Ed Koch op-ed

[Sacamuelas]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

Try to use a little keener wit and finer sarcasm here if you must quarrel.
TR

Yeah, I hate those backwoods rednecks from Kentucky AND all the liberal snobs from New York.

Is that what you meant TR? LOL

[tk27]

1. -George Bush is a hero to me because he has courage. The President does what he believes to be in the best interest of the United States. He sticks with his beliefs, no matter how intense the criticism and invective that are directed against him every day.

2. -The enormous defeat President Bush suffered with the loss of both Houses of Congress has not caused him to retreat from his position that the U.S. alone now stands between a radical Islamic takeover of many of the world's governments in the next 30 or more years. If that takeover occurs, we will suffer an enslavement that will threaten our personal freedoms and take much of the world back into the Dark Ages.

3. -This will give support to my proposal, advanced nearly a year ago, that we tell our allies, regional and NATO, that we are getting out of Iraq unless they come in. That may well work, and they will come in, in large part and share the casualties of combat and the financial costs of war.

4. -For me, staying is clearly preferable, provided we are not alone and are joined by our regional and NATO allies, aggressively taking on the difficult but necessary task of destroying radical Islam and its terrorist agenda if we don't want to see radical Islam destroy the Western world and moderate Arab states over the next generation, or as long as it takes for them to succeed.

5. -It won't be easy to implement this proposal. But President Bush has courage. Now is the time to use it.

1. -Would Dennis Kucinich then be a hero if he were president and stuck to his beliefs no matter how half-baked they are?

2. -How does democracy prevent "radical Islamic takeover of the world's governments"? Couldn't Islamists win elections?
-How does democracy help Mubarak and Musharraf who are holding back these "evil doers" as best they can given the circumstances? Couldn't it undermine them?
-How does cutting contact and threatening the Syrians even though they have helped us against AQ and could have helped stem the flow of insurgents in Iraq because they have an interest in a stable Iraq help America?
-How does ignoring our oil dependency and thereby some would say financing of terrorism prevent "enslavement that will threaten our personal freedoms and take much of the world back into the Dark Ages."?

3. - Countries don't have allies/friends they have interests, how is it in the interest of other nations?

4. - Why didn't we do this in the first place? We said we "didn't want the coalition to dictate the mission, we wanted the mission to dictate the coalition". Other nations especially the Europeans do not see this as black and white as the president, why do we expect them to see it this way now?

5. - Courage and idealism certainly have their time and place, when are they good substitutes for cold detached cunningness and realism?

I have nothing but respect for our men and women in uniform. I worked on the President's campaign and have a great deal of respect for him and Mr. Koch. But must disagree with the article, and some of our efforts on the political end, this is the civilian side, my side, and I cant help but think I/we are not on the level with the armed forces here.

Try to use a little keener wit and finer sarcasm here if you must quarrel.

Whats the difference between an porcupine and Yankee stadium?
A porcupine keeps its pricks .....................Nevermind

[echoes]

tk27:



Holly

[82ndtrooper]

Originally Posted by Greenhat

6 months? That's an extended vacation, nothing more.

Oh, and before you start slinging stones, why don't you do a little research on the cities in your area? Louisville or Cincinnatti, for example?

There is nothing unique about NYC and federal funds.

As for the liberalism of NYC, that is what the voters of NYC vote in. You don't like it, don't live there. I don't happen to like it either, but I recognize that in the total scheme of things, the good outweighs the bad by a pretty large amount in NYC. Something I can't say of Kentucky (and I lived and worked there for three years) in my opinion. I'd live in Manhattan again, I'd never live in Kentucky again. My opinion and my tastes. Obviously not yours. However, I would be cautious about shoving your opinion off as if it was fact.

Cincinnati has suffered much the same way as NYC. