Asymmetrical Information

indeed many on the left hold this sort of position on just about every issue. They whine about privatization of schools without offering any real defense or reformation of the public system. This is evidence of the dead end at which the left has arrived. Some even admit that they realize their positions are based solely on emotions that can't necessarily be translated into reasonable policy.

You are confusing the roles of critics and reformers.

However, here are a couple of ideas:

First, we examine closely what got us here in the first place, and then we don't do that anymore. That would mean opening up government records to public scrutiny, not something Bush I or II are comfortable with (for good reason).

Next, we shoot the idiots who got us into this mess, instead of putting them back in charge, especially the man in charge when our country sent biological warfare stocks to Saddam Hussein, after he'd already used them against Iran and the Kurds. Personal accountability, and all that.

(Why anyone would think that Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld et al. are going to do the country any honor this time around, when they've never done so in the past, is beyond me.)

But seriously, there are plenty of reformers on the left, but they don't get air time. Actual policy discussions aren't real popular with the Fox crowd and Limbaugh's Legions of Ignorance.

They aren't getting air time in the New Yorker, the Atlantic, the Nation, Mother Jones, the New York Times, or any of the panoply of left-wing publications in this country that I read. There may be commenters out there who aren't getting heard, but it won't wash to blame it on the Right.

What do we mean by "the Left"? Who are we talking about?

Sorry, but contesting the Soviet Empire's invasion of Afghanistan by aiding the muhajadin was a strategically sound policy. Ignoring Afghanistan after the collapse of the Soviet Empire was unwise, but foreign policy is made by fallible human beings with finite amounts of energy and attention; it is infinitely difficult to avoid blunders at all times, in all corners of the globe.

The point, as I see it, about complaining about America's recent mistakes in the middle-east is to learn from history.

You want to know what to do now? OK. Let's examine a little history. We might learn from it, who knows?

--

Installing the shah - foreign intervention. America gained short term by getting those oil fields for our companies. But the locals resented his evil rule and blamed us. They overthrew him in time and terrorized us.

How could we have prevented that one? By not intervening.

Creating the mujahedeen - foreign intervention. Though they hated our enemy, they were never grateful to us and had just as much reason to dislike us as they did the Soviets. America gained short term by keeping the Soviets busy. But once they left Afghanistan, it served as a training ground against us, including 9/11.

How could we have prevented that one? By not intervening.

Iran vs Iraq - foreign intervention. We were afraid those nasty Iranians (which regime we had helped create via earlier interventionism) were gonna win the war. So we supported Saddam. He's a dictator, and cares nothing for us: short term gain. He turns on us and invades Kuwait, and proceeds on to do all the other awful things to the US for which we are now threatening to take him out.

How could we have prevented that one? By not intervening.

--

OK kids. What have learned? Our problems in the middle east come from intervention. People ruled by dictators we install resent us for it. People ruled by dictators that we support resent us because of it. People trained and armed by us to fight someone else can also attack us. Dictators propped up by us can turn against us.

So how do we solve the problem? What should we do in the future? Well it is obvious to me: we should stop intervening! That is the lesson from history, if there is any lesson. So it is hardly a surprise to see leftist intellectuals harping on that history. The conclusion may not be what you like, but it is fairly obvious I should think. (Neither it is a surprise to me to see rightist intellectuals like Sullivan try to suggest that history has no lessons for us.)

American security, vis a vis the middle east, lies in non-involvement. We should simply declare victory, hand over the problem to the UN (which will do nothing, most likely), bring our forces home, and cease further adventurism. For the short term we will suffer continuing terrorism resulting from our previous mistakes. But once our erstwhile enemies see that we are neither for nor against them, they will cease to see us a problem, and focus their ire elsewhere - on their corrupt and venal rulers. This will lead to popular fascist regimes like Iran, which will then slowly evolve into regimes we might care to associate with.

(I have not read the Didion piece to see what she advocates.)

Gotta agree with Will Allen. Aiding the muhajadin was a mutually benificial and honorable arrangement--the fact that they (some of them) crossed us later is their bad, not ours.

It's time to contest this "American foreign policy caused all the problems" meme. Pejman had some good comments yesterday. http://pejmanpundit.blogspot.com/2003_01_05_pejmanpundit_archive.html#87047652

"Next, we shoot the idiots who got us into this mess, instead of putting them back in charge, especially the man in charge when..."

That doesn't sound like something the left can base policy on, even without the obvious problem with it's death penalty position.

It's not that the left doesn't have any propositions, (if that were true Rush wouldn't have a job), but that their suggestions are so very far removed from reality they're practically useless. Withdrawing all our support and forces from the world is their answer. Why deal with Saddam when all you have to do is stop supporting Israel? Doesn't make any sense. Treat a problem that's not there?

Withdrawing all our support and forces from the world is their answer.

That's why I asked what was meant by the Left.

There are quite a few on the right that are talking about this as well. As Josh Marshall reports:

At the White House and among Republicans on Capitol Hill there is increasingly serious talk of pulling out the 37,000 troops which the US has garrisoned along the DMZ for about a half century. (Henry Hyde's International Relations Committee is apparently preparing hearings about a possible unilateral withdrawal of American troops.)

Not to mention the Novak/Buchanan wing of the GOP which has been advocating withdrawal for decades.

And most of the Dems have historically supported an even greater US involvement abropad than the GOP.

Leonard missed one:

Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. The Saudis and (exiled) Kuwaits wanted us to intervene, but we had studied our history and didn't. Which is why the Sauds have been overthrown by a Wahhabi sect, the Egyptians are mad at us, the Israelis have had to invade Jordan and bomb Damascus, and Saddam controls the price of oil.

Oh, wait, that didn't happen. We did intervene, which is why all those people, um, y'know, close friends of Saddam, are so mad at us. Fortunately, there aren't many of them who've survived his purges.

Our "intervention" in the Iran/Iraq war was pretty minimal; it's not like we were buddies with either country. If minor aid qualifies as intervention, it may not be possible for an 800-pound gorilla like the US to refrain.

"...bring our forces home, and cease further adventurism." Except that US forces were not involved in any of the three "interventions" you mention. When does minor aid become intervention, and when does intervention become adventurism?

