I don't subscribe to the NY Times, so I can't post the article here. However, I recently read an intriguing article by Thomas Friedman. It's about Iraq and entitled "Yes, We Can Find the Exit" in their February 7, 2007 edition.

Here's the opening line:

"Once we’ve set a date to leave by and a gas price to live by, we, for the first time, will have choices in Iraq."

If anyone has a chance to read it, it is a real eye-opener. There is only one problem...it suggests that if we leave Iraq, we should considering allowing Iran to take over Iraq. That is a problem. It's a very interesting article, however.

Herb

Kind of looks like a Ham-Fisted approach to the problem if you ask me!

Yeah, you might be right.

He might even be lily-livered. Or a hand-wringer. It is, after all, in the NY Times, a newspaper with a solid history of left-leaning bias and scandal.

But it was an interesting read.

Herbert M.

Herb, I gotta tell ya that I have thought about citing Thomas Friedman before. I can be VERY guilty of responding to style over content sometimes. I like to think I can still not be swayed just because someone is articulate or charismatic or whatever - and frankly I get peeved at someone's style of presentation of facts or opinions that I happen to agree with - but their style can be so off-putting...so strangled sytax and run-on sentences aside...ahem...I like what Tomas Friedman has to say and his syle. My biggest critique is that he is just soft-spoken enough to make it hard to hear him sometimes. ( I mean, his heart and mind seem to be pretty darned solid. But in a culture that responds so well to " Loud ", he get's missed by many ).

But if you quiet yourself ( not you Herb, just people in general ) he has some really good ideas. And they come from being an expert in his various fields. His Middle East expertise alone is worthy of attention. He really sees the big picture and sees many solutions within that puzzle. He's crafty and resourceful and knows his strengths and weaknesses. He sees how one policy has a direct effect on another seemingly unrelated policy and not only does he find middle ground, he finds the win-win in just about everything he talks about. I am most impressed on his theories and real life applications of going " green " as a planet. ( Global survival, business and wars ALL come into play at the level he wants to take things ) The man is smart and wants to help. I really do believe he has many solutions that are really worth a try.

So my point is that you, of all people, giving him your ear for even a moment, is encouraging. Even if at the end of the day you disagree, the fact that you would consider what he has to say counts for a lot to me. ( That sounded much more pious than I had intended - I just mean that there are many that dismiss him out of hand and I thought you might too. And for that I was wrong. And being wrong is good enough today...for me ).

Here's the column in question, republished in the Pasadena Star-News:

http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/opinions/ci_5187298

You know, the more I've thought about this, the more I am actually starting to think Bush is right...half right. It would be a catastrophe for America if we just up and left Iraq to fall into chaos and become a failed state haven for terrorists like Afghanistan was before 9/11.

Unfortunately, Bush's approach to a solution for Iraq has been wrong, wrong, wrong. His attitude is "Go it alone, screw everyone else, we'll do it our way, ourselves, don't need anyone else's help." Sending 21,500 more troops isn't going to change that - it's just more of the same, too little too late.

He should listen to the Iraq study group. Start engaging with Iran and Syria instead of threatening them. Get other countries involved from around the world - MUSLIM countries. Figure out what it would take to quell Iraq, maybe make into partitioned states. Maybe it takes 500,000 more peacekeepers. What does it cost to do that? How many other countries do we need? What do they get out of it for helping us?

The way we've been going - even just adding 20,000-some troops - has been a failure and isn't going to work. We either need to do what it takes to make Iraq a successful state, without a terrorist base, or we need to get out, because American troops mostly alone are just targets for the insurgents. On the other hand, if there were Turkish troops, Iranian troops, etc. patroling Baghdad, it might be a different story. Unfortunately, Bush is too stubborn to consider anything but, "My way or the Highway."

Andrew

Some internet pundits have grown tired of Friedman's unwavering patience with the (lack of) progress in Iraq, and have coined the term "Friedman Unit" described here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedman_Unit

Finally! A good use for Wikipedia.

That was absolutely hilarious. It reads like something from " The Onion."

I have two questions about Andrew's following words:

1. "Unfortunately, Bush's approach to a solution for Iraq has been wrong, wrong, wrong. His attitude is "Go it alone, screw everyone else, we'll do it our way, ourselves, don't need anyone else's help.

What do you do when you can't trust those who we have been told to work together with, like the French and Russia? For that reason alone, I can understand a 'go it alone' strategy. At least our own intel won't be given to our enemies, like the French did against us with Saddam.


2. "He should listen to the Iraq study group. Start engaging with Iran and Syria instead of threatening them. Get other countries involved from around the world - MUSLIM countries."

This is the most disturbing thought of all. Seriously, if I didn't look at my calendar, I would swear it's 1939. This is precisely what Britain tried to do with Nazi Germany...and Iran is saying precisely what the Nazis said: 'We will destroy the US and the Jews.'

I cannot fathom ANY kind of discussions with Iran until a regime change there. I wanna play nice, but Iran is supplying arms against our troops right now, and a sworn enemy. You gotta take out a lethal snake, not cuddle up to him. He's a snake. Killing is what they do.

Herb

Our goal is to someday, eventually be at peace with the nations of the Middle East.

Is the only path to that goal a bloody, violent, confrontational one? Are there any other possible options that preserve to the greatest extent the cultures, honor and lives of all parties involved? Isn't Mr. Bush fond of saying, "we need to keep all options on the table?"

That's the biggie for me.

For every dead middle easterner we create, we've got four or five that hate us for having done it.

...and if that was the plan, how come we did it half assed? If we planned to level the place, then we should have just leveled it.

This passive-aggressive policy we have going right now really sucks. It's like we want to just take over there with force, but we don't want the people here to feel badly about it or have to really sacrifice for it (war taxes, draft, etc...)

