to the reuniting of Taiwan with communist China without US deterrence? Taiwan is also a democracy.

Kuwait, BOSNIA, Kosovo, Panama, etc. all benefited from US foreign policy.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
3. Some wars are fought for HUMANITARIAN reasons... Another example is KOSOVO? Was Clinton hiding his Presidential troubles? Or did we intervene to gain favor with Islamic people i.e., to show people of Islamic faith that we are fair? Of course, that would be in our interest, as well.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well Tom, here are 3 places where you made the claim that US forces benefitted the people of the balkans.

The fact that you seem to believe intervention started with Clinton, as a distraction favors my initial reaction that you have no clue.

No Tom, we sent 70,000 troops AFTER the genocide of the muslims by the serbs, and the mass rapes of the muslim women there. after the signing of the dayton accords-
actually, since all of the men and boys are 12 had been 'cleansed' from most of bosnia (sent to ocncentration camps) one of the big problems that occurred when the US finally did make an appearance, was charges of inappropriate behavior towards the women who were left there.

i find it astonishing that you stuff the balkans in 3 times with your other "examples"(yet say you cant find your own posts) as benefitting from the US-
so it really leads one to think if your knowledge of this issue is so abysmal, it discredits your other assertion and reasoning-

here is what richard holbrooke had to say-

"
"By now, over 200,000 Muslim civilians had been systematically murdered. More than 20,000 were missing and feared dead, while 2,000,000 had become refugees. It was, according to U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Richard Holbrooke, "the GREATEST FAILURE of the West since the 1930s."

i find it alarming that you think it is a success.

since you have no knowledge of what you speak, there is no reason to discuss anything.

ad hominems are a poor tactic for covering up a lack of knowledge.

Victoria

You twist information like a pretzel. You are completely unworthy of a response.

Have a nice day

Victoria

I can't even find where I said the US intervention in Bosnia was for humanitarian reasons. Were you referring to Kosovo?

disagreeing with my politics hardly seems like an intelligent reason not to prove a cpntention you have made.

so your reasoning to making statements without verifying or offering reasons is- (which is all i asked for) is that in your opinion i made a comment on the manners of bush sr?
but that is not the point.

if you had any knowledge of what you speak about- you would have answered immediately instead of threowing the exact same question back on me.

clearly you have no idea about america's role in bosnia.

the fact that you didnt mention NATO is becuase youre not aware of what happened there.

and since i did ask you for the reasoning process that made you reach the incorrect conclusion you made-

and you have no answer-

it doesnt matter if you dislike my politics

it just means you cannot answer the question posed

this is WAPO- so when you come onto this blog you really should assume there will be some who have different views than you

and that disagreement has no bearing on the ability or inability to answer a civilly framed question

Victoria

Maybe I can help you understand what I mean.

"...o and ZOLTAN- im the first to call bush an ill mannered brute- i remember watching his daddy throwing up on the premiere of japan-
and bush almost choking to death on a pretzel when he was first in office-..."

This qualifies as one of the most bazaar statements I've seen on Washington PostGlobal in the year that I've been posting. Throwing up and choking are involuntary actions, and unless you saw the elder Bush stick his finger down his throat, then, at least in my opinion, this doesn't qualify as rude behavior (but does give me great insight into your political persuasion).

I disagreed with your statement and I provided a reason why.

I have no idea what you know, and, frankly, I don't care what you know so if you have an objection to a statement I made then YOU provide the reason why or please post someone else.

tom- i didnt ask you what i know.

i already know what i know.

i asked what YOU know.

are you actually suggesting i answer my own question?

do your own homework tom.

if you knew anything about this issue, you'd just say so.

Victoria

Sorry, I just happened to notice your post. You can look up the NATO countries involved in 1995 as well as I can (note though that I made no reference to NATO specifically to the Bosnian war, however) and with regard to your second part, you questioned what I said, so I would appreciate if you provide the theory and MOTIVATION for why the US involvement in former Yugoslavia was not a humanitarian mission.

Thanks for the post.

mr wonacott-
may i ask exactly what your knowledge of the nato forces (and who comprised them and when) in bosnia were?

and what makes you think the united states had a humanitarian mission there?

Just follow the Holly Bible and it will show you the way.
Go back to the original text (bypassing the Evangelists!)

Here is my proof:

See Verse 16 in Ch 5 of Song of Songs at this location
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt3005.htm

Look at the Hebrew text. You will see the Name Mohammad (מַחֲמַדִּים) there! Just remove the "i" (י) and "m" (ם) used for making a noun plural.

follow מַחֲמַד !!!

AM

Sorry, I didn't know that you weighed in. My previous post addresses you as well.

Mark LeVine, professor of modern Middle Eastern history at UC Irvine in California, writes:

"Few commentators considered how Ahmadinejad's words were heard outside of the US media circus.... almost no one in the American media focused on the substantive claims of Ahmadinejad's speech at the UN.

Chief among them were his argument regarding the "alarming situation of poverty and deprivation".

...

Hoisting Noam Chomsky's Hegemony or Survival above his head, he exclaimed that "the hegemonic pretensions of US imperialism ... put at risk the very survival of humankind".

America, not Iran, Chavez argued, is "the greatest threat looming over our planet".

...

US policymakers' view of the world through the "you're either with us or against us" prism divides the globe into those who support the US and Europe (and the "West" more broadly), and those who support al-Qaeda and "Islamofascism", a term which has been created precisely to ensure that Americans conflate Osama bin Laden with Ahmadinejad, and both with Hitler.

But few people outside of the West buy this comparison, or the larger black-and-white world-view it reflects.

...

Americans may not like Ahmadinejad's or Chavez's internal politics, ideological orientations, or foreign policies.

But for most of the third world, which is tired of centuries of domination by the West, the two leaders are a breath of fresh air, who are coming not as conquerors, but as comrades.

...

And because of this, most of the citizens of the developing world, rightly or wrongly, couldn't care less about Ahmadinejad's positions on Israel, the Holocaust, and nuclear weapons, never mind homosexuals, none of which affect them directly.

They care only that he is sticking-it-to their old colonial or Cold war masters, and offering "respect", "friendship" and billions of dollars in aid with no strings attached.

Americans, Europeans and Israelis can fret about it all they want, but it will not change this reality.

Only a reorientation of the world economy towards real sustainability and equality will dampen his appeal, and that's not likely to happen soon.

