Article

2005-08-21 Home Front: Politix

~~RINO~~ Hagel says Iraq war looking like Vietnam

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Frank G 2005-08-21 11:23|| || Front Page|| [6 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Let's see: Hagel, McCain, Snowe, Specter, that cry baby in Ohio, what's his name, Voinoivich?

With Republicans like these, who needs the Democratic-Socialists?

Posted by The Angry Fliegerabwehrkanonen 2005-08-21 12:46|| http://www.calderonswirbelwind.blogspot.com]">[http://www.calderonswirbelwind.blogspot.com] 2005-08-21 12:46|| Front Page Top

#2 Hagel says Iraq war looking like Vietnam

...Hagel looking like an idiot.

Mike

Posted by Mike Kozlowski 2005-08-21 13:23|| 2005-08-21 13:23|| Front Page Top

#3 "Allen said that unlike the communist-guided North Vietnamese that the U.S. fought, the insurgents in Iraq have no guiding political philosophy or organization. Still, Hagel argued, the similarities are growing."

Charlie Gibson: Sen. Allen, since you and Sen. Hagel have the same viewpoint on Iraq, why should I vote for you?

Sen. Allen: The differece is that Sen. Hagel believes that the Iraq War is just like the North Vietnamese and I believe the Iraq War is just like a little south of what the North Vietnamese did.

Posted by Poison Reverse 2005-08-21 14:00|| 2005-08-21 14:00|| Front Page Top

#4 What ticks me off most about Hagel's remarks are that he incurred the Leftists' wrath, along with many other brave returning Nam vets, so he must realize how destructive his comments are.

Posted by Captain America 2005-08-21 14:19|| 2005-08-21 14:19|| Front Page Top

#5 No, the media is protraying the Iraqi war as if it is like Vietnam.

I dont think they will be able to get away with it this time. Too many bloggers like Michael Yon who are actually there in the midst of war and not back is some { Bagdad | Saigon } bar getting news third-hand from some { Jihadi | Viet Cong} minder....

Posted by CrazyFool 2005-08-21 14:32|| 2005-08-21 14:32|| Front Page Top

#6 I'm extremely disappointed with Chuck Hagel and his loud mouth. I guess he didn't learn anything from Vietnam except how to milk his service for sympathy. As another Vietnam vet, I find his constant carping both highly annoying and totally dishonest.

If I weren't such a law-abiding citizen, I'd put two or three rounds into his crotch, so he'd have to remember his dishonoring the blood of his compatriots who fought and died, both in Vietnam and in the Middle East, for the rest of his life.

Posted by Old Patriot">Old Patriot 2005-08-21 14:51|| http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/]">[http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/] 2005-08-21 14:51|| Front Page Top

#7 Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel, who received two Purple Hearts and other military honors for his service in Vietnam, reaffirmed his position that the United States needs to develop a strategy to leave Iraq.

Leftists love exit strategies. They can't come up with a strategy for winning a war, bu their strategies for losing are profound. Exit strategies is the only kind of warfighting they understand.

Posted by badanov 2005-08-21 15:07|| http://www.freefirezone.org]">[http://www.freefirezone.org] 2005-08-21 15:07|| Front Page Top

#8 "It'll be just like Vietnam" -- when the left said that as we went into Iraq, they weren't making a prediction.

They were making a threat. Now we see the results of them carrying through on the threat.

Time to start charging the deserving with treason.

Posted by Robert Crawford">Robert Crawford 2005-08-21 15:11|| http://www.kloognome.com/]">[http://www.kloognome.com/] 2005-08-21 15:11|| Front Page Top

#9 Hagel has done and said tons of stupid stuff like this in the past on other subjects. He needs to be tarred and feather with them and ridden out of the view out the public with them. Hope some of it sticks to the MSM as well.

Sorry but if he is from Nebraska he is actually a "centrist"(as in not really) and should be a moderate left Demmocrat.

Posted by Sock Puppet 0â Doom 2005-08-21 15:13|| 2005-08-21 15:13|| Front Page Top

#10 TAF: Let's see: Hagel, McCain, Snowe, Specter, that cry baby in Ohio, what's his name, Voinoivich?

Actually, of that group, only Hagel is dovish on the War on Terror. McCain is very conservative on military and economic issues, but somewhat liberal on social issues. The press loves Hagel because he is so dovish. But unless he is running on the Democratic ticket, that's not going to do him any good in the Republican primaries.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-08-21 15:42|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-08-21 15:42|| Front Page Top

#11 The goal is not to leave Iraq but to stabilize it and be invited to stay.

US bases out in the western desert would go a long way to protecting the world economy as the tottering Sauds and over-reaching mullahs fight it out for Islamacist influence.

And a stable Iraq that cannot be successfully invaded / taken over, because of US presence there, will go a long way to dismantling the Islamacist terror threat and stabilizing the post Cold War world.

The danger is that we DON'T stay for a long time, not that we do.

Posted by lotp 2005-08-21 15:44|| 2005-08-21 15:44|| Front Page Top

#12 Hagel learned nothing from his Vietnam experience. He is a gutless idiot who obviously doesn't give a rats ass about the soldiers since I assume he knows they will see this. He is a selfish pig, no less selfserving than the Cindy Sheehan crowd. I hope he loses his Senate seat the next time he is up for election, even if it is to a Democrat.

Posted by Remoteman 2005-08-21 15:56|| 2005-08-21 15:56|| Front Page Top

#13 Here are some preliminary GOP poll numbers that sheds some light on Hagel's behavior. What Hagel's doing is a new tactic being done by some RINO'S Republicans. The tactic is to take a anti-war or some other liberal point of view so the MSM will pay more attention to them, thereby receiving nationwide recognition.

You can easily notice on the link that RINO's that take a liberal point of view, e.g. Rudy & McCain, are at the top of the percentage list. You can also notice that Hagel is pretty much a bottom dweller, due to "no-name" name recognition. Hagel's point of view is that this anti-war theme is worth a shot.

Also, from the reports that I have been reading, the RINO's want stake a anti-war claim ASAP before the primaries, for "first to the door" anti-war bragging rights. I know that Hagel & Co. always have been "moderate", but don't let that fact cause you to miss my overall point.

Unknowingly, there is a dangerous precedent is being set. Just when the MSM is being put on their heels. The liberal GOP is too frequently throwing a life raft to the MSM, by giving ligitiamacy.

Posted by Poison Reverse 2005-08-21 16:45|| 2005-08-21 16:45|| Front Page Top

#14 PR: What Hagel's doing is a new tactic being done by some RINO'S Republicans.

