Who Is Running This Choo-Choo Train?

I call this the "radicalization" of politics. What passes for information is sound bites, shouting matches, name-calling, etc.

What's sad is that many seem unable to muster an attention span long enough to delve deeper into an issue. Not many in this forum, of course. In general, I don't think anyone here is spouting outright BS, but what many fail to recognize or admit is that rarely are "absolutes" absolute; i.e. life is messy, and one size does not fit all.

In some ways, the argument of whether we did the right thing is moot, except for future reference. We're there...
 
JB: Thanks for the book title, but . . . . I keep it pretty simple, I think this country is falling apart thru self abuse and stupidity, which includes all the ideas you mentioned ;).

I'm a Platonist, an Idealist. I always look for the following elements in everything and everyone: Wisdom (correct knowledge or truth), Courage (correct action), Moderation (correct achievement), and Justice (correct fulfillment). They're also connected laterally: If your 'smart,' you'll probably do the correct action. If you do the correct action, it will lead to moderate results. Moderation, nothing in excess, delivers justice to the individual and society. These four components make up The Good.

As you probably know, Plato was not particularly impressed with democracy, especially when it devolves into mob rule. When this happens, intelligence has been squeezed out of the system, up becomes down, evil becomes good, the procuring of inanimate objects (acquisitive war) becomes more important than human life.

Well, that's my world anyway. It's all mental ::). Joking around is primarily an escape valve. Best if I stay away from talking too much about serious stuff.

Take Care
 
BigMoneyJim,
My posts states:
"It is not the American military that gets defeated. It is the American people. They (we) lose the will to fight (this is not intended to be a coment of the value to start the war or continue being there)."

You misinterpertated what I wrote. Focus on the above. The key point is "(we) lose the will ot fight."

In WWII the use had about 405K US solders killed with a population of apx 129M
http://au.geocities.com/thefortysecondinww2/level2/asstd/stats-wwii.htm

With today's population that would equal about 1 million. Would the USA be willing to do that today?

Re: china - China does not have to attack the USA - it could attack Taiwan (we have a treaty to defend Taiwan) or it could attack Vietnam (again) over oil. But China could do what we did to Britain when it wanted to attack Egypt in 1955 over the Suez Canel. The USA threathened to dump UK sterling on the world market thereby devaluing the curreny and causing all types of economic problems for the UK. China has large reserves of US currency.

Again focus on the part of my original post to understand the remainder of the post. The key point is that the USA is preceived by our enimees as weak and will not fight over long periods of time with casualities. This is the main point you would need to address. I'm not sure if you agree with it or not from what you wrote.
 
TK said:
Some would say objecting to the death of our soldiers fighting in a country that didn't attack us, wasting billions, and all the while eroding the rights given us in our constitution rather than sitting by and doing nothing IS doing something. Saddam had an election where 100% of the population voted for him.

Laurence - difference between me and you - I run the train...
not stand in front of it. Comparisons are comparisons - you don't like the Russia comparison yet use North Koreans going into China as an argument point? ROTFLMAO

I always admire the Liberal bent - Know nothing - and have nothing at risk... Thank God there are people willing to take a stand to defend your right to pontificate.

Maybe as I get older I will know As much as you do.

You run the train, nice. Why don't you go tell some amputees from the war that. And the line about thanking God people are willing to defend your right blah blah blah is so tired it's dead. As far as knowing nothing, you know nothing about me, assume because I don't tow the party line and drink my kool aid that I'm a lib and miss my point on Russia. My point is if you have to compare the U.S. to Russia to look good, that's pretty sad!!!

No weapons of mass destruction, no ties to Al Qaeda, bombs instead of flowers in the street. Just keep beating that drum, TK, whatever. Which war did you serve in again? It seems to me the only one who didn't dodge the draft in the last election WAS THE LIBERAL!! Does the term chicken-hawk mean anything to you? But nevermind, you and reality don't seem to be on a first name basis.

Dex, you are so on the money about China, I am very concerned with the amount of debt held by China, and that's the very scenario I imagined playing out.
 
