You are correct, I misspoke when I said the war was won in a few weeks. I meant to indicate the initial battles for control of the country. I do believe we are winning; however, there are many more battles to be fought.

Regarding:

What I thought you were proposing was that we do to Iran what we’ve failed to do in Iraq. Invade, conquer and try to mold in our image. (or more correctly, the British image – they tend to be parliamentary.)

I’ve not proposed anything yet, and I’m not yet what I think we should do. And of course I disagree that we’ved failed in Iraq…

I guess I believe we should continue trying diplomatic efforts, but frankly I don’t expect them to be successful (defining success as the Iranian government stops their nuclear program and stops funding terrorist organizations such as Hamas). I think there should be significant diplomatic activity by our country’s leaders to build a coalition to undertake eventual military action, should it be required (or perhaps more accurately, when it is required, which is a time that may be measured in weeks, or a few months, rather than years).

As to what kind of military action, there must be elimination of the ability to pursue the nuclear programs, as well as regime decpaitation (coupled with covert and overt actions to facilitate a civilized, well-behaved democracy).

1) I’d suggest the war is still going on. We haven’t won, because we’re still losing troops, at higher levels this month than recently. Military presence doesn’t mean war, witness our continued presence in the Balkans, but active on-going battles mean war.

2) I’m glad moral is high. I’ve never suggested that active military should engage in mutiny.

3) Military action can mean a lot of things. We were using Military Action against Iraq, enforcing no fly zones, etc.

What I thought you were proposing was that we do to Iran what we’ve failed to do in Iraq. Invade, conquer and try to mold in our image. (or more correctly, the British image – they tend to be parliamentary.)

Anyway, thanks for letting me take part in a very lively discussion today.

“I will ask that we maintain decorum and respect”

Lee, I hope you don’t respect me any less than you always have.

Bush had tremendous support (not mine) when he went into Iraq. But he blew it. Having squandered resources in the wrong fight, he’s not ready, for what may be the correct, or at least, more necessary fight.

Yes, he did have a lot of support at the start of the Iraq war. But I disagree strongly that “he blew it.” The war lasted just a few weeks, there were minimal civilian casualties (remember all the predictions of tens of thousands of dead in the battle for Baghdad?), and Saddam is no longer in power. Democracy is being cultivated, and the country is being rebuilt. The terrorists are losing.

We’ve not squandered our resources, military recruiting is going very well (ahead of goals), and troop morale is very good.

With different leadership (and Rumsfeld is a pointer/alias to Bush) people might be willing to rally for a war with real purpose. I don’t think folks would trust Bush to pull it off.

You have probably seen the results of a recent LA Times/Bloomberg poll, which show some interesting results:

48% support military action against Iran (if Iran continues to produce material…), vs. 40% opposed, and 12% undecided. This is before any effort by Bush to pursue this option. I’d expect the numbers to be even more favorable if/when he were to make a case for military action.

54% do not trust Bush to make the right decision, vs. 42% who do trust him. Once again, he’s not had a chance to make a case. the other thing I found interesting on the results to this question is the answers are tightly bound to the political identification of the respondant — Democrats don’t trust Bush at all (89%), while Republicans trust him (82%). Independents are somewhat split, but more don’t trust him than do.

But, I’m pleased that Bush has shown he doesn’t have an interest in leadership by polling, unlike a certain other recent president.

Rich? You just watching?

The Soviet Union is perhaps, an interesting discussion point. They imploded under the weight of their own intrinsic failures. Internally, U.S. politicians had noticed them long before Ronald Reagan decided he was a Republican. The U.S actually invaded Russia in 1917. (you do the research.).

But, after that, we never militarily challenged the USSR. We fought via proxy, with all kinds of six-degrees of separation fall-out. But in the end, the Soviet Union crumbled. Now we fund them in a variety of ways to keep their nuclear weapons out of the hands, hopefully, of people who lack the old Soviet’s desire to live. (After all, it was for deterrence, right? We weren’t actually going to use them.)

The old red-menace also was used to keep us at each other’s throats for many years. Are you old enough, Dave, to remember ‘nuclear bomb drills’? I had them, in elementary school. We were instructed to stay away from the windows and hide under our desks. (that worked for tornadoes too.)

Finally, reaction to the communists wasn’t a “Republican” issue. Jimmy Carter took the principled stand of refusing to participate in the Russian hosted Olympics after the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. Nixon brokered peace with China. John Kennedy allowed Eisenhower’s Bay of Pigs invasion to proceed. Republicans and Democrats have served on both sides of various issues. Bobby Kennedy was on one of the Un-American committees in congress.

If our history with the USSR has any relationship to Iran, you appear to be saying we should thump our chest and not take any direct action.

I offer my apologies to Lee for personalizing my response.

Lee is a thoughtful man and I can understand his point of view, even if I don’t agree with him from time to time. Ok, not very often. Ok, very rarely. Ok, I have never agreed with him yet, but I am sure I will someday.

I will ask that we maintain decorum and respect… that includes not making personal attacks. Let’s see if we can have an open and frank discussion of ideas, opinions, and facts, and still be friends at the end of it all.

That’s all from me at the moment… I will have some specific thoughts to Lee’s comments later today.

And no matter what decisions President Bush made after 9/11, Lee and his ilke watched, waited, and hoped for the worst.

Sometimes when the harangue of the liberal media against President Bush is especially shrill I am reminded of President Reagan’s fight againt communism (yes, I am that old).

If you go back and read the opinion journals of the time, President Reagan was belittled by the liberal elite often. He was painted at times as a man who knew nothing, a militarist. Not sophisticated enough to understand and execute foreign policy. He was in over his head. Sound framiliar Lee?

Ronald Reagan shocked the world when he called the Soviet Union “evil,” because it was, and an “empire,” because it was that, too. He never stopped bringing his message to the people of the world. Sound framiliar Lee?

And when it was over, the Berlin Wall had been turned into concrete souvenirs, and Soviet communism had fallen. But of course it didn’t fall. It was pushed. By the Dimwit who was in over his head.

All presidents should be so stupid.

Of course, Lee would say that our current President is that stupid. And finally Lee and I agree.

Let me say that I think all the things you think aren’t directly relevent, are.

Bush had tremendous support (not mine) when he went into Iraq. But he blew it. Having squandered resources in the wrong fight, he’s not ready, for what may be the correct, or at least, more necessary fight.

With different leadership (and Rumsfeld is a pointer/alias to Bush) people might be willing to rally for a war with real purpose. I don’t think folks would trust Bush to pull it off.