Excellent post.

How can we fulfill our potential if we hide from ourselves, and our children, what we did wrong on our present path.

This is not to suggest that we only study negative events in American history, but that we be able to look at them honestly in order to avoid them in the future.

Thank you.
 

I have no problem looking at our mistakes -- although we disagree about Iraq being one of them -- and learning from them. To claim we are not the world's Good Guy, as you did in "Dissent" Professor Koppelman, goes too far IMHO.
 

At the same time, for you to defend "rape-murders in a way that is clearly intended to be arousing to the viewer" in that "Dissent" article but draw the line at Nazism is ironic, to say the least.
 

Professor Koppelman:

It is interesting that you compare our previous history of slavery and the way we treat unlawful enemy combatants in our current war with Islamic fascism given that Abraham Lincoln, in his war to free the slaves, authorized Union troops to summarily execute Confederate unlawful enemy combatants without judicial due process.

US troops are generally viewed as the "good guys" in most wars because we are fighting to free people from various ideologies of slavery, even though we do not extend to unlawful enemy combatants who seek to impose terror and slavery the same privileges of soldiers who follow the laws of war.
 

It is also interesting to note that the Germans, who assiduously keep records of their Nazi past, are unwilling to fight modern fascism anywhere in the world.

Rather than German style penitent navel gazing, I would suggest that our willingness to actually fight actually does far more to defeat fascism.
 

US troops are generally viewed as the "good guys" in most wars

Where is the evidence that this is anything more than an assertion of your own bias?
 

I would suggest that our willingness to actually fight actually does far more to defeat fascism.

# posted by Bart DePalma : 4:40 PM

That doesn't appear to be working so well over in Iraq.
 

As a Jewish law prof who also just got back from Berlin, I was struck by exactly the same things Prof. Koppleman describes. Part of me wonders how many Berliners, especially among the older ones, endorse the commendable attitude of these public displays. But it's also worth noting that this is barely 60 years after the fall of the Third Reich. The U.S. may not be adequately addressing slavery and our past relations with native Americans now, but we were doing a much worse job, say, 60 years after the Civil War.
 

I would like to challenge Bart to give me five historical examples where the US has invaded other countries and successfully created a state based on democracy where there was no such state before.

While he is looking that up, I believe that the German retreat from fascism has nothing to do with naval-gazing, but with people not believing that they are called upon to rule/control the world based upon their supposed superior status, their "Manifest Destiny" as it were....
 

I did research on the Nuremburg Trials last summer in that city, at it struck me forcefully how matter-of-fact the locals were about the town's history as the place where the worst of German atrocities were trotted out before the world. I think you're right that there a sense of ownership (of a sort) that you don't often find in America.
 

Scott Horton has an Arendt quote up at his blog:

We can no longer afford to take that which was good in the past and simply call it our heritage, to discard the bad the bad and simply think of it as a dead load which by itself time will bury in oblivion. The subterranean stream of Western history has finally come to the surface and usurped the dignity of our tradition. This is the reality in which we live. And this is why all efforts to escape from the grimness of the present into nostalgia for a still intact past, or into the anticipated oblivion of a better future, are vain.

More here.
 

Fraud Guy:

I presume "Iraq" is not yet on your list (maybe because 100% or more "voted" for Saddam)? You are also asking for countries which now have some hybrid form of democracy, including republics, rather than limiting your question to DIRECT democracies, right? The Netherlands, Belgium, a few Scandinavian countries and Japan all were monarchies / dictatorships until liberated / invaded by the U.S. Next question?
 

Charles,

Iraq is definitely too soon to tell.

I well remember our invasion of Denmark (or was it Sweden, Norway, Finland, Iceland?) to topple their dictatorial rulers and set up democracy. It was right on page....in my World History book in high school. I'll have to look it up.

Japan could arguably make such a list, but the others, not so much. Asked and 1 for five answered. I will await Bart's response in the interim. And based on what Americans have done, there is likely no Good Guy (us included) in the world right now.
 

You only asked for five, when of course there are many more, either directly or indirectly (one could make the argument that FRANCE is a representative democratic republic today because of America too). Of course, your pointed question is too limiting -- for instance, in Japan during the early twentieth century, there was a very brief period of "Taisho democracy", but that was quickly overshadowed by the rise of expansionism under the monarchy and militarization leading up to World War I. I think the better question would look at democracies at the world as a whole.

In 1950, only 31 percent of the world's population lived in some form of democracy. By 2000, however, there were 120 electoral democracies, or a democratic world population almost double that, more than half the world, and last time I checked, in 2001 with Gambia finally entering the list of world democracies, raised the number to 121 electoral democracies out of 194 total countries. There are at least 86 liberal democracies enjoying broad civil and political rights -- how many were there before 1776 -- you really want to debate how many of those are as a result of the United States:

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/DP.CLOCK.HTM

You and Professor Koppelman are free to criticize these trends all you want.
 

This is related, I think, to Americans’ easy acceptance (which I’ve written about elsewhere) of a narrative in which we are the world’s Good Guys, so that any atrocity that we happen to commit (the prolonged imprisonment and torture of innocent people in the “War on Terror” is the most recent example) can’t really be that bad, because it’s us that’s doing it.

Unfortunately, this is probably an attitude that is only undone once a country has declined into a less relevant, second-rate power. It's harder to think that you're the Good Guys when you no longer are really the master of your own country's fate, let alone the fate of any other country.
 

Well, Xanthippas, "unfortunately" for you, the United States is not likely to declined into second-rate power anytime soon ; )
 

"declined" (past tense) should be "decline" (future tense).
 

And, here's one more interesting note: during the time of Alexander the Great, in the 4th century B.C., the Greeks wrote about the Sabarcae and Sambastai states in what is now modern-day Pakistan and Afghanistan, whose "form of government was democratic and not regal" according to Greek scholars at the time. So, does that ancient history disqualify those two countries should their long-lost democracy take root again?
 

As an aside, someone help me out here, please?

(1) Balkinization does not have posting rules, banned commenters, etc., because that would detract from its commitment to freedom of speech.

(2) That is why Balkinization posters simply delete entire threads that they do not care for?

I'm sure that with another cup of coffee, I could figure that one out.
 

Discussing whether the U.S. is "the good guy in the world," or whether Germany's position on Iraq was better than that of the U.S. is indeed likely to get predictable and not particularly illuminating responses.

The original post was, however, about a more specific point: that Germany has dealt with the horrific things in its past at least somewhat more forthrightly and explicitly than the U.S. has. I hope more comments would be directed to that point.zyc
 

Good point, Anderson.

I found some more info for Fraud Guy:

Although not described as a "democracy" by the Founding Fathers, the United States has been credited as the first liberal democracy on the basis that our Founders shared a commitment to the principle of natural freedom and equality. The United States Constitution, adopted in 1788, provided for an elected government and protected civil rights and liberties . . . .

On the American frontier, democracy became a way of life, with widespread social, economic and political equality. By comparison, the frontier did not produce much democracy in Canada, Australia or Russia.

By the 1840s almost all property restrictions were ended and nearly all white adult male citizens could vote; and turnout averaged 60-80% in frequent elections for local, state and national officials. The system gradually evolved, from Jeffersonian Democracy to Jacksonian Democracy and beyond. In Reconstruction after the Civil War (late 1860s) the newly freed slaves became citizens with (in the case of men) the right to vote.

In 1789, Revolutionary France adopted the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen and, although short-lived, the National Convention was elected by all males.

Liberal democracies were few and often short-lived before the late nineteenth century. Various nations and territories have claimed to be the first with universal suffrage though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy#18th_and_19th_centuries
 

Well, jslater, if we can't even agree that the U.S. is the "good guy" in the world, how are we going to agree what is "horrific" in our own past?
 

Fraud Guy:

20th century transitions to liberal democracy have come in successive "waves of democracy," variously resulting from wars, revolutions, decolonization, and economic circumstances. World War I and the dissolution of the Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian empires resulted in the creation of new nation-states in Europe, most of them nominally democratic.

In the 1920s democracy flourished, but the Great Depression brought disenchantment, and most the countries of Europe, Latin America, and Asia turned to strong-man rule or dictatorships. Fascism and dictatorships flourished in Nazi Germany, Italy, Spain and Portugal, as well as nondemocratic regimes in Poland, the Baltics, the Balkans, Brazil, Cuba, China, and Japan, among others. Together with Stalin's regime in the Soviet Union, these made the 1930s the "Age of Dictators".

World War II brought a definitive reversal of this trend in western Europe. The successful democratization of the American, British, and French sectors of occupied Germany, Austria, Italy, and the occupied Japan served as a model for the later theory of regime change. However, most of Eastern Europe, including the Soviet sector of Germany was forced into the non-democratic Soviet bloc. The war was followed by decolonization, and again most of the new independent states had nominally democratic constitutions. In the decades following World War II, most western democratic nations had mixed economies and developed a welfare state, reflecting a general consensus among their electorates and political parties. In the 1950s and 1960s, economic growth was high in both the western and Communist countries; it later declined in the state-controlled economies. By 1960, the vast majority of nation-states were nominally democracies, although the majority of the world's populations lived in nations that experienced sham elections, and other forms of subterfuge (particularly in Communist nations and the former colonies.)

A subsequent wave of democratization brought substantial gains toward true liberal democracy for many nations. Spain, Portugal, and several of the military dictatorships in South America became democratic in the late 1970s and early 1980s. This was followed by nations in East and South Asia by the mid- to late 1980s. Economic malaise in the 1980s, along with resentment of communist oppression, contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union, the associated end of the Cold War, and the democratization and liberalization of the former Eastern bloc countries. The most successful of the new democracies were those geographically and culturally closest to western Europe, and they are now members or candidate members of the European Union. The liberal trend spread to some nations in Africa in the 1990s, most prominently in South Africa. Some recent examples include the Indonesian Revolution of 1998, the Bulldozer Revolution in Yugoslavia, the Rose Revolution in Georgia, the Orange Revolution in Ukraine, the Cedar Revolution in Lebanon, and the Tulip Revolution in Kyrgyzstan.

The number of liberal democracies currently stands at an all-time high and has been growing without interruption for some time. As such, it has been speculated that this trend may continue in the future to the point where liberal democratic nation-states become the universal standard form of human society. In fact, this prediction forms the core of Francis Fukayama's "End of History" theory.
 

Charles, I think the point of the post is that thinking in terms of "good guys" and "bad guys" makes it difficult to appreciate our own capacity for evil.

My particular favorite is the contorted reasoning as to why incinerating tens of thousands of women, infants, and children ceased to be a bad thing when it was the Allies doing it.
 

Anderson:

All men (and, therefore, governments headed my men) have the "capacity" for evil -- no one is disputing that -- but, dropping the A-bombs to end WWII has a very different MOTIVE than gassing Jews at Auschwitz-Birkenau, right?
 

Bart DePalma said,
It is also interesting to note that the Germans, who assiduously keep records of their Nazi past, are unwilling to fight modern fascism anywhere in the world.

Germany was the largest contributor to the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan until the U.S. came under ISAF's aegis in October 2006. At least 7 German soldiers have been killed in action, in support of the U.S./NATO mission in Afghanistan.

Thank God Bart DePalma and his ilk rarely interact with foreigners, otherwise the latter would have an even worse opinion of American knowledge and gratitude than they already do.

anderson,

The difference between incinerating people in the Holocaust and doing it in Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki is that the Holocaust essentially was an end in itself: Hitler wanted the Jews dead in order to have the Jews dead. Because he planned to take over the world, even deporting the Jews to other countries wasn't satisfactory (hence the difficulty in getting out of Nazi-controlled areas to emigrate elsewhere; Hitler didn't *want* Jews alive elsewhere).

U.S. firebombings in Germany and nukes in Japan were intended to subdue the populace and end the war. If Germany and Japan had been ready to surrender before we took those actions, we would not have taken them.

I find Bart's and Charles's arguments idiotic, but let's not collapse all moral distinctions here.

(Their response to the challenge "US has invaded other countries and successfully created a state based on democracy where there was no such state before" is particularly amusing, given that most of the countries invaded by Nazi Germany were democracies of some sort, and Germany had democracy before the Nazi rise to power and subversion thereof. Thus the U.S. liberation did not bring about democracy where there was NONE before. Even Japan had the Taisho democracy before WWII. If we're going to bemoan monarchical democracies, why not complain that the U.S. failed to finish the job by invading the UK and overthrowing the King and House of Lords? The aristocrats continued to stand in the way of popular will even up to recent causes like ending fox-hunting.)
 

pg:

I indeed mentioned Taisho democracy -- as an example of why Fraud Guy's "challenge" was too limited to begin with -- let me know what you think is "idiotic" after you actually read my posts.
 