Which means that Americans will be hearing a lot more of Ahmadinejad and leaders like him in the future.

The question is, will they be listening?"

(Source: english.aljazeera.net)

On Ahmadinejad's message to the world, the editor asks : "Does Iranian leader's global view convey truisms the West would rather ignore?"

Judging by our "conversations" here, in the Washington Post, following the Columbia incident, my answer ought to be "yes".

JRLR, BobL

“…Since the end of WWII, how many million deaths have we been responsible for, directly or indirectly, and for no other reason than to further the interests of the empire?…”

Wars always further the interest of the country fighting in one way or another (why fight if you gain nothing?). A possible exception are wars fought for humanitarian reasons. There are many factors that cause a country to resort to war. If you believe that war is never justified, then we just simply disagree and a discussion is pointless. Regardless, we will certainly disagree on the justification of wars. Some examples follow:

1. Is there good killing versus bad killing? In other words, the US killed perhaps 10 million people during WWII. Would you consider the killing justified even though it “furthered our interest“.

2. We may just disagree whether a war is justified, for example, the war in Afghanistan (which most American liberals supported). The Taliban harbored the terrorist that attacked the World Trade center. Liberals focus on Iraq, but I’m guessing that there would be quite a lot of disagreement over the US attack which killed thousands of Taliban as well as thousands of Afghanistan civilians. Afghanistan already had been through countless years of war. The Taliban never attacked us, and its possible that over time (through the UN), the issue might have been resolved peacefully. Was that just a blatant show of US power or was the war justified? What about Pakistan which harbors Bin Laden? Was Obama’s assessment ridiculous or reality?

3. Some wars are fought for humanitarian reasons. Liberal columnist Nicolas Kristoff of the New York Times (hardly a war monger) advocated that the Bush Administration intervene in Darfur (I cannot remember the date of the column). Is intervention for humanitarian reasons justified (what percentage of the liberals on planet earth would have accused the US of intervening for the oil in the Sudan)? Another example is Kosovo? Was Clinton hiding his Presidential troubles? Or did we intervene to gain favor with Islamic people i.e., to show people of Islamic faith that we are fair? Of course, that would be in our interest, as well.

4. The war in Kuwait was fought for oil interest (ours and the worlds) and humanitarian reasons as well. How would you classify the “killings”? The war in Kuwait definitely (the way I interpret your statement) furthered the interest of the “empire”, but also liberated a country from the rule of a brutal dictator.

5. The track record of communist dictatorships world-wide and the deaths caused by communist regimes such as China, USSR, Cambodia, North Korea probably exceeded WWII casualties. The Cuban missile crisis nearly caused a nuclear war. How can you ignore these facts when viewing US history? If the Soviet Union was not a threat, then why, even today, do former Soviet satellites join NATO? And why was NATO formed to begin with?

I couldn’t give you a number and it would be meaningless since we would certainly disagree over the justification of the various conflicts to begin with. For example, BobL believes we are responsible for several million deaths in Korea, I emphatically don’t. I would classify the Korean conflict as containing Soviet expansion as well as saving numerous lives which eventually led to a thriving democratic state - all for a war fought for ideological reasons. Let’s also not forget that North Korea launched the attack against the South.

In addition, numbers in no way reflect if the country we fought benefited in the long run or indeed the world community benefited from the war. What is the value of a deterrent to preventing war (saving lives) and how do we determine the value of appeasement in leading to war. The classic example of appeasement is WWII, but South Korea and Taiwan are examples of the value of a deterrent in preventing war and saving lives. What about failed diplomacy and sanctions which can lead to war as well, for example, Iran?

Just looking at total lives lost ignores history.

What does indirectly mean? Supplying weapons? CIA engineered? Support and training?

BobL, maybe my history is a little weak, but it seems to me that we were attacked on 911 by radical Islam. Bin Laden declared war on the US in 1998 and we, for all intents and purposes, ignored him. Oh, I know, its our foreign policy and the deaths caused by sanctions on Iraqi Muslims (and children) not to mention our support of Israel and Arab dictators that motivated him. Bin Laden views every Muslim life as sacred as can be seen in Iraq and his support of the Taliban.

BOBL-VA: It is interesting that the only TRUE generational conflict since WW2 was won without us going to war. There were conflicts related to it, and the only one we won is the one where we did not send any troops (that is the war in Greece between 1945 - 1949). Every other time we actually sent troops to 'defend' or 'give liberty' to some other country ended in problems for us (S.Korea is arguably an exception, but the war itself could have been avoided, and we did not impose 'liberation' on the Koreans). As you pointed out, our involvement has resulted in millions of deaths.

Tom Wonacott,

Is revisionist history to the point of dismissing, rationalizing and misinterrupting basic historical facts the basis of the republican party today? It seems to go like this. America is basically good and there is evil in the world that we need to wipe out. Since we are God's chosen nation based on our belief in God, Freedom and Democracy combined with our resources it's our obligation to set the world straight. Top this off when we're dead ass wrong it's OK simply because once and a while we actually do some good. Since with the exception of WWII we have a real hard time pointing to good things we've done we are forced to use the classic straw man arguments that have no answers to support our armed interventions. They go like this. What would have happened if we had not intervened? The answer is we don't know because we did intervene. The answer is never we saved lives because we have no proof that is the case since we altered the outcome.

No, with the exception of WWII America stands on very shakey ground when it comes to armed intervention. I don't think anybody really knows how many millions of people the US has been responsible for killing since the end of WWII, but it is considerable. Add up just Korea, Vietnam and the Gulf conflicts and it probably comes to around 8-10 million.

Also, it should be noted the Cold War is over. It was over long before we went into the first gulf war. We're not fighting those nasty geopolitical hoarding commies anymore. With the commie evil threat gone now we have the dreaded Islamofacist we need to kill for. Not that the term Islamofacist has a meaning that makes sense, but it sure is a nasty word and people who would believe in it if it existed deserve to die.

Korea and Vietnam were a response to slow down or thwart the expanision of communist states. The Gulf has been all about trying to exert enough influence over the area to ensure our supply of oil continues. You can stand on your soap box all day long and preach freedom, democracy and human rights all you want, but only ninnies will believe it. If we were really concerned about injustice in the world we would have invaded Cambodia and removed Pol Pot. Today we'd go into Dafur and clean it up. One thing we surely wouldn't do is to go out of way to support what amounts to a dictatorship in Saudi Arabia. No my friend, this isn't about freedom and democracy or even human rights it's about exerting our influence and keeping markets open.