The pitch was quick and easy, no problem. Also, we never did fully comply with the letter of the autorization for force either. It's almost like a skunkworks kind of thing that's gotten way outta hand.

If we really were to have engaged Iraq, these costs we are bearing now, would have been a part of the discussion of worth. I wonder now if the same decisions would have been made, had a realistic assessment been made.

"Is the only path to that goal a bloody, violent, confrontational one? Are there any other possible options that preserve to the greatest extent the cultures, honor and lives of all parties involved?"

As much as I hate to admit it, peace at all costs doesn't work.

It didn't work with King George and England.
It didn't work with WWI Germany.
It didn't work with WWII Germany, Japan and Italy.
It may not work here.

Look. More innocent CIVILIANS were killed on 9/11 than Pearl Harbour. Peace is nice. But when you're dealing with those who swear to annihilate you, it's insanity to think they can be convinced otherwise. History proves this all too well.

There will come a time when it's too late. That almost happened to England and France. I pray we wake up and find the will to win, not dabble in defeating a vicious enemy sworn to annihilate us.

Herb

War at all costs doesnt work every time either.

Herb writes:
I have two questions about Andrew's following words:

1. "Unfortunately, Bush's approach to a solution for Iraq has been wrong, wrong, wrong. His attitude is "Go it alone, screw everyone else, we'll do it our way, ourselves, don't need anyone else's help.

What do you do when you can't trust those who we have been told to work together with, like the French and Russia? For that reason alone, I can understand a 'go it alone' strategy. At least our own intel won't be given to our enemies, like the French did against us with Saddam.

Superb leadership is key to deal with countries we might not trust 100%. It takes a talented, even brilliant leader to pull it off. I'm thinking for example of someone like Franklin Roosevelt, who managed to work not only with Great Britain and France but also with the Soviet Union during World War II to defeat both the Germans and the Japanese. No one was less trustworthy than Stalin, yet we successfully worked with him to defeat the Nazis. And FDR's task as president was infinitely harder than a president's would be today trying to manage Iraq.

Unfortunately, George W. Bush is no Franklin D. Roosevelt.


2. "He should listen to the Iraq study group. Start engaging with Iran and Syria instead of threatening them. Get other countries involved from around the world - MUSLIM countries."

This is the most disturbing thought of all. Seriously, if I didn't look at my calendar, I would swear it's 1939. This is precisely what Britain tried to do with Nazi Germany...and Iran is saying precisely what the Nazis said: 'We will destroy the US and the Jews.'

Er, wrong. Ahmadinejad talks tough, but he doesn't necessarily have his people behind him. Honestly, a lot of his power comes from Bush's demonizing Iran. Hitler's power came from the economic catastrophe that hit the world but especially hard in the early 1930s. The Nazis could never have risen without those conditions. They do not exist in Iran today.

So you'll forgive me if I side with former Secretary of State James Baker on this one and not you, Herb.

Andrew

If we are gonna follow through with war --escalate, if you will, then we need to actually do this.

That means a likely draft, economic sacrifice above and beyond the deferred costs we will bear to date, in other words, real committment.

That, in turn, will require some statement of worth right?

Is is worth it? What will we get and what assurances do we have of actually getting it?

And this is the question I posed here earlier, largely because I simply don't know.

If we find this question of worth to be negative, then we need to exit quick, lick our economic and physical wounds and move on.

If it is positive, then we as a nation need to commit and just go for it no matter what.

I'm not sure our governemnt, in it's present state, is capable of leading us in this regard. A lot of that lies at the feet of the President.

Magic 8 ball says: "Outlook not good".

Given this, we need to just leave and reconsider how we address terror, and let our next President help us with the middle east. That's my core realization after having weighed everything I do know to date.

I want to win this, but I don't see the necessary elements in place for a win, whatever that actually means (and that's a big part of the problem) to occur. So, we punt, or we address the core problem in our way.

Addressing that problem, essentially means dumping the current power structure and that takes time.

We don't have the dollars to endure that amount of time and still have a shot at actually doing this right when we are more capable.

Of course, this opinion is from the military solution perspective. There are options, but all of those require some admission that we just are not capable of success while on our current path.

Once again, that lies at the feet of our President.

Sorry GOP guys. I'm not against the conservative way of doing things. It has merit and is as viable as the liberal ways and middle ways.

Those of you pulling for the GOP, need to de-couple that from your ideology. Not doing this is doing us a lot of harm.

This President and his team are not the people that are going to move us forward in any war. The dilemma I've posted here is clear evidence of that.

"Once again, that lies at the feet of our President."

Nice spin.

But as Mrs. Clinton says, "Not so fast."

Your democrat pals voted for this war. Sure, try to blame Mr. Bush. The truth is, your buddies with a D after their names voted to go into Iraq.

To every lefty
spin, spin, spin
they'll shift the blame
spin, spin, spin

Herb

They voted to authorize the use of military force, given some things were gonna happen and some things were true.

Well, the things that were supposed to happen, didn't, and the things that were supposed to be true were not.

Now, starting the war was one thing, managing it for success is another.

Remember that vote was also given on a pitch for fast and easy and cheap. That's not been the case either, by the way. It's been slow, hard and very costly. HALF A TRILLION HERB.

So here we are today, in a very bad situation. Our President is commander in chief.

It's his war, and he has failed to both set the right expectations and meet those he did set. He asked for it, planned on it well before 9/11, set low expectations for the burden of it, LIED about the evidence surrounding the justification for it, and chose his cabinet that helped it along.

That is the reality we face today. That is what I just wrote about above. This is a GOP war, and as a party, they have demonstrated their inability to deal with it.

Heck, they fillabustered debate on the subject!

Remember when they were upset at the other party doing that? Seems to have happened awful quick didn't it?

