All right, fuck it: Iraq!

[quozl]

The problem with a democracy is that anyone who actually wants to run for a position of power probably shouldn't be in that position because of the nature of obtaining that position of power.  

I think determining our government by random lottery would be a much better method.

[Christopher Weeks]

I actually think the vote keeps anyone particularly good or bad out of the office.  I mean, it's sure that Pat Buchanan and David Duke will never win, but the price is that we're saddled with crud like Bush and Clinton.

I guess I'd be willing to give the lottery idea a playtest.

Chris

[Valamir]

Absolutely right Josh.  The only thing I'd add is that there is far too much government going on publically these days.  On the surface that sounds like a good thing, greater transparency leads to a voting public better able to make sound decisions on who to vote for.

Unfortuneately the reality of it is that its a horrible way to run a country.  Politicians spend way too much time worrying about image and spin control and not enough time being willing to actually attend to the business of government.

The country would be far better off with much more of the daily operations of government occuring behind closed doors where decisions can be made that need to be made.

In this way politicians can be judged on the net outcome of those decisions rather than being prejudged on the presumed outcome by people ripping into the process to serve their own agendas.

I mean look at how many people believe that Iraq is a mess.  That's nonsense.  My cousin just got back from a tour over there with the engineers.  He reports no shots fired by him or at him.  An all around completely boring tour.  In his words, the only notable difference being stationed in Iraq from his usual base in Germany was worse food, and worse weather.  He found the whole thing rather anti climactic.  He also reports that this was the pretty much the same for most everyone over there he met with save those units specifically stationed in known hot spots.

The stories the media puts out about Iraq are completely biased.  "5 soldiers come under attack by rocket grenades" is an interesting headline.  "109,995 soldiers report 'all is well, nothing of note going on" is not.

Iraq is NOT a chaotic nightmarish mess.  It's not entirely smooth sailing, but its not utter chaos on the brink of civil war.  The fact that people can actually say things like that and believe it just demonstrates how in control of public opinion the popular media outlets are.  And that's exactly why I say there is too much government going on publically then is good for us.

[Christopher Weeks]

I just think there's too much government going on.

[joshua neff]

Absolutely right Josh.  The only thing I'd add is that there is far too much government going on publically these days.

Well, John Dean would disagree with you there.

I agree that politicians worry too much about spin & public image. They should, however, worry about public opinion, because it is the public that owns the country. We elect politicians to handle the day-to-day stuff. But they are ultimately accountable to us. It is our duty & our responsibility to be informed, educated, & to hold them accountable for their actions.

But I still stand by my belief that a preemptive strike against a country that hasn't declared war on us, or even hinted that they were planning to declare war on us, is a pretty shitty thing to do, & it's something I cannot get behind.

[quozl]

I just think there's too much government going on.

"That government is best which governs least."

[Valamir]

I just think there's too much government going on.

Well, see there.  That makes 3 things we agree on now.  

1) the parties are all intrinsically self serving
2) the same electoral process that prevents the worst sorts from gaining office also prevents the best
3) and our government is too big.


That last one is often times, the primary thing keeping me from voting Democrat.  I've never met a Democratic candidate who didn't plan on making government even bigger.

For the record, my personal political platform is about 1/3 Right, 1/3 Left, and 1/3 Libertarian.

I piss everyone off.

[Anonymous]

Nicolas:  I find your equating "democracy" with the "UN" to pretty unfathomable.

Well, forget about the UN, then. So what remains of the message is this:

Might makes Right. To you dictators out there: better start building up a nuclear arsenal, then you can pretty much do whatever you want. If you don´t have The Bomb, we will come for you sooner or later (in the name of "Democracy").

Well, I don´t find this very reassuring in the least, because the lesson to be learned here for dictators around the world is pretty clear: Build The Bomb or we invade you... Great, Thanks Mr. Bush!

[timfire]

I mean look at how many people believe that Iraq is a mess.  That's nonsense.  My cousin just got back from a tour over there with the engineers.  He reports no shots fired by him or at him.  An all around completely boring tour.  In his words, the only notable difference being stationed in Iraq from his usual base in Germany was worse food, and worse weather.  He found the whole thing rather anti climactic.  He also reports that this was the pretty much the same for most everyone over there he met with save those units specifically stationed in known hot spots.

Alright, I'm jumping in now. I admit I don't feel like reading all 4 pages of the thread, so hopefully I won't repeat what already have been said.

Ralph, I'm sorry, the above statement is just not true in regard to Iraq as a whole. Things are pretty bad over there. My father-in-law who's a coloniel doing public health type stuff (I guess this is an example of me pulling rank...) just got back after almost a year in Iraq. He was one of the guys keeping records on causalities.