It's not. Hagel has been consistently non-interventionist even before 9/11. Just because a guy's a military veteran is no guarantee that he's an internationalist. I don't think this guy hates America, unlike the leftists. He simply may think that stuff that happens overseas is somebody else's problem - a viewpoint with which I find myself agreeing more and more.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-08-21 17:24|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-08-21 17:24|| Front Page Top

#15 Here's hoping Hagel learns about "biteback" the hard way.

Posted by Bobby 2005-08-21 17:31|| 2005-08-21 17:31|| Front Page Top

#16 ZF,

If you don't think that Hagel's looking at his poll numbers, on the link at #13, then with all due respect, you are out of your mind. It's real simple, he wants the MSM to make his name, a household name. He is jealous that McCain's getting all the coverage.

Also, you did exactly what I told you not to do on the last sentence of the 3rd paragraph.

Posted by Poison Reverse 2005-08-21 17:49|| 2005-08-21 17:49|| Front Page Top

#17 PR: Also, you did exactly what I told you not to do on the last sentence of the 3rd paragraph.

You're saying that this is something new from Hagel. But his record is precisely the opposite of what you say - the fact is that he consistently opposed sanctions against both Iran and Iraq even before 9/11. These are not media-induced positions - every few months, he'll pipe up again, just so people know where he stands. He's a dove, not a weather vane.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-08-21 17:58|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-08-21 17:58|| Front Page Top

#18 By making these statements, Hagel is making himself non-competitive in the Republican presidential primary. He is too conservative to run as a Democrat. And he is too liberal to run as a Republican. In a way, I'm glad Hagel is telling us what he really thinks. Better that we hear this up front than have to deal with another Bill Clinton, who had this habit of promising one thing and doing another.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-08-21 18:02|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-08-21 18:02|| Front Page Top

#19 He simply may think that stuff that happens overseas is somebody else's problem - a viewpoint with which I find myself agreeing more and more.

My problem with that stance is that there is simply no way to get on with our lives while ignoring what is happening elsewhere.

Our economy depends on it. Our homeland's security depends on it. The days when a country could look just within its borders is long gone, I'm afraid - for better or worse, those problems that somebody else is having affect us whether we want them to or not.

Posted by lotp 2005-08-21 18:04|| 2005-08-21 18:04|| Front Page Top

#20 trick is to deny Hagel positions (chairmanships) based on his positions.

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2005-08-21 18:10|| 2005-08-21 18:10|| Front Page Top

#21 lotp: My problem with that stance is that there is simply no way to get on with our lives while ignoring what is happening elsewhere. Our economy depends on it. Our homeland's security depends on it. The days when a country could look just within its borders is long gone, I'm afraid - for better or worse, those problems that somebody else is having affect us whether we want them to or not.

This hasn't been tried for 60 years, since the end of WWII. Note that nobody gives Canada or Argentina a hard time. Staying out of the Napoleonic Wars, the Franco-Prussian Wars and the Crimean War did not exactly handicap the Republic during the 19th century. It may be time to say goodbye to some of these alliances that have represented a blank check for various countries to draw upon apparently inexhaustible reserves of American blood and treasure.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-08-21 18:27|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-08-21 18:27|| Front Page Top

#22 This hasn't been tried for 60 years, since the end of WWII.

There may be a reason for that. Isolationism didn't exactly serve the US well between WWI and WWII.

Note that nobody gives Canada or Argentina a hard time.

Canada is a nerve center for the international jihad. You want to emulate their model?

Posted by Robert Crawford">Robert Crawford 2005-08-21 18:35|| http://www.kloognome.com/]">[http://www.kloognome.com/] 2005-08-21 18:35|| Front Page Top

#23 RC: Isolationism didn't exactly serve the US well between WWI and WWII.

Actually, it served the US perfectly well. Note that WWI cost the US 100,000 dead. And WWII cost the US 300,000 to 600,000 dead. Neither conflict threatened America's territorial integrity - the Japanese were in no position to conquer Hawaii (and one could argue that Hawaii is a cluster of volcanic rocks of no value). The fact that large numbers of Europeans and Asians died in those wars is immaterial - that is why, in the past, American administrations have stayed out of their fights. The fact that others die is tragic, but the reality is that getting involved in their disputes is seldom a winning proposition. I really don't see how WWII was worth the lives of hundreds of thousands of GI's, especially when most of those casualties were incurred in fighting a country (Germany) that hadn't attacked us in the first place.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-08-21 18:42|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-08-21 18:42|| Front Page Top

#24 RC: Canada is a nerve center for the international jihad. You want to emulate their model?

When was the last time you heard of a skyscraper in Canada getting burnt to the ground?

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-08-21 18:46|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-08-21 18:46|| Front Page Top

#25 With its occupants still inside?

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-08-21 18:46|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-08-21 18:46|| Front Page Top

#26 I really don't see how WWII was worth the lives of hundreds of thousands of GI's, especially when most of those casualties were incurred in fighting a country (Germany) that hadn't attacked us in the first place

??? ZF - this is the first time I've gotta say: you and I are on different planets strategically, as far as allies, and morally. Not engaging teh Axis would've led to a far different America than we have now - a pseudo-France. I prefer the way we (at least we as I see it) are

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2005-08-21 18:47|| 2005-08-21 18:47|| Front Page Top

#27 FG: ZF - this is the first time I've gotta say: you and I are on different planets strategically, as far as allies, and morally. Not engaging teh Axis would've led to a far different America than we have now - a pseudo-France. I prefer the way we (at least we as I see it) are

They weren't our allies. And we had no moral obligation to defend them, at the cost of hundreds of thousands of dead. The problem with assuming an obligation is that your premise has to be that the lives of our young men aren't worth much - whereas the lives of foreigners are worth a lot. I don't share that premise.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-08-21 18:52|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-08-21 18:52|| Front Page Top

#28 When I say they weren't our allies, I mean exactly that - no treaties bound us to their defense, just as no treaties bound them to our defense (not that we needed defending from the banana republics to the south).

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-08-21 18:54|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-08-21 18:54|| Front Page Top

#29 I wouldn't balance it as you say - our boys' lives were worth the strategic and moral war we fought in concert with our allies. An axis-driven world would never have left America in isolationist terpor. Too many mongrels and Joooos.
Your Buchananite snap has me wondering about your China analysis, which I accepted before as balanced. Sounds like we see the world and America's place differently. At least I know that now

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2005-08-21 18:56|| 2005-08-21 18:56|| Front Page Top

#30 Isolationism has a lot to recommend it. It doesn't mean complete isolation. What it means is only engaging when your interests are directly involved and with countries that share your aims. Arguably its happening already. The big problem with this position is the current dependence on imported energy. Fix that problem and the world starts to look a very different place.