Hey you know, I signed up earlier this year, and I've managed to get the lefties and the righties mad at me. Must be doing something right! CHP.....
HAPPY FATHER'S DAY TO ALL.....
Tk and Dex,
Appreciate your concern for the U.S. Empire. Question: Would you please identify the relative (child, grandchild, mother, father, nephew, niece, cousin, sibling, etc). that you would like to donate to the cause? One point of Fred's article was that people were dying and getting maimed. After you identify this relative, be sure and let him/her know that you don't mind them dying for the empire. Because somebody has to do it, don't ya know? If you say none of the above, then how about you guys? You ever been in a war zone? Mebbe you have, I don't know, just checking. If you're not willing to identify a relative or yourself to die for this noble cause, then you are a HYPOCRITE. Or a politician. You are just mouthing platitudes. You see, actions have consequences.

DW and I voted for Reagan twice, Bush the Elder once, and GWB twice (also voted for him as Texas governor). If I had to label myself, it would be libertarian. I did go (didn't do much) to Vietnam in 1966-1967. Fred, the author of the Choo-Choo Train article is a grizzled curmudgeon, and if I remember correctly, a marine, who got to shoot at and be shot at in 'Nam. So, let's not begrudge Fred his opinion. Did you, by any chance, read his blog? You'll have a helluva time calling him a liberal. The last time I quoted Fred, the lefties were all over me. :D

My soapbox is green, green with envy of your certitude.

I love America, and argue against her critics a lot. Some of the folks on this forum will attest to that.

Can I fit Fred's entire column? Let's try... just to make sure you read it.
Who Is Running This Choo-Choo Train?

Children At The Helm
June 18, 2005

The crumbling has begun, methinks. Congressmen, a few only now, speak of withdrawal from Iraq. A small thing, but for the White House a worrisome step toward vertebracy in that body of polyps. The numbers of the dissenting will grow as they see that they do not get hurt. Military recruiting is way down, and will stay down: The gullibility of the young cannot forever be relied upon. The House has summoned the courage to vote against parts of the Patriot Act. The president’s polls drop and drop.

The crumbling has begun, methinks.

Is this surprising? If I may risk repeating myself tiresomely, the way to defeat the American military is to avoiding giving it clear targets, keep the body bags flowing into Dover or Travis, and wait. It is that simple. The insurgents know this. They are doing it, and it is working. Five Marines today, three tomorrow, twelve GIs one week, nine another. On and on. So far we have killed 1700 of our soldiers, closing in on 2000. Sooner or later, even Middle America will notice.

Is victory still possible, if it ever war? The military can’t stop the bleeding, or it would have. Short of a miracle, of perhaps a serious attack within the United States, actually or apparently by terrorists, the casualties will continue. The public will weary of the war, and it will all be over. No?

Wars are marketed as involving moral principles or geo-strategic necessity, but they can become grudge matches, contests of vanity grown stubborn. A president who has led his country into a war has his ego on the line. He cannot easily say, “In the light of events, the adventure appears to have failed, and so we will return home.” The world would regard him as a fool and a knave. Further, humble men do not become presidents. Such a man will struggle on desperately, unwisely, with no real purpose any longer than to avoid the personal ignominy of defeat. When his pride has been engaged he can’t stop. For this men die.

One sees a similar approach in the gambler who, having lost his car, bets his house in hopes of redeeming himself.

As the news worsens the lying, begun long ago, increases. Democracies of course have to be lied into aggressive wars, since no one really cares about the form of government in an obscure and remote nation. Thus as losses mount, the enemy’s successes are described as defeats, as the last throes of a failing force. (I would not be surprised to find that Tokyo described the bombing of Hiroshima as a sign of American desperation.) The government forbids reporters to photograph the coffins, punishes soldiers who talk to the press. The horribly wounded are discreetly hidden. Generals who are not upbeat are fired. Dissidents become labeled as traitors. War crimes become isolated incidents: Only those which are discovered have occurred. Etc.