Jane,

The Andrew Sullivan article was fantastic. Here is another one you might like (from the NYT no less). It is a more sympathetic examination of the left’s quandary regarding Iraq.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/08/magazine/08LIBERALS.html?pagewanted=all&position=top

A small excerpt:

Speakers at the demonstrations voice unnuanced slogans like ''No Sanctions, No Bombing'' and ''No Blood for Oil.'' As for what should be done to keep this mass murderer and his weapons in check, they have nothing to say at all. This is not a constructive liberal antiwar movement.
So let me rephrase the question. Why there is no organized liberal opposition to the war?

Read the whole thing – it really is very good. Almost makes you feel sorry for liberals.

GT- You're right, the left is a bit broad of a term, but I don't think it's particularly untrue or even misleading. The examples you cite are really more exceptions than rules.

It's like saying 'Andrew Sullivan is gay and conservative, so, it's misleading to say that conservatives are generally against gay marriage.'

I would be more specific, but I can't think of a definition that would encompass everyone. The best I can do is reference Virginia Postrel and use 'statists'. Maybe that's better.

But it's not even really what Sullivan wrote about, it really is about 'the left', as much as 'the left' has identified itself and refers itself as such and their positions. It's not like Mike Moore or Chomsky or Didion will deny that they're 'the left'. If you're offended by these generalities then your beef's with them, not right-wingers (who also use that term loosely).

Poz,

I’m not offended by them. I just find them analytically useless.

It is probably true that there are people with leftist viewpoints (and let’s skip over how we define that) that have criticized the current administration and offered no alternative.

There are others that have offered alternatives.

Yet others who haven’t even criticized (on the war on terrorism).

Sullivan, unsurprisingly, concentrates his indignation on those easiest to attack.

But who do they represent? Anybody?

I know of many people in the Democratic side of the political spectrum, be they politicians or commentators, and they all have offered alternatives to the different aspects of the Bush administration they oppose.

Sullivan spends a whole article attacking Didion. Who is this person? Who does she supposedly represent? Nobody I know.

If all Sullivan could do is attack Didion it would be quite boring. So he extrapolates her views to represent the ‘left’, which he never defines. Is it the Democrats? Academics? Or just writers for the New York Review of Books?

Making strange/contradictory bedfellows in times of war goes back a long way, kids.

Until the world is composed of democratic republics, free nations will occasionally be forced to work with unsavory and downright crooked regimes - lest we try and fight all arms of tyranny simultaneously.

Let's talk about the "sins of the father" so forcefully delivered in these debates. Monetary support of the mujahadeen through the 80's and State's big idea to open diplomatic relations with Saddam Hussein in 1984 must be seen in the light of a world with the U.S.S.R. - it'd been feeding money to Arabs since the mid-Fifties and to ignore that unfortunate, Realpolitik elephant is to be ahistorical. Phasers could not, unfortunately, be set to regime change: the United States couldn't simply root out the Ayatollahs in Iran, or Khadafi, or Hussein, or Assad, without risking open war with the Soviets. For decades presidents believed they had no choice but to maintain status quo relations with half-friendly dictatorships; remember the Cold War nightmare and charter purpose for Realpolitik: the Reds might take hold of an infant republic, insert a facehugger-like socialist party. Wait for gestation and successful elections; ka-pow. One more Soviet satellite.

I disagree with the rationale bearing these exercises in oft-cynical pragmatism. But the Soviet Union has fallen, Iran's populace has rejected Shiite extremism themselves, and Iraq has miraculously never benefitted directly from its American aid in the 80's or French, Russian and German aid through the 90's.

It's taken two presidents since the Iron Curtain's oxidization for America to realize its potential as sole superpower and last vanguard for the implementation of liberation and planting of free, representative governments. Of course, domestic and foreign obstacles are in place: until Iraq is democratized, we will have set no precedent and thus carry no authority, whether moral or military, to dictate conversions to temporary cohorts like, say, military dictatorship Pakistan.

Saddam's fall is a watershed and an indelible victory for human dignity and global democracy.

But seriously, there are plenty of reformers on the left, but they don't get air time. Actual policy discussions aren't real popular with the Fox crowd and Limbaugh's Legions of Ignorance.

Wow. Lefties open their mouths or wiggle their typing figures and out spills nothing but rhetoric! It's like a tic. What reformers? No names, just inferences? No air time for liberal views on ABC, CNN, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, PBS, NPR, or every major metropolitan newspaper? Fox News is actually heathily populated with conservatives (something the above networks cannot claim) and often takes many liberal arguments for what they are - nonsensical fluff - and thus perhaps comes across as hostile to the left. Anyone reserves the right to disagree with Limbaugh, but unlike his adversaries, he draws his commentary from audio clips presented in their entirity.

Intellectual challenges to liberal ideas, having finally found media niches, have markedly influenced elections since 1994; nearly all of them have been victories, large and small, for Republicans. I expect that trend to continue.

Supporting the mujahedeen had absolutely nothing to do with causing 9/11. Nobody seems to be pointing this out: the 9/11 hijackers didn't train in Afghanistan. They didn't NEED Afghanistan. They trained HERE, in the United States. Furthermore even if they HAD needed Afghanistan as a training grounds... the mujahedeen we supported weren't the Taliban. The Taliban took over without help from us. Absent American weapons in the Northern Alliance's hands, they'd just have done so sooner and more firmly, and Al Qaeda would have had a place to base themselves out of that much earlier.

Why did Hussein try to invade Kuwait? To get their oil. Would he have done this if we hadn't supported him against Iran? Hell yes. He lost the Iran/Iraq war, let's remember. He attacked Kuwait because it was an easier target. Would we have then intervened to kick him out? Of course. Which would have caused Al Qaeda to wig out over our presence in the sacred Arabian peninsula. So maybe 9/11 would have been 9/11/87 or 9/11/04 instead of 9/11/01, but I don't really see that as improvement.

When it comes to foreign policy, left-vs-right doesn't really describe the spectrum of opinions. There are many Democrats who are gung-ho on the war on terrorism and are in favor of military intervention to topple bad guy regimes. On the other hand, there are many non-liberals (Pat Buchanan types and libertarians) who are opposed to the US intervening militarily in Iraq and elsewhere.

The left-right dichotomy probably makes sense only in domestic policy.

Would rejecting intervention include rejecting intervening with money and emergency supplies to aleviate the effects of natural disasters?

Sullivan's definition of 'the left' is only know to him, but from his writing I gather it's simply those who identify themselves as such.