Posted by phil_b 2005-08-21 19:02|| 2005-08-21 19:02|| Front Page Top

#31 Staying out of the Napoleonic Wars, the Franco-Prussian Wars and the Crimean War did not exactly handicap the Republic during the 19th century

But this is the 21st century, with a global economy, instantaneous communications, rapid global travel and weapons of mass destruction.

Completely different issue.

And RE: WWII, even then there were strong economic and security concerns that brought us into that war. Those are multipled 100 fold today.

There simply is NO way for the US to remain economically strong and politically free by focusing only within our borders. I don't argue for being in Iraq for Iraq's sake -- I argue it for our sake.

Posted by lotp 2005-08-21 19:04|| 2005-08-21 19:04|| Front Page Top

#32 Yes, energy is one big issue. But it goes much farther than that.

Every day on the London currency exchange the total of currency trades is greater than the world's entire ANNUAL trade in goods and services. That's one small measure of the way in which economies are now fundamentally and deeply intertwined. Even if it were possible to unwind that and be self-sufficent within our borders, or with a few allies -- and I am not at all sure it is -- then at a minimum that is a hugely risky and difficult thing to pull off and one that would take decades, not days or weeks or months.

Posted by lotp 2005-08-21 19:06|| 2005-08-21 19:06|| Front Page Top

#33 Let me note that Canada's "isolationism" is really an attitude of cooperation with the internationalist elite. Canada sends peacekeepers -- to Afghanistan, for example -- when their masters at the UN permit it.

Posted by Robert Crawford">Robert Crawford 2005-08-21 19:15|| http://www.kloognome.com/]">[http://www.kloognome.com/] 2005-08-21 19:15|| Front Page Top

#34 FG: I wouldn't balance it as you say - our boys' lives were worth the strategic and moral war we fought in concert with our allies.

They weren't our allies.

FG: An axis-driven world would never have left America in isolationist terpor.

Isolationist torpor? A major defense build-up had been ongoing for a few years prior to Pearl Harbor. That is why the Japanese weren't able to roll right over Hawaii. It is also why the Germans were unable to blockade shipments from the North America to Britain, despite their state-of-the-art U-boat designs. By the time we joined in (on the margins in North Africa, of all places), the Germans had lost the Battle of Britain by a wide margin, and were on the verge of losing major battles to the Soviets. In Asia, the Japanese were stopped cold in the middle of Burma and were bogged down in the vast expanses of China, taking significant casualties - they simply could not advance any further. The Japanese were never in a position to conquer the Hawaii, let alone the continental United States. And the Germans couldn't even cross the English Channel.

FG: Too many mongrels and Joooos.

Heck - there's a lot of people around the world who have this view of America (including much of Asia). We could kill them all for less than the cost of a WWII. Do you propose that we do so?

FG: Your Buchananite snap has me wondering about your China analysis, which I accepted before as balanced.

Buchanan's view is that Uncle Sam is to blame for WWII. My view is that Uncle Sam did unpaid charity work at a cost that was paid in heavy American losses during WWII.

The idea that analysis is "balanced" is just odd. My analysis isn't "balanced". It is conservative - in the sense that it looks to American interests over the interests of other countries.

FG: Sounds like we see the world and America's place differently. At least I know that now

"America's place in the world" is a notion that has no value to a conservative. If we cared about it, we'd not be beating up on the United Nations all the time. People that want the world to fawn over them pander to the supplicants with their hands out. The role of government is not to worry about notions of "America's place in the world". It is to keep its citizens safe, keep the economy humming and not get involved in international disputes that could get Americans killed.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-08-21 19:15|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-08-21 19:15|| Front Page Top

#35 FG: Let me note that Canada's "isolationism" is really an attitude of cooperation with the internationalist elite. Canada sends peacekeepers -- to Afghanistan, for example -- when their masters at the UN permit it.

If we bagged our alliances, I bet we could send out ten times as many peacekeepers as the Canadians, with just as little effect on the small-scale conflicts now going on around the world. All peacekeepers do is stand around. The guys now in Afghanistan aren't peacekeepers - they're combat troops assigned to NATO. Big difference.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-08-21 19:20|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-08-21 19:20|| Front Page Top

#36 FG seems to think that I think sympathize with the Axis powers. That's simply not true. I wouldn't have shed a tear if they had been exterminated to the last man, woman and child. But the fact is that it was not our problem, and large numbers of GI's lost their lives on this crusade that is now made out to be America's moral obligation. It was not, any more than it was anybody's else moral obligation. Every major power that fought in the war, with the exception of Canada and the US, was either invaded or under some plausible threat of invasion. And Canada was simply responding to the call, as one of the British Empire's Dominions. Note also that Canada (and Australia and New Zealand) were so closely bound to the mother country that it was theoretically possible that a Canadian, Australian or New Zealander could become the British Prime Minister.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-08-21 19:30|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-08-21 19:30|| Front Page Top

#37 I am apalled by your comments, Zhang Fe. Wishing is one thing; advocating quite another.

Posted by trailing wife 2005-08-21 19:38|| 2005-08-21 19:38|| Front Page Top

#38 FG seems to think that I think sympathize with the Axis powers. That's simply not true. I wouldn't have shed a tear if they had been exterminated to the last man, woman and child. But the fact is that it was not our problem, and large numbers of GI's lost their lives on this crusade that is now made out to be America's moral obligation

I never suggested, nor do I think that you sympathize. I merely question your assessment that we (America) would've been better off not confronting, taking casualties, expending treasure, etc. I think the moral calculus that makes America the greatest nation on Earth, also makes us the world's policeman at times, lest we lose ourselves, cost be damned. I don't accuse you, I simply disagree, viscerally, about our nation's soul

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2005-08-21 19:39|| 2005-08-21 19:39|| Front Page Top

#39 The big difference between 2005 and say 1912 is not the level of trade dependence of major economies. They are broadly the same as %age of GDP. The big difference today is trade dependence on places where you have little or no political control, and energy because of the scale of dependence is far and away the biggest problem. Economic interdependence could easily be rolled back except for strategic minerals and that has always been the case right back to Roman times.

Posted by phil_b 2005-08-21 19:40|| 2005-08-21 19:40|| Front Page Top

#40 ZF,

So far what I have been hearing from you is your opinions of Hagel without any links or quotes. Since you didn't offer ANY links to prove your theories on Hagel, I did it for you. Hagel is NOT a Buchanan conservative as you bodly say, that only has US's interest at heart. You say that he's always been ultra-conservative, I say you are DEAD wrong, he is a true RINO.

This link just debunked everything you said about your precious Hagel. Hagel on the issues.

