RI Bills Fan

The Internet.

Mickey, you beat me by four minutes... Unconstitutional? This is gonna be interesting...

OBTW Ken, it's almost time for me to leave for work, so if I don't answer your next post promptly, please try to forgive me.

So if I boil this response down to it's bare bones what you appear (to me) to be saying is that if you don't like another poster's argument on any given topic you feel free to respond with personal insults. I guess that allows the rest of us to do the same, or am I reading your response wrong?

Sorry, took a break for a refreshing nap followed by a shower, sometimes posting here makes me feel dirty...

So anyway, KRC, are you going to answer my question or does Karl's intervention on your behalf stand as your final answer? Remember you've already used up the "Call a Friend" option and this question is worth $0.25.

Forgetting all the things I don't like about Rovian Politics, I have to admit the man is very, very good at his job. His job is to tear down the political opponents of his party by any means possible, as early as possible, and as effectively as possible. So by any measuring stick he's ahead of the curve, again.

Umm... The trench tool has a handle, a blade, and a six page comic book attached to explain its operation to Marines while a shovel has just a handle and a blade?

Hello Karl. And anyway I'm a Smart Friggen' Squid. I know the difference betwen a doggone shovel and a "dig-it" tool (AKA Leatherman). And I don't need four and a half friggen' pages of discussion to figure out the difference between "in" and "out."

So then does that mean you condone the use of needless personal attacks as a form of discussion on this board?

Do you have control over what you type?

I guess yesterdays ban on needless personal attacks has expired.

To answer the last question first, no. No policy can succeed if the people implementing the policy don't believe in it. Of course the implementation of policy changes is the responsibility of the top level of management so that becomes problematic in and of itself. See the recent flap on loyalty oaths. The policy changes must be "sold" as workable to the people who are responsible for guiding and shaping the implementation of the policy changes down the chain of command. They then become responsible for ensuring that their operatives on each level understand the reasoning behind the changes, the expected effects of the changes, and how to ensure that the changes are implemented in a manner that produces the desired results. Any administration's policies can quickly become mired in a mass of bureaucratic infighting if there is a serious disconnect between the policy makers and the people who implement the policies.

Sorry, wasn't paying attention, did you say something?

The reality there is the fact that when administrations change the Government's world-view is altered, sometimes subtly (Regan to Bush) sometimes drastically (Clinton to Bush) but the people pounding the metaphorical pavements to implement the policies stay the same. Those people have blood sweat and tears invested in the methods and ideologies currently in use but are being ordered to "Change Horses in Mid-Stream." Some resistance is to be expected but to a greater degree the daunting task those people face is to make the ordered changes without blowing up the process! It's far easier to discuss it than it is to do it.

1. Not Surprised 2. Agreed

Ken why include the Highlighted line? While I don't disagree with anything you said in your well thought out post, I do find it curious that you felt the need to throw in a line that appears to be fear-mongering. Not flaming just asking how you can be so certain that this would occur.

Actually, IMHO Foriegn Policy Goals have to be both proactive and reactive just as Foriegn Policy Actions have to be both proactive and reactive. The reality is that the geo-political climate often changes based on circumstances that our elected leaders have little to no control over, i.e. 9/11. BiB makes a very good point in the planning area. Plan A needs a defined set of perameters, as does Plan B, and C etc. The choice of which plan to pursue then becomes a matter of matching the current situation to the defined goals. Yes I know it's impossible to have every contingency mapped out, but a list of the top 5 or 10 for each goal should at least theoretically be achievable.

Actually I think they would see themselves as Iraqi Sunni-Kurds-Shias. As oppsosed to just Sunni-Kurds-Shias. The question revolves around the Power-Base of the individual(s) chosen. His/Their Power-Base needs to be Iraqi rather than Iranian. Any attempt to use an outside power base as the force propping up the Iraqi Government will not change the situation IMHO, but instead will just serve to further escalate the problems. And in response to your Basic Question; My preference is both. We need the ability to act pre-emptively when absolutely necessary but our primary response mode should be observe and react (militarially) only when no other options are available. Just by way of example Afganistan fits the first criteria and Iraq fits the second. (Read that any way you like, it is an example only! The debate as to whether or not we should have gone into Iraq is moot, we did, and now we must deal with the results.)

I don't see that as workable, largely due to the current political climate. Although it wouldn't be the first time we worked a backdoor project with a country while the headlines concentrated on our disagreements with that country over another issue. Still, as you just stated, the Iranians are impossible to deal with, so how could we trust them not to co-opt the process to their own ends? wouldn't that just be setting up Iraq as a "puppet state" of the Iranian Mullahs? How long would it take them to see that it could be a long term benefit to them to keep the tiger enraged and snarling (which I believe they are already covertly doing). As distasteful as it may be I'd rather see someone like Al-Sadr, or Al Sistani(sp), becoming the "Power behind the Throne." At least (I Hope) an Iraqi Cleric would have the needs of his Iraqi Powerbase as his primary concern.

Unfortunately, the idea that we have a choice at this point appears (to me) to be wishful thinking. We created this situation by (Rightly or wrongly, which isn't the issue here) removing the only "Strongman" who had both the political powerbase and the necessary enforcement infrastructure to rule that madhouse. We now must "ride the tiger" until the next jockey is sufficiently prepared. Any attempt at a "dismount" in the near future will only get the new jockey quickly eaten. The real questions seem to be: What can we change policy-wise that will help make the new jockey's ride possible? Is there a way to prop up the current government to the point where the country will become stable enough to permit a withdrawal without that action causing greater escalations in sectarian violence? Can a democratically elected government ever be effective in ruling a country in that region without being co-opted as an arm of the Mullahs? If not; which of the current Religious Leaders is the best choice for us to (covertly) back? Which one would be both strong enough and willing to (with the right inducements) help stabilize the new government AND be a prime mover in quelling the sectarian violence?

Have you read the rest of this thread? It isn't about the thickness of my skin, I've had my a$$ chewed by experts, and quite frankly there's nobody here who comes even close to that level. It's about wasting my time trying to enlighten the Great Unwashed Masses of PPP. Why should I bother when I can have just as much fun reading the posts of two people BSing each other that they know what they are talking about. And just when was the last time presenting a factual argument on this board swayed anyone's opinion? The only Facts anyone cares about here are the words "Facts Suck" which generally follow some statement taken way out of context. Sometime you have to remember the immortal phrase "The best thing about beating your head is against a brick wall is the fact that it feels so good when you stop!" But you are right, it is fun to goad the freaks!

While I lurk on this board regularly, I rarely post anymore, precisely because of the reasons stated above. After all I’m just a “Limousine Liberal.” I guess having served over 20 years in the US Navy, retiring as a Master Chief Petty Officer (E-9), and going on to a career in building and testing the Navy’s newest and best submarines is not a counter-balance to the fact that I disagree with most of the current administration’s policies and decisions, which of course makes me a “Tree-Hugger” of the first rank. To post a comment on this board which does not support the current administrations views on anything the poster must be willing to endure tirades of ridicule, personal attacks, and endless sarcastic comments in any number of unrelated threads on topics which have no connection what so ever to the original discussion and that’s before the “Piling on” starts. And if said liberal scumbag poster dares to point out that something said by a certain know it all is factually incorrect… Ah, why am I bothering? Lurking and laughing out loud at the nonsense which passes for intelligent discussion on this board is more fun anyway…

This thread breaks the PPP Record for fastest and most effective hijacking Ever... I guess the original subject was just a little too hot for the right wing ball washing crowd to handle.

Just when did the UN become it's own nation? Have you stopped to consider the fact that every nation that is known to have nuclear weapons, is already a member of the UN? So, therefore, Yep, you guessed it... The UN already has Nuclear Weapons.