Ofcourse 'the left', is not of one opinion, but it's not criminal to assume that by and large the left really does oppose the war (they may do so for different reasons). The same goes for 'the right', those that oppose the war are generally in the minority, and miniscule one at that. Importantly, that minority is usually not taken very seriously, because they have little power or influence. On the other hand, those in the anti-war left camp are fairly high up in the Democratic Party, with actual power and influence, able to set agendas and so on, people like Al Gore.

So, it's really just looking at the bigger picture. Looking at political forces, Pat Buchanan is not match as a political force for Al Gore, hell, he's no match for Mike Moore, so that's what I'm measuring here. Mostly that left, the one that does have it's pro-war heretics and so on, has not provided a solution to Iraq. I'm saying that because I do not consider diplomacy through the UN as a solution.

PJ: it doesn't matter to me, the difference between minor aid, intervention, and "adventurism" (whatever that is). I don't want any of it done in my name. When the US federal government does something, perforce it is in my name.

I don't want these things for two reasons. One, that they are forcing me (and my country) to pay for them. Two, because the blowback they create may come to me (and my country).

I am perfectly happy for you to privately send your money wherever you want. Voluntary is always fine with me. Or, for that matter, send yourself if you want to fight.

pod,

Again, your definition is so vague I can't either agree or disagree.

If by left Sullivan means the fringe like Chomsky and Didion I would agree but so what? They represent nobody except themselves.

Now if by left he tries to include the Democratic Party then it's an ouright lie.

GT, perhaps the inability of the left to seriously debate war and peace has become so apparent to conservatives as to require some rethinking on our part for an explanation?

Andrew Sullivan's definition of the left is extraordinarily apparent. He, along with journalists from every major conservative magazine from National Review to The Weekly Standard has been documenting - for over a year - a distinct pattern from intellectuals on the left. David Brooks of TWS has penned what I believe to be the best summization of the left's departure from a debate and entrenchment into rhetoric, hyperbole and ad-hominem cul-de-sacs. You ought to read it, as it can supply you with all the names you could ever need to satisfy palpability.

Sullivan's best contribution was in The Wall Street Journal, but his references are literally dotting his blog archives. He gives out awards, my good man, for the most contentious, baseless commentary from the left - and names names.

Jonah Goldberg is a good read after the first two I've given you provide names; he himself is tacit with sources but quite poignant with substance of the liberal critiques and assessment thereof. His gems are here and here.

What is slanderous about including the Democratic Party with the liberal anti-war camp? Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi, Tom Daschle, John Kerry; all whom have implemented the "criticism with no alternatives" barb. Outspoken Senator Chuck Hagel may be a bit below-the-belt but he's an altarboy next to reps like my district's own Dennis Kucinich or Jim McDermott. Look at the voting patterns per party in both bodies of Congress!

We know the left, we know the Democrats.

Michael,

You are confusing two separate issues.

As I read Didion’s essay that Sullivan attacks for not offering a counter proposal it talks about 9/11. Sullivan’s WSJ article also talks about fringe left wingers opposed to the Afghan war. Of course, this does not apply to the Democratic party whose elected representatives OVERWHELMINGLY supported the war against the Taliban.

The other links you posted (Brooks and Goldberg) talk about Iraq. That is a VERY different thing. Many Democrats do oppose the war against Iraq but they certainly have proposed alternatives.

So we’re back to square one.

Sullivan spends a whole column attacking a left winger that opposed our response after 9/11 and gave no alternative. He says this is typical of ‘the left’ (which he never defines).

If by the left he means people like Chomsky he may be right but it’s irrelevant. Who cares what Chomsky has to say about anything? He represents nobody but himself.

If by ‘the left’ he means the Democratic Party in any way, shape, or form, then it is a lie. You may disagree with the Democrats’ position. But it is a lie to say they have none. This, for example, is false: Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi, Tom Daschle, John Kerry; all whom have implemented the "criticism with no alternatives" barb.

Sullivan’s piece is either irrelevant (at least to me, maybe you care what Chomsky and Didion have to say. I know I don’t). Or it is false.

I hate to bring up the question of race on every thread, but once more this raises the issue of what you do about the descendants of slaves if you don't like every suggestion raised.

Motes and beams ...

Michael, you are confusing two separate issues.

GT, I'm afraid you're compartmentalizing the issue, attempting to delineate 9/11 from the Afghanistan theatre, and again from the impending liberation of Iraq. You can't. Trying to fit each of the articles to every stage in the terror war is a misinterpretation. Sullivan isn't just talking about September 11th, nor is Megan (from whence this debate sprang). All of these events are exponents of the same base, demonstrating the left's unwillingness to confront a world of now-unmistakable absolute values: do we have the moral authority to engage in the creative destruction of groups, nations and cultures that seek to murder and enslave all others?. For the most part, conservatives answer "yes" and liberals answer "no." What Sullivan, Goldberg and Brooks provide are perspectives on different sides of the issue; more particularly, from different chronological points. The intellectual thread running through each developing chapter is what conservatives are beginning to define as the antiwar catatonia of the left. It can't be categorized away.

But it is a lie to say they have none [an alternative].

Here, then, what is it? As far as I know, it's either inaction or "waiting" (see inaction, above). Those are not serious alternatives.

As far as Democratic support for Afghanistan, one really must apply the fair-weather-foul-weather principle. Certainly you understand the political pressure applied to every American politician immediately after September 11th? - only a fringer from Berkeley could escape unscathed by opposing military action. If the Democrats were seriously "shoulder to shoulder" with the president, they would not have looked to rhetorically pull out a stopwatch and snipe upon the first lull in a weeks-long war with the Taliban, nor would they so gleefully raise up the spectre of Osama bin Laden for obvious political leverage (which demonstrates among other things a conceptual misreading of this entire conflict, as if bin Laden were a cause and not a symptom of the Middle East's sickened culture of death and hatred). Loyalties are best discovered on down time: who will pick you up and who will try to kick your teeth in.

If there is a legitimate strategy disagreement, why go immediately public (unless public attention is the purpose)?

Between their clumsy swipes at the President and their attempt to divide the inextricably linked issues of national security and the American economy in the last election (which thoroughly failed), I disagree with any semblance of unity or support or cognizance of policy discussion shown by the Democrats.

Who cares what Chomsky has to say about anything? He represents nobody but himself.