Pay close attention to:

1. Hagel on Foreign Policy
2. Hagel on Free Trade
3. Hagel on Immigration

Your boy always has been and always will be a LIBERAL PIG. Oink! Oink!

Posted by Poison Reverse 2005-08-21 19:41|| 2005-08-21 19:41|| Front Page Top

#41 As I said, Hagel's looking for name recognition in 2008. That's all. Nothing else.

Posted by Poison Reverse 2005-08-21 19:45|| 2005-08-21 19:45|| Front Page Top

#42 I tend to agree with Zhang. I am deeply suspicious of any argument that relies on a moral justification and that includes the need to fight the Nazis in WW2.

Posted by phil_b 2005-08-21 19:48|| 2005-08-21 19:48|| Front Page Top

#43 lotp: But this is the 21st century, with a global economy, instantaneous communications, rapid global travel and weapons of mass destruction. Completely different issue.

Non-state actors cannot produce WMD's. The Japanese cult, Aum Shinrikyo, with a stable of PhD's to draw from, couldn't. Muslim terrorists certainly can't. Note that WMD's have very distinct signatures, depending on who made them. If the Pakis should hand one over to terrorists, we can disappear Pakistan. And the Pakistanis know that.

lotp: And RE: WWII, even then there were strong economic and security concerns that brought us into that war. Those are multipled 100 fold today.

Actually, during WWII, most of the markets in the world were broken up into imperial trading blocs. We had no access to the trading blocs set up by the European empires. As to security concerns, Europeans warred on each other throughout the 19th century, and it looked, at one point, as if Napoleon might win. That moment passed.

lotp: There simply is NO way for the US to remain economically strong and politically free by focusing only within our borders. I don't argue for being in Iraq for Iraq's sake -- I argue it for our sake.

Every other country around the world is economically strong and politically free despite focusing only within its borders. Is it lotp's contention that the US is the one exception despite its being bounded by two oceans?

Note that the US has always had an expeditionary capability since becoming a great power. Teddy Roosevelt's Great White Fleet was the first large-scale demonstration of America's ability to project power abroad. Whether or not we keep our alliances has nothing to do with our military posture. Note that the inter-war navy was one of the most powerful navies in the world. It was why the Japanese couldn't invade Hawaii. People talk about Switzerland as if it's some kind of eighth wonder. But the US was a continental-sized Switzerland during its "isolationist" period. British positions in Singapore collapsed in February 1942, despite them having 150 years to fortify their positions. Our boys had been in the Philippines for only 50 years, and held out until June 1942.

I don't have a problem with Afghanistan and Iraq - the fact is that 9/11 cannot go unanswered. But the the alliance system we have in place is a complex of booby traps waiting to blow up on us.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-08-21 19:52|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-08-21 19:52|| Front Page Top

#44 phil b and ZF - if all national relations are based on a economic interest, then we all become corporations,morality becomes bottom lines. I refuse that future. Why don't we abolish all borders then? No-one is an ally or threat, correct? It's all in the numbers, who cares if they kill their own people by the thousands, after all, they supply cheap toys and plastic goods. F*&k that.

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2005-08-21 19:58|| 2005-08-21 19:58|| Front Page Top

#45 PR: Your boy always has been and always will be a LIBERAL PIG. Oink! Oink!

Oh - I think Hagel is a !@#$#. But he's a principled !@#$# - every time I've read an article with his name on it, he's pushed my red buttons.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-08-21 19:59|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-08-21 19:59|| Front Page Top

#46 TW: I am apalled by your comments, Zhang Fe. Wishing is one thing; advocating quite another.

OK. I'm confused. What am I wishing or advocating?

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-08-21 20:01|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-08-21 20:01|| Front Page Top

#47 America stands with (naturally) former members of the UK empire, because we are the best future of the world. Look where UK-based law has crumbled (Hong Kong, ZimBobwe, South Africa....) and show me one place that's better off for its' citizens, the world?

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2005-08-21 20:02|| 2005-08-21 20:02|| Front Page Top

#48 BTW, and back OT: Powerline nails Hagel

Nebraska's Senator Chuck Hagel has become a vocal critic of the Iraq war. Today he said that the United States is losing in Iraq, and Iraq is like Vietnam. The Associated Press reports:

"A leading Republican senator and prospective presidential candidate said Sunday that the war in Iraq has destabilized the Middle East and is looking more like the Vietnam conflict from a generation ago."

But wait! What exactly makes Chuck Hagel a "leading Republican senator"? Not seniority; he is a second-termer. Not any official responsibilities; Hagel is not a member of the Senate leadership, nor does he chair a Senate committee. Not legislative accomplishment or influence; Hagel has little noteworthy legislation to his name, and is more often an eccentric voice--e.g., in his call for reinstatement of the draft--than an influence on his fellow Senators. It is hard to escape the conclusion that for the Associated Press, any Republican who attacks the Bush administration and claims that we're losing in Iraq is automatically promoted to "leading Republican senator" status.

And "prospective presidential candidate"? Not as a Republican.

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2005-08-21 20:15|| 2005-08-21 20:15|| Front Page Top

#49 Every other country around the world is economically strong and politically free despite focusing only within its borders

The depth of willful ignorance embodied in that statement is breathtaking. Setting aside projects such as the EU (a rather major counter example), the World Bank and other researchers have ample evidence that in fact the reach of globalization is extensive, pervasive and overriding, occuring in multiple layers from local trade through regional blogs (usually informal but increasingly multilateral and codified on key issues) and culminating in the currency / funding markets that have a massive influence on national economies.

Posted by lotp 2005-08-21 20:17|| 2005-08-21 20:17|| Front Page Top

#50 And similar statements hold for military cooperation.

Posted by lotp 2005-08-21 20:18|| 2005-08-21 20:18|| Front Page Top

#51 Hagel most not know history to well. The war lasted 2 weeks and we won. The insurgency is exactly what I would have hoped to happen. Germany took 3 years before things started to come together. Killing them over there by the Thousands. Not them killing Americans here by the thousands. It is obvious the the Prez is not putting enough pressure on the surrounding countries. It is not easy being at the top. 67% of Americans polled want a more aggressive approach to putting and end to this. Hagel's blather should stoke the fire under the Pres to be more aggressive. China, Russia and Iran are probably laughing their butt's off regarding this statement. Is Hagel the Republican John Kerry?
This statement just sunk Hagels ship. I hope the people of Nebraska realize what this statement has done to men and women fighting over in Iraq.