We don't have a leader capable of doing what needs to be done for success. Without that, we really should not be in Iraq right now as we can only lose.

The only association the Democrats have with the Iraq war, and the budget issues we face today, is in the role of clean up. --Even that is being obstructed by the GOP scared shitless they might actually have to account for the mess and lose huge again.

And that is also why we need to get out. That ego is doing us a lot of harm. Truth is, the GOP has made a horrible mess out of things and needs to own up to that. If we, as a nation, can get past that, we might actually see some help setting things right again.

Democrats did not vote for Bush's Iraq invastion - it was never voted on. What they did vote on in the fall of 2002 was authorizing the use of force in Iraq if necessary. To have voted NO would have been a disaster for America. Imagine a Saddam Hussein emboldened by a vote preventing Bush from using force against him. Would have been pretty bad. BUSH was the one who chose to invade Iraq when he did, as he did. While Congress should have done a better job of oversight and holding Bush accountable for his actions, I certainly don't blame them for sending us to war.

The Congress didn't choose to ignore going back to the UN for a 2nd resolution to invade, didn't cherry pick intelligence to support a desire to go to war, didn't start the invasion before UN weapons inspectors had had a chance to do their jobs.

Andrew

"And that is also why we need to get out."

Cutting and running is not the answer.

Otherwise, we risk another Vietnam.

If you think our reputation is low now, wait until we virtually sentence thousands to certain death if we pull out.

I like Mr. Friedman's idea. I just don't want Iran anywhere near to sewing up the majority of the world's oil.

Herb

We don't have a leader capable of doing what needs to be done for success. Without that, we really should not be in Iraq right now as we can only lose.

Our expert leadership took us into Iraq promising that Iraquis would shower us with flowers and candies, and that there would be minimal loss of life all around ("shock and awe", remember?).

In fact, the last three years ended up being a death sentence for thousands of innocent (and many not-so-innocent) Iraqis, let alone our own troops. Plus the chaos and destabilization that occured.


Today, our expert leadership is predicting chaos and the deaths of thousands if we pull out.

Logically then, the actual result should see our soldiers being showered with flowers and candies as they roll out of Bagdad.

It just makes sense...

Herb - "I like Mr. Friedman's idea. I just don't want Iran anywhere near to sewing up the majority of the world's oil."

Well they are always going to have a significant market share. How much will you let them have? Like, what percentage?

Herb - "Otherwise, we risk another Vietnam."

Will you explain that more? What is it that WE risk exactly?

Herb - "If you think our reputation is low now, wait until we virtually sentence thousands to certain death if we pull out."

You know, that is the one thing that makes me so frustrated about this. At least, it's at the top. Because you just KNOW that leaving now - no matter how much we want to see it - means watching a civil unrest MUCH worse than what we watch now on our televisions. Was had the ability to stem that end. I have less confidence in US being able to do it now.

It's going to end VERY badly no matter what. I think, in the end, we just expedited it.

OK, guys.

You're quick to armchair quarterback and sentence people to certain death, whilst showing the world that when the going gets tough, Americans weenie out.

To those democrats who are open to another option, step up to the plate and lay it out for us. Otherwise, you're simply piling on with your blather.

Herb

So the 20K surge will fix it? Hey, if that's what you are saying, then say it. Not that anyone has a choice, but I'll get behind it if you tell me that it will fix it.

Otherwise, you are doing the exact same thing as you accuse " us " of doing.

Chickenjuggler-here's my response to your questions.

"Otherwise, we risk another Vietnam."
Ever watch the footage of the poor Vietnamese begging to get on helicopters out of Vietnam when we left? Before ANYONE talks about our exiting before order is restored, you have to watch that footage...if you dare. You will not look at Iraq the same afterward.


"If you think our reputation is low now, wait until we virtually sentence thousands to certain death if we pull out."

Islamic terrorists will have propaganda for decades to come about how they defeated America from 9/11 on. And what would any of you liberals think if you were the leader of any nation who we tell we'll help? They'll say "No thanks-you let the Iraqis and Vietnamese down. How can we ever trust you?"

Put that in your hookah and smoke it.

Herb

"So the 20K surge will fix it?"

I don't know. I don't have all the answers. I just know that our leaving now is akin to a surgeon walking out in the middle of a life-saving procedure with the patient opened up on the operating table.

Bring your French pals in if you think they'll step up to the plate. I don't think any French or UN forces are willing to die for the Iraqi people. Americans are.

It would be nice if Muslims were willing to support their brethren, but they're too busy killing each other.

Herb

" "Otherwise, we risk another Vietnam."
Ever watch the footage of the poor Vietnamese begging to get on helicopters out of Vietnam when we left? Before ANYONE talks about our exiting before order is restored, you have to watch that footage...if you dare. You will not look at Iraq the same afterward. "

That was the risk I felt myself. The only thing that made me want to ask you for clarification was the follow-up point about the US image. I wasn't sure if you were tying the fact that we left Vietnam ( in something akin to a defeat - and therefore we have been looked upon as losers? ) and wanted to avoid that at all costs in leaving Iraq. I mean, I wouldn't care what the rest of the world thinks of us if we left things a mess. But there is a big enough difference betwen a " mess " and fuckin freshly-hornet-nest-stirred GENOCIDE to make me ask. My point is that we completely agree wbout what would happen. Regardless of what anyone thinks of us as it, and after it, happens.

I think you'll agree that this is NOT where we wanted to be today. It's not what we were asked to believe when we went in. And that, to me, is a tough part to just move on past. But I SWEAR I am trying to hear the good options. There just aren't many, if any, anymore. But the notion of " Well at least he's doing SOMEthing " just doesn't make me all confident like it does for you. No big deal. We agree on much more than we disagre about. And I'm pretty high on the " PLEASE prove me wrong, Mr. Bush " list. I would LOVE to be wrong about all this. But I'm not being given any reason to feel I am wrong.