Our saber rattling over Iran today is for the same reason. There is a great deal of fear in the State Department today that Iran has really been the winner in the Iraq conflict. They will come out of this debacle with greater influence then they had before we invaded. The State Department is probably right. After all we destabilized the country to the point where it will take 30 to 50 years to recover. I have no doubt if Bush/Cheney could figure out a way to blow Iran back into the stone age and get away with it they would do so in a heartbeat. However, after how poorly Iraq has gone it will be a tough sell to the majority of America. What the argument really comes down to is should we destabilize Iran in order to give Iraq a fighting chance at coming through the invasion and civil war they have and are going through. Not very attractive, is it? However, we'll couch this argument in these interfering Islamofacists are dangerous to the world, support terrorism and are trying to make a nuke so they can blow up Israel. Eventhough Israel already has enough nukes to turn the entire country of Iran into the worlds largest glass sculpture and wouldn't hestitate to use them if someone used one on them. (heat and samd equal glass)

Tom,

BobL-VA wrote: "... we need to ... STOP KILLING OTHER PEOPLE. Until we're willing to do that one simple thing we will be known as aggressors. We can try to rationalize it all we want, but it's our history."

As I wrote in a previous post, before we stop killing, we must first acknowledge that we kill. Obviously, that is for us the most difficult achievement possible: witness, "conversations" like this one.

"But I'm stubborn as those garbage bags
that Time cannot decay,
I'm junk but I'm still holding up
this little wild bouquet.." (Leonard Cohen)

So I ask again:

Since the end of WWII, how many million deaths have we been responsible for, directly or indirectly, and for no other reason than to further the interests of the empire?

As a corollary, how many million Americans have participated, helped, been complicit in the killing?

How many have we killed?

How many of us were involved in the worldwide killing spree? How many are still involved, as this is being written?

I am sorry, but it is worth repeating here, once again, that "Two wrongs never make a right".

Personally, I am prepared to listen to and accept any valid criticism of US international conduct (and of my own), wherever it comes from, be it the devil. By the way, it is only by doing so that, back in the US, some Vietnam vets have managed to mend their badly wounded souls, and come to lead a reasonably "normal" life. (See William P. Mahedy's remarkable "Out of the Night"!)

I wish to add that I can also still hear and listen to whatever people have to say on Israel and on the holocaust. I am confident I know enough on the subject to hold my own with a fair amount of civility.

To conclude, you are right: "It is one thing to disagree with US policy and quite another to accept the word of a chronic liar."

I would suggest though, that in this country, expressions such as "chronic liar" have become as difficult to handle as a boomerang. We should therefore exercise a high degree of caution, whenever we only think of using them.

When I read "chronic liar", I cannot help it: first come to my mind the images of infamous present-day Americans.

MikeB

Oh, there are alternatives to capitalism such as communism, Naziism and Islamfascism, but no self respecting human would want to live under those systems (given a choice). Of course, even stalwart communist states such as China are choosing capitalism and the reason is simple - it works. Are the rich favored (have an advantage) in our society? God, yes. I’m not sure that America hasn’t always been run by the wealthy, at least since the period of industrialization, and the rise of communism was probably a response to the inequities of capitalism, but it’s a poor alternative.

But let’s also give some personal responsibility to people that defaulted on their loans or have built tremendous credit card debt. I assume you wouldn’t buy a BMW if you can’t afford one. As BobL said, many people also benefited from the loans including construction workers and people working in related industries (and that‘s a lot of people).

Finally, you cannot come across as moral and decent while sponsoring a Holocaust Denial Convention. You are not moral or decent if your agenda requires subjugation of your own people and state executions of women accused of adultery (by winging rocks at them). OK, I would choose Ahmadinejad over Hillary….

JRLR

You can refer to me by name. How many lives has American policy saved and how many people have been liberated by US policy (including WWII)? Answer: countless.

In the Korean conflict, for example, it’s estimated that 3,000,000 people lost their lives due to the attack by North Korea’s brutal dictator (approved by Russia) to “reunite” the Koreas. Had the US (UN) done nothing, how many South Koreans would have been killed during the war, how many South Koreans would have starved due to poor economic policies and how many would have been executed for political reasons? HOW MANY WOULD BE FREE TODAY?

How many would have died due to the reuniting of Taiwan with communist China without US deterrence? Taiwan is also a democracy.

Kuwait, Bosnia, Kosovo, Panama, etc. all benefited from US foreign policy.

Did US power deter a third world war due to the expansionist USSR? You can bet that US power and NATO was a very strong deterrent to potential Russian plans. What’s that worth in potentially saved lives?

“…And since when does the Empire take its cue from world opinion, from what the world EXPECTS from the US? What do/did 1. "Manifest Destiny" and its latest versions for different parts of the world, 2. the School of the Americas and the US Southern Command's tropical warfare training center in the Panama Canal Zone, 3. the Phoenix program (Vietnam), 4. Abu Ghraib, 5. Guantanamo-Gitmo, 6. the CIA "rendition" programs and secret prisons... have to do with what the world ever EXPECTED from the US?…”

Empire - a major political unit having a territory of great extent or a number of territories or peoples under a single sovereign authority

Oh, you can find plenty of wrong committed by the US, and certainly worse than above, but that doesn’t change my basic premise that the US assumed the leadership of the free world against the USSR, and the spread of communism after Europe collapsed. The US did a lot of good intermixed with some poorly thought out policies (some were still beneficial, however). The term “Empire” applies more appropriately to the USSR.

You’ll note that in my first post, I never attempted to justify all US policy. I never have. I provided some background for the development of US policy. I object to the idea that we just kill basically to kill. It is completely wrong. Mistakes, yes, but our policy was based on a philosophy that a totalitarian form of government threatened our existence (and it was influenced greatly by the Cuban Missile Crisis which is why we supported military dictatorships over communist rule especially in South America). Interestingly, the same political philosophy is still in effect today as we favor dictatorships over Islamic rule.

“…"The real target," the woman continued, "is the Muslim world.... You need to read... Toynbee. Back in the fifties he predicted that the real war in the next century would not be between Communists and capitalists, but between Christians and Muslims…”

He got it half right. Actually its radical Islam against Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhist and just infidels in general. Read “Terror and Liberalism” by Paul Berman and “Future Jihad” by Walid Phares.