Historians tend to see wars as consequent to abstract currents of history. They speak of the balance of power, the clash of civilizations, of economic rivalry, and it all sounds dispassionate, reasoned, and occasionally majestic. It might be more accurate to say that wars are the hobbies of half-informed children who have somehow come into possession of the levers of power. Can anyone possible believe that Mr. Bush knew anything about the Arab world when he set out to conquer it? That Hitler understood the Russians, or the Japanese Army, America?

Getting into wars is so often easier than getting out. In terms of national and presidential vanity, the prospects of Iraq, short always of a miracle, vary between bad and ghastly. If the United States pulls out, in a sort of exploitus reservatus, the One Remaining Superpower will be seen not to be. No one will be afraid of us any longer. In particular, countries like Iran will not be afraid. One wonders whether this may not be what Mr. bin Laden had in mind.

Of course in material terms the United States will not be weaker. If driven out of Iraq, America will still be superior in remarkable aircraft and fast carriers and extraordinary submarines. But submarines are of use only in certain kinds of wars, which the enemy will avoid. The good ship USS Thundertrinket can destroy Japan, yes. It cannot defeat a few thousand determined men with rifles. Militaries seem never to learn this.

It is curious. The French, having underestimated both the enemy and the potential of guerilla warfare, got thrashed at Dien Bien Phu. The Americans, equally full of themselves, then went into the same country and got similarly thrashed. The French, having learned nothing, tried again in Algeria, with the same result. The Israelis tried to hold down southern Lebanon, encountering the same problems and equally losing. The Russians, having seen all of this, invaded Afghanistan and got thrashed. Now the United States is in Iraq. For militaries, the learning curve seems to be flat.

The problem is not that soldiers are stupid. They are not. Rather it is (I think) that they become excessively taken with the technology and power of their weapons, with the computers and precision and speed, with themselves, and just do not stop to ponder the difficulty of killing hornets with a howitzer.

The future? Having restored the Vietnam complex, presumably the US will be very hesitant for a decade or so to throw its weight around. Then, having forgotten again, it will invade another country defended by only a few contemptible men with rifles who, in any case, will be expected to throw flowers.

If America loses the White House war—what? I suppose that Mr. Bin Laden will come out of his hole a hero in the Moslem world, laughing pointedly at Mr. Bush. I do not know what part he actually had in the events in New York, but he gets credit for them, which is enough. He would be able to say that he had goaded the Great Satan into a losing war in Arabia that left America defanged and no longer able to give orders to Moslem nations. Isn’t that what he set out to do?

What price nothing? A couple of thousand dead kids, countless cripples who will remain crippled when the current administration has been forgotten, a country wrecked, God knows how many dead Iraqis (I know, they don’t count), thousands of sisters and mothers remembering Bobby every Christmas and looking at his last year book from high school, a tremendous diminution in America’s influence and prestige as China rises, unforeseeable consequences in the Middle East. For what, Mr. Bush? For what?
----
Now, I must get another glass of wine and watch San Antonio nuke Detroit. ;)
 
Eagle43 said:
Hey you know, I signed up earlier this year, and I've managed to get the lefties and the righties mad at me.  Must be doing something right! CHP.....
HAPPY FATHER'S DAY TO ALL.....
Tk and Dex,
Appreciate your concern for the U.S. Empire.  Question:  Would you please identify the relative (child, grandchild, mother, father, nephew, niece, cousin, sibling, etc). that you would like to donate to the cause?  One point of Fred's article was that people were dying and getting maimed.  After you identify this relative, be sure and let him/her  know that you don't mind them dying for the empire.  Because somebody has to do it, don't ya know?  If you say none of the above, then how about you guys?  You ever been in a war zone?  Mebbe you have, I don't know, just checking. If you're not willing to identify a relative or yourself to die for this noble cause, then you are a HYPOCRITE.  Or a politician. You are just mouthing platitudes.  You see, actions have consequences. 

