Almost 60 percent of respondents to a new Gallup poll for CNN/USA Today oppose the war in Iraq, while about 40 percent favor the war. After being sold on a war to prevent weapons of mass destruction from arriving on American soil, punish Saddam Hussein for his role in 9/11, and create democracy in an Arab state, about three-fourths of Americans initially supported the war. After all, if the Iraqis were to greet us with flowers, why not invade their country? Reality was not as promised. No WMD have been found. Iraq had no role in 9/11. The Iraqi regime needs the presence of U.S. troops for its survival. More than $200 billion has been spent on Iraq, 1,724 Americans are dead, and 12,855 are wounded. Big-government schemes rarely work out as advertised. These poll results reflect the American public's belated understanding of this.

All this stuff was known before the election yet Bush won. Those of you who voted for Bush - Shut up and Deal.

Hi RC. Nice to meet you. I didn't vote for Bush.

But, isn't the opponent in an election a relevent factor, too? I mean, Bush didn't deserve to win. But that isn't a sufficient reason to vote against him, if the other guy deserved it even less, right?

"I didn't vote for Bush."

Some days, I almost wish Kerry had won.

Senator John McCain says it best. "The biggest mistake we made after september 11 was not calling on Americans to serve. We shouldn't have told them to just go shopping or take a trip. We should have said okay we're setting up all the organizations and we're going to give all of you a chance to fight as foot soldiers in the war on terror. I think we can still do that. Too often we've been told we are at a turning point. What people should have been told is its long, its hard, its tough, very tough." There's no question the difficulty involved was under estimated. Before we can change the situation on the ground we must defeat the terrorists. While Iraq may not have had assisted with 911, it does seem clear they aieded and abetted the organization who did and their remain unanswered questions about Iraq's WMD program. The administration will need to do a better job of explaining the stakes. What Senator McCain has said is a good start.

Brad

I share your sentiments. For example, Bush has said we are going after the terrorists everywhere but the he coddles the most ruthless terrorist organization of them all, which is the Palestinian Authority. At best this is hypocritical stance. I'm not sure what he's thinking.

I wasn’t an advocate of the U.S. going into Iraq in the first place. However, as I believed that smarter and better informed people than myself made the decision based on the best information possible, I supported it whole heartedly with the understanding that we had two missions: find the WMD’s and depose the person who developed them and intended to use them. Period.

We’ve done that. But we’re still there with no definitive end in sight.

I always thought that using the 9/11 disaster as a reason for going in was kind of lame. On its face it was a good way to motivate the American public to support a military action against somebody, but why against Iraq?

Although there we some links to what happened on 9/11 to Iraq, there were just as many reasons to invade other countries, particularly Saudi Arabia.

There always seemed to be more of a disconnect to Iraq than to other havens for terrorism.

So, I’m not sure the American people or our government was thinking clearly. Just pi$$ed off and looking to do something, quickly.

If the byproduct of our military action there were at this point a blood for oil undertaking, I could deal with that better than to think we’re dying there to make Iraq safe for Iraqis and protect their flimsy government.

B. Poster -- let's not get in the mode where every person in society has to be a "footsoldier." Though the armed forces are necessary and noble, it is not the role of a person to serve the state, but the other way around.

Except for Afghanistan, there is no traditional war we could have waged that would be part of the "war" on terrorism, so how are we going to give people a chance to be footsoldiers? (Or do you mean a chance to serve in the border patrol? Or perhaps in Christian missions in Muslim lands?) Moreover, it's quite arrogant of you to think that the reason that people disagree with you on the Iraq war is that we aren't willing enough to "serve" or "fight" in a phony "war on terrorism."

The problem is NOT that the president and McCain need to better explain to people what is at stake and get us to sign up as footsoldiers. The problem is that Iraq was a mistake. We have no business there, and it has nothing to do with protecting the US from terrorism.

So we are well over halfway to matching every slain American on 9/11 (2,986) with a fallen soldier in Iraq. Given that Iraq was not complicit in the 9/11 attacks nor anything more than a very peripherally related to the so-called War on Terror, this is all quite sad.

We had a reckoning with the terrorists in Afghanistan and should continue to seek them out and destroy them. Uur brave soldiers lives should be risked in those efforts and not on nation-building in backwards arab countries.

