"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.
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 In 'conservative speak' now the word 'negotiation' has been replaced by the word 'appeasement'.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
Sacred cows make the best hamburger.