DW and I voted for Reagan twice, Bush the Elder once, and GWB twice (also voted for him as Texas governor).  If I had to label myself, it would be libertarian.  I did go (didn't do much) to Vietnam in 1966-1967.  Fred, the author of the Choo-Choo Train article is a grizzled curmudgeon, and if I remember correctly, a marine, who got to shoot at and be shot at in 'Nam.  So, let's not begrudge Fred his opinion.  Did you, by any chance, read his blog?  You'll have a helluva time calling him a liberal.  The last time I quoted Fred, the lefties were all over me.   :D

My soapbox is green, green with envy of your certitude.

I love America, and argue against her critics a lot.  Some of the folks on this forum will attest to that.

Can I fit Fred's entire column?  Let's try... just to make sure you read it.
Who Is Running This Choo-Choo Train?

Children At The Helm
June 18, 2005

The crumbling has begun, methinks. Congressmen, a few only now, speak of withdrawal from Iraq. A small thing, but for the White House a worrisome step toward vertebracy in that body of polyps. The numbers of the dissenting will grow as they see that they do not get hurt. Military recruiting is way down, and will stay down: The gullibility of the young cannot forever be relied upon. The House has summoned the courage to vote against parts of the Patriot Act. The president’s polls drop and drop.

The crumbling has begun, methinks.

Is this surprising? If I may risk repeating myself tiresomely, the way to defeat the American military is to avoiding giving it clear targets, keep the body bags flowing into Dover or Travis, and wait. It is that simple. The insurgents know this. They are doing it, and it is working. Five Marines today, three tomorrow, twelve GIs one week, nine another. On and on. So far we have killed 1700 of our soldiers, closing in on 2000. Sooner or later, even Middle America will notice.

Is victory still possible, if it ever war? The military can’t stop the bleeding, or it would have. Short of a miracle, of perhaps a serious attack within the United States, actually or apparently by terrorists, the casualties will continue. The public will weary of the war, and it will all be over. No?

Wars are marketed as involving moral principles or geo-strategic necessity, but they can become grudge matches, contests of vanity grown stubborn. A president who has led his country into a war has his ego on the line. He cannot easily say, “In the light of events, the adventure appears to have failed, and so we will return home.” The world would regard him as a fool and a knave. Further, humble men do not become presidents. Such a man will struggle on desperately, unwisely, with no real purpose any longer than to avoid the personal ignominy of defeat. When his pride has been engaged he can’t stop. For this men die.

One sees a similar approach in the gambler who, having lost his car, bets his house in hopes of redeeming himself.

As the news worsens the lying, begun long ago, increases. Democracies of course have to be lied into aggressive wars, since no one really cares about the form of government in an obscure and remote nation. Thus as losses mount, the enemy’s successes are described as defeats, as the last throes of a failing force. (I would not be surprised to find that Tokyo described the bombing of Hiroshima as a sign of American desperation.) The government forbids reporters to photograph the coffins, punishes soldiers who talk to the press. The horribly wounded are discreetly hidden. Generals who are not upbeat are fired. Dissidents become labeled as traitors. War crimes become isolated incidents: Only those which are discovered have occurred. Etc.

Historians tend to see wars as consequent to abstract currents of history. They speak of the balance of power, the clash of civilizations, of economic rivalry, and it all sounds dispassionate, reasoned, and occasionally majestic. It might be more accurate to say that wars are the hobbies of half-informed children who have somehow come into possession of the levers of power. Can anyone possible believe that Mr. Bush knew anything about the Arab world when he set out to conquer it? That Hitler understood the Russians, or the Japanese Army, America?

Getting into wars is so often easier than getting out. In terms of national and presidential vanity, the prospects of Iraq, short always of a miracle, vary between bad and ghastly. If the United States pulls out, in a sort of exploitus reservatus, the One Remaining Superpower will be seen not to be. No one will be afraid of us any longer. In particular, countries like Iran will not be afraid. One wonders whether this may not be what Mr. bin Laden had in mind.

Of course in material terms the United States will not be weaker. If driven out of Iraq, America will still be superior in remarkable aircraft and fast carriers and extraordinary submarines. But submarines are of use only in certain kinds of wars, which the enemy will avoid. The good ship USS Thundertrinket can destroy Japan, yes. It cannot defeat a few thousand determined men with rifles. Militaries seem never to learn this.