I can understand your frustrations, short, asdf, b.poster and brad. After all, the guys on your favorite TV show, The A-Team, accomplished their missions in 60 minutes. Man, they were cool!

Short

I never said that everyone has to be a foot soldier. At least I don't think that is what I said. I was quoting Senator McCain. He seems to be stating that we need to encourage military service. General Wesley Clark has also said much the same thing. I agree with them. No one has to serve the state. You serve America because you want too. I think it was President Kennedy who said "ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country."

Serving in the border patrol or as missionary to Muslim lands is an excellent idea. As it is right now, I don't think our government understands the religous factors that drive Islamic Extremists. I could be wrong of course.

"Moreover its quite arrogant of you to think that the reason people disagree with you on the Iraq war is that we are'nt to serve or fight in a phony war on terror." What I said was I don't think the Bush administration has done a good enough job explaining the stakes. If your source is only the MSM, I don't think you will get a complete picture. I think the statements by John McCain are a step in the right direction. Frankly, I wish President Bush would have made them.

I find nothing phony about this. Saddam Hussein offered a full service terrorism enterprise. Respectfully, I don't think you are going to defeat this enemy by leaving that regime in power. Part of this terrorist enterprise included training terrorists in how to hijack Boeing 707s. I apologize to flynnfilers if I came accross as arrogant.

I think it has been asked why Iraq? I think it is best summed up by the following:
1.) We had already had a war with Iraq. 2.) Saddam was in violation of the cease fire that ended the first Gulf War. 3.) We were already essentially in what had been termed "a low grade war" with Iraq because of point 2. 4.) Iraq had violated about 17 UN resolutions. 5.) Iraq's known support for terrorists including Al Qaeda. And finally 6.)We along with numerous others had reason to believe stockpiles of WMD would be there. I think the above 6 reasons, not necessarily in order of importance, combined to make this an easier sell to the American people and the international community than say invading Iran or Saudi Arabia. It could have been a strategic error to start with Iraq. In order to have a successful prosecution of a war against Islamic Extremists terrorists we would have had to deal with Iraq at some point.

So Eddie, what is our mission there at this moment? Please explain.

"We should have said okay ... we're going to give all of you a chance to fight as foot soldiers in the war on terror." -McCain, endorsed by B.Poster

Look, my point is that (1) McCain here basically says that all Americans should be serving in some "foot soldier" capacity in the "war on terror." (BTW I assume "foorsoldier here is metaphorical, not just militaristic.) (2) You endorse McCain's quote enthusiastically. So you basically say that every person in society should be a "foot soldier" in the war on terrorism. (3) I think this has things backwards because it is dangerous to view everyone in society as part of the talent-pool for government's projects. Kennedy was wrong: Although we should be eager to serve each other, I don't think we should be eager to serve our government. (This is just a different philosophy of government between you and me -- OK, no big deal. Sorry to jump on you.)

But secondly, you said in the context of Iraq problems that (1) people need to be more willing to serve their country, and (2) the administration hasn't sufficiently explained the stakes. I think this is a major error. The problem is that the stakes in Iraq aren't worth the lives of US soldiers. The war was a mistake by people willing to use the "war on terrorism" slogan to start an enourmous federal government social-engineering project half-way around the world.

Sorry for the harshness of the first post. I get a little jumpy sometimes.

The stakes in the Middle East are not simply a battle between the United States of America and a confederation of Muhajideen veterans who seek to drive it out of the region. To look at is as such is great folly.

It is a battle between the forces of globalization, connectedness, and world economic interdependence, against the forces that would have the region become disconnected, cut off, would create a world walled off from our own.

Such a thing happened in the pass, and the world did not take sufficient notice. Bolsheviks took the reigns of power in Moscow, and an elaborate communist empire was built up all over the world on the background of the Cold War.

The Bush Doctrine, thankfully, realizes the threat of allowing the economic poverty, societal disconnectedness, and societal repression that currently is the order of the day in the Middle East to remain the status quo.

One cannot defeat the Jihad without knocking down the Jihad factory.

A little backwards, Ben T. The Bolsheviks were also fighting "a battle" FOR "globalization, connectedness, and world economic interdependence." Don't pretend like they on the other side here, silly.

Besides, if the "war on terror" is really a war to force everyone to "globalize" and "interconnect," you can count me out.

