Comments
Wishful thinking based on a poll (and we know every poll is accurate, right?)! Face it, Iraq is already a failed mission. Those opposed to the war are on the political offensive, and there is no way a surge to levels of 2005 (some surge!) will alter the situation significantly. Perhaps Bush can find his face saving "peace with honor" moment, and leave with the illusion of having brought some semblance of stability. But compared to the goals of the war, and given the cost, that will hardly be a success. And, of course, the militias and gangs will be ready to come back out. Iraq does not have a political culture which can sustain a stable western democracy, and it is too chaotic for the US to simply impose a strong man to suit our interests.

But hold on to your illusions. It used to be "slow progress" (when it was really steady deterioration) and now it’s a magical surge. Reminds me of German propaganda about new weapons and their new offensive up until the end of the war. It amazes me how in denial of reality some are. Amazing, utterly amazing.

Grasp at straws...like Mr. Michael Oppenheimer said on the Colbert report (he was an author of the global warming report), the deniers might find 3 scientists to support their claims to 20,000 that support the global warming report. Who do you believe? You can seek a poll, an opinion about the war to sustain your hope, and grasp that. Or you can confront cold, hard reality.



Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Scott - where to begin.....
The post is about American attitudes, not the actual situation in Iraq, be it good, bad, getting worse, getting better, etc.

It’s about a poll that purports to show that it’s still a tossup about what we’d like to see in Iraq. It’s what I suspect, and you keep ignoring, completely (speaking of rather cold, hard, reality) considering the outcome of the election in Connecticut where the ’war’ senator became an independent and kicked the snot out of the blessed and approved anti-war mainstream party candidate.

Ya just don’t get the idea that Americans still don’t like the thought of ’losing’ in Iraq do you. You and Pelosi, and Murtha, and Biden, and Levin, and the rest of the capital hill clown parade.

But, heh, if that wasn’t enough for you, you just go ahead and ignore flyover country when you review your opinions, there’s only a few of us out here anyway(keep telling yourself), and surely, as goes Maine, so goes the country (heh) so you must be right.

Written By: looker
URL: http://
"Or you can confront cold, hard reality."
OK. You’re right. It is a cold, hard reality that America has a group of gun-ignorant, European b*tt-k*ss*ng *ssh*l*s who will not encourage their offspring to take up arms in defense of our homeland who cannot wait to hand over control of our economy and our future to any and all international bodies. Sad, but true. And they certainly are on the political offensive (emphasis on "offensive"). What do you know; like a rose growing out of a horse t*rd, every once in a while your recommendations are useful.

Written By: notherbob2
URL: http://
Wishful thinking based on a poll (and we know every poll is accurate, right?)!
After that, Scott goes OT . . . (yeah Scott, wev’e heard that crap before).

Scott, I believe this is the latest poll, not the only one indicating this sort of view. And your claims of support for your side in this is based upon . . . polls.

Written By: Don
URL: http://
Wait a minute....I thought the elections were a referendum on Iraq???!

Written By: shark
URL: http://
Ya just don’t get the idea that Americans still don’t like the thought of ’losing’ in Iraq do you.
The US won the war against Saddam’s Iraq, but has now undertaken an impossible task: to use military power to shape a political culture. This is just a big government effort at social engineering, and it’s doomed to fail. The problem is that military power is inherently deadly, violent and destructive, and that works against efforts to create a stable political regime. Moreover, corruption in Iraq is intense, our ability to infiltrate Iraqi militias and organized crime (governmental and non-governmental) is low, and thus we will inevitablly "lose" Iraq. We’ve aleady failed in the original goals and assumptions. Americans may not like it - they didn’t like it with Vietnam (which had more support than this war) - but they’ll have to deal with reality.

Maybe we’ll learn not to have such an arrogant and interventionist foreign policy. Reality will force us to humility — and that’s good.
-scott

Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Well, well, well. Professor Erb does have a cogent comment to make on occasion. This one is totally free of the taint of the LN and is one that I can agree with completely - almost. When one is the world’s only superpower, humility is not one of the options. We might, however, do well to be less aggressive in the future. Having proven our willingness to [insert here whatever you think we might have been doing in Iraq] we may have a lot more cred in our diplomacy than we have had in the past. Provided one assumes that we are not (LN) flogging Haliburton for oil or somesuch, but instead are a force for peace, that is a good thing.

Written By: notherbob2
URL: http://
Honestly, I’m pretty young here, but I say that notherbob is right on this. However, just because we have the power doesn’t give us the right to be asserting our belief that we are a force for peace. While, we may be the world’s only superpower,the war on Iraq had discredited ourselves on these things. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not for abandoning Iraq right now because we have a task to keep up. We got the government destabalized in there and we have to fix it.