It is curious. The French, having underestimated both the enemy and the potential of guerilla warfare, got thrashed at Dien Bien Phu. The Americans, equally full of themselves, then went into the same country and got similarly thrashed. The French, having learned nothing, tried again in Algeria, with the same result. The Israelis tried to hold down southern Lebanon, encountering the same problems and equally losing. The Russians, having seen all of this, invaded Afghanistan and got thrashed. Now the United States is in Iraq. For militaries, the learning curve seems to be flat.

The problem is not that soldiers are stupid. They are not. Rather it is (I think) that they become excessively taken with the technology and power of their weapons, with the computers and precision and speed, with themselves, and just do not stop to ponder the difficulty of killing hornets with a howitzer.

The future? Having restored the Vietnam complex, presumably the US will be very hesitant for a decade or so to throw its weight around. Then, having forgotten again, it will invade another country defended by only a few contemptible men with rifles who, in any case, will be expected to throw flowers.

If America loses the White House war—what? I suppose that Mr. Bin Laden will come out of his hole a hero in the Moslem world, laughing pointedly at Mr. Bush. I do not know what part he actually had in the events in New York, but he gets credit for them, which is enough. He would be able to say that he had goaded the Great Satan into a losing war in Arabia that left America defanged and no longer able to give orders to Moslem nations. Isn’t that what he set out to do?

What price nothing? A couple of thousand dead kids, countless cripples who will remain crippled when the current administration has been forgotten, a country wrecked, God knows how many dead Iraqis (I know, they don’t count), thousands of sisters and mothers remembering Bobby every Christmas and looking at his last year book from high school, a tremendous diminution in America’s influence and prestige as China rises, unforeseeable consequences in the Middle East. For what, Mr. Bush? For what?
----
Now, I must get another glass of wine and watch San Antonio nuke Detroit.  ;)

Not bad for a CHP :)

JG
 
What is CHP?
 
Thanks Notth,
I usually state in my posts how many glasses of wine I had. (The spelling errors are unaffected by wine.)
It never ceases to amaze me what people read into what is posted. That is why I try to keep it as simple as possible.

"Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it."
 
Eh, I think a lot of people already have a lot of opinions formed and are simply waiting for someone to utter the right words that let them express that preformed opinion. So dont take it personally ;)
 
dex said:
Re: china - China does not have to attack the USA - it could attack Taiwan (we have a treaty to defend Taiwan)

Actually we don't have a treaty with Taiwan. We tell China that we won't tolerate reunification by force and at the same time tell Taiwan not to expect much help. Any kind of hard commitment from us to defend Taiwan would almost certainly provoke the island to declare "actual" indepenence, which China (as of this year) is now legislatively required to declare war over. It's a very tricky, delicate, and possibly dangerous balance.

Of course theres little doubt we would help out democratic Taiwan in the case of war with China, but how much is the subject of great debate. There's a whole range of scenarios from just selling them weapons to sending a few Navy ships to actual boots on the ground. I think the latter becomes less likely the further Iraq drags on.
 
Absolutely

I vote Democrat - no matter who the bum is - that's because the other guy is usually a Republican.
 
unclemick2 said:
I vote Democrat - no matter who the bum is - that's because the other guy is usually a Republican.

unclemick2, nice to meet a confessed "yellow dog Democrat".

I remember an election in Texas years back when a Demo judge was running for reelection to the Texas Supreme Court (I know, an oxymoron). Just before the election he was convicted of some wrongdoing, which made him ineligibe to run for office due to his felony conviction. But it was too late to remove his name from the ballot.

At my polling place a very elderly and vocal lady asked for assistance in using the voting machine. Said very loudly, "I want to know how to vote the straight Deomocratic ticket". Some other voter replied, "Surely you don't want to vote for Judge X after his conviction?"

Her response: "My daddy voted straight Democrat, his daddy voted straight Democrat, and so did his daddy. I'm voting straight Democrat, too!"