I can see it now, little monuments in small towns across America, memorizalizing-- next to the names of US men killed in the WWI and II and Korea and Vietnam-- those brave patriots killed in the War for Global Interconnectivity!

Can you come up with a better strategy?

Oh, maybe just go after Bin Laden and his allies?

Oh yeah that was what we were doing BEFORE 9/11.

That tactic failed.

Kill the Jihadists but leave the Jihad factory in tact right?

Maybe next time instead of Al Qaeda it will be Ansar Al Islam or Egyptian Islamic Jihad that murders thousands of Americans. Then we can go after them, and the next time it won't be them, but it will be The Armed Islamic Group. Then we can hunt them down, and so hand, and so on, ad infinitum, as we were doing in the nineties.

That's real progress!

Ben T and short, you're both wrong.

T-Money: The war on terror is not about promoting economic globalization. That would not be a justifiable reason at all.

Short: True Communists are not pro-globalization. They despise the global economy, which they see as being a form of economic imperialism on the part of greedy capitalists.

Ben L: Actually, Marxists see the globalization of the capitalist economy as a development of the technological and cooperative abilities of the human race, and as the the prerequisite for global communism. Global communism then steps in as the ultimate global economy, global interdependency, and global interconnectivity (i.e., all the things Ben L said this war was for). So no disrespect, but if we're talking about Marxist communists (and Ben T appealed to Bolshviks, who were self-styled Marxists), you really couldn't be more wrong that "True Communists are not pro-globalization. They despise the global economy." The view of Ben T seems to be close to the capitalist version of the Marxist view of history. T just snips off the end where the proles take over.

Short: Stop and think. Which group makes up the majority of people at anti-globalization protests? Answer: Commies.

Ben T and short, you're both wrong.

T-Money: The war on terror is not about promoting economic globalization. That would not be a justifiable reason at all.

-Ben Litchman

I didn't say that was what the war was about. I said that the war was a battle between forces advocating the spread of globalization and connectedness and forces trying to stop it.

The war however, never would have begun in the first place if the forces fearing the spread of globalization had not murdered 3,000 Americans.

But to clarify, I don't want any mix ups here,I see the spread of economic globalization as a means, not an end.

The only appeal I made to the Bolsheviks was when I pointed out that the international community's failure to respond to a fesering threat led to the Bolshevik victory in Russia, just as the Anti-Bush crowd would have us fail to respond to a festering threat in the Middle East status quo today.

One more clarification:

I feel that my clarification did not sufficiently clarify.

These terrorists hate us because we ARE spreading western infidel influences into the society they are trying to turn into one purely reflecting their twisted vision of Islam. By definition that makes us the enemy of globalization, the enemy of us, and the enemy of the people that they are working so hard to continue the oppression of.

Before 9/11 that war was on a small scale. They would bomb the cole. We would launch a few tomahawks into Baghdad.

They however, took it to the next level when they saw fit to murder 3,000 American citizens.

Now I see strategic regional democratization and the spread of globalization as the best way to secure the advancements of my goals, but make no mistake my goals are the protection of American national security and foreign interests.

To accuse me, as Short does, of wanting to fight a war for globalization is the same as accusing Dwight D Eisenhower as wanting to fight a war with Nazi Germany over control of the Normandy beaches. It misses the bigger picture.

Hey Bens, it looks like you guys are being taken out to the wood shed again. By none other than little old Short. You guys create a noose with your own words and she just pulls the lever and puts you guys out of your misery. No mas Bens!
No mas!

Hey Bens, it looks like you guys are being taken out to the wood shed again. By none other than little old Short. You guys create a noose with your own words and she just pulls the lever and puts you guys out of your misery. No mas Bens!
No mas!
Posted by Everybody at June 21, 2005 11:12 PM

And it looks like you are making a sad attempt to pass argumentum ad hominem off as an argument. Run along now.

Is this a battle for globalization and connectedness according to Ben T?

Maybe not: "To accuse me, as Short does, of wanting to fight a war for globalization is the same as accusing Dwight D Eisenhower as wanting to fight a war with Nazi Germany over control of the Normandy beaches. It misses the bigger picture." -Ben T.

But: "It is a battle between the forces of globalization, connectedness, and world economic interdependence, against the forces that would have the region become disconnected, cut off, would create a world walled off from our own."