And this small business owmer is pretty low on the list of " Well, let's try YOUR ideas." But it's not incumbent on ME to come up with a better idea.

I want a leader that will come up with a better idea. Not you. Not me. HIM.

That is not too much to ask and I think I'm fully within my rights to not like his ideas so far.

Herb writes:
Ever watch the footage of the poor Vietnamese begging to get on helicopters out of Vietnam when we left? Before ANYONE talks about our exiting before order is restored, you have to watch that footage...if you dare. You will not look at Iraq the same afterward.

I think you may have misunderstood why those people were so anxious to get on those US helicopters, Herb. These were largely the people who had collaborated with the US or with the South Vietnamese government and knew they were going to be punished or killed if the North Vietnamese figured out their ties.

But you completely miss the point of Vietnam if you think that most people in the South wanted the US to stay. The Vietcong succeeded in their attacks against US soldiers because they had popular support of the people. Whole networks of civilians in the South were required for the Vietcong just to survive. The same is now happening in Iraq. The insurgents require support of civilians to be able to live, to plan and carry out their attacks. And if it comes to a US evacuation and the current Iraqi government's collapse, you'll see the same kind of nasty scenes you saw in 1975 from Saigon: US collaborators begging for their lives to be able to leave, knowing that they face certain death if they stay. That doesn't mean the whole population feels that way.

Andrew

"The Vietcong succeeded in their attacks against US soldiers because they had popular support of the people."

I don't think so. I've read that anywhere from hundreds of thousands to millions of Vietnamese lost their lives after we left.

Remember-communists killed 40 million kulachs during collectivization in Russia. These people are vicious.

Herb

Herb, you sure are good at generating a lot of discussion on this board.

You are also very good at framing every single point you make so that the only possible answer is yours. If, as you say, you "don't know. I don't have all the answers" then why don't you work with the others on this board to debate, discuss and flesh out some ideas?

Why does every debate about what we should do as a nation end with you dissing the French? Do you think anyone on this board gives a rats ass what the French think, or do, or believe? Hate them all you want, but what the hell does it have to do with anything? It's distraction and misdirection on your part, otherwise known as "spin".

And you lead every reference to Vietnam with the assertion that leaving was the reason we lost. I'm now going to make the defensible assertion that entering Vietnam in the first place was the mistake - we lost it the moment we started it. And in fact, leaving was the smartest thing we did in Vietnam. Yes, it's sad that we started a war that left the Vietnamese clinging to the skids of departing helicopters as we vamoosed out of there - hey war is hell, and who knows, those poor Vietnamese you reference may have gone on to live healthy, happy lives. I wish you had the same sympathy for the thousands that are certifiably, proveably dead as a result of our going into Iraq, and the ones that die daily because the war continues. American soldiers are fighting like hell over their to perform the mission assigned to them by their Commander-in-Chief, and Iraqis are dying at the hands of those soldiers. And not all those Iraqis are terrorists, or insurgents. Some of those American bullets are killing civilians. But as I said, War is hell, and innocent people get caught in the crossfire. You cry for the innocent Vietnamese, and are indifferent to the innocent Iraqis or Iranians that will die in American military strikes. You flip back and forth so much you make my head spin - oh, there's that word "spin" again. Dontcha love that word, Herb?

I'm also going to assert that had we stayed in Vietnam, our military would have been depleted to the point that the Soviets would have felt "emboldened" to push forward more aggressively in Eastern Europe and perhaps Afghanistan. Getting out of Vietnam made us better able to deal with the real threat to American safety and security, Soviet communism. In fact, 1974 was just about the beginning of the slow steady decline of the Soviet Union.

I'll even give Nixon his due here (and I agree with you, he was a good, but fatally flawed, president) - he did exactly the right thing getting us out of Vietnam. It was wrong to go in. It cost far too many American lives, and expended far too many American resources. The Vietmanese are to this day paying with their lives for the Vietnam war, as ancient landmines continue to be blindly stumbled across.

We owe Vietnam an apology for going in in the first place, not for leaving.

And we owe the same to the Iraqi people.

Ed, there is a couple of other elements in play here.

I've noted, among staunch Bush supporters, they tend to compartmentalize things. A lot of the framing you see has to do with that. Having already broken down the issues into little boxes, it's fairly easy to direct responses there to a known end or dilemma.

A solid example was the thread we had just a while back. Approached the problem from a number of angles. Once it was clear there was no high ground to be had, we get a cryptic, "Ye shall know them by their deeds."

I've seen gridlock, or a win recognized only when it strengthens the GOP position in general.

Never do we get anything even remotely close to acceptance of even a minor point that does not do this. And that brings me to the second observation:

There is a house of cards that could fall at any time where staunch GOP support is concerned. Ordinary supporters of a party are perfectly willing to engage in a give and take. This is normal debate as all interested parties share the common interest inherent in better solutions and holding both parties accountable to some degree.

What we see here is different. There is a clear agenda that must be advanced at all costs. It matters more than anything --it is the goal and no matter what the means, it must be accomplished.

With Herb, he has expressed this as:

"Nothing else matters but fighting terror and getting right wing court appointments."

Essentially, his value judgements are different from the majority of Americans, in that seeing a specific worldview achieve dominance is more important than doing the right thing. Essentially, he has committed to that worldview being the right thing and has compartmentalized that.

Over time, little bits of error accumulate, each one easily explained. Maybe different interpetations, small error in reporting, ignoring some facts, etc...

All of them combined lead to the justification of some pretty serious things that are not easily justified otherwise.

If, at any time, one of these core elements were to be flipped into the known to be false or unjustified catagory, then all the others then are placed at risk. Essentially, making one sound admission, would then open the door for other sound admissions and it goes downward from there.