That's a bit of a supposition and burden-of-proof switcheroo! Chomsky is well-respected in the bleachers to the left, from journalists to academics. He can't be hid under a rug. He's certainly not the voice for liberalism, and doesn't speak for the left. But he can be included in the list of liberals who conservatives argue are evading substantive policy debates.

Sullivan's piece - like the writings of others that add to the growing perpetuity of liberals' tentative engagement with the war - is quite relevant.

The problem was that America did nothing to help rebuild Afganistan after the Soviets left the country and it was essentially left in ruins. The Taliban take over, Osama comes in with his checkbook and buys some friends, as well as a reputation for standing up to the Great Satan. Thus, there was a policy of non-intervention that turned out to be ruinous for American and its' allies.

Sorry, but contesting the Soviet Empire's invasion of Afghanistan by aiding the muhajadin was a strategically sound policy.

Yeah, and Carter baited them into invading in the first place.

Supporting the mujahedeen had absolutely nothing to do with causing 9/11.

Wouldn't have happened without bin Laden, who wouldn't have been able to do it without Afghanistan being the crackpot mess it was, which wouldn't have happened without us support of the mujaheddin in the 1980s.

It was still a good idea at the time, but unintentional consequences are a bitch. I'd say it's more accurate to blame 9/11 on our complete ignoring of the failed Afghanistan state, once the USSR got out.

Yeah, that Jimmy Carter sure was a master of geo-politics. Really had the Mullahs out-foxed.....

Those are not serious alternatives.

Whoa Michael!

You just changed the point we were discussing.

The fact that YOU don't think the alternatives are serious doesn't mean they aren't alternatives.

Remember, Jane's and Sullivan's point is that the left, which they never define, simply bitches but proposes no alternatives.

My point is that may be true of people like Didion (And I say may. I really have no idea nor do I care. For all I know Sullivan is lying about that as well.) But IT IS NOT true of the Democratic Party, as represented by their elected officials.

For example you consider inaction to not be an alternative. For many Dems the alternative to war with Iraq is continuing to apply pressure, bombing where necessary, but not actually invading. That is a real alternative. You may dislike, find it foolish, or whatever. But it is an alternative.

You may dislike, even hate, the alternatives they propose but alternatives they have. And this works the other way to. Democrats may feel that GOPers don't care about the poor, say, but it doesn't mean the GOP doesn't have alternatives. They just happen to be alternatives the Dems don't like.

So, once again, I go back to my original point. Although I’ll amend it a little.

If Sullivan or Jane think that the alternatives that the Democratic Party propose on security and foreign affairs are foolish they can say so. I may or may not disagree depending on the point being made.

But what is simply not true is to say that the Democratic party ( or maybe I should say the Democrats since the party does not necessarily speak with one voice) has not offered alternatives. In fact, if anything, they have offered too many, which is what usually happens when you don’t have a single leader.

If Sullivan is going to base his “they only bitch” argument on political nobodies like Didion he is quite free to do so but it will be at the price of being irrelevant. What is intellectually dishonest is to talk about the left in general terms, without never defining it.

dsq.. what the hell?? is there a point there sir? cause a random reference to slaves doesn't seem relevant...

as for non-interventionism... it seems overly christian and pacific to me. We are attacked: therefore we withdraw from the world, knowing that the attacks won't stop immediately, but hoping that over time the attacks will stop.

that sounds like an amazing strategy!!!

i suggest that you try it in a bar fight or in response to muggers (don't call the police, just never go outside gain.. that's much better, isn't it?)

real non interventionism would be declaring that no one in the us will have any foreign dealings, and no one and nothing will be allowed to enter or exit. yeah autarky!!!

some of the imagined slights against the "noble and valiant cultures of the world" are the existence of mcdonalds and the selling of barbie and coke... goes far beyond the government to the idea of the us.

non-interventionism won't stop the hatred or the terror, but rolling up the murderous dictators that use the us as scape goat will. but arguing politics is difficult with people who view the cold war as illegitimate.

the best laugh is the scottish mp who has said that the end of the ussr was the worst day of his life. these people are just not committed to the same things. you can't debate a marxist-lennist-maoist... they'll only come after you later (it's in all of the strategy and doctrine, from the manifesto forward) .. only moral and appropriate response is churchillian!

9/11 brought the war home again (after WTC 1 and OKC +++ didn't wake us). The only way to slow the onslaught is to take the war to the other side. Conquer and focus the arab world on business and making their lives better in a safe and free environment will greatly reduce the viability of terrorist movements.

The main danger we face is the false god of reconciliation. We are afraid of going after that which will ensure our safety and hobble our enemies. Rather than be like the weak willed british who have released murderers seeking "peace" in ireland, we should follow a roman model. No one who has ever been a member of any terrorist group should be allowed to live. No weak willed german model of only going after the top brass.. take the groups out root and branch, perhaps including all family members as well... then let the rest of society loose economically, outside of the corrupt influence of the elite that sucked ioil revenues and shouldered everyone else out of the economy...

Did I say the Democratic Party? No. Although -- "It didn't work before but maybe it'll work this time" isn't, IMHO, much of an answer.

GT, you might want to bear in mind that Sullivan is gay and I live on the Upper West Side. We socialize left. So while you may think it's irrelevant, it isn't to us.

LUA, you're a parody.

Whoa Michael! You just changed the point we were discussing.

Nice try, GT. You brought the point up yourself - twice - and I shrugged my shoulders and responded. Nice try.

For example you consider inaction to not be an alternative. For many Dems the alternative to war with Iraq is continuing to apply pressure, bombing where necessary, but not actually invading. That is a real alternative. You may dislike, find it foolish, or whatever. But it is an alternative.

Simply brainstorming isn't enough, GT, nor is your "for each his own" defense for appeasement/inaction/waiting. In fact, it's weak - and part of the basis for the conservative criticism of the left in this time of war. The WTC attacks destroyed the Western world's concepts of proximity to the effects of dictatorship and resultant ideological extremism - in short, we realized that no body of water, no continent, no cultural, economic, technological or educational gap can separate civilization from cultures or nations consumed and surrounded by evil.