Professor Koppelman: You could spend a lot of time on the Mall in Washington, D.C. without being made to think about slavery, the genocide of the Indians, and the path of Western conquest.

Thank you so much for this. Too many of our fellow citizens want to believe, "It can't happen here," when it has happened here, is happening here, and shows every sign of getting worse here before it gets better. Some of the reactionaries here would do well to remember that the German's who let it happen there spun a nearly identical narrative about being the Good Guys.
 

I also mentioned in the 4th century B.C., the Greeks wrote about the Sabarcae and Sambastai states in what is now modern-day Pakistan and Afghanistan, whose "form of government was democratic and not regal" according to Greek scholars at the time. So, pg, perhaps you can answer my question: does that ancient history somehow disqualify those two countries should their long-lost democracy take root again?
 

U.S. firebombings in Germany and nukes in Japan were intended to subdue the populace and end the war. If Germany and Japan had been ready to surrender before we took those actions, we would not have taken them.

You're sure of that?
 

Anderson: As an aside, someone help me out here, please?

The de facto online communities created by the enabling of comments on a sufficiently well read blog rarely take into account the lessons learned from IRC and Usenet, nor even from listservs and bulletin boards. Such communities need moderating---or the facilitators of such communities need to accept that signal:noise will eventually approach zero and trust participants to filter/sort accordingly.

Again, blogware and the blogging community don't yet, as a whole, grok these problems.

Part of the problem, I imagine, is that our hosts are accustomed to a class room setting, where it simply isn't allowed to toss someone out on their ear for being a disruptive jerk. Likewise, being liberals/progressives, they may feel especially vulnerable to (unwarranted) claims of violation of free speech. It's easy to forget that this is not a truly public forum. It is, instead, effectively the private property of our hosts and they have the right to bounce anyone at any time for any reason (as in, "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.")

Turning off comments just hastens the approach of signal:noise reaching zero. There are other approaches, but ultimately it's our hosts bat, ball, and backyard. And, absent the will to bounce obvious vandals or the willingness to let users filter/sort then it's as viable an option as any, imnsho.

Peace.
 

Rather than take the thread off-topic, I have taken Anderson's advice (from the deleted thread) and started an "Open Thread" on my own blog to discuss anything not having to do with "The virtues of Nazi ghosts" : )

http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=15518184&postID=8515617776606753101
 

The ability to face one's own errors and failures of responsibility requires the understanding of one's responsibility and an unswerving determination.

Also, it is something that requires practice. To accomplish this across generations it would be necessary to institutionalize the practice.

It would also be necessary to have a definitive history of the facts, so that this history can then be held up for everyone to see.

In the case of Germany, there was international pressure and help to make all this happen. They didn't do it by themselves.

Given the increasingly-diverged realities that I see in this country, it seems highly unlikely that any definitive history will be accepted. Pat Robertson and other religious autocrats have created their own "universities" to teach their own versions of history, science, and law. We have "think-tanks" which generate economic, scientific, social, and governmental theories and philosophical interpretations to back them up, all available to those who have money to pay the "think-tanks".

If an understanding of where the US failed to live up to its ideals could be generated, then it would somehow have to be institutionalized. Perhaps this could be accomplished if America were conquered and underwent a period of "supervised democracy", that might do it. Short of some catastrophic occurrence like that, it seems unlikely.

As for the "comment" issue -- just make it possible for me to "ignore" someone, and I'd be happy. Even better if it had wildcards -- I'd like to be able to ignore anything with certain poster's names. I used to do this with netnews -- it's not exactly new technology.
 

ETOH: If an understanding of where the US failed to live up to its ideals could be generated...

I apologize, first, for abbreviating your moniker, but I hope you'll get a chuckle; it's a nursing shortcut I learned while working psych hospitals in the late 80s.

Second, how do you feel about Zinn's work? Adequate in coverage if not sufficiently institutionalized?

ETOH: As for the "comment" issue -- just make it possible for me to "ignore" someone...

There is a killfile script available for firefox-cum-greasemonkey. But it doesn't work in the "post a comment view," and so really hasn't done me much good. Again, that's one of the problems solved ages ago in the IRC/Usenet/listserv context, and it's sad to see so much frustration as we re-invent wheel after wheel after wheel.

Peace.
 

Here's my post about Marty Lederman's deleted threads:

http://chadpslace.blogspot.com/
 

Charles:

Don't dodge the point. I assume you and I can agree that slavery was evil, for example, independent of the issue of whether the U.S. is and/or has always been "the good guy" in the world, right about Iraq, or whatever.

So again, I would be interested in folks actually responding to the main point in the original post.
 

Slavery in the South was no more "evil" than Truman dropping 2 nukes on Japan. Is that the answer you wanted? Can we agree that LESS innocents were killed by slaveholders?
 

From about the 1640s until 1865, people of African descent were legally enslaved within the boundaries of the present U. S. mostly by whites, but also by a comparatively small number of American Indians and free blacks. The wealth of the U.S. was greatly enhanced by the exploitation of African American slaves.

While estimates of the number of slaves brought to North America vary from a few hundred thousand to a few million, the slave population in the U.S. had grown to 4 million by the 1860 Census. How many were killed by their slaveholders?

In comparison, 70,000 innocents were killed on August 6, 1945 in Hiroshima (an estimated 60,000 more people died from injuries and radiation in the months that followed) with roughly half that number killed in Nagasaki on August 9, 1945.
 

I do see that some research reported by Anti-Slavery International says that roughly one million people died on slave ships in transit to the U.S.(www.antislavery.org).

But assuming that number is accurate, is that the fault of the slaveholders or those who were doing the transportation?
 

Re: the Allies' motives, I had thought that "the end justifies the means" was not so readily confused with the Sermon on the Mount or the Dhammapada.

Regardless, the evidence is pretty clear that the UK pursued terror bombing because it wanted to, not because of its contribution to ending the war. Take a look at Bomber Command by Max Hastings, if you're interested. Some of the obfuscations of books like Neilands' The Bomber War are addressed in Grayling's Among the Dead Cities.

It's important to get this ancient history straight so that we don't repeat the same mistakes. If the only lesson we take away from the Second World War is "we're # 1!!!" then we are in for a world of trouble.
 

Robert,

I've only basic familiarity with Zinn's work. I find reading his work depressing. It takes me back to my own experiences, the less pleasant ones.

I'd strongly support making Zinn's work required reading for 12th grade. Not as a textbook, but as a reading assignment, for discussion in class.

I get EtOH regularly. Since C2H5OH is merely a tag, I don't mind. Or you can call me Al -- it's even shorter.
 

How many were killed by their slaveholders?

This question is both misleading and, ultimately, unanswerable.

It's misleading because it limits deaths to those killed by their owners. However, the vast majority of deaths occurred in the kidnapping and transportation to the US. A quick internet search results in an estimate of 12 million deaths in the overseas slave trade out of 20 million total. Cite.

Of course, not all those slaves were bound for North America. The usual estimate for North America is 5%-10%, so that means about 1,000,000 to 2,000,000, of whom roughly 600,000 to 1.2 million would have died on the way.

But that's not the end of the story. The life expectancy of slaves was lower than whites, much lower in many cases. In SC, for example, the death rate exceeded the birth rate until roughly the Revolution. That means that SC had to import slaves just to keep the population steady. It's nearly impossible to say how many excess deaths this led to.

Finally, your question is limited to death. While that's horrible, surely, it leaves out the degradation and abuse prior to death.
 

Charles:

The Netherlands, Belgium, a few Scandinavian countries and Japan all were monarchies / dictatorships until liberated / invaded by the U.S. Next question?

Yes, next question. <*Hmmmm*> Charles: WTF do you find your "history books"?!?!?

Cheers,

P.S.: Marty, this is the kind of thing that makes the threads deteriorate; utter nonsense or dishonest persiflage bandied about as if it ought to inform the discussion. Instead, bandwidth is wasted correcting the obviously wrong. One can only wonder whether in fact such is the intent of such malarkey.

P.P.S.: I'll be kind enough to inform my buddy Harald that the U.S. has liberated Norway from the clutches of his "monarchy/dictatorship", and he can concentrate on his skiing and sailing skills ... oh, wait, that's what his father and he did anyway, well, that and ribbon-cutting....

P.P.P.S: *shhhhhhh* Don't tell Lizzie she's a marked woman.
 

Charles:

In 1950, only 31 percent of the world's population lived in some form of democracy.

While a good portion of the rest of them lived ... ummm ... under colonial rule. Then there's those Pacific "protectorates" ... like the Gilbert and Marshall Islands, Guam, Micronesia, etc.....

Cheers,
 

Charles:

Although not described as a "democracy" by the Founding Fathers, the United States has been credited as the first liberal democracy on the basis that our Founders shared a commitment to the principle of natural freedom and equality. The United States Constitution, adopted in 1788, provided for an elected government and protected civil rights and liberties....

You folks think you invented democracy and have the patent on constitutions. Wrong. The "monarchy/dictatorship" of Iceland (you know, one of those "Scandinavian countries") beat you out by many centuries.

Cheers,
 

While a good portion of the rest of them lived ... ummm ... under colonial rule. Then there's those Pacific "protectorates" ... like the Gilbert and Marshall Islands, Guam, Micronesia, etc.....

Cheers,

# posted by Arne Langsetmo : 8:37 PM

Well, when taking your foot off of someone's throat is a form of liberation...
 

Should have been...

Well, isn't taking your foot off of someone's throat a form of liberation...
 

Robert Link:

ETOH: If ....

[Robert]: I apologize, first, for abbreviating your moniker, but I hope you'll get a chuckle; it's a nursing shortcut I learned while working psych hospitals in the late 80s.

I was thinking more in terms of the Latin female Terra-ist: "C2H5OH, nee Ethyl al-Cajal"

Hope this isn't considered "noise"; my apologies in advance if anyone's annoyed. Those that don't get it ... well, they don't get it.

Cheers,
 

anderson:

Regardless, the evidence is pretty clear that the UK pursued terror bombing because it wanted to, not because of its contribution to ending the war. Take a look at Bomber Command by Max Hastings, if you're interested. Some of the obfuscations of books like Neilands' The Bomber War are addressed in Grayling's Among the Dead Cities.

For another take on Bomber Command, try the first chapters of Freeman Dyson's "Disturbing the Universe". Then read the rest of it. ;-)

Cheers,
 

Charles:

So you do, in fact, wish to miss the point. Nobody said anything about comparing slavery to dropping atomic bombs on Japan, or about whether other countries were also at fault for the slave trade, and no serious discussion of either issue changes the fact that America's role in slavery was bad and evil.

The question was, why has Germany dealt with the evil in its history more frankly and forthrightly than the U.S. has with the evil in its history. It's an interesting question, whether you want to answer it or not.
 

Mark said...

BD: US troops are generally viewed as the "good guys" in most wars

Where is the evidence that this is anything more than an assertion of your own bias?

WWI: Greeted as heroes by the French. My grandfather served as one of the good guys.

WWII: Greeted as heroes by several countries as we liberated Western Europe. My father and uncles served with the good guys.

Cold War: I personally experienced the love of US soldiers in Eastern Europe when I trained with the Hungarians in 1992. You might want to check out all the buildings and roads named after Reagan in liberated Eastern Europe. When the castrati in Western Europe supported their ally Saddam, Eastern Europe sent us troops to liberate Iraq in memory of how they were liberated from similar communist thugs by the US.

Persian Gulf War: I personally experienced the absolute joy of the Kuwaitis and Southern Iraqis when we routed out Saddam's military and liberated them, followed by the absolute terror of the Iraqis when they begged us to stay when we were due to pull out after the ceasefire.

Afghan War: The Afghanis welcomed and fought by our sides to rout out the Taliban and al Qaeda.

Iraq: Contrary to the BS put out by the political left, our troops were greeted as liberators by the 80% of Iraqis who make up the Kurds and Shia.

As a infantry grunt, I can tell you from personal experience that it is great to be one of the good guys liberating others from absolutely evil SOBs.

Literally hundreds of millions of people across the world owe their freedom to the US and its allies' willingness to fight over the past century. No other country in history can say that and I for one am damn proud of our record.

The fact that you doubt the character and the mission of your own soldiers says volumes more about you than it does our soldiers.
 

Bartbuster said...

BD: I would suggest that our willingness to actually fight actually does far more to defeat fascism.

That doesn't appear to be working so well over in Iraq.

Actually, it has worked very well in both Afghanistan and Iraq as I have been documenting for you in several posts.

Now even the NYT, the cheerleader for US self inflicted defeat and retreat, is being forced to admit that we are actually winning on the ground.

John Burns, the lead Iraq correspondent for the NYT, has been effectively undermining the party line on Iraq spewed by the editorial board.

Today, the editorial board ran an amazing op-ed by two war opponents from Brookings grudgingly admitting that we are winning the Iraq War. My jaw dropped when I read that article this morning.
 