I've been posting here for a very long time and with this guy, it's never once been any different.

NOT ONE TIME EVER, where a point of discussion, might in some way weaken his core positions by any measure. NOT ONCE.

So why continue?

It's an interesting puzzle frankly. Try it. On matters, that are unrelated to the agenda, the discussion proceeds normally with the usual give and take. These things have not been compartmentalized and do not depend on a heirachy of accepted things. (These accepted things may or may not be valid, but it does not matter in that they are simply necessary.)

Should you invoke some element of the agenda, the conversation will change right then. All of the sudden you are in one of the boxes. At that point, the issue must be framed so as to bring it to a point where no definite conclusion can be made, or you surrender. There will be no concession on his side, because that puts the agenda at risk.

If you resist that framing, then Herb will dodge or simply go silent. This happens every time without fail.

Go ahead, try it.

Another thing is that Herb is extremely good at this, executing without fail. Others have tried here and are usually broken, get angry, end up with an admission on record that marginalizes their stack of cards.

In the end, they leave, get angry, or simply start cheerleading for the stronger ones, thus reinforcing the agenda in that way, while at the same time avoiding further harm.

There have been studies on this behavior, one of which I linked here a while back. Interestingly, the study noted Nixon being invoked more than would otherwise be the case.

(I sent the author a link to this site and discussion threads that follow his reasoning perfectly. ---That link was published in an inside trade magazine!)

There have also been some analysis done of the remaining staunch GOP supporters. It appears that somewhere between 20 and 30 percent of us exhibit this behavior. This is the core base that keeps the poll numbers from falling lower than they already are.

Again, these folks have already committed to achieving some goals and will not waver as "nothing else matters".

These differences in value judgements make ordinary debate more or less impossible, as the incentive to exchange ideas is simply not there. The discussion itself is worthy in that they might always score a point for their side, and participation keeps the agenda front and center, thus strengthening the party and limiting the amount of non productive discussion.

Where non-productive is essentially anything that does not advance the agenda.

Look at the dead ends, and also look at what triggers the whole mess:

-christian nation
-abortion
-winning the war (must have enemy for stack of cards bit to work)
-drugs
-sex before marriage
-anything pro GOP

Those are the biggies. Do a search on threads here and look at all of them. NOT ONE COMPLETES AS A NORMAL DEBATE WOULD. At the bottom of each lies either silence or a dodge.

"Essentially, [Herb's]...value judgements are different from the majority of Americans, in that seeing a specific worldview achieve dominance is more important than doing the right thing."

No. You don't get it.

Doing the right thing is not bailing on those you pledged to defend.

This is yet another example where democrat spin fails.

And don't paint me as such an inflexible person. I freely admit I don't have all the answers. Besides, I'm hardly a staunch Bush supporter. I'm a Nixon man, remember...and I simply choose not to swallow the left's revisionist history.

Whether it's the unborn, Iraqi citizens, or the Vietnamese that we allow to be slaughtered, in each and every case I'm defending the defenseless. You guys are AWOL.

Herb

Sorry Herb, nearly 6 years of your posts suggest otherwise.

Over that amount of time, even a few lines of discussion would have resulted in a point taken that was not in your favor. It simply hasn't happened.

You, nor your party, nor your faith are perfect.

This is ok, neither is anybody else.

The difference is in the sheer number of dodges and threads ending in silence where an otherwise ordinary discussion might have concluded something, or the parties agree to disagree.

The only way I will deviate from this is to actually see some two way conversation on your part.

I can actually pull up your posts and show you where you have contradicted yourself, yet it does not matter. This is the compartmentalizing working full time.

Sorry, I like you, but I'm also letting a newbie know what they are getting into right outta the gate.

As far as Iraq goes, a lot of great discussion has been generated in this thread and others. I think that some very fresh ideas have been balanced against some rather antique ideals. Still, I think everybody here has a right to their opinion. I think we all are concerned and as Americans, it is our duty to debate.

To touch on the great points from Missing, I have been a writer for a long time. Sometimes I re-read my posts here and realize that it was wordy or preachy or unreflective of my conversational tone. To anyone in the past, present or future, I apologize if it went down like butter-less toast. When my dander is up, I try to be reasoned. Sure, it comes out verbose, but I avoid saying something really tactful and simple like, "STFU."

The best part is that I don't have to. Someone else has the corner on that and other poetic bits of justice. We all bring something to the table. I like all of you and enjoy reading your posts here in the forum. By and large, this is a great crowd and I know this from lurking for quite awhile.

Still, I gotta agree with KSKD about the nature of discussions. Sometimes, when it comes to civility, one could say, Magic 8 ball says: "Outlook not good". I think that is a shame.

Like most here, I suspect, I am actually a pretty laid back fellow most of the time. I enjoy eavesdropping on my neighbors in cafes to get the news the paper won't give me. I enjoy ice cream at 3 am. I like baseball, apple pie and getting laid. I vote. I read. I listen. I love music, movies and the wilderness. I am conservative on some issues, liberal on other issues and right down the center on most everything else.

As Crash Davis said, "I believe there ought to be a constitutional amendment outlawing AstroTurf and the designated hitter. I believe in the sweet spot, soft-core pornography, opening your presents Christmas morning rather than Christmas Eve and I believe in long, slow, deep, soft, wet kisses that last three days."

I think most of us would agree with Crash. How about we share some more common ground?

You're right, Missing. In my short time on this forum (still under 200 postings) you might have noticed that I've worked hard to keep the discussion civil, literate and fair. I uncharacteristically "flared" in the above post, because sometimes you need to do a change-up just to get people's attention. And to wake yourself up a little.