Is this a great country, or what?

REW
 
Yep

If Edwin( four term LA governor) could figure a way to run while serving his ten yrs. in the Federal Pen - I'd vote for him too.

"I may be a crook, but I'm a crook for the State of Louisiana."

I have a ding dong sister who votes Republican and actually thinks the New England Patriots have a good football team.
 
unclemick2 said:
Yep

If Edwin( four term LA governor) could figure a way to run while serving his ten yrs. in the Federal Pen - I'd vote for him too.

"I may be a crook, but I'm a crook for the State of Louisiana."
Edwin Edwards, what a guv ... He'd be talking to you and have his hand on your date. He made no pretense what he wanted... your money and your women. I'd bet he's running a scam in the slammer.
 
REWahoo! said:
unclemick2, nice to meet a confessed "yellow dog Democrat".

I remember an election in Texas years back when a Demo judge was running for reelection to the Texas Supreme Court (I know, an oxymoron). Just before the election he was convicted of some wrongdoing, which made him ineligibe to run for office due to his felony conviction. But it was too late to remove his name from the ballot.

At my polling place a very elderly and vocal lady asked for assistance in using the voting machine. Said very loudly, "I want to know how to vote the straight Deomocratic ticket". Some other voter replied, "Surely you don't want to vote for Judge X after his conviction?"

Her response: "My daddy voted straight Democrat, his daddy voted straight Democrat, and so did his daddy. I'm voting straight Democrat, too!"

Is this a great country, or what?

REW
There was a story about LBJ while he was running in Texas. Seems he came to a small town, where he was met by a kid who was crying. "What's the matter, son?", asks LBJ. Kid replies, "My Daddy's been dead for 10 years; Last Saturday he came to town and voted for you, and he didn't even call me." :D

Now that's real politics....
 
Notth said:
How very fortunate for you...

Yeah......you are making my day man.  You post a lot, so I think maybe I
will confine my posts to responses to your posts.  If I am consistent,
you can never match my post total.  Whoo Hoo!  :)

JG
 
REWahoo! said:
Welcome back, JG.  I see you are refreshed and ready to take on...whatever. ;)

REW

Best fishing trip of my life (I should post details. Cut-Throat would be interested). Yep, I am locked and loaded and ready to rock! :)

JG
 
Eagle43 said:
Fred doesn't think much of Iraq war or of GWB?  His reasoning is, as always, precise and eloquent.

Quote
The crumbling has begun, methinks.
In Fred I see a misfit similar to myself. Only he is probably more a man of action, and also a lot better writer. My Dad had the complete collected writings of H.L Mencken. I spent more than a few hot summer afternoons when I was 12 or 13 going through that collection. I'd be lying on the floor with a fan blowing on me, drinking iced tea and laughing my head off. I think it may have ruined me for productive work as its defined lately.

Fred reminds me of Mencken- wide ranging, always on the mark, funny as hell, and completely irreverant.

Fred, may your tribe increase!

Mikey
 
MRGALT2U said:
Yeah......you are making my day man. You post a lot, so I think maybe I
will confine my posts to responses to your posts. If I am consistent,
you can never match my post total. Whoo Hoo! :)

JG

Its good to see you have a worthwhile goal in life John.

As far as the rest, I eagerly await your next syllable. I figure its all uphill after "shut the **** up".

I'm sure you'd stretch that syllable out over four posts if that were possible.

However, I'm sorry to say that even at your new accellerated 'reply to myself 5 times' rate that you've achieved since your post consolidation, you will lose this oh-so-critical lead in one, maybe two weeks.
 
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/06/21/iraq.conference.ap/index.html

BRUSSELS, Belgium (AP) -- Experts met Tuesday to discuss technical aid for Iraq on the eve of high-level talks among senior European Union, U.S., U.N. and Mideast officials at a conference on Iraq.

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan and other top officials were to hold a working dinner later Tuesday with EU and Iraqi officials on coordinating how best the international community can help Iraq's new government boost security, rule of law and reconstruction.
 
Back
Top Bottom