Posted by Long Hair Republican">Long Hair Republican 2005-08-21 20:34|| 2005-08-21 20:34|| Front Page Top

#52 Hagel and ZF have both lost points with me today.
For ZF to refer to the U.S. response to the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor and to the Nazi conquest of Europe as "unpaid charity work" (#34) just leaves me sort of stunned.

ZF, do you conduct your personal life in the same way that you would have us conduct our international life? Do you look out for your friends? Do you right wrongs? I'm not asking if you are a caped crusader -- I'm just wondering if you have any friends that you would step forward to defend or rescue.

Posted by Darrell 2005-08-21 20:35|| 2005-08-21 20:35|| Front Page Top

#53 Master ZF is talking Real Politik Frank. Morality has no place in the Middle Kingdom. It's nuanaced don't 'ya know, an advanced form of thinking.

Posted by Mona Gorilla 2005-08-21 20:36|| 2005-08-21 20:36|| Front Page Top

#54 lotp: The depth of willful ignorance embodied in that statement is breathtaking. Setting aside projects such as the EU (a rather major counter example), the World Bank and other researchers have ample evidence that in fact the reach of globalization is extensive, pervasive and overriding, occuring in multiple layers from local trade through regional blogs (usually informal but increasingly multilateral and codified on key issues) and culminating in the currency / funding markets that have a massive influence on national economies.

Our military alliances are the underpinnings of international trade? That's the liberal contention, that the US has a big military because it enables Uncle Sam to intimidate the locals and extract trade concessions. But the fact is that the countries with which we have military alliances are the ones that are the most protectionistic towards us. They think that the existence of our military bases on their soil entitles them to protect their markets from US goods. Just ask the Korean buyers of American cars who were subjected to tax audits by the South Korean government. Just as the Japanese importers of American agricultural and pharmaceutical products whose applications were rejected by the Japanese government because Japanese physiology is supposedly unsuited to American products. Other countries just slap countervailing tariffs on Japanese products. We have to be extra-careful out of fear of endangering our ability to keep our military bases there, which exist primarily to protect the same countries that are keeping our goods out.

lotp: And similar statements hold for military cooperation.

The US Navy opened up Japan to foreign trade, under threat of naval bombardment, in 1854. No alliances were required to accomplish this watershed event, which eventually resulted in the overthrow of the military dictatorship (Shogunate) that had ruled Japan for the past 200+ years. Uncle Sam doesn't need alliances to maintain a large standing military - muscular internationalism has been a tenet of American diplomacy since it was founded. Alliances are *not* a necessary feature of muscular internationalism (just another way of saying 'poke in the eye, and we'll take your head off').

Even without alliances, we can still choose to participate in certain wars that are determined to be in the national interest. What alliances do is remove the element of discretion. At the moment, we *must* come to Japan's defense. We *must* come to Korea's defense. What alliances really do is bind us hand and foot, and automatically get us into conflicts that may not necessarily be of concern to us.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-08-21 20:38|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-08-21 20:38|| Front Page Top

#55 yep - better question, ZF (Robert) any friends who would step forward and defend you?

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2005-08-21 20:41|| 2005-08-21 20:41|| Front Page Top

#56 "muscular internationalism has been a tenet of American diplomacy since it was founded"
That's not my take on Foggy Bottom, ZF. And with all the benefits of 20/20 hindsight, please tell us which major conflicts we should have skipped.

Posted by Darrell 2005-08-21 20:47|| 2005-08-21 20:47|| Front Page Top

#57 MG: Master ZF is talking Real Politik Frank. Morality has no place in the Middle Kingdom. It's nuanaced don't 'ya know, an advanced form of thinking.

Nothing advanced or nuanced about placing more value on the lives of kith and kin than on those of total strangers in foreign lands. What is nuanced and advanced is the idea that American lives are of so little value that they should automatically be sacrificed on the altar of Good Samaritanism for a bunch of foreigners via the mechanism of the alliance system. This is foreign policy on autopilot, and we have these treaties with a significant number of countries.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-08-21 20:49|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-08-21 20:49|| Front Page Top

#58 I could accept that if our troops were under U.N. command, but the "bunch of foreigners" are friends that we chose -- and we pick our own battles too.

Posted by Darrell 2005-08-21 21:02|| 2005-08-21 21:02|| Front Page Top

#59 for a bunch of foreigners

Back in the 1940s, they would have been called friends. Some of them still are.

Wow. All I can say is...wow. Is there such a thing as honor in your world, ZF? Totally freakin' selfish world view you got there.

Posted by Rafael 2005-08-21 21:04|| 2005-08-21 21:04|| Front Page Top

#60 "BTW, and back OT: Powerline nails Hagel"

So, Powerline just backed up my theory on #13 & #40. I have links to back up my claims. ZF offered none.

I don't know how we got off into WWII. Don't answer that. Actually, I do know.

Posted by Poison Reverse 2005-08-21 21:13|| 2005-08-21 21:13|| Front Page Top

#61 But the fact is that it was not our problem, and large numbers of GI's lost their lives on this crusade that is now made out to be America's moral obligation. It was not, any more than it was anybody's else moral obligation.

Actually, in the grand struggle between good and evil, it is always the good guys' moral obligation to stand up against evil. Pure and simple. Otherwise you are nothing. Not a human being. Nothing. WW2 was not a mere squabble. It was one of many battles between good and evil. And those on the side of good, stood up and fought.

I kind of like what is written in the Bible: Oh how I wish that you were either hot or cold, but you are neither, so I spit you out. (or something to that effect, I have to look it up).

Posted by Rafael 2005-08-21 21:18|| 2005-08-21 21:18|| Front Page Top

#62 The problem I have with ZF's 'real politik' is that it is not, in fact, based on the realities of the world today.

Posted by lotp 2005-08-21 21:21|| 2005-08-21 21:21|| Front Page Top

#63 ooops, inadvertent early click there ...

I *also* reject his position on grounds of honor, dignity and what makes us humans worth while.

But even on grounds of REALISM he is way off base. The suggestion that we could pick and choose our interventions so that they surgically help us, while we sustain a robust economy blithely free of treaty attachments with others is ....

well the charitable words that come to mind is 'naive' and 'unaware'.

Posted by lotp 2005-08-21 21:23|| 2005-08-21 21:23|| Front Page Top

#64 Darrell: ZF, do you conduct your personal life in the same way that you would have us conduct our international life? Do you look out for your friends? Do you right wrongs? I'm not asking if you are a caped crusader -- I'm just wondering if you have any friends that you would step forward to defend or rescue.

But that's just the point. Individuals (including myself) have friends. Countries don't, except in the sense that an ambassador has a strong relationship with the leader of his host country, which he then leverages to get concessions for his country. The alliance system is a means for Uncle Sam to provide military welfare to dependents all over the globe. And the price is typically paid in American blood. My question is this - just how worthless is an American life that a blank check should be written in advance - in the form of a defense treaty?