“…Personally, I found most pertinent what President Ahmedinejad said on:
1. the widespread violations of human rights, terrorism and occupation,...
5. the escalation of threats and the arms race,…”

Now some questions for you:

1. How do you reconcile what Ahmadinejad says on “human rights” with his own dismal record in Iran? How do you reconcile what Ahmadinejad says on "human rights" and the Holocaust Denial convention which he hosted and invited David Duke?
2. How do you reconcile Ahmadinejad’s definition of “occupation” and what it means to Middle East peace??
3. How do you reconcile Ahmadinejad’s support of "terrorism" in the Middle East and in Iraq and Afghanistan?
4. How do you reconcile “threats” with what Ahmadinejad actually says?

"Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury."
"Remove Israel before it is too late and save yourself from the fury of regional nations."
"The skirmishes in the occupied land are part of a war of destiny. The outcome of hundreds of years of war will be defined in Palestinian land. As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map."
"If the West does not support Israel, this regime will be toppled. As it has lost its raison d' tre, Israel will be annihilated."
"Israel is a tyrannical regime that will one day will be destroyed."
"Israel is a rotten, dried tree that will be annihilated in one storm."

It is one thing to disagree with US policy and quite another to accept the word of a chronic liar.

MikeB writes: "Much of the world already views us as a failed nation-state. We have become an oligarchy, run by the wealthy and corporations."

The US Empire is a plutocracy under the guise of a democracy.

Just check: 1. any idea of what the Bush dynasty (with its international connections) is all about? 2. any idea how much money it takes to become an influential public figure, in the US?

Just check! Learn! By so doing, you will get confirmation we are living in a plutocracy, under the guise of a democracy.

No way we'll ever know how many people we kill. Everyone comes with a different estimate. And we'd have to compare how many people Saddam might have potentially killed compared to how many Iraqis are killed by American troops. And by Iraqis. And everyone else.

I doubt there's a country on this planet that's not responsible for death. JRLR wants to simplify the issue. Unfortunately, the issue isn't rooted in America. It's rooted in us.

I mean, we're violent people!

I don't know a single person, not one, that hasn't at some point been in a fight. Few foreign governments are more dangerous to you than the people that live around you, relatively speaking. You're much more likely to die of a domestic murder than from a foreign invasion in the world.

Of course, we're also not mentioning the vast amounts of wars that were waged that we were not involved with. Of course, we're involved with a lot. Military technology makes up a large chunk of our economy. And the Soviet/NATO standoff pumped huge amounts of weapons and investments into smaller, more violent governments. Honestly, between NATO and the USSR, we probably are responsible for deaths into the billions.

But if I'm supposed to be terrified of it, I'm not. I'm pretty inured to death. I wish I weren't, but when you keep reducing deaths down to raw numbers, it makes it a lot easier to swallow. The fact is, simply put, that everyone reading these words is technically capable of killing someone. The only thing seperating us from our killer instinct is a dose of civilized culture AND, more importantly, the threat of more violence.

Our police force is armed. It has to be. They can't politely ask someone to stop stabbing a man to death and expect him to surrender. Figures in authority need some kind of threats to retain power, and when you're a government, that means you need the threat of violence.

If you'd like a thought exercise, imagine a world where there are no authority figures threatening violence to stop you. The world would be a pretty nasty place.

So we can't ask what America is responsible for without asking what we're responsible for. Everyone. If you're a citizen of this planet, you're part of a global civilization that is responsible for a staggering amount of death due to war, domestic violence, capital punishments, the intentional spread of disease. Death is something each of us can produce with nothing more than our bare hands and enough muscle.

If America wasn't here, someone would be around fighting a global fight against someone else and they'd be causing a lot of death. America simply has the capital to perpetrate these wars, and the global nature of communications and economies (thus politics) means that wars are now intercontinental. If America does stop, does war go away? No.

So if you think I'm supposed to be terrified about how much death and injury can be attributed to some government, imagine how scared I'd be to know that killing is a global currency used to buy and sell power. How would I walk through my day knowing that there are people around me who might hate me that want desperately night after night to kill me and the only thing that keeps them from meeting me out back with a shotgun on my way home is the same training that tells us to look both ways when we cross the street and the government's threat to find my killer and imprison or kill them. Keeps you looking over your shoulder.

We are a very, very dangerous bunch of animals. And none of us are above it. There's very little that seperates us from Jeffrey Dahmer besides a bit of past and maybe a couple chemicals. I'm just saying one person killing another has been a situation since the dawn of mankind and it's not going anywhere even if America swears off war and withdraws into its own domestic affairs ('isolationism' in American parlance). Death happens, and politics is just a pretty common way to meet it from a foreign nation.

Still, I've got to sleep at night. If you don't come to terms with people dying, daily, in horrific fashions, and that if you aren't actively protesting it it's always your fault, you don't sleep.

Luckily, being American, it gets brought up enough to me that I've had a long time to ponder my urge to rip people's throats out barehanded and what grace of God makes me able to walk it off. Most people don't ever ponder that they can actually kill somebody and examine why they don't. It makes life more interesting.

Tom Wonacott - Much of the world already views us as a failed nation-state. We have become an oligarchy, run by the wealthy and corporations. I do not say this like some left wing twit, but base this assessment on what I see happening. The Fed is poised to again lower interest rate, even though every economist in the world warnis that the consequences of this will be disasterous for this country. The Fed is doing this to appease the "investor"-specuator crowd that will desert this sinking ship for some new European or Asian home once things begin to really fall apart. This very same crowd of greedy parasite have been the force applying pressure to companies for ever lower production costs leading to outsourcing, leading to the wholesale dismantling of our infrastructure. They turn the English language upon it's head, too. The headlines last week were of Apple's newest upgrade turning "hacked" iPones into bricks. WQell, the last time I checked, those iPhone were *owned* by the people who bought them, said people paying full retail for them. And, the reports are that Apple took a look at the modifcations people made to their iPhones, ermitting them to run non-Apple software, and purposefully constructed the "upgrade" to break those phone. So who is the "hacker" here? Hum? Same deal with the subprime mortgages, mortgages that are still being sold and the blood sucking ticks behind these, mainstream banks and creedit card companies all, are branching out to other loan vehicles...even medical bills, which are automatically turned into personal loans now.