I have noticed that Herb generally just deflects points that are defensible, and clearly supported by the facts. Earlier I pointed out inconsistencies in his position on Gore v. Nixon, and he just happily rolled past it onto another topic. That's okay. If Herb didn't get the point, or refused to get the point, I assume that everyone else got it.

And finally, in defense of Herb, it is not easy to face having people blast away at your core beliefs. Of course, he wouldn't be here every day if he didn't enjoy it a little bit. But no one can exist as a rational human being without having a moral/political center of some kind.

Missing, I get the sense that your moral center has gone through some readjustments over your life. That can be tough, but also extremely satisfying and enriching. I hope that Herb can someday find a way to trust his own moral fortitude to consider stepping out on a limb, and really consider some alternative perspectives. If he's as strong a person as he seems to be, he can always retreat back to the safe haven of the far right.

Totally agreed.

I like Herb for exactly that reason. Herb, you are rock solid man.

Yep. I've made some very tough adjustments. All came from some very tough events that left me wondering about a fair number of things. Either I end up in this wierd zone where I don't care, or apply reason to things and deal with that outcome.

Honestly, the don't care choice is by far the better one, but I'm here now, so it is what it is.

The inconsistancies are what I grapple with.

Herb, maybe you can explain that to me some day. Being solid in one's beliefs is totally cool. I respect that. (seriously) But how can you do that with the inconsistancies intact?

Thought I would expand on this a bit, just to be really clear and honest.

Where does staunch belief come from?

I find it through reason and consistancy. These things applied to the mess that is life, can sort out a lot of moral issues. IMHO, in the end, if what you believe and what you do is defensible, that's as much as anyone can ask.

There are things in my worldview that are not yet defensible, so I largely keep quiet about them --in the advocacy sense. I'll talk about it to try and refine the whole thing, but I won't engage in advocacy unless it meshes with the rest of what I've considered to be solid.

In the end we all grapple with some things that are not known at this time. So we all end up with some degree of faith and conviction driving us.

So how is it that some of us can believe contradictory things, yet find that inner strength necessary to not only live by those beliefs, but advocate them to others?

That's really why I'll always engage on these things. I'll push hard --really hard, sometimes to see where it cracks. Sometimes that's where the good stuff is. If it's done to me, I understand that as well. No biggie, we all gotta learn somehow.

So, is strong conviction reinforced, in this case, by personal character attributes? (Justification of self) Does it come from strength in numbers? Desire for a specific element to be true?

Another enigma is people that simply gravitate toward positions of strength. Are they broken some how, cannot reason so they need to identify with other reasoning done for them? Do they simply not care, so it's a path of least resistance? (I've a great friend who is like this --neither of us knows why!)

...and if you have kids, all of this becomes extremely relevant. Of course you want them to reflect your worldview, but often they just don't. Then you've that ugly choice. Bend them a little for their own good, or not because perhaps you yourself need a little bending?

Interesting stuff. And I hope that explains some of my stronger posts from time to time.

"Doing the right thing is not bailing on those you pledged to defend."

OK. We agree on this!

But, what if one's efforts are doing more harm than good, despite that pledge?

I know starting Iraq is unjust, but we are there now and we set some expectations we've failed to meet.

The obvious right thing to do would be to rebouble the efforts and try to meet them.

However, what if we simply are not capable of that right now? You have to admit there is a seriously strong case for this.

Some options come to mind:

-make ourselves capable

-leave as the act is more harm than not

-ask for help

-reset expectations (if they are willing).

There are probably others.

What I'm getting at is more complex than a cut 'n run. Our current path is nothing more than an escalation of what is known not to be working and known to be causing a lot of harm to both us and the Iraqi people.

Shouldn't something then change?

If I saw some actual change, then I would be all over it, but I don't. And make no mistake, real change in Iraq policy implies a loss of face that I'm more or less convinced our leadership is not capable of enduring.

And this is where it breaks down. Seeing this dilemma, more or less requires one to reconsider things. How then can one continue to support the problem when behavior to date makes a strong case for the above?

"Herb, maybe you can explain that to me some day. Being solid in one's beliefs is totally cool. I respect that. (seriously) But how can you do that with the inconsistancies intact?"

For anyone to question my education, they must be incredibly flummoxed and wonder from whence I come. Where you see inconsistencies, I see truth that is often yet to be more closely examined.

For example, I earnestly believe that anyone who buys evolution needs more faith than one who believes in a Creator. Aside from my faith, my science background backs me up on that with the Law [not theory, as in the THEORY of evolution] of Entropy.

Long ago, I realized that I have more in common with conservatives in Topeka, Kansas and even Calgary, Canada, than my fellow Oregonians. You guys are used to mixing it up with your brethren in this liberal milieu. When you interact with a conservative here, it must feel jarring.

Part of it has to do with faith, and I often see agnostics and atheists making it up as they go along, only to ignore timeless truths, like re-inventing the wheel. But where you see a senseless, unordered universe, I see a God who gave us vision in color, not black and white. To me, the glass is more than half-full if only we look.

I was recently called on the carpet here for not being a big PETA supporter. PEOPLE-THEY WANT TO OUTLAW FISHING! That is INSANE. Yet the left doesn't see the outrageousness of a group they support. And I'M the one who's far out? You guys eat fish? Look at your own inconsistencies.

Herbert Milhous Nixon III

Sorry, asking about a person's background or qualifications is a weak way to advance an argument. People have tried that with me before. My response: what does my background have to do with my argument or my point of view? If you disagree with what I say, refute the argument, not me personally. Herb's background has nothing to do with whether his his argument is valid or not.

Andrew

WTF?!?!?!

"I was recently called on the carpet here for not being a big PETA supporter."