I'm sorry, T, but you said that too!

"Short: Stop and think. Which group makes up the majority of people at anti-globalization protests? Answer: Commies." -Ben L.

Ben L: Stop and read before you tell me I'm wrong about Bolsheviks.

http://www.wimbledoncollege.org.uk/LearningResources/Philosophy/GermanIdeologyText.htm

The final section (Development of the Productive Forces as a Material Premise of Communism) proves my point here perfectly well.

Short: I read it. You're wrong about Communists.

I am not discussing plausibilities. I am talking about what happens in the real world. Globalization, which is essentially the spread of capitalism, is not a nefarious Communist plot. Of course, Marxist theory suggests that Capitalism is just one stage in the big chain leading up to Communism. However, both the history of socialist countries resisting capitalism both internally and from abroad (hesitant, stubborn inroads have been made really only in the past few decades after generations of harmful policies) as well as modern day anti-globalization protests prove my point that Communists do not embrace the global economy.

Look Ben L: T said Bolsheviks had been in a battle against a global economy, and global interdependence and interconnectedness. This is false. Bolsheviks (because they were self-styled Marxists) foretold a future of a totally globalized economy. And if "interdependence and interconnectvity" don't apply to the communist vision, I don't know what does. (Did I say capitalism was a Bolshevik conspiracy? No. Again, stop and read.) Reread my comments above if you want, you will find that the Marx document completely bears me out.

Now what about this attempt of yours to CHANGE THE SUBJECT? Well, whatever some 17 year-old brat at an antiglobalization protest says about "globalization" is irrelevant to what Bolsheviks believed. Moreover, these people generally do believe in a globalized interdependent economy, just not a free market one. The reason today's idiotic poseur-hippies hate the global economy is because they think the whole world should share everything. Here:

Whole world sharing everything =
Global interdependent interconnected economy.

Bolsheviks looked to someday create a world economy based off their communist system. Before they could do that however, they knew they needed to create a world where the money, the power, and the societal rules of the European world held no power. And so Lenin created the Soviet Union. He was walling himself off from the society in which the rest of the world operated in an attempt to make a new society. This was the comparison I was making between Lenin and Bin Laden.

Whole world sharing everything = world communist society. Evil Marxist plot.

Whole world buying, selling, trading, freely transferring information at their own behest = globalization.

So then is the question we are debating "Is globalization an evil Marxist plot and are those who wish to spread globalization evil Marxists at heart?" Or can we move back to the actual issue? Because globalization has been happening for almost two decades now, hailed by such evil Marxist plotters as Milton Friedman, and Ronald Reagan, and all you have offered so far is this elaborate strawman.

Ben T, seriously, pay attention. I never called capitalist globalization an evil communist plot, and I never said that "the whole world sharing everything" was a good idea. You are fighting shadows.

Unfortunately, again, as a matter of historical fact, the Bolsheviks did not wall themselves off. True, initially, when pulling out of WWI, they weren't yet imperialists. But quickly, not only were the soviets still dedicated to an evenual global communist economy, they were even more dedicated than orthodox Marixism would allow for making this happen through armed intervention throughout the world. Did they "wall themselves off" -- oh, tell that to the Poles (and the Hungarians, and the Slovaks and Czechs, and the ...). You yourself say this in the post where you accuse them of isolationism: "Bolsheviks took the reigns of power in Moscow, and an elaborate communist empire was built up all over the world on the background of the Cold War." Make up your mind, did they wall themselves off, or were they empire-builders?

Look, you are dedicated to capitalistic globalism, so you want to think that the people on your enemies list are in every way against it. It's an understandable impulse, causing you to you mispeak. I understand.

"Or can we move back to the actual issue?" -Ben T

What actual issue? The issue was supposed to be the war in Iraq. You're the one who brought up economic globalism. Let's bring it back to the issue:

The war in Iraq was based on a false premise, so now the hawks need to come up with more and more reasons to justify it. The newest one? Ben T saying that, aslike in the cold war, in Iraq we are fighting the enemies of globalism.

Now what about this attempt of yours to CHANGE THE SUBJECT?

Calm down, lunatic. We're allowed to have a discussion that strays from the initial post.