The next time someone wants to criticize Iran or some other country's leadership, they need to take a look at the corrupt, utter swine that we have swindling us at home first. Compared to George Bush or Dick Cheney or Hillary Clinton or anyone you are likely to encounter on Wall Street or any investment house, Ahmedinejad comes across as downright moral and decent.

So what if Ahmedinejad says wipe Israel off the map????
Israel is already ethnically cleaning Palestinians.

So what if he believes Holocaust did not happen or it is a myth????
If we truly believe in "Free speech", let him believe it. That mey be his belief, right or wrong. As if jews don't believe they are the master race and in "the God promised Land of Israel"
This whole hate circus is cooked up the Jews with dual loyalties in US.

All right. This may not be totally fair.

Let me therefore step forward and provide a first answer.

"Vietnam released figures on April 3, 1995 that a total of one million Vietnamese combatants and four million civilians were killed in the war. The accuracy of these figures has generally not been challenged."

That is from a site where one can read: "that the United States lost the war in Vietnam... is a myth." (http://www.vietnam-war.info)

Now, any figures for Iraq? That is recent... should make the job all the easier, even though it be well known that, according to US military authorities, "we aren't in the victims accounting business"!

Any figures for Latin America?

"The US took the lead after WWII, and other countries around the world EXPECTED the US to lead..."

Yes... heard that before...

And since when does the Empire take its cue from world opinion, from what the world EXPECTS from the US? What do/did 1. "Manifest Destiny" and its latest versions for different parts of the world, 2. the School of the Americas and the US Southern Command's tropical warfare training center in the Panama Canal Zone, 3. the Phoenix program (Vietnam), 4. Abu Ghraib, 5. Guantanamo-Gitmo, 6. the CIA "rendition" programs and secret prisons... have to do with what the world ever EXPECTED from the US?

"So before we lambast ourselves as American bullies, we should remember the French... Darfur.... Burma. We kill a lot of people. So does the rest of the world. So do all of us... I mean, I'd support peace as much as the next guy. But I'm being realistic.... "

Yes... of course... realism is a great virtue.

Now, all that said, can and will any American "realist" tell us:

Since WWII, how many have we killed?

How many of us were involved in, and responsible for the worldwide killing spree?

Who will dare fill the blanks?

"..... Americans were responsible for the death of ...... human beings."

Next, we can talk about the injured, first the children, those with malformations or dying from our having used depleted uranium, agents orange, purple... -- you choose the colour!

"In fact, the root of all violence looks back at you from a mirror."

Well, then, what does America "the realist" see, facing the mirror?

Anything?

Terrorized by what he sees?

Or shall we call this a case of blindness from birth?

BobL

Future historians in no way will view the US as war mongers, that is, if Columbia University isn't involved in writing history. You give absolutely no context to the affect of WWI and WWII and the European implosion in the twentieth century, nor the Soviet Union expansion and the threat of WWIII and the spread of the despotic communist system world-wide. Certainly much of the world was only too happy to have the US take the lead, for example in NATO, to counter the Soviet THREAT. The US took the lead after WWII, and other countries around the world EXPECTED the US to lead (Korea-UN, Kuwait, Bosnia and Kosovo etc.).

For much of post WWII, US policy was shaped by the communist threat. How many died from starvation, political assassinations and civil wars as communism spread. Millions upon millions died or were murdered. The Cuban missile crisis brought us to the brink of nuclear war. When the Soviet Union collapsed, FIFTEEN countries gained their independence. You will never convince me that the USSR was not a major threat to the free world and for people who love free speech, such as yourself, communist dictatorships around the world still muzzle free speech and other freedoms that we enjoy (including China).

Over seventy million people died in WWII because Nazi Germany and Japan rose unchallenged, and another ten million were killed in WWI. Sometimes diplomacy just fails because an enemy (and some are just evil and it has nothing to do with culture, and no Bob, I don‘t mean Bush) cannot be convinced through diplomacy. Peace cannot always be achieved through talk and we are doomed to repeat history if you believe that it is. Our foreign policy has been shaped by disastrous world events.

Iran is a classic example of failed diplomacy. A failure of the EU-3 using incentives and a failure with sanctions because Russia and China will veto anything with teeth. Finally (and much too late), because France realizes that the failure of diplomacy is war, they are pushing for the EU to impose tough sanctions on Iran (outside of the UN) to, hopefully, force them abandon uranium enrichment. This is meant to lessen the possibility of the US or Israel bombing Iran's nuclear facilities which, in reality, is in no one's best interest. This is a welcome change.

It's way to simple to just say we have been involved with an "x" amount of conflicts and call us war mongers, and its just plain wrong. The world is way to complicated to make such blanket statements.

How to do this delicately?

I hate to break it to you guys, but we don't believe in peace. Maybe we don't always believe or agree in outright nation versus nation warfare, but I doubt anyone on this forum has never used the tools at their disposal to cause someone pain. You've told lies, flung insults, and maybe even broken a jaw or two, but you believe in conflict. And as long as there is conflict, there will be violence and death from violence.

America's only credit here is that we're more efficient about killing people because of our well-equipped military. If our soldiers were all carrying machetes and had no guns, this would be a different conversation. But the root of all violence isn't in America or in our guns.

In fact, the root of all violence looks back at you from a mirror.

Every human being on this planet is born with the capability of causing another great amounts of pain, damage, and yes, even death. Most of the time we get away from it by throwing insults, manipulating the truth, or plain old-fashioned lowering of the self-esteem. But almost all of us will someday be pushed to point where you're breaking jaws or having your jaw broken. This isn't some foreign policy anomaly in our part of the world. Force of violence is the currency of mankind.

I mean, trust me, we WANT there to be peace. We would love there to be no war and no struggle. But we are defined by our struggles, and if two people are struggling for the same thing that they can't share, someone is going to win, someone is going to lose, or everyone is going to leave with nothing.

So we all say we want peace, but we define our lives through conflict and suffering. From conflict and suffering there emerge people who hurt and people who are hurt. And that hurt is sometimes death.

So we can reelect our government right here on the spot. All green party, let's say. We can rewrite our constitution amd change our foreign policy and alter ourselves as a nation. But what you're asking is for every person to grab the spirit of their conflict and cast it aside. Violence, unfortunately, isn't a taught trait. Restraint is the taught trait. Violence is the instinct.