Another realization is this: that the absence of freedom is a foothold for evil - particularly acute to us now that we cannot insulate ourselves from contact with it. Autocratic regimes threaten the civilized world in one or more of three ways: traditionally, though rare in these days of American superiority, by brute military force or biochematomic racketeering; by inadvertantly (or purposely) fomenting and redirecting cultural anger that manifests itself in murderous extremism; by additionally manipulating extremism through arming and finance, utilizing the perfect cut-out patsy for whatever hideous designs one crooked regime might have.

I hope you don't seriously believe that any alternative is acceptable. As for appeasement, it is with these concepts that appeasement falls flat, especially when one challenges it with "...And then what?" So, appeasement: continue sanctions and sporadic bombings in the North and South No-Fly Zones.

And then what?

First and foremost, the United Nations and its pedantic "international law" is rendered immediately and indefinitely irrelevant, as Saddam will have been successfully in nullifying the substance of honorable conduct and the tactility of consequence. That alone blows appeasement out of the water, but I'll illustrate further how it would hurt the war on terror and leave the Middle East's population yet hostage to the horror of Islamo-fascism. Saddam is left to surge towards a nuclear bomb and attain the deterrence so painfully apparent in Kim Jong-Il's latest wrigglings; renewing his options for conventional military action. Saddam is left to financially support terrorism to the tune of $25,000 for each murder-bomber in the West Bank. The politics and culture of the Middle East remain the same - and, as a perk, its people are kept under the fear of violence and torture from their own governments. And terrorists are left to roam and choose their sponsorship freely.

Appeasement - especially the unexamined, one-dimensional lot offered primarily by Democrats and the left - is not a serious option. Simply suggesting that any option, unquestioned, qualifies for an authoritative presence in war policy is even less serious.

Finally, Sullivan's comment on Didion is just icing on the cake, Sullivan has been pounding his point home for so long. You're appreciating his point too superficially, apparently unaware of his months of leftist-logging, and mistaking one line in an addendum for an original source.

>>I hope you don't seriously believe that any alternative is acceptable.

Michael, it looks perilously here as if your main criticism of the left is that it isn't the right.

How do you come to that conclusion, d2, from my disagreement with the idea that every possible alternative - whether it's realistic or not - is necessarily acceptable? Any suggestion can be called an alternative; my point of contention is whether or not it can withstand scrutiny. If it doesn't, one should declare it to not a reasonable alternative, yes?

Oh - my syntax didn't help what you saw, d2. When I said "any alternative" I meant "just any old alternative."

Michael,

Once again you are mixing two different arguments.

Let’s make sure we agree on what we are debating.

Sullivan and Jane’s argument is that The Left bitches but proposes no alternatives.

Do we agree on that?

If so, my two counter arguments are:

1) Who is The Left? Are we talking about anyone politically relevant?

2) If The Left is meant to include the Democratic Party then the accusation is false.

Jane just made clear that she is not talking about the Democratic Party. She is talking, at least in part, of some of her acquaintances in NYC who, apparently, have offered no alternatives.

I too live and work in NY and know people in the Upper West Side. Of those that have an opinion about the war (there are always people who don’t care much, one way or the other) everyone I know, whether they support the war on Iraq or not, all of them have alternatives. You may disagree with some, hate them, but they have alternatives.

You say that I hope you don't seriously believe that any alternative is acceptable.

And here’s where you mix the two arguments.

I am not debating the relative merits of different alternatives. I have made no comment whatsoever on that. That is not what I’m discussing. If you think that there are alternatives that are useless, even dangerous, I may even agree with you depending on which specifically we are talking about. But, once again, I have made no comment on that.

The ONLY thing I have commented on is what Sullivan says (and Jane echoes), that The Left (which they never define) bitches about the war but has not proposed any alternative. He says, for example that The Left has no alternative proposed for countering the murderous terrorism that has already killed thousands of Americans.

This may well be true of Didion. It may be true of Jane’s acquaintances in the Upper West Side (I know it’s not been my experience but we all have different situations). I find neither of the two politically relevant.

Because Sullivan doesn’t tell us who he is means by The Left it’s hard to agree or disagree. It’s so vague as to be useless. The example he gives, Didion, is of political nobody. If he (or anybody else) cared to explain exactly who they include in The Left that is politically relevant then it would be easier to agree or disagree.

Anyone who thinks "not intervening" will cause Al Qaeda to give up their push to Islamicize the world hasn't been paying attention. It will only reinforce their conviction - thanks, Carter and Clinton! - that we are weak. The question is only, what sort of intervention is most effective? A government that does not intervene effectively to protect its citizens is not doing its only legitimate job. And citizens who don't support a government that is intervening appropriately to protect them are suicidal traitors.

Installing the shah - foreign intervention. America gained short term by getting those oil fields for our companies. But the locals resented his evil rule and blamed us. They overthrew him in time and terrorized us.

How could we have prevented that one? By not intervening.

Well, no, it's not that simple, First of all, Reza
Pahlevi, was more in line with the political realities than Mossadeq,in fact, it was the actual revolt in part by the mullah's that
sent Mossadeq back to the bleachers. secondly, Mossadeq was supportedly most strongly by the Tudeh (Communist) faction,which was possibly
the weakest section in Iranian society, according to Amir Taheri, in Nest of Vipers,there
was a potential for a Soviet style a coup down the road. Then we would have faced a scenario, much like the war, which prefaced Seven Days in May; a Caspian Korea. Many complaints about Savak,
ignore the contemporary experience with Syria's
and Egypt's Moukbarat, of which it could truly be
said were trained by Nazi's. In fact, it was the
Kennedy administration's pressure on the Shah, having accumulated the Wisdom which had already
betrayed peoples on three continents, which led
to the White Reform, which helped undermine Iranian society, which led to the Mullah's. and
what a smashing success that was. So the answer
is more complex, than you make it out to be

GT, you're avoiding much of what I'm saying and I don't know how many times to tell you that the Didion commentary is one of about one hundred snapshots of liberal writers that Sullivan has written before it; written at a point where Sullivan needs not explain the premise again. He's been compiling a very descriptive "intellectual left." It's all over his website. And if you didn't connect points with David Brooks article, then we're at an impasse, because in that piece "the left" and who represents them is as plain as day.

Democratic Party not primarily liberal, eh?

Who is The Left? Are we talking about anyone politically relevant?