Fraud Guy said...

I would like to challenge Bart to give me five historical examples where the US has invaded other countries and successfully created a state based on democracy where there was no such state before.

You do not need to directly invade a country to use military power to liberate it from a dictatorship so ling as you defeat the dictator.

Also, I the fact that a conquered country was once a democracy hardly means that it had much chance to return to freedom without the use of military force.

We returned Western Europe (including fascist Germany and Italy) to democracy during WWII through military force

We brought real democracy for the first time to Japan during WWII.

We waged war through surrogates against the Soviets across the world in the 1980s, undermined and collapsed the Soviet Empire and thus liberated Eastern Europe and Russia. If you doubt that this was a liberation, go travel to Eastern Europe and ask them.

More recently, we have liberated Iraq and Afghanistan by military force and established the first semblance of a democracy in the Middle East outside of Israel.
 

To be relevant to the original post:

The United States has Holocaust Museums in both Washington D.C. and multiple cities (including Houston, Dallas, Richmond VA -- none of which even have a very large number of Jewish residents relative to the number of African American residents), but no national museum to commemorate slavery, and even the Smithsonian Museum of the American Indian came nearly a decade after the Holocaust Museum was dedicated.

We're happy to reflect on bad things that happened in the past. Just not the bad things *we* did.

Charles,

If 1926 -- when France, German, Japan, et al. had some form of democracy -- is your idea of "ancient history," then I hope you'll see the "idiotic" as an equally close term for "incorrect."

Most of the trend you're noting is post-colonial. Few countries mimic American-style democracy, with three separate branches of government. It is not the U.S. that is being modelled by many of these parliamentary democracies, but that prior imperialist, Britain. The main feature of the U.S. that is copied abroad is the Constitution, especially its independent judiciary, both of which tend to be considered "undemocratic" features of our democracy because the independent judiciary's interpretation of the Constitution prevents the citizenry from doing many things it would like but cannot muster an amendment-size supermajority to do, such as banning flag burning.

I find it far more likely that we would not have the spread of democracy we see today had there been no Britain, than had there been no America. (Of course, this is somewhat circular, inasmuch as the U.S. itself drew much of its political inspiration from Britain while adopting a new structural model of government.)
 

PG said...

Bart DePalma said: t is also interesting to note that the Germans, who assiduously keep records of their Nazi past, are unwilling to fight modern fascism anywhere in the world.

Germany was the largest contributor to the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan until the U.S. came under ISAF's aegis in October 2006. At least 7 German soldiers have been killed in action, in support of the U.S./NATO mission in Afghanistan.

While I appreciate the fact that Germany actually sent troops, the Germans went on guard duty and refused to participate in combat operations with the Brits, US and Canadians. Their casualties were from enemy attacks on their static positions. Fighting fascism involves leaving the billets and actually attacking the fascists.

Thank God Bart DePalma and his ilk rarely interact with foreigners, otherwise the latter would have an even worse opinion of American knowledge and gratitude than they already do.

I will have to let my good friends, Gurdun and Lutz Tisch, and their wonderful families who have hosted my wife and I on holidays while I served in Germany know what you said. They will get a good laugh from it.

I have been all over Europe along with a fair chunk of the Middle East. I dare say I have met and befriended more foreigners than you.
 

Bart:

Iraq is a mess. I don't know what "winning" means, given that the President has given all sorts of conflicting military objectives over the past 4 years. Is winning simply overthrowing Saddam? Then we won and should get out. Is winning installing a stable pro-western Democratic government? Then we will never win. Is winning making sure the average Iraqi can live without undue fear of violence and with the basics of life, such as consistent electricity? Then we aren't winning and aren't likely to win. Is winning defeating the various insurgencies? Then we are winning against a few of them in a few localities, but losing against most of them, and are unlikely to achieve any lasting success.

The fact is, the right wing deploys "winning" as a talking point. But unless there is a defined mission that is then achieved (e.g., ejecting Iraq from Kuwait in the first Gulf War), you can't talk about winning.

Also, this business of blaming the media for not reporting our "success" in Iraq is tiresome. First, the media's expectations were set by the Administration. THEY were the people who said we would be greeted as liberators, who said the looting was no big deal, who proclaimed Mission Accomplished and claimed the oil revenue would pay for the war. Second, it is not as if the American media is the only group of people who think that the Iraq War is going poorly. A majority of the American public agree; many Republicans like Chuck Hagel agree; most of the rest of the world agree; even putative American allies like the Saudis agree. Indeed, even President Bush agrees-- he recently said that if someone had asked him in one of those polls whether he was satisfied with the situation in Iraq, he would have answered no. This is no left-wing media conspiracy.

I should mention, back on the topic, that what Koppelman is talking about is the Germans willingness to confront their history. You can play compare and contrast with slavery and the Holocaust, but the point is, we should be MUCH more aware of our responsibility for slavery than we are. By way of example, there are many uncritical monuments to such people as Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee in the American South. These figures can't be divorced from the cause they were fighting for-- any more than the Germans should erect a monument to Rommel (a concededly important general) without placing him in the context of the cause he was enlisted in.
 

I'm a little bit surprised that no one has quarreled with the basic premise of this posting, that it would be desirable for the US to "confront its history" (whatever that means) more than it already does. There is a certain optimism and encouragement that comes from focusing on the best in yourself rather than dwelling on the worst. What Prof. Koppelman probably views as American naivety about America's goodness results from this genuine optimism. Some of us would suggest that such optimism about overall goodness is not inevitably the result of ignorance, but of a considered belief (and even realization) that America has done more good than bad, and it's OK (and even profitable) to recognize that. It would be a fundamental change, indeed, if America was to focus on its mistakes rather than its successes. Do we really think that the fact that there are monuments to the Holocaust in Germany has prevented another Hitler from arising? I, for one, don't. Even if the monuments are the result of a general attitude about nationalism and internationalism that leads to foreign policy decisions some might agree with, it does not come without a cost. The fact of the matter is that Germany still defines itself by the negative of its history. Query whether that's what we would want for America. I think the balance that has been struck in recent years with an increased acknowledgment of America's mistakes has been good--but I'm not sure its desirable to carry it to the same level as Germany with the Holocaust. But, I write from the conservative white male perspective, another casualty of an ignorant upbringing, so judge me accordingly . . .
 

Today, the editorial board ran an amazing op-ed by two war opponents from Brookings grudgingly admitting that we are winning the Iraq War. My jaw dropped when I read that article this morning.

What makes my jaw drop is watching Bart describe Kenneth Pollack - author of "The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq" - as a "war opponent." Bart's dishonesty can literally take your breath away.

Returning to the actual post, you could compare apples to apples by looking at contemporary Japan, where the issue of the nation's war legacy remains a controversial political issue. For example, there is a perennial controversy over whether politicians should visit the Yasukuni Shrine, which commemorates a number of verified war criminals among Japan's war dead.

Or you could look at, for example, how Turkey addresses the Armenian genocide, or more accurately, refuses to address it. I could cite many more examples.

In the context of this post, I would respectfully suggest that it is Germany, and not the United States, which is the outlier. I can think of few nations which have followed their example.
 

Literally hundreds of millions of people across the world owe their freedom to the US and its allies' willingness to fight over the past century. No other country in history can say that and I for one am damn proud of our record.

The fact that you doubt the character and the mission of your own soldiers says volumes more about you than it does our soldiers.

Bart, it seems to me you are confusing two issues. One is that our army has freed many people and done many great things, which I do not dispute. You can quite rightly point out that other countries have less noble records. But this is not the same as saying that the US can do no wrong and has never done wrong. We can and have.

Which leads to the second point. You also say (and have said many times) that when our government makes a decision to go to war, we must never question it because to do so is an insult to the soldiers fighting, their "character and mission." But soldiers do not choose their mission; politicians do. It is perfectly possible to honor, say, Confederate foot soldiers as decent, upstanding fellows defending home and hearth and still acknowledge that they served an unjust cause.

And that is the real problem. If we must never criticize our government's decision to fight a war because to do so is an insult to the soldiers in the field, why does the same rule not apply to other countries, including our adversaries, and even to even to Germany?
 

Germany has arguably existed in one form or another since the time of Charlemagne. This give it at least the option of finding an identity independent of the Nazis. The United States is a much younger country and cannot draw on such deep roots.

So far as I can tell, we have done a much better job of dealing with the legacy of slavery than with the disposession of the Indians. Might I suggest that this is because slavery was only a part of our identity, and one we were ultimately able to expunge, albeit at terrible cost. The disposession of the native inhabitants is at the very core of our identity. No part of the United States would exist as it is now if its native inhabitants had not been uprooted and conquered (or worse).

Dealing with such a thing as the very core of one's identity is almost impossibly painful to face. Probably the best way to face it is to acknowledge that we are not alone and to see ourselves in the context of the many, many other instances of a more advanced society displacing a more primative one.
 

dilan:

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

Iraq already has a stable pro western democratic government. Iraq had had two elected governments with a peaceful transfer of power between them. There is no sign the national government is in any danger of falling politically or through military force.

On a related note, it is the height of hypocrisy for the Dem Congress to whine about the lack of progress by the divided Iraqi legislature on major issues facing Iraq when the Dem Congress has done nothing during the same period of time to address the major issues facing the US. We are demanding that the Iraqis enact the equivalent of fundamental Social Security reform in 6 months when we haven't mustered the courage to address that issue since 1987.

At its worst, the insurgency and the foreign terrorists operated in 3-4 provinces out of 18. Most of Iraq has been largely peaceful for years. Currently, the Sunni Triangle (Anbar province) is largely pacified. Baghdad is half way there and we are presently clearing Diyala province - all with local Iraqi assistance.

As for our media, I challenge you to show me the headlines in our papers or television news shows discussing US victories in Iraq. Hell, you will have a very difficult time finding any example of the use of the term "victory" or similar terms when reporting about any US military action.

Finally, when our government schools are doing an absolutely atrocious job teaching the historical basics about how our Constitutional Republic was meant to work, I cannot get upset that we are not spending even more time reflecting on the sins of slavery which ended 150 years ago. 3/4 of our citizenry (including all of my paternal and maternal families) arrived after slavery ended and this is simply not a part of most of our personal history.
 

Steve said...

What makes my jaw drop is watching Bart describe Kenneth Pollack - author of "The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq" - as a "war opponent." Bart's dishonesty can literally take your breath away.

Perhaps you forgot Mr. Pollack's recent 2007 effort, "Things Fall Apart: Containing the Spillover from an Iraqi Civil War," claiming that the US had lost the war in Iraq and a massive Iraqi civil war was inevitable and could only be contained. Pollack backtracked from his initial call to liberate Iraq under heavy criticism from his colleagues on the left.
 

Enlightened Layperson said...

BD: Literally hundreds of millions of people across the world owe their freedom to the US and its allies' willingness to fight over the past century. No other country in history can say that and I for one am damn proud of our record.

The fact that you doubt the character and the mission of your own soldiers says volumes more about you than it does our soldiers.

EL: Bart, it seems to me you are confusing two issues. One is that our army has freed many people and done many great things, which I do not dispute. You can quite rightly point out that other countries have less noble records. But this is not the same as saying that the US can do no wrong and has never done wrong. We can and have.

I never denied this. Rather, I am rebutting the reflexive, unthinking anti military attacks posted here.

Which leads to the second point. You also say (and have said many times) that when our government makes a decision to go to war, we must never question it because to do so is an insult to the soldiers fighting, their "character and mission."

You misunderstand my oft stated point.

I have no trouble with constructive criticism where shortcomings in the prosecution of a war are brought to task and alternative strategies for winning the war more expeditiously are offered.

However, once the People through their representatives have voted to send our troops to war and our troops have started to pay the blood price of war, attacks on the mission on which we have sent our troops and calls for losing the war are a betrayal of the troops we have sent into battle. There is never a legitimate reason to call for defeat in a war. Never.
 

"Bart" DePalma:

On a related note, it is the height of hypocrisy for the Dem Congress to whine about the lack of progress by the divided Iraqi legislature on major issues facing Iraq when the Dem Congress has done nothing during the same period of time to address the major issues facing the US....

Oh, they have their obstructionist "28% dead-enders" throwing wrenches in the works and preventing any progress or resolution ... and we have ours.

Cheers,
 

However, once the People through their representatives have voted to send our troops to war and our troops have started to pay the blood price of war, attacks on the mission on which we have sent our troops and calls for losing the war are a betrayal of the troops we have sent into battle. There is never a legitimate reason to call for defeat in a war. Never.