You're right that some spots are hotter than others. But fire fights are a daily occurrance across the country. While the media does report the 1 or 2 people that die each day, they do not report the number of injuries. Dozens of people get injured on a daily basis. Maybe "only" 600 or so soldiers have died, but thousands of soldiers have been injured or wounded.

In some ways the situation is better than the media portrays it. But in many others it's much, much worse. Ralph, you should be thankful your cousin was lucky enough to have a quiet tour.

[Matt Wilson]

Maybe "only" 600 or so soldiers have died, but thousands of soldiers have been injured or wounded.

FYI, the latest count I could find is 3,490. That's just Americans.

[Gordon C. Landis]

Attempting an end run around the "ends and means" stuff . . .  the way in which we went can matter.  It doesn't have to, and/or it it doesn't have to matter as MUCH as the fact that we went and acheived whatever result we did - but it CAN.  In this case, I believe very strongly that it did.  I believe that it is POSSIBLE (not inevitable, and not even likely - but all-too possible) that what history will show is that the overthrow of Saddam was the begining of the end of American leadership in world affairs.  It'll take a long time, if it does play out that way.

But the risk that that - or a number of other negative outcomes - will occur as a result of the overthrow is far too great to support the possible positive results.  The chance of anything as rosy as the PNAC-envisioned "true middle-eastern democracy" flourishing in Iraq and spreading are far too slim to place our nation's resources and reputation on the line over.

What bothers me is not that real politik is behind the Iraq war.  What bothers me is that foolish idealism of the PNAC-stripe is behind it.

Gordon

[Valamir]

That's 3% folks...in over a year.  That's just counting the 110,000 number of total deployed.  Include the total number of people who've served over there (not just serving currently. i.e. went in, came home) and the %age is even lower.

In a YEAR.  These are NOT significant numbers (except of course to the people who suffered them and their families.  Its always hard to not sound callous when discussing casualty figures).  

But starting last July, units are being rotated in an out for 1 year tours.  That means, the total number of servicemen/women who've served any time in Iraq is much higher than the number stationed there at any given time.  If you figure that after 1 year 75% of the troops have turned over, that's less than 2% casualties.

I'm not saying that's nothing.  But I am saying:  let's keep some perspective.    3490 troops who are wounded means 180,000+ who are not.

[Valamir]

Gordon, 100% in agreement.  That is certainly a possibility.  As you say, only time will tell.

What I take umbrage at is the broohaha that basically paints disastor today based on very overblown media coverage which, given that this is an election year, is very carefully designed to cast things in the worst possible light for the incumbant.

Every single bad piece of news that comes out of Iraq through a major media outlet should carry with it the following notice:

"Warning: Entering Full Spin Zone.  This news is being presented in an election year by people who plan to vote against Bush. "

[Christopher Weeks]

These are NOT significant numbers (except of course to the people who suffered them and their families.  Its always hard to not sound callous when discussing casualty figures).

It's funny that we both realize this and we take very different messages away from it.  The very fact that it's hard not to sound callous should tell you something.  

If every one of the 600 dead had signed up for a cause that they believed in (rather than the implicit obligation that they took when joining the service, while believing that they'd never see action) things would be very different on this side of the equation.  The Iraqi deaths would remain tragic, of course, but at least our boys who were wasted wanted it that way.

I think our military policy should be to protect our holdings with the normal standing army (which should be radically downsized) and when we, as a nation, decide that a cause is worth projecting force across the globe, a seperate army of vollunteers should be assembled.  If we kept a large pool of reservists we would be ready to implement such projects on a reasonable time table.

Chris

[Mike Holmes]

We do keep a large pool of reservists. I was one of them (Wisconsin Army National Guard, actually). Many of them are over in Iraq right now. But the issue isn't one of reserves. You could just ask the members of the standing army to volunteer, and only send those members. But that ignores the reality of the fact that the military is organized in units, and that creating new units is not something done in short order. Even when the reserves are activated, they train up and go as units.

In any case, when you join the military, you do not join half-assedly. You take an oath to do what you're told. If you don't like the politics of a decision, then you can always exercise your right to vote for the other guy. If you don't like that idea, well, the military is voluntary...if you feel that way, don't join. If there are hyporcrites out there who joined the military expecting to benefit from the job, but not expecting to have to fight in wars, then they're seriously deluded, and wrong. Nobody tells you when you go in that you get to only fight in the wars that you think are "right."

The military cannot be allowed to have a political mind. This is why the commander in chief is a civilian in the US. The military must be a tool of the democracy. The president is the executive of the democracy, and, in theory, is acting on it's behalf.

If you don't like the executive having the powers that it does, then what you want to do it get the "War Powers" act repealed, which would then require again an act of congress to declare war. If you don't like that congress can just follow the president, then enact legislation that would handle it differently (I dunno, referendum?). But that aspect of the military cannot change. As soon as militaries become politicized is the moment that they seize control.

And we don't want that, do we?

Mike