Joe Lieberman goes independent

[BigJon@Work]

The Muslim calendar ends in 2076.

Did not know that. Oh well, I'll be pretty decrepit by then.

Cheney is about as electable as a frog.

[Shapley]

Cheney is about as electable as a frog.

So, you're saying he has an even chance against Hillary?

[Serenity]

Can the country be run without a president if None-of-the-Above is elected?

[BigJon@Work]

Cheney is about as electable as a frog.

So, you're saying he has an even chance against Hillary?

That's actually a good question. Ummm

[Selma in Sandy Eggo]

We may have to write in somebody. I voted for Bush because Kerry gave me the cold shivers, and I remember voting for the guy with the flip charts before that.

Kermit the Frog? Mario Batali? Alan Alda?

[GreatCarouser]

"The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all. I like a little rebellion now and then.” Thomas Jefferson

I think Joe Lieberman is a man of principle. I disagree with him on a number of his positions and tactics but can understand his determination to run as an independent. That this is the Republicans greatest hope of stealing a seat in Connecticut is apparent but a 10,000 vote majority in a primary is hardly a mandate in a state so populous.

alert!


Back when we were debating the elections on this board, Haggis used to say or had a signature that said (I paraphrase from feeble memory) something along the lines of 'the first to allude to the Nazis loses'(credibility, I assume?).

While browsing the web for Lieberman nuggets I came upon this article from the Wall Street Journal online. The author uses many buzzwords among them 'appeasement' . Of course we know that Munich 1938 was a great failure as negotiations go ranking far ahead of the Soviet/Nazi non-aggression pact for example (although Russians may disagree with my ranking). In 'conservative speak' now the word 'negotiation' has been replaced by the word 'appeasement'. The two are not synonymous. Nor is there a proven cause and effect relationship. Negotiation does not have to mean or lead to appeasement.

Is negotiation the right course today? I wish I could answer that with any assuredness. I think first we must decide if we are at 'war'. I believe if we are at 'war' we should follow the example of WWII and win. We knew we won WWII because we insisted on 'unconditional surrender'. That was also the result of a 'negotiaion'. If we are at war I'd like to see us insist on 'unconditional surrender'.

If our enemies (whoever they are) don't wish to surrender unconditionally than we need to act decisively. Our whole problem in Vietnam, for example,(assuming we were in a 'war' and we wanted to win) was in not realizing the whole nation was our 'enemy' and our refusal to use our greatest advantage, our biggest weapons. But Vietnam was only christened a 'war' by the media. 'Legally' it wasn't a war. I guess that made it ok not to win. Maybe we were winning just by being there, defoliating, shooting at enemies (at least we hoped they were enemies, it was difficult to be sure as they weren't lining up and fighting by the 'rules'), getting shot at by enemies (at least that let us be sure we had some there) and learning the same lessons that the British learned when they got caught up in the 'quagmire' of the Colonial South' prior to the 'world turning upside down' at Yorktown. The same lessons the French learned in Vietnam as well as Algeria. The lesson the USSR learned in Afghanistan.

We don't want that again. We want 'unconditional surrender'. So, for the sake of argument, let's say Iran is our 'enemy'. Why negotiate? Drop a nuke or two on the nuclear facility and another target and then see what their 'negotiation' demands are. Sure there'll be some 'whining' but it will make great TV and the immediate risk to our troops shouldn't be too high. We might even have a few office pools about how many it will take before they find 'unconditional surrender' is actually what it says in their holy books. After all, if two won't do, let's drop a few! Our nukes obviously aren't a 'deterrent' to these folks. It's been over 60 years since these weapons were used in anger. Once every generation and a half or so should provide the necessary 'memory jog' to turn them back into 'deterrents' again. I bet we don't hear much from that mouthy little North Korean either and if so his Chinese friends will 'appease' him into seeing the rather large, bright light.

Now that we've softened them up whoever is left should, for the most part, be very 'anxious' to try out American-style democracy don't you think? I predict such a course will buy our kids 20-50 years of relative 'peace'...........

















............at least I hope so..............

[shostakovich]

In this country there is much rhetoric about our being the "greatest nation in the world" or the "most powerful" That was probably true in 1950 and maybe in 1980. There is a good chance it is no longer the case, although many (most?) of us would prefer not to believe that.

People might think attempting to eradicate a nuisance is best attempted directly. Unfortunately, some consequences can not be forseen. If the chaotic events in Iraq don't prove that, how about the more recent events in Lebanon? No one foresaw Hezbollah's strength.

The talk of going after members of "the axis of evil" militarily should be canned, keeping the unexpected worms contained. Let them be a perceived threat. Only when they act should we respond with disproportionate power. Had that been Bush's policy the world would now be in much better shape. Saddam was NOT going to attack us, even if he had WMD. He was not a religious fanatic, only a miserable son-of-a-bitch in Stalinist style. Bear in mind Iraq was in no way connected to 9/11. We knew that in early 2003.

I and many others who are anti-Iraq-war are not necessarily anti-war. War should truly be a LAST resort, which Bush said, but didn't mean. As for getting out, I favor a timetable. The Administration had one for Iraqi elections and for an Iraqi parliament. If we had one for winding down the war we would, at least, have some control over the departure. "Stay the course" gives us no control.
Shos

[piqaboo]

what do you call it when its spreading and getting stickier and the going is harder to find?

I think the usual term is 'tar baby', but we're not allowed to use the usual term.

Do you really think the police officers being trained are turning terrorist?
Keep in mind that every recruit that shows up to stand in line for training runs the risk of having himself blown to bits for being there. More than likely those that don't show up simply have decided that the pay they receive is not sufficiently worth the risk involved.

All I know is there was a huge effort to increase the Sunni percentage of the iraqi army, and after basic training of 1000 recruits, 700 failed to report for service. That's a big pool of trained soldiers for recruitment to 'other' causes.

[Shapley]

Shos,

RE:

No one foresaw Hezbollah's strength.

Including the UN peacekeepers who were there to keep an eye on such things.

[piqaboo]

Lieberman......