Bart, you are ignoring my main point. Does this rule apply only to the US, or does it apply to other countries as well? Perhaps you would say it did not apply to Nazi Germany because their government was not democratic and made the decision without the consulting the people. Well, what about imperial Germany in WWI? Their government was at least semi-democratic. They had a parliament elected by universal male sufferage that voted for the war. Were all Germans required to line up behind it and never question the decision to fight? (Just as all Frenchmen, Englishmen, etc had the same obligation on the other side). If this rule applies to all countries and not just the US, it will make wars a whole lot longer and bloodier.

And there is another point. Does this mean a country must keep fighting until victory or utter devastation? Sometimes victory is just not a realistic prospect. Sometimes the choice is between a managed, negotiated defeat and a complete rout. That was the decision the Germans made at the end of WWI. Sometimes it is between settling for half a loaf and paying a wholly unacceptable price for the whole one. That was the decision Truman made when he fired MacArthur. Sometimes it is between losing territory and losing one's soul. That is the decision the French made when they withdrew from Algeria. I believe all of these were the right decisions.
 

Ugh. This thread illustrates exactly why the comments should be disabled. The three or four people who post sixty times a day to every thread argue with each other and nobody discusses the post. There is no discussion or constructive discourse in these threads, only long, argumentative screeds.
 

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

It wouldn't be the first time.

Iraq already has a stable pro western democratic government.

Really? Stable? I could have sworn that only two months ago, there were reports that Al-Maliki might fall in a coup. And that there was an assassination attempt against the previous Prime Minister, Allawi.

Pro-western? So I must have been dreaming when I heard those news reports about how the Shiites who run the government were aligning with Iran.

Democratic? Only in the most formal sense. If Iraq's a democratic government, so is Hamas.

Iraq had had two elected governments with a peaceful transfer of power between them.

Again, only in the most formal sense. The country is in civil war with Shiites and Sunnis fighting each other, and with various insurgent groups attacking Iraqis and Americans. If you want to describe the transition from Allawi to Al-Maliki is a "peaceful" transfer of power, you're stretching the term "peaceful".

There is no sign the national government is in any danger of falling politically or through military force.

So, again, the talk of a coup against Al-Miliki has no substance whatsoever?

On a related note, it is the height of hypocrisy for the Dem Congress to whine about the lack of progress by the divided Iraqi legislature on major issues facing Iraq when the Dem Congress has done nothing during the same period of time to address the major issues facing the US.

Bart, the Republicans are filibustering everything, so it all requires 60 votes. (By the way, I don't think there's anything illegitimate about this, though they should be forced to do actual stay-up-all-night filibusters.) Further, the main thing the Democrats were elected to do is end the Iraq War. I agree, they haven't done enough to do this, but again, if the Republicans would just agree to stand up to Bush and end the Iraq War, we could have the vote tomorrow.

We are demanding that the Iraqis enact the equivalent of fundamental Social Security reform in 6 months when we haven't mustered the courage to address that issue since 1987.

Well, in actuality, the Bush Administration itself set benchmarks on such things as oil legislation, and said it should have done long ago. Further, the Iraqi legislature just took a vacation until September!

At its worst, the insurgency and the foreign terrorists operated in 3-4 provinces out of 18. Most of Iraq has been largely peaceful for years. Currently, the Sunni Triangle (Anbar province) is largely pacified.

Let's look at this a different way. Other than Anbar and the Kurdish north, EVERY population center in the country is unsafe. The country can't even export its oil because insurgents have destroyed the infrastructure. Baghdad residents have LESS electricity than they had before the war in 2002.

You can count up relatively unpopulated provinces, but face it, as long as Baghdad is unsafe-- and it is so unsafe that dozens of Americans are killed there every month, despite sophisticated weaponry and defenses-- I don't think your measure makes any sense.

Baghdad is half way there and we are presently clearing Diyala province - all with local Iraqi assistance.

By what measure is Baghdad halfway there? Half as many American deaths? (Nope, American deaths are up.) Half as many Iraqi deaths? (Nope, that number is about the same.)

And the insurgent groups are still operating. The Mahdi Army, Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, etc.-- they are all still killing. Roadside bombs and improvised explosive devices continue to maim.

As for our media, I challenge you to show me the headlines in our papers or television news shows discussing US victories in Iraq.

Bart, there's no such thing as "victory". Victory is a spin term that has nothing to do with this type of war.

And yes, the last time I checked, the American media reports every time that the US government claims that there is good news in Iraq. The problem is, it's perfectly clear that there's plenty of bad things going on there.

And you ignored my fundamental point. If expectations were raised, it's Bush's fault. His administration TOLD us that it would be cheap and fast, that the mission was accomplished, that it could pay for itself, that we didn't need a large troop footprint with our shock and awe strategy, etc.

Now, when the reality doesn't live up to the claims-- and even under your peculiar version of the facts, it doesn't-- the media can be excused for not believing a word the Bush Administration says. Especially since they also don't tell the truth about anything else, either.

Hell, you will have a very difficult time finding any example of the use of the term "victory" or similar terms when reporting about any US military action.

That's because, for once, the media is refusing to use spin terms that have no basis in reality. In actuality, I've heard plenty about how Anbar province has improved, for instance. But that's not "victory", because the mission was never defined and it keeps changing. In that situation, there's no such thing as victory.
 

Actually, it has worked very well in both Afghanistan and Iraq as I have been documenting for you in several posts.

# posted by Bart DePalma : 10:38 PM

You have done nothing but lie and distort for the last 5 years. Iraq is a disaster.
 

Enlightened Layperson said...

BD: However, once the People through their representatives have voted to send our troops to war and our troops have started to pay the blood price of war, attacks on the mission on which we have sent our troops and calls for losing the war are a betrayal of the troops we have sent into battle. There is never a legitimate reason to call for defeat in a war. Never.

Bart, you are ignoring my main point. Does this rule apply only to the US, or does it apply to other countries as well?

It applies to all countries which have votes to go to war.

Perhaps you would say it did not apply to Nazi Germany because their government was not democratic and made the decision without the consulting the people. Well, what about imperial Germany in WWI? Their government was at least semi-democratic. They had a parliament elected by universal male sufferage that voted for the war.

Interesting point.

In WWI, was Germany wrong to go to war when Russia had already mobilized and the Entente powers were set to join it? Germany's entire strategy was to offset being outnumbered by striking first.

As for the end of the war, Germany only ended the war when it faced unavoidable military defeat. Thank heaven, apart from the Confederacy, Americans have never faced unavoidable military defeat.

Surrender when faced with unavoidable military defeat is completely different from voluntarily surrendering a war in which you can militarily win. The former is excusable, the latter is inexcusable.

And there is another point. Does this mean a country must keep fighting until victory or utter devastation?

If you can win, you never surrender - period.

This is the determination we teach our troops to send them into battle. How can our People, who are not laying down their lives in battle, show any less resolve than the troops whom they have sent into battle? The People owe it to the troops sent into battle to do everything in their power to allow them to succeed.

Property can and has been rebuilt. However, history shows it is not easy to regain your freedom and sovereignty when you have lost a war to an enemy.
 

Where to start:

As for the end of the war, Germany only ended the war when it faced unavoidable military defeat.

Actually, it wasn't military defeat, but complete war weariness--huge swathes of German youth had been used up in the war, and they were tired of fighting. On the whole, the Germans had more successful (in terms of ground gained), recent offensives at the time of the Armistice than the Allies ever did. The troops voted with their feet.

Thank heaven, apart from the Confederacy, Americans have never faced unavoidable military defeat.

We came close many other times, especially in King Philip's War, and the Revolutionary War. Absent a few lucky breaks in and around New York early on, our great experiment would have died aborning.

Part two:
Surrender when faced with unavoidable military defeat is completely different from voluntarily surrendering a war in which you can militarily win. The former is excusable, the latter is inexcusable.

You completely beggar the question of entering into wars that we shouldn't have, such as Vietnam and Iraq. There was no true national interest, no real threat to security in either contest. Is it excusable to leave a war you shouldn't have started?

And there is another point. Does this mean a country must keep fighting until victory or utter devastation?

If you can win, you never surrender - period.

See above.

This is the determination we teach our troops to send them into battle. How can our People, who are not laying down their lives in battle, show any less resolve than the troops whom they have sent into battle? The People owe it to the troops sent into battle to do everything in their power to allow them to succeed.

WRONG! The purpose of the armed forces is to defend our country. They act at the direction of the people; the people do not act at their direction. If the people want the troops to come home, they should come home.

Property can and has been rebuilt. However, history shows it is not easy to regain your freedom and sovereignty when you have lost a war to an enemy.

Which is why we all speak Vietnamese today, obviously.

The best way to honor the sacrifice our troops gave in Bush's War is to bring them home, so they don't have to sacrifice anymore. Or will you tell our troops that thousands more will die so that the political masters can try to salvage political promises (a la Nixon & Kissinger).

And Bart, you still didn't answer my question, and in fact you submarined your own point. How many countries have come to democratic governments without military invasion, vs. those who did. Still looking for five of the latter? I'll give you a hint--it is usually opposition to occupiers that can lead to a public voice, not the occupiers intended efforts.

This post is about not learning the lessons of past national mistakes, wrongs, and evils. A poster above talked about American optimism being the reason to gloss over the horrors of our past. The truly sober reflection is to look at the errors of the past, accept them, and take steps to avoid them in the future, as opposed to hoping that our optimism will prevent us from repeating mistakes again. And again. And again.
 

There is a certain optimism and encouragement that comes from focusing on the best in yourself rather than dwelling on the worst.

Well, yes. See Nietzsche on "The Uses and Disadvantages of History for Life," or perhaps its handy summary in his Beyond Good and Evil:

"I have done that," says Memory. "I cannot possibly have done that!" says Pride. Eventually ... Memory yields.

However, American exuberance and self-satisfaction are sufficiently vast that I think we could handle some historical chastening. To continue with the Nietzsche theme, it's precisely one's strength that affords one the luxury of self-questioning, deliberation, etc.
 

Arne: thanks for the Dyson rec.
 

The fact that you doubt the character and the mission of your own soldiers says volumes more about you than it does our soldiers.

Where did I doubt those, Bart?

What I doubt is that your claim that US troops are generally viewed as the "good guys" in most wars is anything more than an expression of your own bias. Providing us a laundry list of your views on several American wars isn't apposite.

In even a very generous accounting, the total population of pro-American nations is less than a quarter of the world's population, so even if you make the very dubious assumption that 100% of the people in those nations think that the U.S. were the "good guys" in most of its wars, it is still very unlikely that the world generally views the U.S. as the "good guys" in most of its wars.

Once again, the question concerns the general view of U.S. wars, not my view or yours.
 

Surrender when faced with unavoidable military defeat is completely different from voluntarily surrendering a war in which you can militarily win. The former is excusable, the latter is inexcusable.

If you can win, you never surrender - period.

# posted by Bart DePalma : 8:57 AM

There is nothing for us to win in Iraq. Our own generals, including Petraeus, have acknowledged that a military victory is not possible.

What's inexcusable is to continue to piss away lives and money for nothing.
 

"Bart" DePalma:

At its worst, the insurgency and the foreign terrorists operated in 3-4 provinces out of 18. Most of Iraq has been largely peaceful for years. Currently, the Sunni Triangle (Anbar province) is largely pacified.

"Anbar is largely pacified"?!?!? WTF? What planet is "Bart" living on?

Iraq’s Anbar Province Becomes al Qaeda’s Springboard against Middle East and Europe.

U.S. military says marine killed in combat in Iraq's Anbar province

US intel report: Iraq's Anbar province 'politically lost'

Anbar province is where the Sunnis are, and if it's quiet, that's because the Yoo Ess of Aye is busy just trying to "pacify" the capital and keep the freakin' Emerald City from being bombed....

If Anbar province is a "success story", I'm carrying a cast-iron umbrella because pigs have started to fly....

Cheers,
 

"Bart" DePalma:

[Enlightened Layperson]: Perhaps you would say it did not apply to Nazi Germany because their government was not democratic and made the decision without the consulting the people. Well, what about imperial Germany in WWI? Their government was at least semi-democratic. They had a parliament elected by universal male sufferage that voted for the war.

Interesting point.

In WWI, was Germany wrong to go to war when Russia had already mobilized and the Entente powers were set to join it? Germany's entire strategy was to offset being outnumbered by striking first.

I'd note that "Bart" seems to measure "right" by asking whether it was a 'bright idea' militarily, rather than whether it was "right" in the sense that most people would use the word "right".....

Cheers,
 

"Bart" DePalma:

As for the end of the war, Germany only ended the war when it faced unavoidable military defeat. Thank heaven, apart from the Confederacy, Americans have never faced unavoidable military defeat.

"Bart": Do you really think that the United States was in danger of losing completely to the Confederate States of America? Do you think that the CSA would have tried to invade and occupy the entire United States?

Cheers,
 

"Bart" DePalma:

If you can win, you never surrender - period.

I covered this a while back.

Cheers,
 

Fraud Guy said...

