What to do
 

The point I was trying to make is that all the complaining by the Senators and Reps is not going to accomplish anything. It is in Bush's hands. They can either try and help him succeed or make it more difficult to succeed.

If your team is on the football field and you don't like the plays the quarterback is calling you can either go along, get out of the way, or screw up the game and make it more difficult for your side to win. But you want your team to win. The prudent thing to do is not screw up the plays the quarterback calls just because you disagree with them. Eventhough you think he is using the wrong strategy, the chances of your team winning are better if you go along with the strategy. Bush is the Quarterback for the next three years and is going to call the plays. There is nothing anyone can do about it. No one else is going to be in charge. So are the rest of the players going to help, or make a defeat more inevitable by intentionally screwing up the plays to make sure the home team has no chance of winning. You can tell the coach you disagree with the plays but you go along with the plays and do your best because that is the best chance you have for success. But it seems to me many Dems are tripping the quarterback because they don't like the strategy and just for sour grapes.

We never withdrew. We kept up our military aid the whole time. And I don't think we should stay until the insurgency dies, I think we should stay until we train the Iraqis to fight for themselves.

If there is a strong turnout on the fifteenth (like there was in the last election) we will be training the military for a democratically elected government. Once they are up and running we can leave.

Bush isn't going to have to do anything. He has three years to train the Iraqi military and there is no way anyone can stop him from finishing that job. Three years is plenty of time to get it accomplished.

What to do
 

Simple factual question for you and bilmore: Have you read James Fallows' article in The Atlantic? Yes or no?

Government is not the solution it is the problem.
 

Fortunately in the United State very few consumer markets are regulated by the government. From now on I will use manipulate because you think that business regulation and market regulation are the same thing. When the government regulates a market, and by that decides what the consumer needs, or what the pricing should be then that is market manipulation. Can you name a consumer market where the government decides how much people need or get. Or how much of a product people should buy. Farm products are one. The government did regulate the airlines and the telecom industry but not anymore. The Government tiried to fix gas prices, but that didn't work. Some gas markets are manipulated. But now you want to decide what kind of news media people should get.


Wrong. These are products only the collective can purchase. They are not consumer items. They are not even industrial items.

Wow. Yes I agree our news media produces too much opinion and not enough fact for my liking. But that does not mean I think government should do anything about it. I don't like the fact that hollywood studio use so much smoking in their moviews but that doesn't mean I think that the government should step in censor movies. I don't like the fact that Americans eat so much Junk Food but that doesn't mean I think that the government should limit the amount of Junk food someone can eat.

The American public has decided what kind of media and news shows it wants. I don't like, but because I don't like it does not automatically lead to the conclusion that the government should do something about it.


All taxation is forced. Any money the government spends is paid for by forced taxation. You are forced to help pay for national defense even if you don't agree with it. Same goes with public education and welfare. I don't mind forcing people to pay for national defense, education and welfare. I think those things are important enough to force people to pay for. However, I don't think you should force people to pay for something unless it is absolutely necessary. Forcing people to pay for news productions is not something I think is necessary or prudent. SAme goes with fiber. If I don't think Americans are consuming enough fiber, that does not mean I want the government to go out buy metamucil and put it in everyones mail box.

You leave as many consumption decisions as you can to the individual. Especially when it comes to consumer products.

What to do
 

No

The Dems have hit on a strategy
 

Bush's statements don't make it more difficult for us to win in Iraq. Bush's statements help encourage the troops.

Why can't they hold off until after the election. What would that hurt? Unless of course they don't want the elections to succeed.


Dean couldn't possibly know that we can't win. If he believes that he is really stupid. But I doubt he is that stupid. I don't think you think he is that stupid either.

Government is not the solution it is the problem.
 

You're funny when you're militantly ignorant. Please keep telling me about different kinds of regulation.

While we seem to disagree on semantics here, you are proving my point.

Not necessarily, I agree. I was just trying to talk about it.

As I understand, you think the market performs poorly, but you're not willing to have the government spend any money to fix it.

OK. I'm with you there. I was thinking that the remedy for an insufficiency of a certain kind of speech was more speech, actually.

If people democratically choose to tax themselves to have the government buy these things, it must be the right choice, right?

The Dems have hit on a strategy
 

Actually, I think Bush has said plenty of things that make it more difficult for us to win in Iraq. Raising the idea of bombing Al Jazeera, for example.

Because we live in a democracy. You might familiarize yourself with the principle, since you think it's what we're trying to bring to Iraq.

Government is not the solution it is the problem.
 

You call defense and investment and you call me militantly ignorant?


There are certain products individuals can't buy and certain products that are not for individual consumption. Certain people can't buy food so the government steps in and buys it for them. Defense is something that individuals can't buy individually so the government has to step in a buy it for the collective. But when a person can buy a product, and it is for individual consumption, then the choice should be left up to the person whether or not to buy the product. If they have a choice and it only affects them why should the government step in. All consumer products, including media, is included in this catagory. Can you not see that?

When ever governments have stepped in and controlled consumer markets the results have always been disastrous. Can you name a consumer market where the government has stepped in where it hasn't been disastrous?




The market is performing fine. The people are getting exactly what they want. I just don't like what the people are asking for. But that is my problem. When the market is not providiing the people what they want at the best quality and at the best possible price then there is a problem with the market.



More speech. It doesn't work that way either. If I think there should be more people in movies eating apples or talking about science, I am not going to force hollywood to put the heroes of the movies to eat apples or talk about science.


Absolutely not. It is almost always the wrong choice. Whenever the public decides that the government should take control of a consumer market, or start producing a consumer product the results are disastrous. That is what the whole soviet system was based on. But many democracies have taken control of certain consumer markets and always to disastrous effect. Look at farms subsidies, quotas, tariffs etc. Government should not be in the business of producing, controlling, etc of consumer products.

The Dems have hit on a strategy
 

I will agree with that. Telling them to bring it on wasn't helpful either.


I understand democracy fine. Where you are confused is that just because you have the right to do something doesn't mean that you should do it. Dean may have the right to say we can't win in Iraq but that doesn't mean that he should do it, or saying it is a good thing.

I may have the right to march down mainstreet screeming that all liberals are morally bankruptc, traitors and should be shot. But that does not mean that it would be helpful to our country if I did so.

Government is not the solution it is the problem.
 

I think the fact that these three sentences seem to you to make sense encapsulate the problem I am having in discussing this with you. So, I give up.

The Dems have hit on a strategy
 

I think what is helpful to our country is when we have full and open debate about issues of national importance, like wars, and when our political leaders consider that debate when they formulate policy. I think the debate produces better policy, just as competition makes markets work better.

The Dems have hit on a strategy
 

Does it make it less helpful when the opposition party is "debating" by making statements in which it really does not believe because it can't figure out any other way to get votes?

The Dems have hit on a strategy
 

I think there are both Democrats and Republicans who are willing to take positions out of political expediency rather than principle, and I believe that this has been true since 1856 or so. I also believe that Howard Dean believes what he said about Iraq, and that those of you who support Bush's current policies could make a better effort to engage with the realities that have driven people like Dean and Murtha to take a different view.

The Dems have hit on a strategy
 

1856? How about since the beginning.


Those of us who support Bush don't have to do anything, and really can't do anything. I have no problem with Senators issuing written press releases saying how they disagree with Bush policy. But calling a press conference, or making televised speeches, where they say the war is insane, immoral and we can't win - that is irresponsible. If they want the Bush administration to hear their views, why don't they tell that to them in private? Why does it have to be public. If they are doing it to make sure people know they disagree, they can just put it on the record. But why all the publicity stunts? What do they accomplish?

As I said making public shockwaves about the fact that the war is a failure accomplishes nothing. It does not affect how Bush conducts his policy and in no way going to change how things are done. It is fine if they put themselves "on the record" as disagreeing or stating how they think things should be done, but the rest of it serves no purpose except to demoralize the troops and encourage the enemy.

Beaker
 

Where the hell is beaker?

What to do
 

Yes.

(Spanky, it's a good read. Go here:

http://www.smallwars.quantico.usmc.m...oIraqiArmy.pdf

Beaker
 

About 130 miles south of Minot.

Why?

The Dems have hit on a strategy
 

Bilmore will tell you that the GOP was about as young as can be in 1856. And for the couple years before that, they were idealistic and principled.

Because we live in a democracy, and because having a debate about these things produces better, more-informed policy.

What I said above.

Beaker
 

I like the Avatar.

This Atlantic Monthly article is not short.

Beaker
 

I can understand your concern.

Most good things are short.

(It's worth it. He does good work generally, and this one is no exception. The USMC Small Wars division put it on their journal site as soon as it came out. (yay- it's free.) Very good historical summary of what's happened so far, with some editorializing. His predictions, I think, are too pessemistic, but he supports himself enough so that you can't just dismiss the work.)

The Dems have hit on a strategy
 

I'm not kidding about my book recommendation from yesterday. You really need to read it. And to chill out.

It's been very amusing to watch both sides talk right by each other today.

You seriously need to wrap your head around the idea that Ty and Wonk (and I) just look at the world in a fundamentally different way from you.

The Dems have hit on a strategy
 

Your point was that the media are whores in search of a story. If that were the case, one would think they would be, on the whole, equally critical no matter who was in office. Why then, was there not a constant drum beat of "Clinton Lied" when he said that the troops would be home by Christmas. One would expect that to be the case under your theory.

And I don't do strawman. Strawwomen, perhaps.

What to do
 

Yes.

What to do
 

All good questions.

The Dems have hit on a strategy
 

Actually, his point was that the media is pro-whomever is in office.

The Dems have hit on a strategy
 

You dissapoint me. This is a board for arguing politics. If we just accept that we look at the world differently that would be the end of the board. Join the fray if you want but we don't really need any mediators.

The Dems have hit on a strategy
 

Let me rephrase, then. It's funny how the arguments that you, Bilmore and Club present are as completely predictable as they are ludicrous, as they are all based on an outdated and ultimately doomed vision of an ideal patriarcal family. You guys are preprogramed to see the world only through a narrow perspective.