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-08-21 21:28|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-08-21 21:28|| Front Page Top

#65 You're hopeless, ZF.

Posted by Darrell 2005-08-21 21:32|| 2005-08-21 21:32|| Front Page Top

#66 And the price is typically paid in American blood.

...and British blood, Australian blood, Italian blood, Polish blood, Iraqi blood, Afghan blood... there's a lot of foreign blood mixed in there.

Posted by Rafael 2005-08-21 21:41|| 2005-08-21 21:41|| Front Page Top

#67 Rafael: Wow. All I can say is...wow. Is there such a thing as honor in your world, ZF? Totally freakin' selfish world view you got there.

I guess this means that the American administrations that refused to participate in European wars during the 19th century were dishonorable. And those of the founding fathers who inveighed against entangling alliances were dishonorable men.

My view is that there's nothing particularly honorable about putting up your brethren as human sacrifices so you can pat yourself on the back for being a great humanitarian. If you want to do things for honor, you do it yourself. There's something about basking in reflected honor that just doesn't sit well with me.

To take just one example, how was it honorable for the US to take China's side during the Sino-Japanese War? The Japanese were simply johnny-come-latelies to the game of empire, looking for their share of the pie. The Chinese had built a continental-sized country slightly larger than the US over the course of two thousand years. While the Chinese were beavering away at pacifying (i.e. massacring) the barbarians, the Japanese were minding their own business. The first chance Japan gets to expand its territory, Uncle Sam gets in his face. How is that honorable?

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-08-21 21:43|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-08-21 21:43|| Front Page Top

#68 ZF
Too much to say but it's late. Let me just say this: Had the US remained "isolationist" in 1941 you'd be speaking German today... and New York nuked in 1948 or so would have sped up the learning.

And had you not made all the sacrifices of the Cold War you'd be speaking Russian.

And if you don't make all the sacrifices today you will speak Arab or Chinese in the future.

If they allow you to speak at all, that is.

Posted by True German Ally 2005-08-21 21:45|| 2005-08-21 21:45|| Front Page Top

#69 ZF - IIRC - your nom-de-email is Robt Rosenthal? Which makes the Real Politik even more crazy......
Sorry if my memory fails, but WTF?

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2005-08-21 21:51|| 2005-08-21 21:51|| Front Page Top

#70 ZF, I'm sorry but you're exactly the reason why I tell my Polish friends to be weary. As an example, Poland is basking in the perceived safety of NATO, but I keep telling them, there are those in the US (and I had Buchanan in mind) that would have none of it defending Poland when push comes to shove. They were sacrificed before, they might still be sacrificed again. Your viewpoint confirms that I am not exaggerating.

Posted by Rafael 2005-08-21 21:53|| 2005-08-21 21:53|| Front Page Top

#71 Rafael: ZF, I'm sorry but you're exactly the reason why I tell my Polish friends to be weary. As an example, Poland is basking in the perceived safety of NATO, but I keep telling them, there are those in the US (and I had Buchanan in mind) that would have none of it defending Poland when push comes to shove. They were sacrificed before, they might still be sacrificed again. Your viewpoint confirms that I am not exaggerating.

There is this weird notion that Poland was "sacrificed". It wasn't sacrificed - it screwed up by not becoming strong enough to defend itself. There is no divine right of nations to remain sovereign - each nation's sovereignty is ultimately defended by the blood of patriots, not foreigners. Nations are not individuals within a nation state - each nation must ultimately fend for itself.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-08-21 22:00|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-08-21 22:00|| Front Page Top

#72 wow - I'm going to bed a bit sadder and even more cynical.... if that's possible. Sleep well Robt

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2005-08-21 22:02|| 2005-08-21 22:02|| Front Page Top

#73 Folks, calm down, this one quote says it all.

Sen. George Allen, R-Va., another possible candidate for the GOP nomination for president in 2008, said

Got that "Candidate for the 2008 Presidential election."

Anything else is hot air designed to stir up debate.

Sure worked here 71 responses so far.

Posted by Redneck Jim 2005-08-21 22:03|| 2005-08-21 22:03|| Front Page Top

#74 There is no divine right of nations to remain sovereign

Hmmm, well I guess you're right. So I guess you wouldn't mind if your house was robbed, since there's no divine right of individuals to keep property. You just screwed up by not protecting your house well enough. Makes sense.

Posted by Rafael 2005-08-21 22:08|| 2005-08-21 22:08|| Front Page Top

#75 I could think of a far more sinister analogy but I will desist.

Posted by True German Ally 2005-08-21 22:10|| 2005-08-21 22:10|| Front Page Top

#76 Redneck,

I tried, but emotions are taking over.

Posted by Poison Reverse 2005-08-21 22:12|| 2005-08-21 22:12|| Front Page Top

#77 Rafael: Hmmm, well I guess you're right. So I guess you wouldn't mind if your house was robbed, since there's no divine right of individuals to keep property. You just screwed up by not protecting your house well enough. Makes sense.

You are confusing the role of individuals within the nation state and the state of nature that exists in the international sphere. We pay taxes to keep in place a criminal justice system that will investigate, catch and imprison the perpetrators of such crimes. Do foreign countries pay Uncle Sam taxes to sacrifice its young men in their wars?

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-08-21 22:21|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-08-21 22:21|| Front Page Top

#78 Redneck - the issue here, at least my issue, is where the hell I put ZF in my spectrum of "personalities". Obviously I was wrong in prior assumptions.

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2005-08-21 22:22|| 2005-08-21 22:22|| Front Page Top

#79 but emotions are taking over

Maybe it's just me, but I can't fathom the idea that someone out there actually thinks that the men and women, in and out of uniform, who fought and died in all the just wars (WW1,WW2,Korea,Vietnam,Iraq,Afghanistan), died for nothing. Maybe it's just me.

Posted by Rafael 2005-08-21 22:23|| 2005-08-21 22:23|| Front Page Top

#80 I would be dead, of course.

Posted by True German Ally 2005-08-21 22:25|| 2005-08-21 22:25|| Front Page Top

#81 Hey I just got around to reading the whole thread.. thanks you all ...Frank expressed my views the closest, You have to back up allies when the shit hits the fan., But I also recognise the dangers for American citizens from our burgeoning alliances. UN, EU, NATO, World Court, NAFTA, GAT etc. plus the traditional ones, which ZF's slant illustrates quite well.

great topic for discussion

Posted by Red Dog 2005-08-21 22:31|| 2005-08-21 22:31|| Front Page Top

#82 "Do foreign countries pay Uncle Sam taxes to sacrifice its young men in their wars?"