Your point seems to be that Communists wanted to exert their power across the globe. What a stunning revelation.

My point has always been that Communists do not support economic globalization -- the practical definition of which is global capitalism. Your Buchananesque conflating of terms that mean wholly different things serves to mischaracterize your opponents' standpoint. This is an understandable impulse.

The success of capitalism and its embrace by countless peoples across the world undermines the efforts of statists, you condescending crackpot.

Ben T saying that, aslike in the cold war, in Iraq we are fighting the enemies of globalism.

No, it is my understanding that he is talking about the broader War on Terror, not specifically Iraq. To a degree, he's right. As D'Souza characterizes 9/11 in "What's So Great About America", the attacks were a lashing out against the force that is most incluencing the world. In that sense, Islamofascists are certainly anti-globalists.

My disagreement with T-bag is that some of his comments seemed to imply that the point of the war in Iraq was to get them involved in the global economy. It isn't true, and it would not be a justified reason to go to war. (I couldn't care less if one day I get to wear Iraqi-made sandals).

The war in Iraq was based on a false premise, so now the hawks need to come up with more and more reasons to justify it.

The "premise" of the War on Terror is that Middle-Eastern Muslims are crazy. This is evidenced by 9/11, the attacks on the USS Cole, numerous embassy bombings, suicide bombings, etc. One view is that we treat the World Trade Center bombings like a simple criminal act -- find the plotters and bring them to justice. Another is that we treat it like it is -- an act of war, in fact of a war that was declared on us in the mid-90s. Now the question comes -- why are these Muslims so crazy? The argument of the Bush Doctrine is that the almost total lack of freedom in that part of the world acts as a perfect breeding ground for indoctrination into fanaticism. This strikes me as the most sensible argument. And Iraq was a better target for democratization, for numerous reasons (one of which being the widespread belief that they possessed WMD), than e.g. Saudi Arabia.

The last sentence should begin: And Iraq was a better target for a war of democratization...

Ben T, seriously, pay attention. I never called capitalist globalization an evil communist plot, and I never said that "the whole world sharing everything" was a good idea. You are fighting shadows.

Unfortunately, again, as a matter of historical fact, the Bolsheviks did not wall themselves off. True, initially, when pulling out of WWI, they weren't yet imperialists. But quickly, not only were the soviets still dedicated to an evenual global communist economy, they were even more dedicated than orthodox Marixism would allow for making this happen through armed intervention throughout the world. Did they "wall themselves off" -- oh, tell that to the Poles (and the Hungarians, and the Slovaks and Czechs, and the ...). You yourself say this in the post where you accuse them of isolationism: "Bolsheviks took the reigns of power in Moscow, and an elaborate communist empire was built up all over the world on the background of the Cold War." Make up your mind, did they wall themselves off, or were they empire-builders?

Look, you are dedicated to capitalistic globalism, so you want to think that the people on your enemies list are in every way against it. It's an understandable impulse, causing you to you mispeak. I understand.
Posted by short at June 22, 2005 01:29 PM

They did wall themselves off at first. First they hurled out of Russia all the old systems. They got rid of capitalism, they got rid of the old society, et cetera. They then attempted to build up a world empire.

This is strikingly similar to what Bin Laden would like to do. He would first like to remove all western influence from the Middle East. He would then like to restore the Islamic Empire of yore. This would be all the land from Morocco to Pakistan, including many places in Europe, such as the Iberian peninsula, the Balkans, and the souther Germanic areas, under the rule of one Caliph. Undoubtedly any Caliph Bin Laden had in mind would be radically extremist in his interpretation of Islam.

It's not a very difficult plan to understand, it was used by the Bolsheviks and Bin Laden would like to use it: Drive out infidel influences, create a "perfect" society, and then expand.Unfortunately to understand this plan one has to be able to view history from a broader perspective, and you have proven yourself time and time again only to be able to look at it as small, unrelated chunks.

I never said that you said the whole world sharing everything was a good idea, nobody knows where you are getting this from. You never said globalization was an evil communist plot, but you have moreorless inferred that it is an evil plot.

Hit post button by accident.

You more or less inferred it is an evil plot, or at least the spread of it is anyways.

You then inferred that I am somehow more dedicated to the spread of globalization than I am to protecting American security,that I want to fight a war for global interconnectednes, which is of course utter BS. I see globalization as the correct tool to use with which to win the war, not the war itself.