Hoo ees thees...lee-bu-rahl? Every mainstream network newscast, every major metropolitan newspaper, subsidy broadcasts on television and radio; Slate, The Nation, The New Republic, The American Prospect, et al. Is there a political relevance of the left? To answer your question, yes for the sake of their considerable presence and, as conservatives would like to persuade the American people...no. :-)

Michael,

I am avoiding (as you say) your opinions on what we should do. Not because I don’t have opinions about that (and I agree with some, if not all of what you say) but because that is not the point I have been making.

Sullivan claims The Left has not proposed alternatives but never defines what The Left is.

The Democrats have supported the war in Afghanistan. Some, but not all, support the possible war on Iraq. Those that oppose it have been very vocal and very clear about their alternatives.

You disagree with those alternatives. Fine. But that’s not the same as saying they don’t exist.

As for left or center-left columnists all that I have read have proposed alternatives. Again, you may agree or disagree. But they have made proposals.

Sullivan says that the Left is all critique, no alternative. I suggest that the problem with the Right is that it is all action, no brains. What I mean is that no one doubts that Clinton's foreign policy would act differently than Bush's. Although the Right fervently believes that Bush's foreign policy is superior to Clinton's, I have not once been persuaded by a critique of Clinton's foreign policy that does not apply similarly to any President's foreign policy. The Right characterizes Clintoninan multilateralism as appeasement. Of whom? Of Iraq? Did Clinton suggest we stop at Iraq's borders in Gulf War I? Of the Taliban? And Bush reacted differently prior to 9/11? When did multilateralism fail where unilateralism would have succeeded? Afghanistan--oops, the world supported us there. Gulf War I? Oops, the world supported us there. Korea? Okay, 1950. Somalia? I don't know about you, but I don't think the UN forced us to pull out. When has unilateralism failed where multilateralism would have succeded? I would suggest we are about to see in Iraq. I would suggest that our War on Terror's hunt for Al Qaeda is an example of unilateralism (since only we call the shots, even though our friends help us occasionally). I would suggest Bay of Pigs, Vietnam, installing the shah.

Anyway, to put an end to the retarded argument that the Left has no alternative, I would rephrase what one poster described as "do nothing" to "multilateralism." The two are NOT the same thing. Look at Kosovo. Look at Gulf War I. Look at Afghanistan. All multilateral successes.

And moreover, the charge by Sullivan is pure hypocrisy of which Megan should be ashamed to endorse. Could someone simply and clearly state the Republican "alternative"? Kill Saddam? Is that it? Because we hate him, because he's evil? Fight all evil or just Saddam? Because Kim Jong Il is pretty damn evil, lots of people think Pinochet was a mass murdering tyrant, lots of people hate Castro.

Or are we after Iraq because of the "imminent threat" it poses to the United States through its weapons of mass destruction program (and its alleged links to terrorist organiziations)? I would think that Iran is clearly more linked to terrorist organizations and more likely to disseminate WMDs than Iraq (see the Hezbollah). Iran hates us, we hate them. Iran is working on missile programs and developing suspicious nuclear power plants with the assistance of the Russians. Iran hates us. Iran even sits on a lot of oil. Where oh where is the principled foreign policy alternative of the Great White Right? Call them bad names and put their picture on the Axis of Evil tree?

No. Admit it. Iraq is an easy win. That is the only reason we're doing it: to be a bully. Someone hit us, and we're going to hit someone weaker and less popular. We can't do that to Iran or North Korea because we'd lose. The Axis of Evil policy is a failure because it is no policy at all if the world doesn't support us.

Every time we've acted like a bully, the world resents us. That is the point of Didion's piece. The alternative of the "Left" is this: stop acting like a bully. Support our friends, work multilaterally, proceed with caution and determination when our case is shown, do not overreach. Refocus on the war on terror, on principled non-proliferation and collective security regimes, rebuilding war-torn Afghanistan, resuming progress on multilateral initiatives like the Kyoto Protocol, expanding free trade and democracy. That is that path to global stability and prosperity that President Clinton preached and constructed despite baseless lies that his administration lacked a coherent foreign policy vision.

The Right is All Action, no Brains.

Sullivan claims The Left has not proposed alternatives but never defines what The Left is.

GT, how many well-known, inhouse respected intellectuals and journalists must Sullivan name before you are willing to draw a summary?

But that’s not the same as saying they don’t exist.

If the alternative can't stand up for itself in respectable debate or has a history of failure (for appeasement, read: Munich Agreement), it sure as hell isn't serious or worth considering as a choice.

Try some hyperbole. Picture if you will: the Congressman from Hometown, Southstate recommends that as an alternative to military removal of Saddam Hussein followed by occupation and governmental transformation of Iraq from dictatorship to republic, the United States should:

1. Implement a mandatory "dress down day" for public and private institutions on Fridays and Fifth Tuesdays.

2. Assign National Favorite status to Neil Diamond's 1966 smash hit "Cherry, Cherry."

3. Organize sand castle building competitions along all American coastal beaches with the objective of best representing the walls of 12th-century Antioch.

Now, these suggestions are utter gibberish and not at all conducive to a solution of either Iraq or the Middle East's political turmoil. So are they worth to even be referenced as "alternatives"?

The only idea the Democrats have bothered to scrape together - appeasement - is demonstrably full of holes. So what real value is their entry to the debate?

Perhaps the debate should only be calling for "serious alternatives."

Ah yes. Serious alternatives.

As defined by you, I guess?

As d^2 said it looks perilously here as if your main criticism of the left is that it isn't the right.

What exactly was the "failure" of 8 years of peace and prosperity under the Clinton Administration? Name one example of "appeasement". What, North Korea? Oh yeah, and I really hear G.W. beating the war drum with them. Nope, all I hear now is "constructive dialogue" from Powell. Guess what retard that constructive dialogue was CLINTON's policy--form the KEDO, give them oil and light-water reactors, put in UN inspectors, prevent them from reprocessing nuclear fuel and developing a capacity to proliferate nuclear weapons--presto. That is what the Right calls Appeasement. Do you know why North Korea is going crazy right now? It's because WE NEVER DELIVERED THE OIL OR REACTORS. We never fulfilled our promises. As a result, they are breaking theirs.

Blackmail? Perhaps. But we never gave the KEDO a shot (we being the sex-obsessed GOP Congress).

Serious alternatives abound, my friend. You just have to open your eyes (and mind).

Yeah, that Jimmy Carter sure was a master of geo-politics. Really had the Mullahs out-foxed.....

