Orrin's a good guy. Aside from being a prominent conservative senator, is there anything in particular that you dislike about him?

He is rather boring, and I usually agree with him!

I think N. Korea is bluffing about at least the scope of there IBM and nuke capabilities. But they claim to have IBMs that could reach Alaska or Hawaii. Zul gott apitten, but what if we somehow miss a missile launch, it gets past our early warning, and destroys Anchorage or Honolulu? The likelihood of this is quite low- even the most pessimistic analyst recognizes that DPRK's missiles are relatively primitive, but what if?

My bet? Approval ratings back up to 95%. And N. Korea ceases to exist. G-d forbid this should ever happen.

As to the question why Iraq and not another nation if the big issue was democracy, there are several reasons I can think of:

A possible domino effect, spreading reform across the region.

Iraq was a pariah with seventeen UN resolutions like a sword of Damocles over its head. It was thought this would make it easy to garner international support.

An easy one to take out, weakened by years of sanctions.

Iraq, more than, ecp. Cuba, posed a direct threat to some of our allies: the Kurds, Kuwait, Jordan, Israel (to an extent).

Also, Cuba has strong domestic reform movements led by Oswaldo Paya, and will likely become a democracy after Castro's death, a la Spain. No such viable movements were present inside of Iraq.

Also, thank you Ryan for sticking up for me! I never intended the post to be nonpartisan, if I did you might have a solid beef with me. There was a bit of my own wry sense of humor in there, coupled with my somewhat biased take on historical events. Nevertheless, It was not a personal attack against anyone, including herr realpolitik, nor did it contain any intentional falsehoods.

Another example of French anti-Semitism: after Mohammed Mahathir's despicable rant, Italy, as rotating head of the EU, intended to condemn the speech. Chirac vetoed that, too.

With M I'm not sure...

Now just one second here! Those statements were not mine. I wouyld have no problem with a female president, in fact you will find above I suggested Condi Rice for Pres and agreed Hutchison would be a good president. In fact, YOU got upset at ME for defendig Thatcher. I am not a racist, sexist, etc., I am disgusted by such sentiments, and I'm begging you to stop these kinds of attacks.

I never condemned demonstations, people of any political persuasion to have a right to campaign for what they believe in. By this I of course mean nonviolent demonstrations, which the anti-Iraq demonstations were. I do think the demonstrators were wrong, but not illegal.

I have a problem to some degree with the settlements too, especialy the ones that are practically uninhabited or deep w/in the W. Bank. I do think eventually there will be boundary revisions before a Palestinian state is formed.

The reason there is no moral equality apart from the Arafat is a tyrannical thug issue, is that the PLO goes straight for civilians and the Israelis try to uproot terrorists. Unavoidable civilian casualties is not the same as genocide.

I agree with you, Ryan, but Senator Hatch has said publicly that the reason he started the amendment was to give Arnold a chance to take his case for election to the public.

I personally am a fan of both Schwarzenegger the actor and Schwarzenegger the politician, and would probably support Arnold for president in '08. But yes, I do agree that the constitution should be amended in this way because it is what is fundamentally right. I personally hope it does get passed. But it is a hard thing to pass any amendment, and absolutely has to be bipartisan. The original q was really not whether it was right or wrong, but whether it has the support to get passed.

Alright, there is a general consensus that the most potentially damaging event to Bush's chances of reelection would probably be some kind of international disaster. What sort of events would fit this category? Foreign aggression, ie N. Korea crosses the DMZ and sets of the 2nd Korean war, would be more likely to rally support to the president. Possibly the violent overthrow of a government many Americans see as an ally, like Saudi Arabia or Pakistan? Any other suggestion?

Also, how much do you think such an event would affect reelection chances? Which regions would it have the most effect in?

I really don't know enough to debate you on British politics, but I wish we could get a bright Tory on this forum to face you down. Anyway, this isn't really the thread to discuss Thatcher.

Ok, I can prove France is antisemitic! Easy as pie. Let me just search the web and find a suitable article. Ah! Here we go:
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/031122/325/eenkd.html

And yes, nearly all who oppose official Israeli policy without even mentioning the fact that the other side is ten times worse in any category (Syrian tyranny, Arafat terror, etc.) is clearly an anti-Semite. I, for example, do not like the security fence, or the demolition of the homes of terrorists. But I do know that the Arab despotisms are far worse. Those who leave that part out (UN, EU, Media, Academia) are indeed exhibiting antisemitism.

On the EU, I have no problem with the idea, even if the resulting Union because the most powerful nation on Earth. I do have a problem with the fact that the proposed constitution weakens the elected European parliament and strengthens an unelected commission.

As for anti-Americansim, Chirac constantly refers to the EU as a counterweight to the unilateralist USA publicly. He also seems to be courting a Franco-Russo-Sino-Arab alliance. However, only the particularly nasty Moslem regimes (especially Iran and Syria) seem interested. Schroeder sided with Chirac to win an election, now his popularity is down the drain (partly on economy, but also because he weakenedrtant relationship without any apparent gain for Germany. The only nation that truly sided with France is the same Belgian government that attempted to try Bush, Blair, and Sharon for war crimes.