Ben L: T's point was that Bolsheviks were against "globalization, connectedness, and world economic interdependence." This is false. Whether you take "globalization"/"economic globalization" to refer literally to (a) the development of any global economic system (including a communistic one), or to (b) a specifically capitalist development of a global economic system, Bolsheviks as Marxists support it. (The former is their goal, the latter is their means). So as far as me "conflating terms," you'll find that I'm right either way! Get over it. You're wrong. The bolshviks were one-worlders, not isolationists "walling themselves off". (BTW L: You are continuing to try a conjuring trick in which you talk about "communists" instead of the topic "Bolsheviks," about which you tried to correct me. You are free to change the topic. But this slight of hand is dishonest. Ben T didn't comment on hippies at antiglobalization rallies, which seems to be your only argument; he commented on the Bolsheviks.)

Ben T: Sorry that Ben L's insistence on defending your falsehood has only made me repeat over and over again what your mistake was. As far as globalism being an evil plot goes, I've never said whether I think its is good or bad, but I don't think it is a plot. I like the free market.

So do you have a view on the actual idea of using globalization as a weapon in the War on Terror other than pointing out that Bolsheviks were not strictly isolationist? (A view I agree with you on, though we got caught up in a semantics brawl.)

I don't know, T. What does it mean to use "globalization" as a "weapon"?

First: I think the word "globalization" is a screwed up word invented by leftists who don't like capitalism, and I'm not sure what it refers to. So why are we using it? Do you just mean the expansion of the free market?

And then perhaps there are a lot of things built into what leftists call globalization, which are not really aspects of a free market at all. A lot of the time, it's just rich people/corps going to countries where the law is not free and taking advantage of the situation. (E.g., I don't see how giving massive loans to poor countries' _governments_ is part of "globalization" if that means, an extended free market.)

So why should WE use the word? If we mean the free market, we should say it, and then we should insist on treaties and such that help put into place the preconditions of good economic systems.

But still, I don't know what it would mean for the free market to be used as a weapon in the war on terror... No clue, really.

Some good books to read if you are interested in a full picture of globalization are the following:

The Pentagon's New Map: War and Peace in the Twenty First Century by Thomas PM Barnett

Longitudes and Attitudes: The World in the Age of Terrorism by Thomas L. Friedman

The Lexus and the Olive Tree: Understanding Globalization by Thomas L. Friedman

Left-wing antiglobalists do not have a monopoly on the word globalization or it's meaning.

Thomas PM Barnett, former Assistant for Strategic Futures at the Pentagon and Senior Strategic Research professor at the US Naval War College defines globalization as not only the spread of free markets, but the spread of societal connectivity, economic interdependence, and democracy that comes with it. He divides globalization into three sectors:

THE FUNCTIONING CORE: Western Europe, North America, Japan, et cetera. The historically economically prosperous and connected parts of the world. In these areas economic prosperity, economic interdependency, and democratic societies are all the norm.

THE NEW GLOBALIZERS: The Asian Tigers, the big three in South America (Argentina, Brazil, Chile.) et cetera. The global economy's rising stars. These are areas where economic prosperity and interdependency are skyrocketing upwards, and where democratic societies and the rule of law are rapidly becoming the norm where they aren't already.

THE NON-INTEGRATING GAP: Since the end of the Cold War, this is where all the global security community's problem areas have arisen. Africa, the Middle East, less desirable areas of South America, et cetera. Especially, the brave citizen of New York City would be happy to tell us, the Middle East.

So then, we know that it is economic desperation and disconnectedness that allows radicalism and dictatorship to breed. To go back to Lenin for a moment, he didn't choose Russia for no reason.

This kind of backwardness, disconnectedness, and economic desperation has been causing problems for us in the Middle East and parts of Africa for decades. It resulted in the bombing of the USS Cole, the destruction of the World Trade Center, and later the beheading of Daniel Pearl.

The Bush Doctrine then would argue that a good way to combat this problem, and a good way to win the War on Terror, is through the dismantling of various repressive, anti-American dictatorships that serve as a spawning pool for this mindset. What I personally have dubbed the Jihad Factory.