Unless that fundamental aspect that can send whole nations or single bodies to war is removed from the human being, there will always be war and always be death. And death and war shall be proportional to how much war you can wage.

So before we lambast ourselves as American bullies, we should remember the French revenge attack in the Ivory Coast not long ago. And the genocide in Darfur. And the crushing crackdown on dissidents in Burma. We kill a lot of people. So does the rest of the world. So do all of us.

Sure, we need to be more peaceful. But you are fooling yourself if you ever think you will live in peace.

I believe Ambrose Bierce called peace "in international affairs, a period of cheating between two periods of fighting." I mean, I'd support peace as much as the next guy. But I'm being realistic. Our first instinct is to fight and win. To ignore and compromise are things that have to be beaten into our heads. Those teachings may linger. But the instinct never goes away.

BobL-VA writes:

"My point is very simple. We are what we act like. There is absolutely no doubt we act like we are contrary to peace. That's who we are.If we want to change that image then we need to start acting like people who believe in peace and STOP KILLING OTHER PEOPLE. Until we're willing to do that one simple thing we will be known as aggressors. We can try to rationalize it all we want, but it's our history."

I must admit I am reading a lot of stuff, these days, that many people on this forum would not find particularly inspiring... Studying very closely that material, all written by true blue Americans (many of them having been directly involved), leads me to ask the following question:

Do people on this forum have any idea how many deaths we, Americans, have been responsible for since the end of WWII; directly or indirectly, and for no other reason than to further the interests of the empire? Throughout Asia, Latin America, the Middle East, Africa, Europe.

How many millions deaths have we been responsible for?

As a corollary, how many million Americans have participated, helped, been complicit in the killing?

As much as I resent all accountants of death, the fact remains that before we stop killing, we must first acknowledge that we kill.

How many have we killed?

How many of us were involved in the killing?

Who wants to take this first step and attempt to answer those questions?

"..... Americans were responsible for the death of ...... human beings."

Next, we can talk about the injured.

Victoria,

Since the end of the war that was supposed to end all wars, WWII, just over 60 years ago we've been engaged in Korea, Suez, Vietnam, Nicaragua, Panama, Grenada, Columbia, Libya, Cuba, Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan. (I'm sure I've left some out, but you get the idea) This does not include the Cold War which went on for 30 plus years. Peaceful nations find a way to not engage other countries militarily unless there is no other choice. None of the above mentioned conflicts fall into "there is no choice category." Go back prior to WWII and you see the same patterns of behavior.

My point is very simple. We are what we act like. There is absolutely no doubt we act like we are contrary to peace. That's who we are. If we want to change that image then we need to start acting like people who believe in peace and stop killing oter people. Unitl we're willing to do that one simple thing we will be known as aggressors. We can try to rationalixe it all we want, but it's our history. It is imperative in order to be viewed as peaceful people we need to walk the walk. Talk today has become nothing more then rhetoric.

I'm sick of terrorists and I'm sick of enemies. We can't even define what a terrorist is
or an enemy is any longer. We use these terms to justify our aggression. The Koreans, Vietnamese, Iraqis, etc, etc., were never our enemies. We were our enemy. We didn't agree with their stance so we used rhetoric to make them evil and justify killing them because we're too stupid to find another way of dealing with people with have disagreements with.

We snubbed the Iranian leader because he doesn't agree with us and because we have labeled him a member of the dreaded "Axis of Evil." We need to grow up, but I doubt I'll see that happen in the 25 or so years I have left on this planet

No problem, Victoria. Words can kind of run together, especially with the black-on-blue. I had to reread my own posts to make sure I wasn't mistyping something somewhere.

Anyone else think that a room full of fifty American citizens and fifty Iranian citizens could get an agreement together faster than our governments? Had this discussion with a Lebanese friend of mine. It seems like our governments are making the task of getting along harder for us rather than easier. In fact, I can't remember someone from the old Persian empire that I've met that I haven't gotten along with at least on an intellectual level.

I have no idea why a compromise on all this unpleasantness can't be reached by government officials (who we elect and PAY for this kind of thing) when I'm pretty sure that a few days of butting heads with a few common civilians would hammer out at least the beginnings of a compromise. I mean, isn't diplomacy supposed to be these people's jobs? I shouldn't get along with their people better than the professionals we're paying to get along with them, should I?

It's kind of like most countries in the Middle East are in the same boat as we are. We're saddled with hardline leaders who were elected with a hardcore religious backing. Then those leaders proceeded to strut at each other like roosters in a fighting pit. It's self-serving! They say we need hardline leaders to face extremists like [insert your country's hated head of state here], and yet, I doubt they would care about each other if we had professional diplomats in place who are meant to handle their business.

Even current Democrats are busy treating Iran like a target. TheIranians just want a piece of the Iraqi pie. Just like us!

Which brings up the end question of the conversation that I pose to you all. If it would mean a downplay of tensions, should our presidents take a shot of pride right in their nationalistic cojones and start joint-managing Iraq? I mean, Bush is already sure that the Shiite hardliners are being supplied by Iran (although I'm not believing that until Bush shows me some real physical proof this time). If that's the case, why not play ourselves like a devious political force for once instead of a knight in shining armor. Let the Iranians come, let them rebuild the Iraqi sections. Whatever happens happens, but at least the Iranians would get a piece of the political action and we'd be less responsible for anything that happens.

I have reservations about it still. Probably residual mistrust of Ahmedinejad's regime. But it's better to have the people we don't trust on our side of the curtain anyway.

vic van meter- you're right, i looked at this sentence you wrote,

"But I'm pretty sure they wouldn't let him come in easy."

and defintiley projected my owm interpretation onto it.
sorry about that.

JRLR- in the late 80s i volunteered for the Disabled American Veterans (DAV)(all vietnam vets- long beach at the time had the boggest spinal cord injury VA department in america, and there were many wheelchair bound vietnam era vets there) in venice beach cal, and i have questioned what will happen to the vets when this is all over.

good points gentlemen

Victoria,

Sure, no offense. I'm usually pretty casual. There's a lot of consequence when I take myself too seriously. I'm not an authority. Just a guy living in the midwest. Can't say I speak for anybody except me.