You may want to re-think that question ZF, and what it implies.

Posted by True German Ally 2005-08-21 22:32|| 2005-08-21 22:32|| Front Page Top

#83 Do foreign countries pay Uncle Sam taxes to sacrifice its young men in their wars?

No. But neither do you live in a vacuum. Shit that happens half way around the globe, may affect you here at home. Sometimes, it may just be in your interest to defend that puny shithole-stan of a nation somewhere on the globe.

Posted by Rafael 2005-08-21 22:35|| 2005-08-21 22:35|| Front Page Top

#84 It comes to this: the really bad guys, the idealistic ones, won't stop until the whole world lives under their rules... and rule. Hitler was one such -- he would not have stopped until the entire world was Judenrein, then Slav-rein, then anyone-not-German-"Aryan"-rein. The Islamists are the same -- it isn't enough to leave them alone, they won't be satisfied until everyone is a member of their flavour of Muslim, and those that disagree are dead. The Soviets in their time were the same, although they were happy enough with simple conquest, whether overt or covert.

So, just as in past ideological conflicts, it doesn't matter whether the U.S. was directly attacked or not; sooner or later the war comes to us, because we stand in the way. It needn't be us -- whichever nation refuses to submit would be forced into that role. But we never have submitted, so there it is.

And I would prefer our troops to fight it out on their soil rather than ours. Not just because I prefer our non-combatants to be safe... my mother was a runner for the Dutch underground after all, despite being Jewish, and her father in his attic forged papers for her comrades... but because our boys and girls are more effective over there, where they can use all their toys to best effect.

And that, Mr. Fe, is why your statements appall me.

Posted by trailing wife 2005-08-21 22:37|| 2005-08-21 22:37|| Front Page Top

#85 Rafael: Maybe it's just me, but I can't fathom the idea that someone out there actually thinks that the men and women, in and out of uniform, who fought and died in all the just wars (WW1,WW2,Korea,Vietnam,Iraq,Afghanistan), died for nothing. Maybe it's just me.

They died for something - to keep nations an ocean away free. We can say they did something great and honorable, much as the Crusades were great and honorable. Nineteenth century American administrations stayed out of European wars. Were they cowardly and craven? Those of us who came out of these conflicts with our families whole get to bask in reflected glory. But what about the Americans whose family members were killed in one of these crusades?

I wouldn't mix all of these wars together. The war with Japan was clearly warranted. We were right to burn their cities down in retaliation for Pearl Harbor. And Afghanistan and Iraq were clearly necessary to re-establish the fear of Uncle Sam in Muslim minds. All of the other conflicts were honorable efforts that may not ultimately have been necessary - from the standpoint of American interests.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-08-21 22:38|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-08-21 22:38|| Front Page Top

#86 WW2 makes a very poor argument for a moral war. Prior to the war it is arguably whether Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia was more evil. On body count the Soviets win hands down. Both started the war by invading Poland (2 weeks apart). Yet we fought it by allying with the Soviets and then handing them half of Europe for another 2 generations of totalitarian horrors. If that's morality then I'm happy to be called amoral.

Posted by phil_b 2005-08-21 22:39|| 2005-08-21 22:39|| Front Page Top

#87 Rafeal,

I agree with everyone on this thread, except ZF. We got baited by ZF, even though is a regular. I am with Frank, I will more skeptical of ZF than in the past. If he wants me to believe him, I want links, period.

If you look on the link on #40, you will see that Hagel is a big supporter of China, Vietnam, and Singapore. I believe ZF had a agenda for the this thread.

You got admit that this thread was for RINO duplicity and not for dragging back the past 60 years. I will trust ZF, but I will verify, as I did on this thread.

Posted by Poison Reverse 2005-08-21 22:42|| 2005-08-21 22:42|| Front Page Top

#88 TGA, you'd be dead along with my parents and all their relatives. So I never would have been born. *shrug* Sort of a 15 years early abortion, I suppose. Fortunes of peace with honour.

Posted by trailing wife 2005-08-21 22:46|| 2005-08-21 22:46|| Front Page Top

#89 But I also recognise the dangers for American citizens from our burgeoning alliances

An alliance is not a one-way street. All sides have obligations to fulfill. Respect is one such obligation. If this condition is not met, then we are no longer talking about an alliance. Hence there's nothing to fear from the EU, world court, etc...

Posted by Rafael 2005-08-21 22:52|| 2005-08-21 22:52|| Front Page Top

#90 TW: It comes to this: the really bad guys, the idealistic ones, won't stop until the whole world lives under their rules... and rule. Hitler was one such -- he would not have stopped until the entire world was Judenrein, then Slav-rein, then anyone-not-German-"Aryan"-rein. The Islamists are the same -- it isn't enough to leave them alone, they won't be satisfied until everyone is a member of their flavour of Muslim, and those that disagree are dead. The Soviets in their time were the same, although they were happy enough with simple conquest, whether overt or covert.

Germany's reach exceeded its grasp. By the time Uncle Sam won his first victory against the Germans in North Africa just over a year after Pearl Harbor, the Soviets had crushed the Nazis at Stalingrad. After this defeat, the Nazis just lost battle after battle in the Soviet meatgrinder. American participation was superfluous.

The Soviets did need to be put in their place. But were Korea and Vietnam the places to do it? Were alliances the way to deal with this? Couldn't we have aided them with money and equipment exclusively? The British and the French certainly did not stick around to ensure that their former colonies did not fall into Communist hands - they sent aid and limited numbers of advisers, but let nature take its course when the local government was too incompetent to beat the Reds. Note that the Soviets avoided getting into a guerrilla war with American-backed forces - until Afghanistan. They lost their shirts and then some. We paid them back in spades for Korea and Vietnam.

It goes without saying that Islam's reach also exceeds its grasp. Islam has nothing comparable to either German or Soviet power - Germans were pioneers in just about every industrial age sector, whereas the Soviets were major innovators in every category of arms production. If necessary, we can burn Muslim cities down and kill them by the hundreds of millions. In fact, what we are doing in Afghanistan and Iraq is to deliver a stark warning to them - the fire next time. What Islam did to us must be avenged and I have no problem with punitive expeditions into Islam's heartland.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-08-21 23:05|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-08-21 23:05|| Front Page Top

#91 WW2 makes a very poor argument for a moral war

Many Poles believe that Americans should have kept on marching past Berlin and into Poland. Hence my comment that Poland was sacrificed. One guy even told me that Americans should have used nukes to expel the Russians from Poland (in WW2).