Since we know that economic desperation and societal disconnectedness are the spawning pool of radicalism and general kookery that results in many innocent deaths, with what weapon may we combat such a thing? What tool can we use to destroy the Jihad Factory?

No tool in human history has been so efficient at turning around situation of economic desperation and societal disconnectedness then globalization. It is the best possible tool to use to bring about the Jihad Factory's fall. However various governments throughout the region are serving as direct stoppers to the spread of globalization. These governments ASSURE that their people stay economically desperate, these government ASSURE that their people stay societally disconnected, these governments ASSURE that their people remain on Jihad's ever active assembly line. And until we change that, we can't change anything, and we can't make ourselves safe for any serious amount of time. Instead we will be playing what boils down to an ever-going game of Whack-A-Mole. Knock Al Qaeda down, Ansar Al Islam pops up. Knock them down, up comes Egyptian Islamic Jihad. Et cetera.

That is why I support the Bush Doctrine's plan for strategic regional democratization.

If Bush were to reinstate the draft support for the war would fall through the floor. Already enlistments are down and support for the war continues its steady erosion.

If all this implies Americans are resolved not to die in a fruitless war then it's a sign we're awakening from our long nightmare under Bush. At least one can hope.

Whether you take "globalization"/"economic globalization" to refer literally to (a) the development of any global economic system (including a communistic one), or to (b) a specifically capitalist development of a global economic system, Bolsheviks as Marxists support it. (The former is their goal, the latter is their means).

The latter is their means? So those who are involved in the actual implementation of this global capitalist system -- they -- are Bolsheviks?

Polls are so accurate! I can't wait to see the millions in the streets protesting the war instead of the usual suspects parading paper mache puppets and free mummia signs. And since so many people oppose the war we can understand the confidence of the dhimmiecrats as they hurl increasingly vile insults and sling more filth. These are the actions of those about to achieve a majority? only in the minds of those who produce polls.

If Bush were to reinstate the draft support for the war would fall through the floor. Already enlistments are down and support for the war continues its steady erosion.

If all this implies Americans are resolved not to die in a fruitless war then it's a sign we're awakening from our long nightmare under Bush. At least one can hope.
Posted by Eric Wilds at June 22, 2005 06:48 PM

Because there is evidence the draft will be reinstated.

Oh wait, there isn't.

Reagan, also, dropped to huge lows early in his second term.

He seems to have come out okay in the American mind.

"So those who are involved in the actual implementation of this global capitalist system -- they -- are Bolsheviks?" -Ben L

No, L, listen, I never implied that 'yes' was the answer to this question. Why do you keep acting stupider than you are? Marxism has STAGES of history. All prior stages are in a sense means to the end stage, global communism. Do you not understand this? So the stage of capialistic globalization is a prerequisite, premise, or means to their goal, global communism. Reread the Marx I sent you again if you doubt what I'm saying.

Short why did you even invoke the statement that global capitalism was a prerequisite of the Marxist universe if you were not attempting to imply that global capitalism would lead to global communism?

Pretty simple, Ben T. Because that's what Marx says, and the argument that Ben L picked with me was about what what Marx/Marxists believed. To defend myself against his "you're wrong," I had to explain Marx to him.

Look, I said "Marxists believe X leads to Y," I didn't say that I believe X leads to Y.

Okay, just asking.

So then how DO you feel about using globalization as a weapon in the War on Terror, as I outlined it?

Ben L.,

As to your whole confusion over Bolshevism/Leninist-Marxism it will all be cleared up for you when some (probably pinko-, maybe even Short!) adjunct lecturer in college assigns you to read Lenin's "Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism." It is a really great read, btw, fascinating stuff and strikingly prescient as regards Lenin's understanding of the trends in modern capitalism. These trends he identifies are the basics of what we usually mean when we talk about economic "globalization."

If you want to get a jump on the topic I suggest Henry Christman's edition of the "Essential Works of Lenin." It is the standard edition really and can be found most anywhere or online real cheap used.

I can dust off my copy from my shelf and give you a synopsis of Lenin's take on the subject you were arguing over above if you want, or I suspect you can google the book and find a decent commentary, or maybe the whole tract, online.

Would you like to lay out your Leninist criticism of Globalization for us?

Does it have to do with the imperialized and oppressed dancing in the streets when US marines roll into their capital?