BD: As for the end of the war, Germany only ended the war when it faced unavoidable military defeat.

Actually, it wasn't military defeat, but complete war weariness--huge swathes of German youth had been used up in the war, and they were tired of fighting. On the whole, the Germans had more successful (in terms of ground gained), recent offensives at the time of the Armistice than the Allies ever did. The troops voted with their feet.

The Euros were war weary starting in 1917, but the war did not end then.

The Germans surrendered in 1918 because their military was being defeated in France and they faced the prospect of invasion of Germany.

BD: Thank heaven, apart from the Confederacy, Americans have never faced unavoidable military defeat.

We came close many other times, especially in King Philip's War, and the Revolutionary War. Absent a few lucky breaks in and around New York early on, our great experiment would have died aborning.

Agreed.

The Revolution is a great example of why you never surrender when victory is possible. Unlike Iraq, the war looked truly hopeless a number of times. However, we persevered and won in the end.

BD: Surrender when faced with unavoidable military defeat is completely different from voluntarily surrendering a war in which you can militarily win. The former is excusable, the latter is inexcusable.

You completely beggar the question of entering into wars that we shouldn't have such as Vietnam and Iraq. There was no true national interest, no real threat to security in either contest. Is it excusable to leave a war you shouldn't have started

No. The wisdom of going to war is properly up for debate before the vote to go to war and during after action reviews once the war is won. However, once the People have voted for war and asked the soldiers to pay the blood price for war, there is no alternative to winning the war which does not betray the sacrifice we have asked of the soldiers.

And there is another point. Does this mean a country must keep fighting until victory or utter devastation?

If you have not noticed, war is all about killing and wreaking utter devastation. Sherman had it right.

BD: This is the determination we teach our troops to send them into battle. How can our People, who are not laying down their lives in battle, show any less resolve than the troops whom they have sent into battle? The People owe it to the troops sent into battle to do everything in their power to allow them to succeed.

WRONG! The purpose of the armed forces is to defend our country.

We are a global power with global national interests which go beyond defending our own physical territory. When a foreign power or group attacks our people and our interests, then we are perfectly justified in taking the war to where the enemy lives. Isolationism when the US has interests around the world is a pipe dream.

They act at the direction of the people; the people do not act at their direction. If the people want the troops to come home, they should come home.

Please reread my post which you quoted. The duty of the People to the military during war does not arise from the fact that the military can command the People, but rather from the debt the People owe the military for their sacrifices which only arose because the People (not the military) voted to go to war.

The People may have the power to betray the military they send in the field and surrender a war which the military has bled to win, but that does not make such an act of cowardice right.

BD: Property can and has been rebuilt. However, history shows it is not easy to regain your freedom and sovereignty when you have lost a war to an enemy.

Which is why we all speak Vietnamese today, obviously.

You only suffer property devastation when an enemy is invading your country. An enemy invasion threatens your freedom and sovereignty.

The best way to honor the sacrifice our troops gave in Bush's War is to bring them home, so they don't have to sacrifice anymore.

That is like a owner telling his football team which is winning in the 4th Q that they have to leave the field and concede the game to a far inferior opponent because the owner is afraid more of his players may be injured.

Injury and death is the price of winning wars. There is no way around it. You do not honor the soldiers who died by making their sacrifice in vain by surrendering the victory they died to win.

And Bart, you still didn't answer my question, and in fact you submarined your own point. How many countries have come to democratic governments without military invasion, vs. those who did. Still looking for five of the latter?

I gave you swaths of territory over multiple wars. Naming individual countries is easy. France, Belgium, Holland, Italy, Germany, Austria, Japan and the Philippines to Afghanistan and Iraq today. None of these countries was likely to be free for generations, if ever, without US military liberation.

I'll give you a hint--it is usually opposition to occupiers that can lead to a public voice, not the occupiers intended efforts.

This post is about not learning the lessons of past national mistakes, wrongs, and evils.

Which mistakes, wrongs and evils would those be?

You named Vietnam and Iraq.

The alternative to victory in Vietnam was the genocide and gulag which followed.

The alternative to liberating Iraq was a continuation of Saddam's slaughters, support for terrorism and ongoing military threats to our allies in the region and our oil supply.

The alternative we face surrendering Iraq to the enemy is a permanent safe base for al Qaeda, a potential civil war in Iraq and destabilizing the entire region if they get involved in that civil war.

The mistake we should never make again self imposed defeat. The cost of the aftermath is horrendous.
 

The Revolution is a great example of why you never surrender when victory is possible. Unlike Iraq, the war looked truly hopeless a number of times. However, we persevered and won in the end.

Indeed, I'd be amazed if the insurgents are not using it as an inspiration.

The alternative we face surrendering Iraq to the enemy is a permanent safe base for al Qaeda,

Numbnuts, we would surrender Iraq to the Iraqis. It would be up to them to deal with any foreigners. I'm sure that won't take long once we are gone.

a potential civil war in Iraq and destabilizing the entire region if they get involved in that civil war.

You clowns should have thought of that before you invaded.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

arne:

If Anbar province is a "success story", I'm carrying a cast-iron umbrella because pigs have started to fly....

It takes a great deal of intentional effort to avoid all the articles concerning US success in Anbar. Just google "Anbar success" and you will get around 585,000 hits including stories like this.

arne, you make a poor enemy propagandist.
 

I vote that our hosts do not disable comments. Obviously, anyone who wants comments disabled can simply CHOOSE NOT TO READ. Forcing that choice on the rest of us who do like to read the comments will lead to some of us to stop reading the threads too.
 

P.S. Bart: not to mention Arne's articles were from 2005-2006 when there WERE major problems (before the surge which is obviously working if Democrats are now trying to spin it as THEIR idea ; )
 

I'm a little bit surprised that no one has quarreled with the basic premise of this posting, that it would be desirable for the US to "confront its history" (whatever that means) more than it already does. There is a certain optimism and encouragement that comes from focusing on the best in yourself rather than dwelling on the worst. What Prof. Koppelman probably views as American naivety about America's goodness results from this genuine optimism. Some of us would suggest that such optimism about overall goodness is not inevitably the result of ignorance, but of a considered belief (and even realization) that America has done more good than bad, and it's OK (and even profitable) to recognize that. It would be a fundamental change, indeed, if America was to focus on its mistakes rather than its successes.

This raises an interesting psychological point. In general, I agree that individuals are better off accentuating the positive. That's probably true of nations as well.

But I also think there's a point beyond which the failure to face flaws becomes denial and can lead to serious harm. It's a balance.

I don't think we should obsess about our past, but we should acknowledge it forthrightly, recognize the wrongs done, and understand why they occurred so that we don't repeat the mistakes. That's what I'd hope individuals do and what nations should do.
 

It takes a great deal of intentional effort to avoid all the articles concerning US success in Anbar.

Heh... Aren't you the one complaining that the media isn't parroting US propaganda?

arne, you make a poor enemy propagandist.

While you appear to be an expert.
 

Charles--sorry to put you to that post. I wrote in irritation and haste about this thread. There are any number of threads on this blog that contain thoughtful commentary, and I was wrong to suggest that they all should be dropped. I don't think there's anything wrong with having comments on some threads and not others, however.
 

sparky said...

A note to our hosts: Please disable comments. If the comments are disabled, Bart et al can still comment on the posts here, but must do so from their own blogs.

It looks like I have hit a nerve with some here who are calling for surrender.

Good. I am glad I am not wasting all of my time.

This is a life and death debate which needs to be addressed fully without pulling punches. If that makes you so uncomfortable with your position that you want to stop the debate, you may want to reexamine your position rather than engaging in censorship.
 

My 11:20 a.m. comment was directed to Sparky's 11:15 a.m. comment:

"A note to our hosts: Please disable comments. If the comments are disabled, Bart et al can still comment on the posts here, but must do so from their own blogs. Not really much of a handicap, IMO. Or you could start a seconnd [SIC]blog just for comments on certain topics and cross-post if you think comments should be appended to your posts.
Either that, or please ban trolls--of whatever stripe. Thanks."

One central location to comment is much better, logistically, than three or four separate blogs devoted to such a task. Think CONSERVATION!!!
 

No need to apologize, Sparky. I'm sure your "vote" counts as much as mine ; )
 

Bart:

You have noticed that Marty Lederman HAS deleted said debate, right?

Mr. Field:

Fine, slavery was wrong. What application does that have anymore, except maybe some tangent to sweat shops around the world providing U.S. consumer needs now? The State Dept. is dealing with that issue.
 

No one wants to censor you, Baghdad. You can still comment from your own blog. They just don't want to let you use this blog to spread your propaganda.
 

Ugh. This thread illustrates exactly why the comments should be disabled. The three or four people who post sixty times a day to every thread argue with each other and nobody discusses the post. There is no discussion or constructive discourse in these threads, only long, argumentative screeds.

I begin to wonder what discussion or constructive discourse even looks like. Clearly everyone has their own ideas about what the ideal comment thread would be.

At a minimum, one would hope that a comment was relevant to the original post, well thought out, with sources as necessary to make one's point.

Beyond that, one might wish to include or exclude those comments that are simply adulatory ("great post! kthx bye") or dismissive ("this sucks almost as much as you").

The problem is that, in most threads, there's little response from the original poster. There's no interactivity, no hope of discussion, save through email, perhaps. (Does Marty really want us to send him 102 emails with our personal thoughts about data mining? And if we do, is he really going to have the time to answer?) So it becomes a two-way exchange of utterances, with no dynamic between them at all. There's no discussion to it--no constructive discourse.

In the few threads where the posters have bothered to respond--I think Sandy's posts are more often interactive in that sense--the discussion has been interesting and qualitatively different from the norm.

That's not to say that the norm is necessarily a bad thing, either, though. You use a blog to put out your ideas and have them heard. If people want to listen to your ideas and respond only to them, they can stop reading at the end of the original post and never hit the "comments" link

One technical solution, and I'm not sure if the feature is available on blogspot or not, used on other forums is a rating system where the readers rate the usefulness of other comments (-10 to 10). The shiny pearls (like typical responses from occasional observer, Mark Field, Gay Species, or phg to name a few of my personal favorites) would rise to the top, and the ones that are pointless badgering or posturing would fall to the bottom. The negatively rated posts would be grayed out and available only by selecting a link, so those people who wish to fight about the details of other commenter's positions can do so without making substantive on-topic comments impossible to find.

This would help the community as a whole to separate the wheat from the chaff without telling them all to take a hike.

And, of course, I would be silly not to apologize for being off-topic with this comment, but until there is a thread devoted to such things, there isn't much of an option for expressing one's opinion on this subject openly.
 

Bart boasteth:

"I personally experienced the love of US soldiers in Eastern Europe..."

And I respondeth:

Bart, here's a side of you we've never seen on this blog before. Good thing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was implemented the next year, or you might not be here to share it!
 

PMS_Chicago:

You could discuss that at my "Open Thread" (link above ; )
 

LOL, Everett -- wasn't Jeff Gannon stationed in Eastern Europe around the same timeframe?
 

Bart:

Upthread you posted that Iraq has a stable democracy and is in no danger of being overthrown or collapsing. If that's the case, why are we still there again?
 

Everett:

If I was not married at the time, I may have very well have tried to experience the love of a particularly stunning blond hair and blue eyed Hungarian female soldier I met at the division HQ we visited.

Good heavens!
 

Mike said...

Bart: Upthread you posted that Iraq has a stable democracy and is in no danger of being overthrown or collapsing. If that's the case, why are we still there again?

The government is stable, not the country. You cannot very well call any country where a war is being fought stable.

The US had a stable national government throughout our actual civil war. Nothing is precluding the Iraqis from having a stable government in a far less intense conflict.
 

"Bart" DePalma:

The Revolution is a great example of why you never surrender when victory is possible. Unlike Iraq, the war looked truly hopeless a number of times. However, we persevered and won in the end.

I think that "Bart" needs to take a step back and re-examine who the analogous parties (f any) are in the Iraq situation.....

Cheers,
 

John Burns, the NYT's main Iraq correspondent, gave a detailed description of what is currently going on in Iraq on the Hugh Hewitt show yesterday. The transcript is well worth reading because you will generally not see this on the front page of any paper, which is usually limited to a short summary of the day's casualties.
 

The government is stable

Baghdad Bart must have a very interesting definition for the word stable. The current government would quickly collapse without the support of a large foreign army. On what planet is that considered stable?
 

"Bart" DePalma:

No. The wisdom of going to war is properly up for debate before the vote to go to war and during after action reviews once the war is won.

And if we were wrong then, TFB for the dead soldiers, eh?

... However, once the People have voted for war and asked the soldiers to pay the blood price for war, there is no alternative to winning the war which does not betray the sacrifice we have asked of the soldiers.