Do I think that the Americans should have kept on marching into Poland? Yes. Would it have justified the added bloodshed that a war with the Russians would bring? I'm completely subjective on this issue so I can't answer this. Many would say no. Does this mean that to do nothing would have been the better alternative? Again, many (even Poles) would say no.

Posted by Rafael 2005-08-21 23:10|| 2005-08-21 23:10|| Front Page Top

#92 The Soviets did need to be put in their place. But were Korea and Vietnam the places to do it?

I look at the wars in Korea and Vietnam more as an effort to save the people from communism, than a fight against the Soviets. A win in either war would not have defeated the Soviet Union.

Posted by Rafael 2005-08-21 23:14|| 2005-08-21 23:14|| Front Page Top

#93 The British and the French certainly did not stick around to ensure that their former colonies did not fall into Communist hands

But Americans did, many died, and that's why I will forever be pro-American and defend American interests, and I'm not even American. God knows I get buffeted around whenever I confront the pathological anti-Americanism that is abound up here in moonbat land.

Posted by Rafael 2005-08-21 23:22|| 2005-08-21 23:22|| Front Page Top

#94 PR: I agree with everyone on this thread, except ZF. We got baited by ZF, even though is a regular. I am with Frank, I will more skeptical of ZF than in the past. If he wants me to believe him, I want links, period. If you look on the link on #40, you will see that Hagel is a big supporter of China, Vietnam, and Singapore. I believe ZF had a agenda for the this thread. You got admit that this thread was for RINO duplicity and not for dragging back the past 60 years. I will trust ZF, but I will verify, as I did on this thread.

PR is confusing Chuck Hagel's public pronouncements with his votes. Hagel has always been a dove in his public pronouncements. This is why his name really sticks in my craw. The amusing thing is his voting record demonstrates that he is no moderate, with an ADA (liberal) rating of 15 (out of 100). The guy is a strong social conservative, economic conservative and verbally dovish on defense issues, but actually conservative in his voting record. I withdraw my criticisms of the guy. He is Hillary in reverse - a conservative in moderate clothing.

Note that Chuck Hagel is a free trader, which is a *conservative* position. He supports enhanced trade with *everyone* - Singapore, Chile and Vietnam. PR takes this to mean that Hagel *supports* Singapore and Vietnam. No - Hagel just wants to have maximum access to foreign markets for American agricultural products - he does represent Nebraska, a farm state.

I have been following Hagel's career for a while now. What stuck out in my mind was how he was consistently dovish in his public pronouncements. Now that I've actually taken a look at his ADA record, I'm really amused - the guy's a wolf in sheep's clothing - he's just as conservative as McCain on defense issues.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-08-21 23:30|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-08-21 23:30|| Front Page Top

#95 Rafael An alliance is not a one-way street. All sides have obligations to fulfill. Respect is one such obligation. If this condition is not met, then we are no longer talking about an alliance. Hence there's nothing to fear from the EU, world court, etc...

point taken Yes our govt. has been fairly succesful manuvering, we usually can reject such legal attacks.

example, In the past [wasn't it the world court?] some world body wanted to indict US troops and the American admin. over action overseas.

BUT what if Hilly Clintoon was pres? She might sacrifice more of our sovereignty.

I would prefer to follow the ZF thread and explore this later..hokay?

Posted by Red Dog 2005-08-21 23:32|| 2005-08-21 23:32|| Front Page Top

#96 Rafael: Many Poles believe that Americans should have kept on marching past Berlin and into Poland.

I believe every one of our "allies" should send at least one fully-equipped combat division into Iraq to help clear out the guerrillas. However, so far, only British troops have engaged in active operations, and only on a fairly cursory basis.

Rafael: But Americans did, many died, and that's why I will forever be pro-American and defend American interests, and I'm not even American.

Much as I'd like to have people get a warm feeling inside when they think about Americans, I'm not sure it's worth the expenditure of very many American lives to do so. We lost 100,000 men in Korea and Vietnam. That's a lot of American widows and orphans.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-08-21 23:43|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-08-21 23:43|| Front Page Top

#97 Ok then, I concede. Just remember, you do not live in a vacuum.

Posted by Rafael 2005-08-21 23:49|| 2005-08-21 23:49|| Front Page Top

#98 ZF: After this defeat, the Nazis just lost battle after battle in the Soviet meatgrinder. American participation was superfluous.

More to the point, the lack of American participation in fighting Germany would have meant more Soviet casualties because less German men and equipment would have diverted towards fighting American troops in North Africa, followed by Italy and France. How would that have been a bad thing?

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-08-21 23:51|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-08-21 23:51|| Front Page Top

#99 Rafael: Ok then, I concede. Just remember, you do not live in a vacuum.

I don't think anybody has to concede anything. I just want to point out that there is non-dovish non-interventionist argument. We just won't hear it from either the Buchananites or the moveon.org types, all of which have a blame America mentality.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-08-21 23:54|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-08-21 23:54|| Front Page Top

#100 All,

Great thread! Even the detour was scenic! Well thought-out positions and arguments. This is why I come to Rantburg. Thanks!

Posted by mac 2005-08-21 23:56|| 2005-08-21 23:56|| Front Page Top

#101 My take on McCain for the last few years is that he's a bit of a psycho, whereas Hagel has always just seemed sort of stupid. I especially love the "past that stage" on the great mythical "more troops" non-issue -- he's moved from brain-dead superficial criticism to actual defeatism.

The inability to see that the US has, and has had for nearly two years, a reasonably good strategy for achieving its objectives in Iraq (not leaving -- that's not an objective) is stupefying.

Let's see Frank, I'd say the inability of the opposition to affect the political transition or calendar is a pretty decisive indicator of success to date. Gutting Tater Tot's "military" option cleanly and completely was impressive. Involvement of Iraqi elements in more and more offensive operations is relentlessly growing. I wasn't here a year ago, but I know the IZ is much quieter and more secure than back then.

Posted by Verlaine in Iraq 2005-08-22 01:24|| 2005-08-22 01:24|| Front Page Top

01:24 Verlaine in Iraq
23:58 Matt K.
23:56 mac
23:54 Zhang Fei
23:51 Zhang Fei
23:49 bigjim-ky
23:49 Rafael
23:46 Glereth Thavish7738
23:43 Zhang Fei
23:37 mac
23:32 Red Dog
23:30 Zhang Fei
23:24 Redneck Jim
23:22 Rafael
23:20 JosephMendiola
23:20 Jackal
23:17 Redneck Jim
23:14 Rafael
23:11 Barbara Skolaut
23:10 Dave
23:10 Rafael
23:08 Jan
23:05 Zhang Fei
23:04 trailing wife