As fun as this debate has been, I am now going to NYC until Monday, so I must exit, stage right. See y'all later.

Marxism has STAGES of history. All prior stages are in a sense means to the end stage, global communism. Do you not understand this?

Here is what I said earlier:

Of course, Marxist theory suggests that Capitalism is just one stage in the big chain leading up to Communism.

I am drawing a distinction between theory and practice. That's all.

It is a really great read, btw, fascinating stuff and strikingly prescient as regards Lenin's understanding of the trends in modern capitalism.

Firstly, I honestly appreciate the offer to synposize the Leninist view.

I'm somewhat familiar with it already, though. In fact, Thomas Sowell used an example from it in one of his books (can't remember if it was "The Vision of the Anointed" or "The Quest for Cosmic Justice") showing how Lenin basically used bullsh*t statistics to support his point.

Poll indicate MSM bias not true state of Operation Iraqui Freedom:

The War is Over, and We Won
By Karl Zinsmeister

Your editor returned to Iraq in April and May of 2005 for another embedded period of reporting. I could immediately see improvements compared to my earlier extended tours during 2003 and 2004. The Iraqi security forces, for example, are vastly more competent, and in some cases quite inspiring. Baghdad is now choked with traffic. Cell phones have spread like wildfire. And satellite TV dishes sprout from even the most humble mud hovels in the countryside.

Many of the soldiers I spent time with during this spring had also been deployed during the initial invasion back in 2003. Almost universally they talked to me about how much change they could see in the country. They noted progress in the attitudes of the people, in the condition of important infrastructure, in security.

I observed many examples of this myself. Take the two very different Baghdad neighborhoods of Haifa Street and Sadr City. The first is an upper-end commercial district in the heart of downtown. The second is one of Baghdad’s worst slums, on the city’s north edge.

I spent lots of time walking both neighborhoods this spring—something that would not have been possible a year earlier, when both were active war zones, where tanks poured shells into buildings on a regular basis. Today, the primary work of our soldiers in each area is rebuilding sewers, paving roads, getting buildings repaired and secured, supplying schools and hospitals, getting trash picked up, managing traffic, and encouraging honest local governance.

What the establishment media covering Iraq have utterly failed to make clear today is this central reality: With the exception of periodic flare-ups in isolated corners, our struggle in Iraq as warfare is over. Egregious acts of terror will continue—in Iraq as in many other parts of the world. But there is now no chance whatever of the U.S. losing this critical guerilla war.

Contrary to the impression given by most newspaper headlines, the United States has won the day in Iraq. In 2004, our military fought fierce battles in Najaf, Fallujah, and Sadr City. Many thousands of terrorists were killed, with comparatively little collateral damage. As examples of the very hardest sorts of urban combat, these will go down in history as smashing U.S. victories.

And our successes at urban combat (which, scandalously, are mostly untold stories in the U.S.) made it crystal clear to both the terrorists and the millions of moderate Iraqis that the insurgents simply cannot win against today’s U.S. Army and Marines. That’s why everyday citizens have surged into politics instead.

The terrorist struggle has hardly ended. Even a very small number of vicious men operating in secret will find opportunities to blow up outdoor markets and public buildings, assassinate prominent political figures, and knock down office towers. But public opinion is not on the insurgents’ side, and the battle of Iraq is no longer one of war fighting—but of policing and politics.

Policing and political problem-solving are mostly tasks for Iraqis, not Americans. And the Iraqis are taking them up, often with gusto. I saw much evidence that responsible Iraqis are gradually isolating the small but dangerously nihilistic minority trying to strangle their new society. With each passing month, U.S. forces will more and more become a kind of SWAT team that intervenes only to multiply the force of the emerging Iraqi security forces, and otherwise stays mostly in the background.

Increasingly, the Iraqi people are taking direction of their own lives. And like all other self-ruling populations, they are more interested in improving the quality of their lives than in mindless warring. It will take some time, but Iraq has begun the process of becoming a normal country.

Karl Zinsmeister is the Editor-in-Chief of The American Enterprise.

Posted: June 20, 2005
http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleID.18615/article_detail.asp

Reverend, the link you provided does not work, you mind providing it again? I could use it in some other debates.

Ben

You can go to www.taemag.com and scroll down and click on the article entitled "The War is Over, and We Won."