Such smugness, arrogance ...such insufferable moral superiority.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Bosh


Now this is a bit off topic but I think that the main thing that kept the US winning in Vietnam was the myth of the monolithic communists. The US policymakers didn't appreciate how much bad blood there was between different communist countries and didn't do anything at all to try to exploit that. If they had, the war could've definately been won.

Well, in a way, Nixon did. He went to China. It was only after that trip that the NV became realistic at the negotiating table. They could no longer count on Chinese support if the US chose to invade rather than take any more BS from their negotiators.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Ned


We shall see. Iraq is a UN protectorate, after all. If the UN is unwilling to live up to its obligations, then IT, not the US, will lose all credibility.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Arrian

Are you suggesting the UN will shrug if Iraq asks for help from being attacked by its neighbors? Are you suggesting that the the UN is a total fraud?

[Arrian]

No, I'm laughing at your conclusion that

"...[the UN], not the US, will lose all credibility"

Only in the Nediverse is that true.

-Arrian

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian
No, I'm laughing at your conclusion that

"...[the UN], not the US, will lose all credibility"

Only in the Nediverse is that true.

-Arrian

Yeah, the UN is losing credibility for its failures in Rwanda, Darfur, and elsewhere. The bug out from Iraq after De Meilo's (sp?) death didnt help, but its not a huge thing. Certainly it hurt the UNs credibility in Iraq, but who really gives a damn about Iraqis perceptions?

[Ned]

Arrian, we all know the UN is the stooge of the radicals and anti-democratic types. What I think we need to do is prove that point to the American people who somehow still think the UN has a place in the world.

[Arrian]

The key to his statement was "the UN, not the US." What little credibility the UN has isn't tied to Iraq. Iraq is the USA's show, and problems there will be attributed to us, not the UN. We chose that when we decided to go in without UN approval. Regardless of whether or not that was the correct decision (I do not wish to debate that anymore, it's pointless), we took Iraq on. It's on US now, not the UN.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Ned
Arrian, we all know the UN is the stooge of the radicals and anti-democratic types. What I think we need to do is prove that point to the American people who somehow still think the UN has a place in the world.

The UN is a mess, but it's only the stooge of such types if we allow it to be by ignoring it. We can either work within the flawed UN, or we can go the Bush route and give the UN the finger.

I do think the UN has a place in the world, as I'm sure you know. It needs reform, yes, but it remains a potentially useful institution.

-Arrian

[Bosh]

So let's try to follow Ned's train of logic.

1. The insurgency in Iraq is doing well because of Syrian/Iranian meddling.
2. So to win the war we have to make them stop doing that.
3. We can't make them stop doing that by being nice.
4. We can't make them stop doing that by getting the world to ostracize them.
5. We can't make them stop doing that by invading them.
6. ?
7. Profit! Erm, victory!

[Sandman]

We shall see. Iraq is a UN protectorate, after all. If the UN is unwilling to live up to its obligations, then IT, not the US, will lose all credibility.

It's a US protectorate for all intents and purposes. Please don't try and pretend you can extract some sort of short-term political benefit from this miserable mess. There'll be plenty of long-term benefits (back-stabbing traitor Dems!) for your lot, so just be happy with that.

[Arrian]

I can see it now, in a couple of decades:

We could've won in Iraq, if those ***** Democrats hadn't tied one hand behind our backs!

We'd have won if those goddamned liberals hadn't stabbed us in the back!

-Arrian

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Arrian
I can see it now, in a couple of decades:

We could've won in Iraq, if those ***** Democrats hadn't tied one hand behind our backs!

We'd have won if those goddamned liberals hadn't stabbed us in the back!

-Arrian

Naah. I say that now. I'm sure I'll likely be dead from some Fantical Islamo bomb by the time a few decades pass.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Speaking of smug, arrogant, and insufferable moral superiority.... did anyone else hear the ultra surprising and utterly schocking revelation that Dems knew of Foleys misconducts in midsummer 2005. The choice to shop it to media for an election surprise being a complete wow to me. Yuppp damn those Repugs for sitting on this information when our children-pages are in harms way.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian
I can see it now, in a couple of decades:

We could've won in Iraq, if those ***** Democrats hadn't tied one hand behind our backs!

We'd have won if those goddamned liberals hadn't stabbed us in the back!

-Arrian

Only good if they include Republican realists, Rumsfeldian "we dont do nation-building" anti-Wilsonians and others.

Ned, you see, despite his prolicness here, really doesnt represent the "we couldve won if" camp very well. Id suggest Weekly Standard, or Oxblog, or several other places where its much better articulated, but those folks are less forgiving of Bush and Rummy.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Speaking of smug, arrogant, and insufferable moral superiority.... did anyone else hear the ultra surprising and utterly schocking revelation that Dems knew of Foleys misconducts in midsummer 2005. The choice to shop it to media for an election surprise being a complete wow to me. Yuppp damn those Repugs for sitting on this information when our children-pages are in harms way.

Corruption and immorality knows no single political party. You're just realizing this?