That is flat-out utter BULLSHIT, and you know it! I NEVER "called you on the carpet". And nobody else did either. I would NEVER in a kazillion years expect YOU to support anything they do. . We all "know" you well enough by now to know that you would NEVER support any kind of humane animal testing, let alone be supportive of getting the rBHG hormones out of you and your kid's milk, or avoiding leather shoes.

I NEVER said I was against fishing. I told you that I eat fish. (along with red meat and poultry)

You support the Anti-Abortion agenda. Some of those people think abortion doctors should all be murdered, as has happened. Do you?

I support PETA. Does that mean I'm vegan or belong to the ALF? No.

C'mon, Herb. Just because many groups have a fringe or extreme element, doesn't mean that all supporters buy into those extremes and you know it. That is a cheap, cheap shot.



And as far as "flummoxed", don't flatter yourself, I just asked if you have any formal experience in the sciences, and you answered. I sure didn't lose any sleep over it. I even thanked you.

False.

Virtually all Pro-life groups oppose murdering doctors.

I'm not speaking for you. Yet PETA and ALF represent MANY on the animal rights front and both groups are extremist. Thus it appears the fringe speaks for a very large segment of animal rights supporters.

If you don't support the fringe, you might consider donating to the Cat Adoption Team or Humane Society, not whacked out groups that are just as fringe as those of the extreme right.

Herb

"If I saw some actual change, then I would be all over it, but I don't. And make no mistake, real change in Iraq policy implies a loss of face that I'm more or less convinced our leadership is not capable of enduring. "

Missing, I believe your above statement is the entire issue in Iraq. We have an adminstration for which "saving face" is the primary, sometimes sole, motivator. Bush refusing to admit errors of the past; refusing to admit "stay the course" was his strategy when it grew unpopular; worrying so terribly, terribly much about 'emboldening the enemy'; criticizing the American people's "will".

This is all about being seen as having resolve, and appearing strong, and looking determined. It's the schoolyard bully mentality - power through intimidation. Loss of face means loss of prestige. The Bush administration (and perhaps all of Washington DC)is more concerned with appearing strong than being strong, appearing steadfast than being steadfast, appearing right than being right.

Herb: Your comments on liberalism in Oregon only really apply to the Portland area, and perhaps the valley down to Eugene. 80+% of the rest of the land area in Oregon (and much of the PNW) is filled with the kind of conservative Americans that would make you proud.

Your comments about agnostics and athiests is short-sighted. Their core beliefs may appear "made up" or senseless because they don't jibe with yours, but I'm sure they would respond in kind when looking at your belief system. I think that if you were to take most of the core moral edicts and "truths" from the Bible, and leave out the God part, you would have the value statement of most athiests. If you cannot even imagine someone having a moral existence without also believing in a Creator, then I better understand why you have such a narrow scope of vision on so many other issues.

Andrew , I was not trying to advance any argument, and I haven't stated any opinion of Global Warming causes. I just wondered if Herb has any experience beyond his bible for reading and understanding scientific research publications, and if he has the ability to weed out "junk science', such as questionable articles "sponsored" by the oil/energy industry or ventures that have something to gain by discrediting pure research, as has been posted here. He says he does have that experience. OK.

But when he posts links to articles here, I feel the need to dig a little deeper, for example, the PETA link he posted. It was page 2 of an opinion piece, written by an avid, self-confessed PETA-hater, and totally out of context with the discussion at hand. It was picked to make his "argument" look better and digress from (dodge) the issue being discussed.

I DO think a person's background CAN, not always, be important to an issue, to help me understand where someone is coming from. Do they have a vested/monetary interest in the issue? Do they have a passion for the subject? Are they credible? Have experience/knowledge? Live it on a daily basis? Or are they just pulling it out of their butt to have an argument? Like a few people I know (not here) who just make stuff up and sound really good saying it?

So sometimes, it does help to know where they're coming from, and if they're knowlegable on something, like you are, that I know little or nothing about, then they have my ear, my questions and my interest.

Me:

"Some of those people think abortion doctors should all be murdered"

Herb:

"Virtually all Pro-life groups oppose murdering doctors."

We're saying the same thing, with "Some" being the operative word in my sentence, and "Virtually" being the operative word in yours, as abortion doctors HAVE been gunned down and murdered by extremists. Can you agree on that fact, Herb?

Mrs. Big Contributer to Dove-Lewis and OHS and Animal-Circus-Hater.

"I think that if you were to take most of the core moral edicts and "truths" from the Bible, and leave out the God part, you would have the value statement of most athiests."

I am probably best characterized as agnostic. I waver back and forth, but in the end am largly happy just accpeting that we don't know and reasoning accordingly from there.

Yep. There is a *lot* of common ground. Where it comes from is very interesting to me as well. Some cite the bible, others cite reasoning, nature, etc...

It all starts with "do unto others".

"Can you agree on that fact, Herb?"

Certainly, Mrs. M.

Herbert M.

I am not sure Mister Friedman has the magic bullet, but unlike Congress, we are at least debating the issue here.

"Herb: Your comments on liberalism in Oregon only really apply to the Portland area, and perhaps the valley down to Eugene. 80+% of the rest of the land area in Oregon (and much of the PNW) is filled with the kind of conservative Americans that would make you proud."

Edsel is absolutely right! Gordon Smith represents a great deal of these neighbors of ours. As a reflection of his own personal beliefs and the growing concern of his conservative constituents, he is now quite outspoken against the war.

Eighty of Oregon's best and brightest have died in this conflict and hundreds of others have returned to this state with life-altering injuries. No Oregonian, liberal or conservative, can argue against the fact that these men are heroes.

Most of us, however, would rather admire them for raising great kids, helping their neighbors in a crisis or coaching a little league team. Less dramatic perhaps, but in a small way, heroic nonetheless. This war has torn families and communities apart. The sooner it is over, the better for all of us, everywhere.