Written By: Chris Phan
URL: N/A
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not for abandoning Iraq right now because we have a task to keep up. We got the government destabalized in there and we have to fix it.
Well Chris, that puts you with about 1/4 of the country.
23 percent said "while I don’t agree that the U.S. should be in the war, our troops should stay there and do whatever it takes to restore order until the Iraqis can govern and provide security to their country."
And frankly, I find that a worthy position. The argument about going to war is over and the argument about whether we should have gone to war is moot. Now, as far as I’m concerned, if you were against the war, the only responsible position is that which you are taking.

Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Kumbaya, Kumbaya....

Written By: Robert Fulton
URL: http://
See how nice things go when you leave out the LN BS?

Written By: Robert Fulton
URL: http://
Scott, Sorry wrong again! Your ever evolving pessimist take on life is just plain boring. I realize that you "teach" your "thoughts" based on pop culture but that only works with kids who need to pass your "lecture" (Buy your book) to go on and join the real world. You have NO solutions only drivel and spite. You have a pretty elementary view of geo-politics. I feel for those who suffer through your Blah.

1. If I don’t agree with a poll it is "wishful thinking"
2. "Iraq is failed mission." You fail to understand that your "party" will say anything to get ’political capital’ (elected). This proves a fundamental lack of reasoning ability
3. You believe the second term President who does what he says is saving face by executing a "surge". "Whoops"
4. You believe that Iraqis are too stupid to govern themselves in a reasonable manner. You’re a racist.
5. You fascinate on Germany and a ‘selective’ past history to make a point. WHY?
6. You follow the "Colbert report" for "News". Because he is "Truthy". He simply says what "you" want to hear. Meanwhile advertising revenue is through the roof. I suggest leaving the "Bubble"
7. You suggest AAAYRABBS can only live under a strong man. Once again a racist comment.
8. "Global warming" is unchallengeable! Why because I have kids! Great argument! Scientific theory step one, step two, Step four.
9 The UN in your own words can’t step up to the challenges of "Genocide" but they hold the grail when it comes to human effects on the planet.
10. The US won the war against SADAM? Covering your a$$ or what. I was for removing SADAM and against stabilizing the vacuum left behind from 40 years of authoritarian control by SADAM? WTF X 3!!
11. Military deadly, destructive and violent. Yes. Don’t forget "Motivated" "Smart", "Agile" & "Professional". Why is berlin new??
12. We failed in Vietnam so we are failing in Iraq. One sided pop culture reference to support your point. 20 in ’65’ makes 62 in ’07’, Tic, Tic, Tic...
13. "Syriana was a "movie". Just as people don’t tromp through the woods in search of a bouncing tiger and a half dressed bear named pooh.
14. If you want a case study in ’social engineering’ try "University of Maine" ’Farmington’ POS 255 verses "the students".
15 Isn’t the definition of "arrogant" using ’WE’ verses "I think" when posting individual comments on the Internet.


Written By: coaster
URL: http://
Scott clearly demonstrates the level of stridency coming from the wacko left. The bottom line here is that anyone that makes it through the democratic primary process, is not going to make it in the general election.... So disconnected as the democratic party become from the mainstream of America, their claims of being the mainstream of America, notwithstanding. The party use, and has been, being held hostage by BDS sufferers... and it will be several cycles before they fully recover.

The frightening part of all of this, is that he has a roomful of mines full of mush that he can indoctrinate at will.



Written By: Bithead
URL: http://
Scott, I believe this is the latest poll, not the only one indicating this sort of view. And your claims of support for your side in this is based upon . . . polls.
He did manage to make a self-refuting post, didn’t he?

Yours, TDP, ml, msl & pfpp

Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
This one is totally free of the taint of the LN and is one that I can agree with completely - almost
.

Is that the "liberal narrative" that Pat Buchanan posits about the war? You still haven’t defined what the heck this alleged ’liberal narrative’ is — it appears to be an attempt to dismiss an argument by labeling it, which is illogical.