I'm not making that up. Carter & Brzezinski intentionally suckered the USSR into invading Afghanistan; search google if you don't believe me.

We socialize left. So while you may think it's irrelevant, it isn't to us.

Ah-HA! *Now* the "urban Republican" obsession with nutjob types like Chomsky/Didion/et al. makes sense!

You see, us people who actually are on "the left" pretty much consider them irrelevant; they don't have shit for influence on policy, that's for sure. I mean, if you want to call the people you're refrencing idiots, go right ahead; it's the silly "the entire left is like these media idiots" slapdash characterization we object to.

The relevant example for the GOP would be if we referred to "the right" as defined by Alan Keyes.

Look, as someone who thinks historical context must be used to evaluate Presidents, I've never thought of Carter in quite as negative manner as others; January 1977 was a pretty crappy time to become President. That this nation survived LBJ and Nixon in succession speaks to it's resiliance, but to be fair to even Nixon, January 1969 was probably the worst time to become President since WWII. Zbiggy doesn't claim to have suckered the Soviets into Afghanistan, he says the covert aid increased the probability. Good forthe Carter team; I wish they had done as well with hostage crisis in Iran.

thumper: Another example of Clintonian appeasement is the technology exports of missile guidance technology to the PRC. First they come up with the idea that the PRC can launch commercial satellites cheaply, and they they find out that the Long March multistage system can't be insured for commercial launches. So they dispatch Loral, Boeing, and Hughes Electronics over to make sure the new launches go smoothly. Unfortunately, the same technology that is used to put up satellites also makes sure that ICBMs and MRBMs work reliably as well, which was certainly not the case in 1992. Similarly, the security mess that started in the 1980's at Los Alamos National Labs was perceptibly worsened during the secretariats of O'Leary and Richardson. This ended up in the WH Lee case and the probable exporting of MIRV and sub launch capable miniaturized nuclear warhead technology.

But your comment that we nevered delivered the oil to NK is palpably false, until the last shipment.

here.

Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?

B: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?

B: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter: We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

>> I'm not making that up. Carter & Brzezinski intentionally suckered the USSR into invading Afghanistan...;

>> B: "It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would."

Geeze, you might point out that the Soviets had previously "intervened" in Afghanistan by orgnaizing a coup that overthrew the Afghan government, imposing a new communist government run direct from Moscow, imposing forced collectivization at the point of Soviet-supplied-and-directed guns to turn the country into a socialist state, etc. and so on, all of which incited much popular resentment among the people and the rise of the Mujahedin resistance.

*After* that, yes, the US "intervened" by giving secret-operation support to the Mujahedin, which increased the chance of overt Soviet military invasion, and we thereby "suckered" them in even further, if you wish.

But, of course, at that point the Soviets were already voluntarily well in with both feet. And if we don't keep the chronology clear, a reader might accidently get the wrong impression from this little snippet of conversation and the use of "intervened" (as I have seen happen) that the US somehow "intervened" first in Afghanistan *before* the Soviets did and causing them to do so, which would be silly.

Google can be unreliable that way.

Thumper: less plastic rhetoric, more substance.

North Korea had been busy punching holes in its 1994 agreement with the West before the conference room emptied. For starters, a nuclear program does not arrive at epiphany in 2001 without several years of uninterrupted work. One needn't speculate: search for documentation by our intelligence services and he'll find it. Add that inconvenient fact to the North's recent exploits like firing test missiles near Japan, selling arms to the highest bidder and sending u-boat saboteurs to the South and we've got not a double-crossed, desperate cry for help from Kim Jong-Il. No, we have a sly Stalinist regime that bought half a decade of time from a naive Clinton and Carter - it's a Godsend that the light-water reactors stayed unfinished.

To Tom Roberts and Michael U.:

You have fallen into the Sullivan trap once again of critiquing without suggesting alternatives. What other alternative did we have in 1994 short of "appeasement" as you so derisively term it (talk about plastic rhetoric!). What alternative do we have now to engagement?

Serious alternatives only, please.

And here's a summary of the 1998 Perry Report on the so-called "failure" of "appeasement" through KEDO:

http://www.isis-online.org/publications/dprk/book/perryrpt.html

The Agreed Framework of 1994 succeeded in verifiably freezing North Korean plutonium production at Yongbyon -- it stopped plutonium production at that facility so that North Korea currently has at most a small amount of fissile material it may have secreted away from operations prior to 1994; without the Agreed Framework, North Korea could have produced enough additional plutonium by now for a significant number of nuclear weapons.

And since Tom Roberts brought up the tragic Wen Ho Lee witch hunt, let me reprint the apologies of Federal Judge Parker in dismissing all but one count against Dr. Lee:

"I am truly sorry that I was led by our Executive Branch of government to order your detention last December. Dr. Lee, I tell you with great sadness that I feel I was led astray last December by the Executive Branch of our government through its Department of Justice, by its Federal Bureau of Investigation and by its United States Attorney for the District of New Mexico, who held the office at that time.

I am sad for you and your family because of the way in which you were kept in custody while you were presumed under the law to be innocent of the charges the Executive Branch brought against you.

I am sad that I was induced in December to order your detention, since by the terms of the plea agreement that frees you today without conditions, it becomes clear that the Executive Branch now concedes, or should concede, that it was not necessary to confine you last December or at any time before your trial."

Okay, unless someone provides credible evidence that the North Koreans had access to the Psychic Friends network, I'm declaring a moratorium on arguments that the North Koreans started developing nuclear weapons in response to something that happened years after they developed said weapons, such as George W.'s entry into office.

Your assumption is that they have many nuclear weapons now and have been developing them the whole time behind our backs--ergo Psychic Friends. Perhaps true--but overstated by several orders of magnitude. We all know they have always had enough fissile material to make one or two bombs. We knew that. One or two bombs is bad--see Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But if that's all they have, then it's not enough to overcome the deterrence in the DMZ. KEDO was put in place to specifically neutralize the remaining fissile material and reprocessing capabilities at Yongbyan--which would result in dozens of bombs a year. You're right--it's a second best solution. But my point is that there was no first best solution.