You'll be interested to know that I do, in fact, do view France as an American ally, and I think our relations will pick up again. One will also notice that a significant pro-American movement has arisen at home inFrance. One of its leaders is the famous French philosopher Henri-Bernard Levy. But is absurd for the stance of the Champs d'Elysee to dictate American policy.

The difference between nationalism and patriotism is a subtle one, and it's been debated by scholars for a long time. Bu a patriot supports his nation because of the ideal of the nation, not its racial/cultural character. A patriot is in many ways an ideologue.

A proud American nationalist would say, "We are the nation of American English speakind cultural Yankees! In the name of the glory of our people, we must unite all who are culturally Anglo and spread our culture around the world!" We get accused of this a lot, but you rarely run into anyone advocating this platform!

A proud American patriot says, "America is the land of freedom. It is our duty to spread the ideal of freedom around the world. Anyone can be an American, they merely must believe in the fundamental rightness of freedom." In this sense, a Soviet communist ideaogue might be closer to a patriot then a nationalist.

OK, what have we won with the sabre an the gun? You'd be surprised:

American revolution: The birth of the Republic, which was to make freedom the dominant force on Earth. The beginning of the fall of monarchy.

French Revolution/Age of Napoleon/1848: For all of its failures, horrors, and dictatorship, at last the idea of democracy and self-governmnt spread in Europe, to Monarchy's detriment.

Civil War: the end of slavery, the federalisation of the nation we would need to face the monstrosities the next hundred years would bring.

WWI: The fall of imperialism and divine right of kings as dominant political movements.

WWII: The single most important and justified war of all time, and the reason that I think anyone who question all war out of hand must be some kind of sicko. The defeat of Nazism, fascism, and Japanese Imperialism.

Cold War, including Korea and, yes, Viet Nam: The defeat of communism. The Soviet Union was, in fact, an evil empire, one of the most monstrous regimes of all time.

War on terror: B"h, the defeat of Baathism, radical Wahhabism, and radical Shi'ism, and the subsequent decay of the power of nasty despots across the mideast.

Was the world necessarily better off because all of these wars happened? Not necessarily. But you cannot deny that there are wars that are morally right. Anyone who rejects war out of hand, I refer to Thicydides: "War is an evil thing, but to submit to the dictation of other states is worse...
Freedom, if we hold fast to it, will ultimately restore our losses, but submission
will mean permanent loss of all that we value... To you who call yourselves men of peace,
I say: You are not safe unless you have men of action on your side."

Geez, now that would be a heck of a lot of fun. I don;t think it'll happen- at least Gore and Hillary will figure out who's running quietly. But if it did, that would be cool!
Especially since we GOPers may have a fairly hectic primary ourselves, so confusion in the enemy ranks would be nice.

Yes, my feelings about Edwards are that he lacks substance, otherwise he would be an impressive candidate, although still with weak spots (trial lawyer, position on war not clearly defined). I agree that he would be stronger with another Senate term, but mainly I have found that he has been a bit clueless about the issues and simply wave all that hair around and uses his magnificently Southern accent. I think that has changed recently, although I do not know if he can recover lost ground. He was pretty good in the debate this week. He also seems to be poor at some of the basic campaign mechanics, ie shaking hands, picking up names, etc.

I really do not intend to come across as some foaming at the mouth radical, and I want to smokum peace pipe with y'all. Ok, Beet, I see what you are saying about many of your points. It is true that we do need more debate in this country. Personally I feel GWB made a mistake even making the issue be WMD, which was not the point at all- the point was fighting terror and the expansion of worldwide democracy.

I agree the split is a tragedy, but I believe this is the fault of the current French government, which has dirty interests in the Arab World, is notoriously anti-American and anti-Semitic (not just anti-Israeli), and currently leading a drive for an EU constitution that would decrease its responsiveness to democracy.

And, unlike Ms. Coulter, I do not pardon every Republican in history or villify every Democrat. As a matter of fact, I think LBJ was a greater leader than Ike or Nixon, although most people of both parties hate him.

So, while I disagree with you on several points, I agree that they are just differences of opinion and not fundamentally anti-American. The reference to anti-Americanness in my article referred to "Vietnam-syndrome". By this I meant the people who oppose all wars involving the USA out of hand and who always seem to support the USA's enemies in wars. These likely are often a small minority, but they are very powerful. I do think that either Dean is one of these or he is strongly influenced by them. Many of his supporters are.

This article was, in fact, my attempt to chronicle the rise of Howie and not to villify him specifically. In fact, what worries me most about Dean is that, as a Zionist, I am very uncomfortable with his feeling that the MidEast's only democracy somehow deserves the same level of respect and consideration as a terrorist organization (the PLO). This, I think, is also part of the same idea of all nations being equal morally, the idea behind the UN.