Zionism tends to refer to the Jewish push to use former Palestinian lands as its new homeland. If you're just talking about Americans supporting the push, we tend to call that strong foreign policy (because air-strip defense is too open, I suppose). I thought you were making a religious reference. If you were against a Jewish movement, I think my religion would get me excommunicated from the forums. But what wouldn't? Probably just my misreading, but when I get hit with the Zionist label, I'm usually being hit with the religious ones too. Maybe it's colored my perception of the word. I get called a zealous Christian a lot before people know what I actually worship.

I looked back through my post and didn't see where I said Bush would get turned down if he tried to show up, or even that he WOULD show up for any reason. I actually noted that he doesn't have the cojones to go somewhere like that two posts ago. I know Bush won't even go to a place in America he's probably going to get burned, much less Iran. I understand he wouldn't probably get to debate at a mosque (although I'd order it through Pay-Per-View if he did). And I said I thought it would be more muted because of his position, but that I wish he WOULD be grilled in the intro. That's not bad manners. He really needs to be taken down a notch. It's too bad we can't scream loud enough in our country to be heard by our president.

The campaigns I'm referring to I suppose I spoke generally about. Pointing out the two Iraq situations, I thought I would be specific enough. To be more specific, campaigns where the American armed forces led attacks into occupied Europe twice and smaller actions such as the Gulf War are times when America has acted well enough in the field of leadership. Even Afghanistan wasn't a completely unsupported war of aggression. The new Iraq war is where American leadership fails. As I stated, we're a poor choice of leadership in peacetime. Our mindset tends to be pretty hostile even when we're trying to be friendly (for the most part, I can't say I speak for the entire United States, as I stated). Actions like those during the Cold War that started the embers of a lot of today's fires are what happens when you put America in charge of defending a peace policy. We back sympathetic dictators and questionable democracies. It's less ethics and more politics, but all's fair in love and war. And if you can say everything is love and/or war, you're doing an awful lot of unfair things.

There's nothing noble about how America operates. I mean, there's a code of nobility here, a work of ethics, but it's not always lined up with that of other places. I don't always defend our military as being righteous defenders (I though I was actually pretty critical of our foreign policy). We're an arm, not a brain. When you fight, your reflexes take over. You can't negotiate through quick reflexes.

So for JRLR, I'd like to point out that I don't think we should try to lead the world. It's not what we're good at. When we lead, everything becomes polarized into two-sided battles. I'd prefer a multilateral approach to diplomacy. I think the problem is that we've been -expected- to act in the past. Especially with the intelligence failure that started Iraq's newest malaise, I don't think we can count on the words of our president alone anymore, no matter who he/she is. It's a sad time.

I guess I'll add the point that the nature of war has changed, as well. America's military is meant for (and is still purchasing arms for) a large, massive-scale clash with a conventional army. What we've seen is that our military might is not tactically built to engage extra-territorial entities that move in small, disguised units within civilian enclaves without direct hierarchical intervention. It's a complete readjustment in tactics that will take years to implement. In the meantime, we're playing whack-a-mole with a wrecking ball. All the support to our troops trying to thread hammers through needleholes, but we can expect this kind of brute overpowering until we've developed ways to deal with the new nature of war.

Maybe sometimes it's a terrible thing to say, but our society thrives in times of war. We sell a lot of weapons, use a lot more for political weight. And some of our greatest innovations came in the endless pursuit of more efficient ways to kill people.

How about I posit that war has always brought out the best and worst of the American spirit? I think we can all agree to that basic term, in varying balances of best to worst. But that's the nature of life.

For the record.

"Vietnam is just a holding action," one of the men interjected... A stepping-stone."

"The real target," the woman continued,"is the Muslim world.... You need to read... Toynbee. Back in the fifties he predicted that the real war in the next century would not be between Communists and capitalists, but between Christians and Muslims... Read "Civilization on Trial" and "The World and the West"."" (John Perkins, "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man", p. 45)

I am all for recognizing the "superior leadership abilities" of the US as "the world's right arm", but only as long as is taken into account what is really happening out there, under the sponsorship of Machiavelli's ghost...

An essential part of that reality has been depicted in no uncertain terms by, amongst many other Americans, John Perkins: 1. "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man"; 2. "The Secret History of the American Empire: Economic Hit Men, Jackals and the Truth About Global Corruption", as well as by William P. Mahedy's "Out of the Night: The Spiritual Journey of Vietnam Vets".

I believe these readings, together with others suggested in the remarkable bibliographies appended by the authors, give us some idea as to how "people in the twenty fifth century might view the 20th century US".

In addition, they can help us prepare for what is in store for the nation, when US Vets are finally back from Iraq, Afghanistan, etc., under such superior leadership as ours.

mr van meter- a person can have a different political philosophy from mine and i have no problem engaging them-
but in the last year i have seen several overtures form iran and syria to have an interactive and purposeful dialogue with this government-

i cannot imagine that they would reject a visit from bush when they have been petitioning to be acknowledged by him for so long.
it makes no sense at all.

it is also pretty inconcevable that iranians would want a debate to occur in a mosque- which is a place reserved for worship and not a venue for politics of such international import.

He would meet heat- but in the questions following up- not in a lead in- that is just hostile and bad manners.

and from what ive seen the past 6 years- bush NEVER speaks in any arena that hasnt been scoped and completely washed of any possible conflicting opinions-

he only preaches to the choir, and a well choreographed one at that.

I have to pretty well dsagree completely with your characterization of america as the beleaguered but responsive defenders of right-

i think most of the world sees what you consider as our superior leadership abilities, or being 'adamant' as intrusive and bellicose bullying.

i just haven't seen the same nobility in motives that you have- but we all have our views.

o BTW- i'm sure you meant to use the phrase honey in a kind and friendly sense and i'll take it as that-
however- i would ask you to refrain from using that or similar terms.

peace

Victoria,

Honey, if you're worried about Zionism, I'm a strange guy to pay a compliment to! But thanks.

Truth be told, I vote the majority of the time for Democrats (foreign policy in this country is a muck, and the Dems have my domestic vote for various reasons). I don't consider myself liberal. I'm Victor. And that's where my votes go.

So this one's not in support of Bush, really, nor in insult to Ahmedinejad. Really, I'm trying to recognize us Americans as a people with a culture (trust me, it's there). Sure, if Bush went to join a debate at the mosque, I'm pretty sure he'd meet some heat. Honestly, I doubt as much as Ahmedinejad, though. Deep inside, everyone knows this is the President of the United States, that he's a little bit war-happy, and that we have some REALLY big guns in our arsenal. But I'm pretty sure they wouldn't let him come in easy.