Also, your assumption presumes that Kim Jong Il is speaking the truth about "having" bombs in the present tense. Did you not see the articles that came out afterwards indicating that the translation was bad, and his statement really was that he was actually speaking in the future tense about planning to develop nuclear weapons? The behavior of NK is consistent more with the latter, not the former (I mean if they were so cunning that they developed this entire arsenal while all their fissile material was vitrified and UN inspectors were crawling about, why bother pulling out of the KEDO and NPT and subjecting themselves to international scorn? Why, because Kim Jong Il is clinically insane? That's a thin reed my friend, a thin reed. From the perspective of logic, you have to admit that it doens't add up unless NK misspoke--and that they are GOING TO develop nuclear weapons IN RESPONSE to Bush's premature hardline stance and ideological opposition to sensible foreign policies put in place by the Clinton Administration.)

thumper: What Judge Parker wrote concerning the judicial case has little to do with Clinton's foreign policy. The Lee case has relevance to foreign policy only so much as it shows how Chinese nationals were insinuated into the national weapons labs operations and their research results. Whether Lee himself dumped the data or whether DoE's incompetence in dealing with his actual security violations was merely symptomatic of wider laxness growing out of Clinton administration policies is not possible to answer at this late date. From the recent headlines, I'm not even sure if the current administration has gotten Los Alamos straightened out yet.

But Jane's brief point is very valid. You don't just have a nuclear weapons system when you have a critical mass of fissile material. You need extensive work into delivery, fuzing, and reliability subsystems and this effort takes years. If you think that a nuclear weapon emerges out of technology's cauldron after a short stir of some months, you are being fantastically speculative. Both the historical fact pattern across three presidential terms, the poverty of the NK economy, and the basic technical challenges indicate that the NK government had and now has a substantial nuclear weapons development program which is operating hand and glove with its ballistic missile research and development effort. Moreover, this program is a critical national priority, distracting national investment into both the conventional military and the civilian economy.

thumper: To answer your second question about what to do in 1994. Don't lie about what is going on to yourselves (and Albright is still doing that today) and to the US Congress and people. Don't pay off thugs for not mugging you today which merely postpones them mugging you until tomorrow. If SK wants to deal with NK in a manner contrary to US interests regionally, say so and if necessary withdraw US troops and from that country. But above all, be honest and don't try to wish a problem away.

The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter: We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war.

From that article, Jim.

*After* that, yes, the US "intervened" by giving secret-operation support to the Mujahedin, which increased the chance of overt Soviet military invasion, and we thereby "suckered" them in even further, if you wish.

Well, yeah, that was my point: we intentionally tried to get them involved there.

No, we have a sly Stalinist regime that bought half a decade of time from a naive Clinton and Carter - it's a Godsend that the light-water reactors stayed unfinished.

Yeah, if they'd been finished then NK would have been able to....well, produce electrictiy. Light-water reactors can't produce nuclear material.

Don't pay off thugs for not mugging you today which merely postpones them mugging you until tomorrow.

So I assume you're advocating invasion as an alternative? Do tell.

Jason: Read my post. It doesn't answer your question because you are inferring something that I didn't say. Just because we don't pay off the North doesn't not mean that we have to invade them.

Then what's the alternative, Tom?

The alternative was to let them stew in their own juices and starve their entire civilian population. Even the smallest Skid Row soup kitchen knows not to let unstable and belligerent types inside. If they can't be nice they can go practice counting their ribs until they lose consciousness for the last time.

We're in this situation because we got teary eyed over people being murdered by their own government but did nothing to get rid of that government. We only prolonged the suffering which to me seems much crueler.

If we can be manipulated into giving aid by a foreign power's threat to continue being awful to its own people we give up the moral high ground and any basis for nogotiating from a position of strength. THere has never the slightest vestige of hope the NK's rulers would change any of their behavior without a gun pressed directly to their heads. We went the appeasement route anyway, allowing vast suffering to continue and making the final resolution all the more difficult.

Agree with Eric; if the South wants to give them food, its cheap to buy out of US surplus. BTW, it is GM grain, but for hungry people that is better than eating grass.

One of the major issues behind US foreign policy over the past decades in Korea is that the US presumed to know what was good for the Koreans, rather than letting them solve their problems themselves. By 1994 it was manifestly obvious that the South could deal with the North on their own, and the US presumed that it needed to act like the South's stern and omniscient guide in negotiating the protocol. This was not justified by either the events which ensued nor by a simple calculation that the South would not support then or now any reaction against the North if they broke the protocol. What was lacking, at the bottom of the US position, was the recognition that the interests of the US, South Korea, and North Korea might just be divergent, rather than convergent. Toss in Japan and the PRC to the stew and you would be guaranteed to have an inedible set of ingredients for a negotiated, long term agreement which would yield practical results.

The alternative was to let them stew in their own juices and starve their entire civilian population. Even the smallest Skid Row soup kitchen knows not to let unstable and belligerent types inside. If they can't be nice they can go practice counting their ribs until they lose consciousness for the last time.

You do realize you're trying to call NK's bluff and hope they don't invade, right? Also known as the "we've already horribly failed" option?

"Cut NK off and hope they don't invade in response" isn't much better than just invading them in the first place.

Well, no it isn't, because mounting an invasion is a far different proposition than mounting a defense. When more is eventually disclosed about North Korea, it is quite likely to become apparent that North Korea's ability to conduct an invasion against a far better trained and equipped opponent is negligible, if not non-existent. Invading an enemy who has the money to train with far better equipment, if the invader's training, with markedly inferior equipment, is limited by the invader's utter poverty, is a prescription for catastrophic defeat, and the North Koreans know it. The only card the North Koreans have to play is through bluffing their way to treasure by appearing to be irrational (which no doubt is the case to some degree). The question then is, would one rather have them bluffing with the threat of a conventional invasion, which would be nasty, but manageable, if they actually carried through on their threat, or does one prefer to have them bluffing with the threat of the incineration of Tokyo, which would be far more catastrophic if carried out, or even the incineration of Honululu, if their ballistic missile capability proceeds at it's current pace?

While reading all of your discussions I was surprised to see how little I seem to know.
But I do believe I know this...that the success of this county will not be a Democratic victory or a Republican victory...It will be an American victory.
So the real question is why can't was stop blaming our downfalls on the left and right and take them as American downfalls?
Why can't we unite and fight this war together?

Want to make things better? Support the International Criminal Court, allow those that have done wrong in your name to be dealt with in a just and fair manner, it's not physically difficult, but it requires that the American people seperate themselves from some very bad leaders, psychologically, which is doubtful in the extreme.

Comments are Closed.