[COLOR=White].[/COLOR][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote]:sick:[/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote]

[QUOTE=Xyzzy;98908][COLOR=White].[/COLOR][/QUOTE]

*shrug* This is the [I]Soap Box[/I]...

Alex

[quote=Xyzzy;98908][COLOR=white].[/COLOR][/quote]... and your point is ... ?

[quote]*shrug* This is the [I]Soap Box[/I]...[/quote]We were just testing to see if the system could handle a [I]serious[/I] Prime95/Cheesehead debate.

:unsure:

[quote=Xyzzy;98938]We were just testing to see if the system could handle a [I]serious[/I] Prime95/Cheesehead debate.

:unsure:[/quote]Why would the system ever need to do [i]that[/i]? :unsure:

[quote]Why don't you just make ten louder, and make ten be the top... number, and make that a little louder?[/quote]These go to eleven.

:confused:

11 is so passe.

Americans underestimate Iraqi death toll
 

[url]http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070224/ap_on_re_us/death_in_iraq_ap_poll[/url]

From that Yahoo! page is a link to a Chicago Sun-Times article, "Would leaving Iraq damage U.S. standing in the world?" at [URL]http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/270636,CST-EDT-REF24A.article[/URL]

It points out some historical comparisons from 40 years ago. Bush's arguments about Iraq parallel those of President Lyndon Johnson about Vietnam.

The lessons of history. Those who don't learn from them ...

On the matter of U.S. credibility:

[quote=Chicago Sun-Times]
The president has focused on two negative consequences: a loss of U.S. credibility,

...

These claims echo the arguments of Lyndon Johnson, who argued against cutting our losses in Vietnam.

The issue of credibility was so central to America's Vietnam policy that tens of thousands of Americans died in the pursuit not of victory, but of saving face. They died because American leaders believed then -- as the Bush administration apparently believes now -- that defeat would have uncontrollable consequences. But the wiser voices inside the Johnson administration were arguing as early as the mid-1960s that the costs of defeat were manageable.

On Sept. 11, 1967, the intelligence community issued a secret memo, "Implications of an Unfavorable Outcome in Vietnam." The authors considered the dire predictions about the dangers if the United States were to withdraw from Vietnam. The memo concluded that the perils of accepting an unfavorable outcome would be "probably more limited and controllable than most previous argument has indicated." Further, the memo argued, "it should not be beyond the capacity of our leadership and diplomacy to negotiate this passage."

The issue of credibility is once again at the center of the debate over ending a disastrous American military enterprise. The Bush administration argues that U.S. allies would broadly question America's commitments, concluding that when the going gets tough, America bails out.

This argument is partially true, as it was in Vietnam. Al-Qaida will indeed attempt to link our withdrawal to a larger narrative that includes President Reagan's retreat from Lebanon after the Marine barracks bombing and our departure from Somalia after the Black Hawk Down incident. But unless our national leaders allowed our failure in Iraq to call into question other commitments, this damage certainly could be mitigated.

Any administration extricating U.S. troops from Iraq would have to send the message that the U.S. military would now refocus its full attention on al-Qaida. As for other commitments, why would we allow anyone to conclude that our failure in Iraq had any bearing on them? In withdrawing, the U.S. should answer questions of credibility loudly and clearly. Demonstrating that we recognize the error of our ways would indicate a seriousness of purpose and a national magnanimity lacking throughout the Bush years.[/quote]

In the long run, it's usually better to admit a mistake and face it squarely than to pretend that there was no mistake.

Does President Bush have the leadership capacity to diplomatically negotiate an honest passage out of Iraq?

More importantly -- will conservatives (and liberals) learn and retain the lessons from this war long enough, and pass it along well enough to future generations, so that our future leaders will use that knowledge to avoid a repetition of our Vietnam/Iraq mistakes?

Well, well,

the administration [I]does[/I] do diplomacy.

Credit where credit is due.

[quote=cheesehead;95806]From the Iraq Study Group report ([URL]http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:JpzjzqGq5Y8J:www.bakerinstitute.org/Pubs/iraqstudygroup_findings.pdf+Iraq+commission+report&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=4[/URL]) Executive Summary:

"Our most important recommendations call for new and enhanced diplomatic and political efforts in Iraq and the region

< snip >

Given the ability of Iran and Syria to influence events within Iraq and their interest in avoiding chaos in Iraq, the United States should try to engage them constructively.[/quote]
Now, Secretary Rice announces that "the United States would join the meeting and that Washington supported the Iraqi government's invitation to Iran and Syria." ([URL]http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070228/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_iraq_us;_ylt=AhSP9_Lr_CvjLyZrfjqJjI2s0NUE[/URL])

But ... why didn't this happen [I]before[/I] Democrats retook Congress?

- - - - -

[quote=Jwb52z;95831]Why does anyone really think it is a viable option to "talk" to what are basically not much more than people from backward third-world countries?

< snip >

I don't think it is a wise exercise to talk to these countries as grown-ups as long as their own people behave like animals and such.[/quote]Any updates on your opinion, Jwb52z? Is the Bush administration being unwise?

I mean -- six years ago, when one of our surveillance planes had to land on a Chinese island, a newly-presidential Bush sternly warned the Chinese to respect the sovereignty of the U.S. in its surveillance plane! That probably provided the Chinese leaders with the best laugh they'd had in a long time. (Can you say, "paper tiger"?) One would think Dubya has learned some things about foreign policy since then.

- - - - -

(Memo to Republicans: Next time, [I]please[/I] try to nominate someone who won't need such extensive on-the-job training in foreign policy -- at the very least, someone who already understands the terms "to lose face", "paper tiger", and "negotiate"!

Memo to Dems and others: Don't forget that, either.)

[QUOTE=cheesehead;99616]Now, Secretary Rice announces that "the United States would join the meeting and that Washington supported the Iraqi government's invitation to Iran and Syria." ([URL]http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070228/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_iraq_us;_ylt=AhSP9_Lr_CvjLyZrfjqJjI2s0NUE[/URL])

But ... why didn't this happen [I]before[/I] Democrats retook Congress?
[/quote]

Lots of possible explanations ... a possible one that is more benign than the one you apparently favor: the Iranians, despite their public bluster, are very worried about facing a unified front from the western nations they do business with, vis-a-vis their nuclear ambitions. Ahmadinejad is rapidly losing support for his "agenda", there is increasing evidence (even after applying the now-standard low, low "Bush White House propaganda" credibility multiplier) that Iran is in fact deeply involved in a program of Iraq destabilization, it's only a matter of time before they're busted so obviously that there will be no credible denial, so there is mounting pressure from Iranian moderates to engage constructively with the US. That is at least as credible as "the democratic majority made them do it."

[quote]six years ago, when one of our surveillance planes had to land on a Chinese island, a newly-presidential Bush sternly warned the Chinese to respect the sovereignty of the U.S. in its surveillance plane! That probably provided the Chinese leaders with the best laugh they'd had in a long time. (Can you say, "paper tiger"?)[/QUOTE]

Sure a lot of that was diplomatic/military bluster, but "paper tiger"? While military action vs. China is clearly out of the question, the US has an extremely powerful nonmilitary threat: economic sanctions. How much of the Chinese economy is directly dependent on exports to the US? Sure, sanctions would hurt us as well, but it's a case of "this is going to hurt you a lot more than it hurts us." For the US it would mean increased prices on a lot of goods (but relatively few of them core essentials like food and energy), whereas for the Chinese it could almost overnight derail their entire economic growth program and throw them into a major recession. I'd say that tiger has some real claws underneath the papier-maché.