I mean, if he wasn't introduced, at least, as an instigator of a wasteful war based on false pretenses and that he is guilty of outright dropping the ball with his trumped up weapons of mass destruction charge (maybe in nicer language), I'd be very disappointed in Iran as a people. I mean, you can see that on the next Democratic debate on national TV in America! If Bush can live with that kind of hate here, I'm sure he's thick-skinned enough to take it from the Iranians. That, and the guy deserves it.

Whether it's polite or not is irrelevent. He needs to know he's not appreciated. And that's an aspect of American culture in a nutshell that I'm trying to pin down. Here, if you're holding back punches on someone who's made a big mistake and pretends he didn't to save face, you're weak, not nice. Bludgeon him with your opinions and maybe he'll realize he can't duck reality.

Iran's president probably wasn't allowed to visit ground zero probably as less than a symbolic gesture (though I doubt Bush would have let him regardless). Family and friends of the 9/11 victims, at least most of them, hate Ahmedinejad's guts (I admit, I'm nicer than the guys around me, and I still wouldn't mind if he choked on his own pretzel tomorrow). If Bush didn't give President A. something he can use to preach at the American government (which is probably what the Iranian president REALLY wanted), he'd have angered a lot of people who might still support Bush for what he's doing (reciprocal punishment is a hallmark of American justice, just check out our capital punishment support). That, and ground zero hasn't been visited by many people, namely because it's sacred, but mostly because it's an open wound. Americans don't tend to show fear or pain very well, at least not where I was raised. He'll probably be able to visit in a few years if he really wants to, once the wound is just a battle scar.

And as for Bush politically motivating the president of the college, I doubt it. I think the only person the people at Columbia University would love to grill more than the A-man is our President. That, and if it were up to him, I'm pretty sure Bush wouldn't want to give him the credibility anyway.

I'm brimming with fresh disappointment of our president today. Excuse the spitballs.

And BobL, you're being pretty tacit. I mean, look at how we're brought up in America. Even us peaceful civilians. 'Spirited competition' around here is an understatement. I feel like I've been at war for everything from everyone for pretty nearly my whole life. I mean, not always fistfighting (though I've seen my share) but our whole world is shaped in conflict and honoring those who excelled in those conflicts.

Maybe I'm stepping over the line here, but I'm a pretty peaceful guy in American terms, and I can sometimes shock my international friends. And I'm just a suburb-raised, computer-affluent Midwesterner. It's not the most civil of places, but definetely not the worst. You can develop some deep callouses on your soul growing up here. Maybe we fight so much not because it's political, but because it's drilled into our skulls every single day we're awake on this planet that somewhere, someone is trying to do you wrong and if you don't do something, you'll let him.

I mean, we're great leaders in times of war. Our nation has led the forefront of a lot of major military campaigns that have done some good in the world. I just think the rest of the world relies on us too much in times of peace and that we're adamant on being at the head of things. Lots of current world situations are asking for skilled diplomats and joiners. Think of us less as the world's head and more as its right arm. We're usually the people that take over when Saddam invades Kuwait. That's our kind of game.

I don't think we should have been in charge when Saddam juked left and America hit him wrong. Problem is, Iraq is now crippled and facing long rehab, and America is feeling the fowl.

That's way too many analogies in one night...

On Bollinger's introduction...

"Men shrink less from offending one who inspires love than one who inspires fear."

(Niccolò Machiavelli -1469-1527- Italian political philosopher and statesman.)

BobL

As you might guess, I really don’t agree with the last part of your point #4, but I think an interesting PG question would be “how would people in the twenty fifth century view the 20th century US (including up to today)?”

Tom Wonacott,

I did in fact read the Robinson piece the other day. Points worth thinking about.
1. It's saddens me to see purely political considerations trump reason. In this case the American public both dislikes the war and feels the Bush Administration has done a very poor job in prosecuting it. Hence, the Dems figure they will beat any Repub that runs as long as they don't say or do anything except GW is a ninny. This plays out in the case of Obama who is on record as opposing the war from the beginning waffling over the issue. Sad.
2. Robinson was correct in his pointing out that at least the Repub's have a position. It might not be popular and it might not be based in reality, but at least they have one. The Dems need to come out definitively against this war and the policies behind it or we might as well elect another buffoon like GW.
3. It's also important to note wher Robinson hasn't gone in his columns. It would be very hard to argue America is a peaceful nation. History does not support America as a dove and olive branch society. We have virtually been at war or armed conflict our entire history with brief interludes of peace. We have never been a peaceful society and I'm sorry to say I see no indication we are evolving in that direction. So whether we're killing the British, the Spainards, each other, the American Indians, more Spainards, Germans, Italians, Japanese, Koreans, Chinese, Vietnamese, Libyans, Panamians, Grenadans, Iraqi's, Iranians, Afghans, etc., etc., etc., there is no doubt our actions have been contrary to the cause of peace. I always get the biggest kick out of the Repubs being labeled "war mongers" and Dems "peaceniks." At least that is half right. The Repubs are war mongers and so are the Dems. Anyway, from the start of the revolution through today we have a 231 year history of armed conflict and I don't see an end in sight. This is the side of our society we don't like to talk about. This is the side of society Mr. Robinson doesn't want to address or put into context.
4. Your last line was just a cheap shot at the Dems. That's very acceptable since I make sure in every post I write to get my cheap shots in at the Bushless Administration. I won't be around for the beginning of the 22nd century but based on our history there better then an even money chance we'll be somewhere in the world killing people. It's what we do.

To all the lover of humanity.
A wise man asked to the new king a country that how a country start to decline? The king replied "when the wealth and power of the ruler became weak".The wise man listened this and start to weep and requested the king to abondon the throne and take more time to mature.The king after apology ask the wise man please tell me truth.Then wise man told the king that a country start to decline when the ruler treat other less than himslef and knows only the language of power.

These two now found in American society and american ruler mentality which brnging the world near to each other and separation from american alliance.The attitude of american ruler and people is also different.They do every thing in the name of democracy and freedom of speech.IS is correct to hurt the sentimental of other in the name of freedom of speech.A person have not unlimited freedom in the society.society itse