So we should have just slogged on in Vietnam despite the undisputed fact that nothing bad happened when we left. "We're neck deep in the Big Muddy, and the damned fool said to push on" -- P.S.

Cheers,
 

Bart:

Sorry, but that makes no sense. A gov't's stability is directly tied to the stability of the country. Just because a gov't functions during a time of war, does not mean it's stable.

By implication, you believe that if we left, the country would go up in flames, but the gov't would be immune. That's silly.

If the gov't is stable, as you claim, and in no danger of being overrun, we do not need to be in Iraq.
 

"Bart" DePalma:

If you have not noticed, war is all about killing and wreaking utter devastation. Sherman had it right.

Oh, really? Then let the nukes fly. That's surely a "victory" by that standard..... And all we want is "victory", no? The rest is just a side-show.....

Cheers,
 

arne:

If you cannot tell the difference between the American revolutionaries fighting a tyranny to establish a democracy and the al Qaeda / Baathist terrorists trying to take down a twice elected constitutional democracy and replace it with a Taliban style police state, you are most definitely without hope.

Your comparison is obscene.
 

Mike:

Is it the government, or just the city, of Detroit that is also "unstable" in your opinion? More Americans have been killed there so far this year than in Anbar:

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070731/METRO/707310344&imw=Y
 

Bart:

To Arne, they are exactly the same (in fact, America is MORE to blame for the world's problems than al Qaeda ; )
 

If you cannot tell the difference between the American revolutionaries fighting a tyranny to establish a democracy

The American revolutionaries weren't fighting to establish democracy. They had no idea what kind of government would result from the war. They just want to get rid of a foreign army, just like the Iraqis today.
 

"Bart" DePalma:

Please reread my post which you quoted. The duty of the People to the military during war does not arise from the fact that the military can command the People, but rather from the debt the People owe the military for their sacrifices which only arose because the People (not the military) voted to go to war.

The People may have the power to betray the military they send in the field and surrender a war which the military has bled to win, but that does not make such an act of cowardice right.

Well, seeing as I didn't "vote[]] to go to war", and I have no power to "surrender a war", I don't see that I have any duty or responsibility to the troops on that account. The responsibility for the deaths, maimed bodies, burden on the fisc, and the wounded pride of the servicemen must appertain to those that started the stoopid f*cking war and who now must end it one way or another. It's all yours, Bartster. Howzabout a special tax levy on the war hawks to pay for the medical care of the injured, the reconstruction of Iraq, the billions in weaponry used and/or destroyed, and compensation to the loved ones of those that have lost their lives? That would be showing "responsibility".

Cheers,
 

mike:

Even if we left, the Shia government would probably remain stable since they make up 60% of the country and have the support of the 20% of the Kurds.

If we left too early, the probable outcome would be a rebound of terror attacks against the Shia by foreign al Qaeda, the Shia (who would not longer be restrained buy the US) would most likely retaliate with full force against the Sunni sheltering al Qeada and the resulting civil war would be a blood bath for the heavily outnumbered Sunni minority, which is unlikely to destabilize the Shia government.

Our current strategy is separating the Iraqi Sunni from al Qaeda. With al Qaeda largely out of the equation, the most probable trigger for civil war is gone.
 

More Americans have been killed there so far this year than in Anbar:

# posted by Charles : 12:35 PM

Where are the stats backing up this idiotic claim?
 

Charles:

Not that ridiculous comparison again. Let me ask you this: would you feel more comfortable being dropped at random in Detroit or at random in Baghdad? By the way, I note that, at least by your characterization, the comparison does not account for the Iraqis being killed....

How many heavily armed soldiers are getting killed in Detroit again? I missed it, but how many car bombs and mortar attacks were directed at Detroit's Green Zone.

Stop, really.
 

Even if we left, the Shia government would probably remain stable since they make up 60% of the country and have the support of the 20% of the Kurds.

Yeah, we can all see how well the Shiites like Sadr get along with this government... You are delusional.
 

bb:

Your government school did not even teach you the basics of the Revolution, did it?

The colonies were largely democratic in their internal governance and wanted to free themselves from foreign national governance.

Do the rallying cries "Live Free or Die," "Do not tread on me," "Give me liberty or give me death," and "No taxation without representation" ring any bells???
 

Wow! The Republican mindset in action:

[Fraud Guy]: The best way to honor the sacrifice our troops gave in Bush's War is to bring them home, so they don't have to sacrifice anymore.

That is like a owner telling his football team which is winning in the 4th Q that they have to leave the field and concede the game to a far inferior opponent because the owner is afraid more of his players may be injured.

War as a football game. Priceless.

Cheers,
 

Bart,

What's the "life and death debate" going on here? Whether some brain damaged vet from Colorado is the most rightest of anyone? Whether liberals just hate the troops, or whether liberals hate all of America? Whether Iraq is as peaceful as Norway, or whether Iraq is as peaceful as Sweden? Wake up man, there's no debate here. Just you (and Charles) yammering away.

Your posts here (and elsewhere) are proof positive that you have, in Prof. Koppelman's words, fully embraced "the kind of grandiose delusions that are ubiquitous in American politics." I'm sure you really do believe that we liberated Iraqis, and the shit is like peaches and cream over there. Shoot, you probably think we invaded Mexico in 1846 to free Mexicans from an "ideology of slavery" and then paved the streets of Veracruz with gold tortillas. You are, of course, wrong on all counts.

You can lie, elide, twist, shout, spin, shuck and jive all you want, but fact is Iraq is a charnel house and it's our damn fault. It doesn't matter if our guys are good guys or not, they're stuck in the middle of a war that didn't have to start, shouldn't have started, and can't end well. When we invaded Iraq, our troops didn't liberate diddly, except maybe the dogs of war. And those dogs are still loose and doing a damn fine job.

Four years later, where are we? Over 3000 American soldiers have died in Iraq, tens of thousands more have spilt their blood there. For what? For nothing. Nada. Zilch. Their. Lives. Were. Wasted.

A buffoon started this war, buffoons defend this war, buffoons continue this war, and all the while the innocent continue to suffer. When we start building memorials to our tragic misadventure in Iraq, let us hope this country takes Prof. Koppelman's original point to heart and highlights those very facts. Of course, that's not likely, because there's plenty of people who seem to think that amidst all the carnage and wreckage there's still something to "debate".
 

Try the link, Bartbuster, to the Detroit News.
 

Fine by me, Mine, if you don't want to join the discussion.
 

The colonies were largely democratic in their internal governance and wanted to free themselves from foreign national governance.

Do the rallying cries "Live Free or Die," "Do not tread on me," "Give me liberty or give me death," and "No taxation without representation" ring any bells???

# posted by Bart DePalma : 12:44 PM

Numbnuts, they did not want to pay any taxes to the Brits. To avoid those taxes they had to get rid of the British army. They were not fighting for democracy, they were fighting to get rid of the British.
 

"Bart" DePalma lives on another planet:

The alternative to victory in Vietnam was the genocide and gulag which followed.

Your Republican preznit Nixon supported the Khmer Rouge....

But Cambodia is not Vietnam.

Cheers,
 

Fraud Guy:

You are a Republican?!
 

Mine = Mike, above
 

Bart:

Two things that undercut your theory: The Sunni militia/insurgents only recently took up arms in earnest against al Qaeda. And even then, still fought against the Shia. How does that comport with your notion that al Qaeda, if contained, would remove the catalyst for the civil war?

Second, one of the prime causes of the Civil War were the Shia death squads that operated throughout the country. How does attacking al Qaeda have any impact on that?
 

Charles:

I note that you did not answer any of my questions.
 

Arne Langsetmo said...

Well, seeing as I didn't "vote[]] to go to war", and I have no power to "surrender a war", I don't see that I have any duty or responsibility to the troops on that account.

As you well know, I am speaking of the People as a whole.

You elected a representative to vote on your behalf.

A majority of the People's elected representatives voted to authorize war.

We had the debate and the People as a whole decided to go to war.
 

Try the link, Bartbuster, to the Detroit News.

# posted by Charles : 12:45 PM

I did. There was nothing.
 

We had the debate and the People as a whole decided to go to war.

# posted by Bart DePalma : 12:52 PM

It appears that they have reconsidered.
 

I thought you didn't want to discuss? Obviously, there have been no car bomb / mortar attacks in the U.S. (one of the reasons we are fighting them over there rather than here). No heavily-armed American soldiers have been killed in Detroit -- score one point for the pro-gun debate though -- bottom line, more Americans were killed in Detroit so far this tear than in Anbar. So, statistically speaking, I'd rather be there. As for collateral damage to Iraqi civilians, that happens in every ground war.
 

Exactly correct, Bart. Luckily for Bush, the People's Representatives wanting to stop the war need a super-majority to override his veto.
 

Mike said...

Bart: Two things that undercut your theory: The Sunni militia/insurgents only recently took up arms in earnest against al Qaeda. And even then, still fought against the Shia. How does that comport with your notion that al Qaeda, if contained, would remove the catalyst for the civil war?

Where are there any substantial attacks by the Iraqi Sunni militias against the Shia?

Second, one of the prime causes of the Civil War were the Shia death squads that operated throughout the country. How does attacking al Qaeda have any impact on that?

The Shia were amazing patient and did not start retaliating in force until after al Qaeda attacked the Samara Mosque. The Iraqi Sunni and al Qaeda initiated the beginnings of a civil war by attacking and murdering Shia civilians. The Iraqi Sunni were badly bloodied and either left the country or backed off into their own areas.

al Qaeda is currently perpetrating the vast majority of attacks on the Shia and a good deal of the attacks in the Sunni. We were extraordinarily fortunate to have this turn of events because it gave both sides a common enemy.
 

"Bart" DePalma:

arne:

If you cannot tell the difference between the American revolutionaries fighting a tyranny to establish a democracy and the al Qaeda / Baathist terrorists trying to take down a twice elected constitutional democracy and replace it with a Taliban style police state, you are most definitely without hope.

Still pretending it's all of Eyrack against the al Qaeda outsiders? Click your heels twice, Twinkletoes.

And pretending that the Ba'athists are Taliban? Have some pixie-dust.

Seems to me that there's plenty of evidence that various groups are pushing for their own piece on the pie, and railing against "stamp acts" that might reduce their piece. And there's no doubt that there's plenty of "separationist" sentiment around, which of course is what fueled the American revolution.

Perhaps someday they'll figure out that they aren't going to get any of the petroleum pie as long as they're fighting, and there's nothing but misery and death to a civil war, and they'll agree to divvy up the nation and its resources and land peacefully and put down the guns and bombs, with the great Sir Ronny saying, "a rising tide floats all boats", on their smiling lips. But for the moment, they're on vacation.

Cheers,
 

tear = year, above.

Darn Spellchecker ; )
 

Bart:

Statistics indicate that al Qaeda isn't perpetrating the majority of any attacks--more like in the 10-15% range.

Charles:

I see. So we basically ignore the collateral damage when determining which area is safer? Methinks that crime would go down in Detroit if we put large numbers of heavily armed soldiers throughout the city.

So when are you making your vacation plans for Baghdad? Maybe we should hold a Super Bowl there considering how much safer it is than Detroit.

And just so I am clear, you will honestly answer that you would rather be dropped at random in Baghdad than Detroit?
 

Bartbuster said...

BD: We had the debate and the People as a whole decided to go to war.

It appears that they have reconsidered.

If the People had actually reconsidered and wanted to cut and run, a majority of their representatives would have defunded the war already. They have not come close.

Charles said...

Exactly correct, Bart. Luckily for Bush, the People's Representatives wanting to stop the war need a super-majority to override his veto.

Actually, there is no provision in the Constitution empowering Congress to withdraw an authorization of war. All the Congress can do is refuse to fund the war and there is nothing the President can do about that.
 

I'm not planning to vacation in either city, Mike. Statistically speaking, though, it is indeed safer for Americans, so (assuming I am dropped into Baghdad fully armed and deployed) that is my honest answer.
 

Mike said...

Bart: Statistics indicate that al Qaeda isn't perpetrating the majority of any attacks--more like in the 10-15% range.

"Attacks" in those stats include any violent act, even if no harm was done. The vast majority of the killing is perpetrated by vehicular suicide bombs and al Qaeda is the only group that perpetrates those attacks.
 

"Bart" DePalma:

A majority of the People's elected representatives voted to authorize war.

Ummm, when?

FWIW, the Constitution doesn't allow Congress to "authorize war". It only allows them to declare it. That they didn't do. I'm of the considered opinion that such "authorization" would be an unconstitutional delegation of a plenary power. And then there's the fact that even the "authorization" didn't actually authorise war, but rather supported a threat of military action; some would say, conditional on a return to Congress if the threat proved to be ineffective for the stated purposes. Some Congresscritters felt a bit hoodwinked by the speed and recklessness of Dubya's rush to war given that Saddam had started complying with the demands made.