However, proponents of that worldview have become very good over the past 30 years at selling to America. Liberals, are, however, finally catching on and catching up. I only hope we do so before you manage to get us all killed.

Better?

The Dems have hit on a strategy
 

Club, what were you smoking from 1992 to 2000? The media beat the shit out of Clinton repeatedly. Whitewater was a NYT expose that they chased from New Hampshire through the end of his presidency. Maureen Dowd's Clinton-bashing columns won her a Pulitzer. "Wag the Dog" accusations when he bombed Iraq and sent cruise missiles into the Sudan and Afghanistan.

He had horrible press -- sometimes deservedly so, of course.

The Dems have hit on a strategy
 

And that truly was the last time Maureen Dowd was funny.

The Dems have hit on a strategy
 

This is funny, since I'm actually a woman.

Adam's Rib
 

Oh, p'shaw, my dear. She was funny then, and she is funny now.

The Dems have hit on a strategy
 

I probably should scroll than post, but I do not think we can yet know this.

Overconfidence has played a big role in losing many wars; had Johnson in particular taken a more measured and strategic approach in Vietnam, and had he set attainable goals rather than pursuing outright and total victory, we might have had a much different outcome. Had Napolean decided to stop at Poland, he might have dominated Europe for a generation more. Had the Soviet Union been willing to negotiate reasonable terms early on in Afghanistan, the recent history of that country might be much less tragic.

We will know in ten years whether the President's confidence is overconfidence or justified. I, like many people, have become increasingly convinced that he focuses too much on the rosy scenarios and too little on the risk.

In the meantime, if the troops feel he is divorced from reality and not aware of their real situation, his statements may well be harmful. A good example is the "Mission Accomplished" fiasco. That was simply outright regreatable in hindsight, though I have no trouble understanding and sympathizing the jubiliation at the time. Similarly, I am told that the Thanksgiving trip over there was poorly perceived, because the press was Bush with the troops having a big Thanksgiving dinner, at a time when most of the troops were not getting Turkey with all the fixings.

A certain amount of bravado is fine, and inspirational (as long as he doesn't behave like Dean in Iowa). But right now he is looking out of touch to me.

Government is not the solution it is the problem.
 

Yes and no. I prefer limiting government's role where it is not necessary, but there are social goods we have determined will be government funded that do not need to be. Education, healthcare for the indigent, public works projects ranging from subways and roads to urban renewal - all have become collective efforts. Saving Chrysler was a collective effort, too.

However, I worry that there is much to fear from government involvement, and particularly so in the media, and I also believe the media is different because of the first amendment. Media is a place where it is particularly dangerous for government to go.

I personally think government involvement in education shares some of the dangers, and that it is essential to have a separate private school system as an alternative and to develop new ideas.

Adam's Rib
 

So, you'd say she's evenly matched with Linda Cohn in the fight to suck your dick?

Adam's Rib
 

No, she was sharp and on-point then, and now, she's unfortunately spouting nonsense half the time and just bitter-sounding (and I hate it when people say women sound bitter - it's such an easy bs insult...but in this case it is true...and at least I didn't say shrill or harpy-like). Honestly, I think she is out of her depth commenting on foreign affairs - she did much better with bedroom (or couch, or office) affairs.

The Dems have hit on a strategy
 

That was the beginning, Spank. I believe that the GOP was founded in 1856, and that Lincoln was their second Presidential candidate.

The Deomcratic party evolved from a party founded in or around 1832, IIRC.

S_A_M

The Dems have hit on a strategy
 

Show us your tits!

There's only you and me, and we just disagree (whoa-oh-oh).
 

She doesn't strike me as bitter at all. I agree that she is probably more knowledgable about people and their motivations than she is about foreign affairs, but then again she's attacking the administration because of what she sees as its hubris and arrogance. I don't think that she's ever pretended to be the female Tom Friedman (who annoys me, but whatever) without the cheesey moustache.

If I didn't know better, I might think that you thought she was "sharp and on-point" when she was bashing Bill then and "spouting nonsense" now when she bashes Dubya simply because you are (and it still pains me to think of it, btw) a [sigh] Republican.

The Dems have hit on a strategy
 

Ideal Patriarcal family? What does that mean. I guess I should I should have said before that this is way to general. Be Specific. And what is the narrow perspective I see the world.

Government is not the solution it is the problem.
 

If you notice before I said that government steps in when either the individual can't buy the product because they are poor or for some other reason (food stamps, healthcare, education) or the collective needs to purchase the product becasuse the product can only be purchased and used by the collective (infrastructure, National Defense, court system, state department, police etc.). But something that can be bought by the individual for individual consumption should always be left to the market (food, clothing, baseball equipment, TVs. The only exception to that rule is when there is a natural monopoly situation so the government has to step and control pricing (water, electicity, Gas).

Media is a product consumed by an individual and paid for by an individual so intervention is not necessary. Of course you need regulations on the invidual business like no slander etc. but the government should not manipulate the market like messing with production, consumption pricing etc. Of all consumer products, Media is actually the one consumer product where I fear government intervention above all others.

Where do you disagree with this statement?