Your idea of the civilized (by which I take it you mean democratic) world as a single house I find fascinating. I think it is an ideal that is not yet fully realized, but, b"h, it'll happen before too long. Our most significant conflicts with nations like France are generally over how to treat the remaining world dictatorships. I believe that once all world nations are free, there will, in fact, be no more war. This is the biggest reason I support any war to remove a tyrant like Milosevic or Saddam.

My feelings are similar to those of our good ally Tony Blair, who said (not exact words): "Why are we only going after Saddam? Why not Mugabe, or the Burmese lot. You can't always get 'em, but when you can, you should.

I should clarify what I mean when I say Dean and some other Dems come across as anti-American. I see that without explanation it can across as me saying something really horrible. They convey a general idea that the USA is not unique as a nation, even compared to other democracies. This idea of The USA as a "city on a hill" was a key part of the successes of candidates from both parties, including JFK, Ronal Reagan, and George W. Bush, among many others. Dean, however, see,s to view the USA as one among the nations, as in, "if France says its wrong, there word has as much value as ours, since they're just another country like us". Right or wrong, (and I think it's wrong), that just doesn't sell.

And you ask why you can't win the South! "There are no patriots left"- sheesh!

Um, the country thinks we're at war. Joe Lieberman is, in fact, not a conservative. The kind of politics that views Joe and McCain as political conservatives is very radical. Not designed for winning elections. If the republican core castrated Rudi and Arnold as liberals, they would be iin big trouble. But Rudi is accepted by the GOP, and the Dems want to evict Joe and Evan Bayh. (To say nothing of Zell Miller!) Many Dems even see Gephardt and Edwards, even Jofn Forbes Kerry, as too conservative!

So, are you losing cause you're liberal and we're conservative? No! In that case we'd both be unpopular. You're losing because we hold the center, as you did in the 90s.

Did FDR lead a fear campaign? Some of his contemporaries said he did. They didn't do well at the polls. They are remembered as hateful revisionists, or worse.

As I've said before on this site, I think Dean'll be the Dem nominee. If he isn't, might he consider running independently? Even if he doesn't, some of his core supporters might defect to the Green candidate (Nader/Moore). I have no idea what the likelihood of any of these things happening is.

Wait a sec- I didn't use the word is one time in that post. Is this like the Knights who say Nee? Oh! I said is. Oh! I said is Again!

The reason why it is is that most Neocons are in fact former liberals, who broke w/ the party following Vietnam and the Dems abandonment of patriotism and the ideals of the expansion of democracy, a-la Wilson.

Daz, thanks for your vote of confidence! It was pretty strongly worded, but it contained no personal attacks or deliberate falsehoods.

There if realpolitik would like to discuss a specific issue, such as the nature of the war or a certain candidate's strenght and weaknesse, then I would like to do so.

Pretty wacky, alright. Expect the winners of the Iowa caucus and the NH primary (likely either Gephardt and Dean or... Dean and Dean!) to increase their numbers significantly by the time this primary rolls around. I'm expecting an Edwards-Dean race here, with Edwards slightly favored. But in SC more than anywhere else, anything is possible. This could be the funnest primaries this year.

I honestly swear this wasn't meant as a rant, but rereading it I see how it may have been taken that way. Partly because it's so long; once I start up I don't kno where to stop. I'm sorry I gave that impression.

Actually, I would be interested in debating any of the points brought up in this article if anyone will challenge me specifically.

Read this and weep.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/100835_murray20.shtml

And except for ego, the GOP gets no real advantage for winnig nearly every state. But what Dean is risking is significant losses in congress.

The party establishment- bith the Clinton center and the older, more lefty establishment- realize this and are trying hard to stop it. But, so far anyway, without great success.

I do think Bush has several aces in the hole in New York. They are: a.)September 11th b.) The GOP convention c.) Rudi d.) Wall Street with the economy revving up again

Would this pull it off? I'm not positive, but I think there's a good chance.

While overall there are fewer conservatives in big city areas than in '72, it is not quite as one-sided as it looks since suburbs generally lean GOP.

You may not agree with some of my ideas, and that's fine. But I have the right to express them.

Voltaire: I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it to the death!

Demrepdan, that's a good one! You should post it in the humor forum.

Absolutely true. Its the Dems who have forgotten this. His ideals of listening to the democratic will of the people above all and the dignity of man are now espoused by- prepare yourself- the Neocons!

Well, the British people certainly kept returning her to office! 11 years isn't a bad run for a freely elected leader, in my book.

No, the reason she was so great was that she wasn't going to give in to Soviet might and Libyan terror. Good for you, Maggie! Also for confronting and reining in militant and out of control trade unions.

I agree with everything you said, except that, in my view, the most important aspect of WW2 was as a battle of ideologies, a battle between freedom and fear like the present as opposed to a battle for land.

You have the perfect right to disagree with me. I admit I may be wrong. I just take offense to the idea that I'm just spouting partisan crap and should remove myself from the forum. Shame on you, Realpolitik!