Cheers,
 

Well, Bart, Congress could certainly revoke the AUMF (it's simply Public Law 107-40) or vote to de-fund the war -- those would require a veto override. Alternatively, probably not easier, a simple majority in the House can vote Articles of Impeachment -- Pelosi has taken that "off the table" though -- the really hard part is getting 67 votes in the Senate to convict.
 

If the People had actually reconsidered and wanted to cut and run, a majority of their representatives would have defunded the war already. They have not come close.

# posted by Bart DePalma : 1:16 PM

They have the majority. The remaining votes will come soon enough.
 

Charles:

Luckily for Bush, the People's Representatives wanting to stop the war need a super-majority to override his veto.

What "veto"?!?!?

Cheers,
 

bottom line, more Americans were killed in Detroit so far this tear than in Anbar. So, statistically speaking, I'd rather be there.

# posted by Charles : 12:58 PM

What statistics are you talking about?
 

The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243) indeed authorized the USE of military force against Iraq:

"The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf
 

"Bart" DePalma, who maintains that the Constitution provides implicitly for the power of the preznit to fire USAs, despite the fact that the Constitution says no such thing, refuses to carry out his thinking:

Actually, there is no provision in the Constitution empowering Congress to withdraw an authorization of war. All the Congress can do is refuse to fund the war and there is nothing the President can do about that.

So Congress can only declare war but can't undeclare it (neglecting for the moment that Congress hasn't declared war to begin with)?

Cheers,
 

Well, Arne, as just one example, the President issued a veto of the non-binding resolution to withdraw from Iraq and gave the reasons therefor:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070501-6.html

Congress failed to override THAT veto, right?
 

Arne:

Legally speaking, the AUMF was the equivalent to a declaration of war -- there are no magic words required -- just ask one of your favorite law professors here.
 

Charles:

"The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

Outside of the unconstitutional delegation of a nondelegable plenary power, that's not an "authoriz[ation]" to invade Iraq, nor did the U.N. Security Council authorise such (in fact, they explicitly rejected such authorisation).

Cheers,
 

Bart said:

"If the People had actually reconsidered and wanted to cut and run, a majority of their representatives would have defunded the war already. They have not come close."

And everyone knows that the Congress is incredibly responsive to its constituents. I'll take my red herring broiled, with a little lemon-butter please.
 

Charles:

Well, Arne, as just one example, the President issued a veto of the non-binding resolution to withdraw from Iraq and gave the reasons therefor:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070501-6.html

Congress failed to override THAT veto, right?

"404 -- not found" error.

Then there's this:

"The Congress of the United States knows that if we pass a bill, a law, a binding document, the president can veto that," said House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland. "What the president cannot veto is the opinion of the Congress of the United States, the judgment of the United States Congress, the advice and counsel of the Congress of the United States. He cannot veto that."

Cheers,
 

Charles said...

Well, Bart, Congress could certainly revoke the AUMF (it's simply Public Law 107-40)

The AUMF is the equivalent of a declaration of war. The Constitution requires a congressional declaration of war to start a war, but does not provide Congress with the authority to withdraw that declaration.

...or vote to de-fund the war -- those would require a veto override.

How do you figure? Congress simply needs to decline to authorize the spending to defund the war. There is no bill to veto.

Alternatively, probably not easier, a simple majority in the House can vote Articles of Impeachment -- Pelosi has taken that "off the table" though -- the really hard part is getting 67 votes in the Senate to convict.

Even if Congress had the votes to impeach, what would be the basis? Prosecuting a war authorized by Congress is part of the job description of the CiC and not a "high crime or misdemeanor."
 

Arne:

I could care less what the U.N. authorized or not. The PRESIDENT is responsible for running U.S. wars, not the United Nations. Regardless of your opinion that the delegation was not proper or that he was not authorized to "use" the armed forces to invade Iraq (even though that's exactly what the AUMF says and that's what he did), as I said, Congress can vote to de-fund (I've taken Bart's comments under advisement about Congress not being able to revoke the AUMF -- I'll let you know that the OLC has to say about that one ; ) or impeach and convict -- take your pick.
 

Charles, the violent death rate in Detroit is 41.8 per 100,000 per year. That is 3.5 deaths per month. If we assume that 100,000 of our 160,000 troops are in Anbar (it's almost certainly a lot less that that, as most are being sent to Baghdad), that means there would have to be fewer than 3.5 US deaths per month in Anbar for it to be safer to be an American in Anbar than in Detroit. There were 17 US deaths in Anbar in July.

So much for that idiotic claim.
 

Arne Langsetmo said...

Charles: "The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

Outside of the unconstitutional delegation of a nondelegable plenary power, that's not an "authoriz[ation]" to invade Iraq, nor did the U.N. Security Council authorise such (in fact, they explicitly rejected such authorisation).

Apart from not using the magic words "declaration of war," what is the functional difference between bills which say "The United States declares war on Iraq" and the above language?

Pray tell what is Congress unconstitutionally delegating to the President in the AUMF?

Finally, the Constitution does not give the UN any say in whether the US goes to war.
 

Charles:

Legally speaking, the AUMF was the equivalent to a declaration of war -- there are no magic words required -- just ask one of your favorite law professors here.

Not exactly. The "he determines to be necessary and appropriate" clause arguably gives the preznit the power to decide when (and what) hostilities are warranted, something forbidden him under the Constitution. No "blank checks". And the present situation makes clear for all and sundry why we shouldn't put that decision in the hands of a single (albeit elected) eedjit.

I'd note that even the maladministration has not (consistently) argued that a "war" exists legally on the basis of the AUMF, in their arguments WRT the wiretapping and detentions.

Cheers,
 

Mike:

["Bart"]: "If the People had actually reconsidered and wanted to cut and run, a majority of their representatives would have defunded the war already. They have not come close."

And everyone knows that the Congress is incredibly responsive to its constituents. I'll take my red herring broiled, with a little lemon-butter please.

Not even a "red herring". Simply false as an assertion of fact. The majority of the people do want us to get out. Why Congress has not (effectively) acted (much less acted in the specific manner that "Bart" insists they must) on that is a different matter, but it is clear that there is no requirement -- logical or legal -- that Congress do so, as "Bart" falsely states.

Cheers,
 

Bart:

If the Dems in Congress had the votes, they would simply use the other trumped-up grounds about lying us into war, leaking Plame's name, pardoning Libby, firing U.S. Attorneys, etc. I think it would be political suicide (and actual suicide for the troops in Iraq) for Congress to NOT vote at all. The best they can hope for is a veto-proof majority finally agreeing to a withdrawal date being set some time in the future.

I think you are mistaken, though, about Congress not being able to repeal PL 107-40 and/or 107-243. Even the 21st Amendment repealed the 18th Amendment without an express provision allowing that in Art. V.

Bartbuster:

Who said I was limiting it to just the violent death rate? More than 17 Americans were killed (from all causes) in Detroit in July. Why don't you just stick to "busting" Bart?
 

Charles:

I could care less what the U.N. authorized or not....

[Charles quotes the AUMF above]: "(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

... The PRESIDENT is responsible for running U.S. wars, not the United Nations. Regardless of your opinion that the delegation was not proper or that he was not authorized to "use" the armed forces to invade Iraq (even though that's exactly what the AUMF says and that's what he did), ...

Where did it say "invade Iraq"? It said: "(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq..."

That he didn't do (in fact).

... as I said, Congress can vote to de-fund (I've taken Bart's comments under advisement about Congress not being able to revoke the AUMF -- I'll let you know that the OLC has to say about that one ; ) or impeach and convict -- take your pick.

Do you maintain that there's no implicit power to "undeclare" a war? If so, then do you think that the executive has the implicit power to fire subordinates (such as, say, USAs)? If so, how do you distinguish the two? Cites would be appreciated.

Cheers,
 

"Bart" DePalma:

Apart from not using the magic words "declaration of war," what is the functional difference between bills which say "The United States declares war on Iraq" and the above language?

Letting the Chimperator-in-Chief "determine" what is "necessary and appropriate" to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq".

Cheers,
 

"Bart" DePalma:

Finally, the Constitution does not give the UN any say in whether the US goes to war.

You misspelled "preznit".

Cheers,
 

Who said I was limiting it to just the violent death rate? More than 17 Americans were killed (from all causes) in Detroit in July. Why don't you just stick to "busting" Bart?

# posted by Charles : 1:53 PM

I don't really give a crap how you're looking at it. American are dying violently in Iraq. For the comparison to have any statistical meaning, you would have to compare the RATE of US deaths in Anbar to the RATE of violent deaths in Detroit.

The comparison makes it obvious that you are very ignorant, or a liar.
 

Arne:

I haven't bought Bart's argument against un-declaring a war yet. We'll have to agree to disagree on whether Bush defended us from Iraq or not.

Bartbuster:

The RATE is greater too -- I'm simply not including just MURDERS -- here are more than 17 deaths of Americans in Detroit this month, and I only had to go back until July 22nd):

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007707310415

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070731/UPDATE/707310417/1003

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070731/UPDATE/707310402/1003

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007707290346

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007707270401

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007707260447

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007707260364

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007707240450

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007707230404

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007707230347
 

More than 17 VIOLENT deaths . . .
 

Charles:

You just told me that you would prefer to be dropped in Baghdad provided that you were heavily armed/deployed. That speaks volumes as to how valid you actually believe your comparison to be.

I really cannot believe that I got sucked into debating this ridiculous, absurd comparison.
 

More than 17 VIOLENT deaths . . .

# posted by Charles : 2:14 PM

Holy crap, are you one ignorant putz.

Let me give you an example that even a moron like you should understand.

If you have a choice between going to a city of 2 where there is a VIOLENT death rate of 1 per year, or a city of 100,000 where there is a VIOLENT death rate of 10 per year, where do you think you would be safer?
 

I'm just trying to compare apples to apples, Mike. How many Americans are in Baghdad today who are NOT heavily armed/deployed?
 

You also never answered my question: Is it the government, or just the city, of Detroit that is also "unstable" in your opinion? For instance, I just got done PROVING that more Americans have been killed in Detroit in the last WEEK than in Anbar all MONTH.
 

Charles, the violent death rate in Detroit is 41.8 per 100,000. The rate for US soldiers in Anbar based on the July numbers is higher than 204 per 100,000. You are an imbecile.
 

Bartbuster:

I know what "rate" means. The "rate" of American deaths in Detroit is GREATER than the rate of American deaths in Anbar -- I am including ALL violent deaths in Detroit (not just your 41.8 homicides per 100,000 per year). That includes fires (possible arson or not), suicides, car crashes, five babies being smothered to death, and being hit in the head with a baseball. Get it now?
 

Arne Langsetmo said...

"Bart" DePalma: Apart from not using the magic words "declaration of war," what is the functional difference between bills which say "The United States declares war on Iraq" and the above language?

Letting the Chimperator-in-Chief "determine" what is "necessary and appropriate" to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq".

The President would have that same power if the Congress simply voted for a bill which stated "The United States is at war with Iraq." The Article II CiC power gives the President authority to determine the "necessary and appropriate" means to prosecute a war.
 

I know what "rate" means. The "rate" of American deaths in Detroit is GREATER than the rate of American deaths in Anbar -- I am including ALL violent deaths in Detroit (not just your 41.8 homicides per 100,000 per year). That includes fires (possible arson or not), suicides, car crashes, five babies being smothered to death, and being hit in the head with a baseball. Get it now?

# posted by Charles : 2:38 PM

Do you really think that dying in a house fire is really any issue for soldiers over over in Iraq? Or car accident? How many of our soldiers do you really think are driving around Anbar in their cars?

The fact is that almost all the US troops being killed are homicide victims. Comparing that to auto accidents is idiotic.
 

Unfortunately, too many American soldiers HAVE died in their "cars" in Iraq -- perhaps you've heard of suicide bombers / IEDs that are being used by the enemy? Remember that this comparison came about when I asked Mike for his opinion on whether Detroit is "unstable" too. As I said before, maybe you should stick with "busting" Bart ; )
 

Side to Charles:

Actually, I have been not registered to a party since my college days. I attended one meeting of the College Republicans, and left after they stated in their constitution that their purpose was to support the policies and activities of the national party. I asked what to do if I disagreed with those policies, and they asked my why I would disagree.

I then with to the College Democrats meeting, read the same position in their constitution for the Democratic national party, and decided that both were rum's game.

Back to the thread:

If the People had actually reconsidered and wanted to cut and run, a majority of their representatives would have defunded the war already. They have not come close.

Of course, there's that whole cloture issue in the Senate, where a minority can block any substantial vote; and then there's that symbolic vote that was vetoed.

Bart,

What part of your blind obedience can't you see?
 

Charles:

We'll have to agree to disagree on whether Bush defended us from Iraq or not.