When one is the world’s only superpower, humility is not one of the options.
Sure it is, we have the power and capacity to determine what role we want to play in the world. I think the approach of ’doing it our way regardless of what others think’ doesn’t work given the chances in global politics (media coverage, the internet, terrorism networks, economic interdependence, etc.).
We might, however, do well to be less aggressive in the future. Having proven our willingness to [insert here whatever you think we might have been doing in Iraq] we may have a lot more cred in our diplomacy than we have had in the past. Provided one assumes that we are not (LN) flogging Haliburton for oil or somesuch, but instead are a force for peace, that is a good thing.
You are making an assumption that Iraq will cause people to think we are willing to use force. A lot of countries believe that our difficulties in Iraq, including how it has split the American public, will make any future administration LESS likely to use force. We are no longer feared — why do you think so many countries like Iran, Venezuela, Russia, etc., are willing to thumb their nose at us and razz us. They believe (including China) that we’ve stumbled and are on the verge of or have actually lost our position as the world’s dominant superpower. And you know, they may be right.

Still, tactically, we can regain status and be a force for peace. We have to recognize the limits of our power. and that we can’t do it alone. If a crisis arises, we need to work with other states to confront it in a manner that isn’t ’our way or the highway.’ I think if we make that shift (and I suspect the next Administration will, Republican or Democratic) we can rebuild alliances and avoid a quagmire like Iraq, and bearing the entire cost. But this war has weakened us tremendously.

Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
"...so many countries like Iran, Venezuela, Russia, etc., are willing to thumb their nose at us and razz us. They believe (including China) that we’ve stumbled and are on the verge of or have actually lost our position as the world’s dominant superpower. And you know, they may be right.
Superpower is based on ships and soldiers, etc., not BS. Under your scenario, France is the world’s biggest superpower.
"Still, tactically, we can regain status .."
Yeah, paper tiger status, like we had under Carter.
"...this war has weakened us tremendously."
No, it is the anti-war left that has weakened us.


Written By: notherbob2
URL: http://
we can regain status and be a force for peace. We have to recognize the limits of our power. and that we can’t do it alone
Let me guess, a League of Nations sort of peace perhaps?
No Barking and certainly no biting.
Much hand wringing over, and bribing of, geopolitical sh*t stirrers.
Endless meetings with France and Russia awaiting their ’permission’ to act.
Agreeing more with Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro perhaps to ’encourage’ them to be less totalitarian.
Perhaps opening our borders a bit more.
Following the sterling example set by Kofi Annan and the UN for resolving world issues and crisis.





Written By: looker
URL: http://
Professor Erb is being coy and pretending that he did not read my comments about the LN on a prior thread. Having me repeat it here will wear out some of my welcome, but ...
"I would like to respond to a request from Professor Erb that he be given an example of the Liberal Narrative in action so that he might understand it and not just be a dupe of it... If you take a look at laura’s comment on this thread on QandO, you will see her making this statement:
” This war, which was marketed to the public on salespitches (sic) which have all been debunked, and has been botched in every aspect of its implementation by the Administration, which has been an enormous cash cow for some businesses connected to this adminnistration (sic)”
This statement describing the war is pure LN – and it [like all the LN] is a lie! All three parts of it are gross overstatements which totally distort the truth. They were carefully honed in Democratic think tanks, however, and hundreds of liberals repeat them to each other and to others every day.
The technique is called “The Big Lie” in propaganda terms. Repeat something enough and it becomes true. ...It is aimed at the typical liberal who has no time for studying politics and thus is a set-up for believing oft-repeated lies. ...The point here is, of course, not whether these three claims are true or false, but to see them as a technique in getting otherwise nice people to repeat lies over and over again in order to create a “Big Lie” and have it accepted by millions as being true.
...How many times have you seen an MSM headline or liberal comment repeat the “Big Lie” that a majority of Americans want to get out of Iraq “right now”? How many liberals do you know who absolutely believe it? ...The LN purveyors need to be called out on this invidious practice."
And not a word about Mr. Buchanan, whom Professor Erb insists on framing into any discussion of the LN, an obvious attempt to set up some sort of strawman point.


Written By: notherbob2
URL: http://
So you assert that this "liberal narrative" is just a claim that the US went to war for business interests? I think the Bush Administration really believed that they could rather easily turn Iraq into a stable democracy, and I generally think they had idealistic intentions of using that to try to transform the Mideast. Yes, that would serve our economic interests too, but I doubt very much they are cynical enough to go to war just for Halliburton!

No, the error was one of simply overestimating the ability of military power to achieve political ends, and great powers have done that consistently in history, and consistently it’s weakened them. This is not a liberal or conservative argument, simply a recognition of how the Bush Administration has repeated a common mistake (as Clinton did with Kosovo, though his PR machine made it seem like a win).

You can have fun in all your left-right dichotomous rhetoric if it makes you feel good, but reality is much more complex. This ain’t no talk radio show!

Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Behold the reason that Professor Erb deserves to be a backbencher, if that, in the political discussion arena. He attempts to turn this:
"The technique is called “The Big Lie” in propaganda terms. Repeat something enough and it becomes true. ...It is aimed at the typical liberal who has no time for studying politics and thus is a set-up for believing oft-repeated lies. ...The point here is, of course, not whether these three claims are true or false, but to see them as a technique in getting otherwise nice people to repeat lies over and over again in order to create a “Big Lie” and have it accepted by millions as being true."
Into this:
"So you assert that this "liberal narrative" is just a claim that the US went to war for business interests?"
Having framed the issue to set up his strawman, as he is SO wont to do, he proceeds to shred it with his standard, no doubt classroom honed, rhetoric. Great technique for preparing planting beds; engaging on the issue at hand? Not so much. No reader could possibly interpret my comment as:
"...just a claim that the US went to war for business interests."
Such arrogant, pusillanimous posturing ...what can one say?

Written By: notherbob2
URL: http://
Your claim about the "big lie" was without substance, it was just a bunch of assertions with no meaning. You have not ever given any substantive claim about what this alleged "liberal narrative" is; you seem to hurl that charge and make grandiose claims about it, but you can’t define it. The closest you got was to connect it to claims about Halliburton.

And it is the right (especially talk radio) that practice repetition of lies and falsehoods, believing that their listeners — usually people who get all their political information from Fox news and talk radio — will simply by the narrative they are selling. Those of us who want real debate and discussion are met with accusations and evasions from people like you who don’t want to talk about the issues because that would mean having to support your assertions and deal with tough arguments. So much easier to attack, accuse, and repeat those accusations over and over until people believe them.

Again, Notherbob, you accuse others of what you yourself are doing. Very clever, but utterly transparent. My job is to help innoculate people from the kind of rhetoric you provide.

And I note you still seem not to be able to answer the fact that Pat Buchanan’s arguments against the war clearly aren’t a liberal narrative. You can’t stand things that don’t fit into your attempt to simplify the world into "two legs bad, four legs good," (that’s Orwell, from Animal House, alluding to how ideological types try to simplify things into caricatures of good and evil to hide reality and ultimately justify their abuse of power). It’s irrational, anti-reason, and increasingly ineffective.

Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
An applicable comment about those in academia:
”...there’s a tendency among activist-left in the academy to just brand anyone who disagrees with them as a right wing-nut. It works, and it’s hard for them to give up that stance.”
Now to your comment:
"Your claim about the "big lie" was without substance..."
Ah, the old liberal "You are not being substantive" canard. You are so predictible, Professor:
"You have not ever given any substantive claim about what this alleged "liberal narrative" is."
Yeah, I can see how an ideological idiot like yourself can have trouble seeing any substance in this:

"The technique is called “The Big Lie” in propaganda terms. Repeat something enough and it becomes true."

This was followed by an example from a a real life blog. Perhaps that is where you became confused. The real life part; you know, where you are not in charge of the class and free to declare what is substantive and what is not?

Your comment discloses that you clearly understand the Liberal Narrative; you project it very accurately upon the Right:
"...it is the right (especially talk radio) that practice repetition of lies and falsehoods, believing that their listeners — usually people who get all their political information from Fox news and talk radio — will simply by (sic) the narrative [!!!!] they are selling.

I’ll leave it to readers to determine who is:
"...irrational, anti-reason, and increasingly ineffective."



Written By: notherbob2
URL: http://
Ah, the old liberal "You are not being substantive" canard. You are so predictible, Professor:
No, you didn’t have substance. You know it. You’re trying to play rhetorical games, but I have you pinned.

Face it, you have nothing but baseless accusations, insults, and attacks. You haven’t responded to any substantive arguments, nor have you made an argument of substance. And you still haven’t explained what this "liberal narrative" is. You have nothing. Therefore, you are easy to debunk and defeat.

Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
??????????



Written By: Robert Fulton
URL: http://
Are you twirling marbles as you write this? You need to get some help. Seriously.

Written By: Robert Fulton
URL: http://
No, you didn’t have substance. You know it. You’re trying to play rhetorical games, but I have you pinned.
In what alternate universe?



Written By: Bithead
URL: http://
Nice poll. But why are the Iraq questions framed with a leaving immediately option? Nobody is proposing to walk out tomorrow. By making the options Stay or Leave Immediatly you inflate the stay numbers.

Written By: Retief
URL: http://
But why are the Iraq questions framed with a leaving immediately option? Nobody is proposing to walk out tomorrow.
They are proposing to leave on losing terms—within 90 days, some of them—so it’s accurate enough.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp

Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools: Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment: