Wow. Four in a row, relatively early. This board has lost its stamina.

strategic bombing
 

Is there something you like about DeLay?

strategic bombing
 

"got incinerated" -- nice use of the passive tense

strategic bombing
 

No more than there was six months ago, when I couldn't have picked his picture from a lineup. There IS something I dislike about the sudden voice from the ball-less contingent of the R party that empowers Trudeu and Co. so that their own bloodless R's can sneak in, and runs away from bullshit about Bolton being a meanie. They are going to hand 2006 to the Dems, simply because they think we'll lose votes if some jackass says they're uncivil. It's pre-Clinton all over again, and they don't see it.

strategic bombing
 

"nice use of the passive tense" - great way to avoid the subject.

I like this (from NRO):

"Bolton's view--with which this column agrees--seems to be that the U.N. is useful and worthy of respect only insofar as it responds to American leadership and serves American interests. The Democrats' view, by contrast, seems to be that the U.S. has an obligation to follow the U.N., whether it acts in America's interests or not. That's why, for example, John Kerry*, who voted in 2002 to authorize U.S. military force in Iraq, changed his mind the next year when the U.N. Security Council balked at passing a resolution expressly permitting such action.

Only that's not quite right. The classic example of the U.S. leading the U.N. was the first Gulf War. In November 1990 the Security Council passed Resolution 678, which authorized member states "to use all necessary means," including military force, to liberate Kuwait, then under occupation by Saddam Hussein's Iraq. The resolution also "request[ed] all States to provide appropriate support" to that end.

In January 1991 Congress obliged. The House voted 250-183, with 179 Democrats voting "no," to authorize U.S. military force. The Senate vote was 52-47, with 45 Democrats voting "no." Only 86 House Democrats and 10 Senate Democrats voted in favor.

Among the negative votes were all five current Democratic members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee who were then in Congress: Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, John Kerry, Paul Sarbanes and then-Rep. Barbara Boxer. All told, 25 of the 28 current Senate Democrats who were in Congress in 1991 voted against the Gulf War. (The three who voted for it, in case you're wondering, were Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, Tom Carper of Delaware and Harry Reid of Nevada.)

So the U.N. gave the thumbs-up for military force and asked for help, and most Democrats balked. Only a handful of lawmakers, including Sen. Jim Jeffords, ex-Sen. Bob Graham, Reps. John Dingell and Jim Leach and a few other House members (along with Al Gore), took what might be considered the consistent pro-U.N. position, supporting the liberation of Kuwait but not Iraq. Most Dems who now pose as champions of the U.N. showed their disdain for the world body by voting to refuse its request for help in 1991.

It seems fair to conclude, then, that most liberal Democrats, like Bolton, are pro-U.N. only when it suits their purposes--and that their purposes are the opposite of Bolton's. That is, for the Democratic left, the U.N. is useful and worthy of respect only insofar as it acts as an obstacle to American leadership and an opponent of American interests."

strategic bombing
 

Don't be a schmo. You've made our disagreement clear. If we kill a lot of civilians in a war, I see a problem, and you say, "life is hard." I think that's a callous and dumb thing to say, but I'm unlikely to persuade you with my next post, so I'm not going to try.

Your regard for the fate of Japanese civilians is in odd juxtaposition to your concern for the Iraqis killed by Saddam Hussein.

strategic bombing
 

Maybe they recall that they were on the right side of reform in 1994, and don't want to be on the side of corruption next year.

I don't think DeLay is the most pleasant guy in D.C., but I also don't think that has much to do with what ails him.

strategic bombing
 

In some ways I agree with this and others I don't. Delay is a slime ball, like many other pols on capital hill, but in a relative sense, I don't think he deserves to go (getting him out of the public eye is a different story, see trent lott). I'm unsure on Bolton, but given that Powell seems to be working back channels to derail the nomination, it seems there may be fire to that smoke.

But the bottom line is that Delay is the new Gingrinch/Bush. The Dems needs an evil doer to rally around, and they lost pinning that to Bush. Hastert is too "nice" and Frist is an idiot, but not evil. Delay is there man, and they want to ride him to 2006.

strategic bombing
 

It has to do with who's on which side, Ty.

strategic bombing
 

That one was due to technology (we broke their code and were able to get one of our carriers sorta fixed in 24 or 48 hours when they thought it was sunk). Please consider my statement modified accordingly.

Horsecrap.

As a general principle and as an institution as a whole, the U.N. is useful and worthy of respect whether or not it is responding to American leadership and serving American interests on the particular matter in question. In politics and in diplomacy, as in the more mundane aspects of "real life," it is important and valuable to hear, consider, and respect the views of others (people or countries) -- and to sometimes adjust one's actions accordingly -- even if those views run counter to your own.

S_A_M

P.S. This basic realization is apparently, from most reports, where "Ambassador Bolton" may fall short.

strategic bombing
 

Accepted, and my apologies for any tone that was taken as hostile*.

Nevertheless, I will note that it is very difficult to accept a single cause as being attributable to the outcome of events like Midway. There were a lot of things that could have changed the outcome. For example, if the Japanese didn't change their minds from planning to 1.) load their planes for a naval battle to 2.) load their planes for bombing Midway and back to 1.) load their planes for a naval battle, it is at best dubious that McCluskey's squadron et seq. would have a.) been able to enter the airspace around the Japanese carrier group unopposed and b.) been able to catch Japanese carriers with bomb racks and fuel lines spread out all over the decks while the planes were being reloaded/reconfigured.

With respect to a.), maybe the Japanese would have been able to launch more fighters for their combat air patrol. With respect to b.), maybe the Japanese carriers wouldn't have blown up so quickly.

Anyway, I'm just sayin. The code-breaking and technology certainly improved the odds of an American victory at Midway but, as always, there were a lot of things that could have drastically affected the outcome of that battle or the war.


Hello

* Note: him and LDE are the only male posters who I will take this passive tone with. The rest of y'all beeyotches can forget it.

strategic bombing
 

That's absolutely right, for all the reasons you suggest. I remember as a kid reading a book written by one of the participants at Midway, and all of the lucky breaks seemed to go the right way for the US of A. Good thing we had Henry Fonda on our side (see "Midway").

Speaking of movies, Ty, maybe if that Japanese sniper bastard hadn't shot the Duke in the back at the end of "The Sands of Iwo Kima," I wouldn't feel so strongly.

I think that the concept - the aspiration - of the UN is useful and worthy of respect. Nations should have an ever-present and always-open forum in which to communicate. But the UN hasn't done this well, and it has done too many other things that have been affirmatively bad, whether because a good idea was botched, or a bad impulse was followed.

It will never work as a world government. It will never be given power over the sovereignity of nations. And, without some drastic restructuring, it will never amount to more than a soapbox for countries, people, and ideas that would be ignored or ridiculed elsewhere.

Bolton would be absolutely perfect as our representative in that body.