"Ben -- I just want to say one word to you -- just one word. Are you listening?: Duelfer."

Cheers,
 

I guess you could argue whether the babies were asleep -- and therefore not "violent" deaths -- five children, ranging from 27 days to three months old, died on two days. Four lived in Detroit, and one was in Ecorse. Sounds "unstable" to me either way.
 

Unfortunately, too many American soldiers HAVE died in their "cars" in Iraq -- perhaps you've heard of suicide bombers / IEDs that are being used by the enemy?

# posted by Charles : 2:56 PM

That's not a car accident, you imbecile, that's a homicide.

I guess you could argue whether the babies were asleep -- and therefore not "violent" deaths

Indeed, I could definitely see an idiot like you trying to make that argument.
 

Sounds "unstable" to me either way.

# posted by Charles : 3:01 PM

Hey, if you don't like it here, feel free to move to Anbar.
 

Fraud Guy:

Thanks for the info -- I didn't think you were a Republican.

Bartbuster:

Is a violent death from drunk driving a "car accident" or "homicide"? As for the babies suffering VIOLENT deaths, I fail to see how anyone who is killed while asleep would so qualify, but maybe Dr. Mengele would know. And, with that semi-segue, we are finally we are back to the topic of "The virtues of Nazi ghosts" : )
 

Is a violent death from drunk driving a "car accident" or "homicide"?

Do you think we have many soldiers driving drunk around Anbar province?

As for the babies suffering VIOLENT deaths, I fail to see how anyone who is killed while asleep would so qualify,

Do we have a lot of babies deployed in Anbar?
 

What American voters think,either for or against, is of secondary importance to what Iraqis think,the majority of whom would like to see the US out of their country.
I've seen ridiculous comparisons like the one Charles is making in the past-I think it was Brit Hume who compared Iraq and California.I can't help but think there's some racial undertone in Charlies specific comparison to Detroit and it's majority AfricanAmerican population(you've got to read between the lines or catch the winks when dealing with many on the right-I suspect Detroit is one of their codewords for black).But I'll tell you what,Charles,let's test your assertion-I'll take two weeks and drive around Detroit while you spend the same time driving around Anbar.In American made SUVs,with Bush/Cheney bumper stickers(since they're probably about as popular in both places).When and if you get back,we'll compare notes.
 

"Bart" DePalma:

[Arne]: Letting the Chimperator-in-Chief "determine" what is "necessary and appropriate" to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq".

The President would have that same power if the Congress simply voted for a bill which stated "The United States is at war with Iraq." The Article II CiC power gives the President authority to determine the "necessary and appropriate" means to prosecute a war.

No. The CiC power allows Dubya to do that only when there's a war declared. Absent a war, telling the commander he can do as he pleases (or "determine[s] ... necessary") is absurd; telling him he can do what you maintain is his plenary right to do as CinC is pointless and superfluous. Telling him he can decide when a war exists (or should begin to exist) is unconstitutional, but that is precisely what the AUMF purports to do in fact.

I'd note once again that even the maladministration has denied that an AUMF created a state of "war" ... when it served their purposes:

"The February 6, 2006, testimony of Alberto Gonzales to the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on Wartime Executive Power and the National Security Agency's Surveillance Authority, however indicates otherwise:

GONZALES: There was not a war declaration, either in connection with Al Qaida or in Iraq. It was an authorization to use military force. I only want to clarify that, because there are implications. Obviously, when you talk about a war declaration, you're possibly talking about affecting treaties, diplomatic relations. And so there is a distinction in law and in practice. And we're not talking about a war declaration. This is an authorization only to use military force."

Cheers,
 

Mr.Poindexter:

I had simply read about former House Speaker Gingrich attacking Detroit's government this morning -- whether he brought that up based on "racial overtones", who knows -- I know that I didn't and I am certainly willing to get back to the thread topic.

Anyone else who wants to discuss the violent death rate of Americans in Detroit vs. Anbar or even the Constitutional requirements for a "declaration" of war and revokation thereof, please feel free to do so in my "Open Thread":

http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=15518184&postID=8515617776606753101
 

Arne Langsetmo said...

Charles: "The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

[Arne]: Letting the Chimperator-in-Chief "determine" what is "necessary and appropriate" to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq".

BD: The President would have that same power if the Congress simply voted for a bill which stated "The United States is at war with Iraq." The Article II CiC power gives the President authority to determine the "necessary and appropriate" means to prosecute a war.

arne: No. The CiC power allows Dubya to do that only when there's a war declared.

The AUMF declared war when it stated: "The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States..." The next clause "...as he determines to be necessary and appropriate..." is simply a recognition of the President's Article II power to direct the war which the preceding clause declared.

I'd note once again that even the maladministration has denied that an AUMF created a state of "war" ... when it served their purposes

You are correct. The President and members of Congress both pretended the AUMF was not a declaration of war for their own purposes. However, the language is clear no matter how much they want to play pretend.
 

So, Bart, if the Congress authorized the use of the Armed Forces to assist in natural disaster relief overseas at his discretion, he could then expand that authorization to use the Armed Forces to attack at will anywhere in the area defined by the disaster.

Interesting expansion of powers.
 

No,I didn't think race was involved in you bringing up Detroit(wink),and the alacrity with which you want to change the topic when called on it convinces me even more.
I guess this means you won't be vacationing in Anbar,either.
 

One last point, Bart.

You keep arguing from a basic premise--if you have power, and may technically are able to use it, do so or risk losing it.

To paraphrase you--the AUMF is a declaration of war, and the President can do whatever he wants with the Armed Forces because of that.

However, back to the original point of this post--is that the wisest choice? Is it always about what you can get away with, as opposed to what you should do?

The Nazis took the acquiesence and collaboration of the rest of the Germans and turned it to a horror show.

They demonized the other, whether it was the mongrel Russians or the hateful Jews, and used that depiction to help propel their plans for domination. The original post talked about how the Germans consciously remember the past to avoid it recurring.

Power not used is not wasted. I recall the statement during the Gonzo's appointment of a local AG while that law was still in effect: "if we don't use it". Even though it was very apparent that Congress was going to repeal the law, and the President would sign it, they still went ahead and used it because they could.

It is not about what is right and wrong with this crowd. It is about what they can do.

It is not about the law, but about how they can interpret it to do what they want to.

It is not about the rule of law. It is about the misrule of law.

We should remember our past, just like the Germans.

We should remember when we demonized the original people of this continent, so we could justify to ourselves that we were taking away their lands and lives.

We should remember when we declared dissent to be criminal, so that we did not have to question our actions.

We should remember when we were lied to, so that we didn't have to listen to the truth.

That's when we can have optimism for the future, when we learn from out past mistakes, instead of repeating and embracing them.
 

As I said, prior to you even posting, Poindexter, I am not planning to vacation in EITHER Detroit or the Anbar Province. I've also tried repeatedly to get off-topic discussion off this blog.
 

Fraud Guy, you are trying to explain something to someone who would have gladly helped herd those inhuman Iraqis/Indians/Jews into the ovens if that is what he was told to do. He's not going to understand.
 

I've also tried repeatedly to get off-topic discussion off this blog.

# posted by Charles : 4:03 PM

Sure, once your off-topic positions start to get hammered.
 

Oh, please, "hammered" by whom?! It's not MY fault you failed to include non-homicide causes of violent deaths in Detroit.
 

Or, do you think your "If you don't like it here (I don't live in Detroit), then move to Iraq" line also HAMMERED me?! LOL

What's next: "I'm rubber; you're glue . . ."?
 

pms_chicago: I begin to wonder what discussion or constructive discourse even looks like. Clearly everyone has their own ideas about what the ideal comment thread would be.

A fair question, but I think we can agree this thread ain't it. Admittedly, when the initial post fulfills Godwin you've got to expect a rocky ride. Likewise when the trolls have been recently emboldened by the management's clear statement that they'd rather shut down comments altogether than bounce vandals. So they can disrupt the sober conversation of others to their hearts delight and the worst they might suffer is an end of this outlet for their opponents to think and reason in peace. That's a no-brainer in the vandals favor, eh?

Does Marty really want us to send him 102 emails with our personal thoughts about data mining? And if we do, is he really going to have the time to answer?

It will never happen; think pareto, and ask yourself how much of the action in these comments comes from the provocations of our resident vandals, how many comments directly address one of two specific right-wing trolls? If comments were strictly moderated, if they were only published when addressed to the poster and submitted by email that simple extra step would deprive the flames of a fair amount of oxygen. The loss of instant gratification alone would probably lead the vandals to seek greener pastures, and likewise reduce that "my head's gonna explode" feeling which produces most of the responses to the trolls.

This would help the community as a whole...

But that presupposes there exists such a community. Arguably it's a shade of grey, but if the hosts/facilitators do not see it as such and act accordingly then it is only a community in the sense that alt.flaming.moonbats is a community, which is to say, it is several communities and a large number of non-members, much like reading transcripts of the conversation of every table at a busy restaurant, sorted only by timestamp. That's the direction we seem to going here, inherent in the technology like smileys and leet are inherent in chat. Unless, of course, we lose comments altogether.

Meanwhile, there's three important words for you: Firefox, Greasemonkey, Killfile (recently updated to kill trolls in blogspot "post a comment" window as well!)
 

Oh, please, "hammered" by whom?! It's not MY fault you failed to include non-homicide causes of violent deaths in Detroit.

# posted by Charles : 4:13 PM

It's not MY fault that you attempted to make a transparently PHONY comparison, but I did enjoy watching you run away once you started to get hammered over it.
 

Fraud Guy said...

So, Bart, if the Congress authorized the use of the Armed Forces to assist in natural disaster relief overseas at his discretion, he could then expand that authorization to use the Armed Forces to attack at will anywhere in the area defined by the disaster.

Both AUMF's named an enemy against which the President was authorized to use military force.
 

I obviously have not "run away" anywhere. I'm still right here. If you guys don't want to follow Anderson's advice of taking it to another blog, that's fine by me too.
 

"Bart" DePalma:

The AUMF declared war when it stated: "The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States..." The next clause "...as he determines to be necessary and appropriate..." is simply a recognition of the President's Article II power to direct the war which the preceding clause declared.

In Constitutional interpretation, one of the canons is that no language is to be read as superfluous. The rest of the sentence (and let me reiterate that for the brain-dead: "the sentence) shows the intent; to fob off responsibility that is non-delegable. Reading it as an irrelevant and superfluous coda is not reasonable.

Of course, there's many that are of the opinion in todays's modern world that declarations of war are passe and that the use of military force ought to be considered a routine course of events and a handy option for diplomacy, done on executive whim, unhindered by the necessity of actual Congressional debate, firm commitment, and declarations of war. I am not one of those (and I'm surprised that a "textualist" like you would be). To be honest, had there been an actual declaration of war, you might find your plaints about "surrender" more compelling to the public, but since it wasn't a declared war, with full commitment of and by the democratic branches, we hardly have the unanimity and resolve to 'see it through' seeing as it isn't a "war" but rather Dubya's misadventure (and Dubya's alone).

[Arne]: I'd note once again that even the maladministration has denied that an AUMF created a state of "war" ... when it served their purposes

You are correct. The President and members of Congress both pretended the AUMF was not a declaration of war for their own purposes. However, the language is clear no matter how much they want to play pretend.

How can you "play pretend" with "language [that] is clear"?

Cheers,
 

I obviously have not "run away" anywhere. I'm still right here. If you guys don't want to follow Anderson's advice of taking it to another blog, that's fine by me too.

# posted by Charles : 4:24 PM

There's no reason to go anywhere. Your idiotic claim has been debunked.
 

DEBUNKED?! Look, even if we accepted that the violent death rate for Americans in Anbar was 204 per 100,000 -- I already proved to you it's much higher than that in Detroit -- you simply wanted to exclude non-homicide causes of violent deaths to try to prove your argument. No can do, Bartbuster.

Arne:

Did you ever find out which Presidential Veto I was referring to, or did you need me to copy and paste the entire statement here?
 

I already proved to you it's much higher than that in Detroit -- you simply wanted to exclude non-homicide causes of violent deaths to try to prove your argument. No can do, Bartbuster.

You did no such thing. The violent death rate in Detroit is 41.8 per 100,000. You have claimed it's higher, but you sure as hell haven't posted any stats to back up your idiotic claim.
 

P.S. Bartbuster -- do you actually think your "If you don't like it here, then move to Iraq" line also HAMMERED me?! You're funny.
 

P.S. Bartbuster -- do you actually think your "If you don't like it here, then move to Iraq" line also HAMMERED me?! You're funny.

# posted by Charles : 4:36 PM

No, I think the hammering is the fact that I have stats to back up my position, and you have nothing.

Well, your whining about not wanting to visit Detroit or Anbar is also pretty funny.