We do all agree that an intelligent exit strategy is what we need, right?

Agreed.

Just no re-enactment of Vietnam.

Herb

From the first "advisors" in Vietnam until the final pullout, it was about 10 years and 58,000 lives. Most of those lives lost were in the last few years of the conflict.

It seems like every strategy for exiting this conflict bears some resemblence to Vietnam.

Leaving , whether it be sooner or later, before some declaration of "victory" is made, looks and feels like Vietnam.

Staying for another 3/5/7/? years will truly turn this into a quagmire, as the American military death toll ratchets up at an ever accelerating pace (remember how we were blown away when the death count hit 1,000? I get the feeling the 4,000 mark will be a one-inch column on page A4). Every day we stay, this looks more and more like Vietnam.

It's not about keeping Iraq from looking like Vietnam - we're already there as far as I can see.

Bingo!

Which is exactly why I asked if some change should not occur?

The moment we enter this dilemma, we have a vietnam. Our fearless Resident President took us there. So here we are. Stay the Course = Vietnam. Cut 'n Run = less of a Vietnam. Do something new = maybe no vietnam, but will cost us and is that worth it?

Did I miss anything?

Okay, we're throwing some mighty wild ideas around sometimes, so I am gonna toss a dilly at you guys right now. It is possible that with this approach we will not be alone. It might even be an invitation for other countries, who did not support the war, to support the peace.

We sit down with the Saudis and the Iranians. We stop shaking swords and start talking turkey. We let them know that their borders are about to be flooded with hundreds of thousands of angry, armed and hungry people. If they don't want to cooperate in the process, we cannot simply go back to the no-fly, no food, no medicine hermetically sealed Iraq of the 90s. We will not evacuate the borders and bomb a half mile wide trench around the country. It will be their asses on the line. We will be very clear and honest with the Iraqi people about their neighbors refusal to help. We will leave them hungry and angry with a new set of enemies next door. Or, you both will cooperate.

The Saudis are gonna have to be the first to get it where it hurts. Since we all know now that it was Saudis on 9/11 and we have been giving them grace, it is time to cash the check. If we are to stay and help keep the peace, they will be charged for financing every square inch of infrastructure in Iraq. They will also be covering invoices for the feeding every person in Iraq. This is a squeeze on their accounts, but they'll get over it. The food will help the Iraqis nap in their new homes and stop shooting each other. The Saudis will also have to motivate the religious leaders to make peace and that is easier when the crowd has more than one full belly between them.

The Iranians, for their part, will have to dismantle every vestige of their nuclear program right down to the Reddy Kilowatt signs. They will have to submit themselves to more tests and inspections than a bicycle racer. It might hurt their ego, but they will have to respect the sovereignty of Iraq because it is in their best interest. They will also have to motivate their clerics to try to create a peace in Iraq. Every day this will be easier because more and more Iraqis will have running water, lights and a place to call home.

All projects in Iraq will be done by Iraqis. There are plenty of educated people. There are plenty of strong backs. They all have to be busy or they will shoot one another. No outside contracts for construction or infrastructure rebuilding will be allowed beyond design consultation and that will be strictly enforced by international observers and the Iraqis. The world community will be called upon to make sure that the best building blocks are available for the Saudis to purchase and the Iraqis to assemble.

As the population starts to enjoy a few amenities, leaders who are fresh and moderate will emerge from neighborhood rebuilding projects, orphanages and the universities. These leaders will be the foundation of a new democracy.

Meanwhile the American troops can draw down because their job has changed from target to truant officer to observer. After a time, they are simply around to make sure that folks get to work, get fed and get help. Eventually, the Iraqis are so busy that they don't even notice we've gone.

Then, if the Saudis or Iranians want to invade or stir things up, they will have to deal with an Iraq that has a well fed population, a government, an army and a lot of their own oil wealth to throw around. Maybe, they will send the neighbors a thank you card.

It is simplistic, but as a humanist approach, I had to bounce it off you all.

"...Vietnam - we're already there as far as I can see...."

Wrong.

Right now, after approximately 3 years, there are less than 4,000 American dead. In Vietnam, the total was more like 58,000.

Herb

3,500 is 3,500 WAY TOO MANY!

Policy-wise, we're there.

Herb,

As Mrs. Clinton likes to say, "Not so fast."

"The U.S. death toll in Iraq has surpassed the number of American soldiers killed during the first three years of the Vietnam War, the brutal Cold War conflict that cast a shadow over U.S. affairs for more than a generation.

"A Reuters analysis of Defense Department statistics showed on Thursday that the Vietnam War, which the Army says officially began on Dec. 11, 1961, produced a combined 392 fatal casualties from 1962 through 1964, when American troop levels in Indochina stood at just over 17,000."

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1114-01.htm

However you cut it - hard numbers, death/deployment ratio - the cost of American lives in Iraq is WAY beyond Vietnam.

A good friend, and Vietnam veteran, pointed out to me that comparing casualty rates is apples and oranges. He contends that many of our wounded in Iraq would have died in Vietnam. His theory is that body armor and medical advances have changed the type of injuries and fatalities. Where once a man would have been killed instantly, he is now losing an arm or leg. He also pointed out that arguing the numbers is silly when men (and women) are still dying every day. Thought I ought to pass that along. Good research Edsel.

Just need to know how to use "the Google" on the Internets.

Well, there are a lot of surfers, but only one Dick Dale. Some just shoot the electronic curl better than others. In addition to the gremmies, there are definitely some, "HoDads Makin' the Scene with a Six Pack" around here. Cowabunga! :0)

The "Friedman Unit" has made the rounds on my e-mail to universal laughs. He comes off like a doctor who is so immersed in obstetrics that he tells a patient for years she is pregnant before an MRI shows him that she swallowed a bowling ball.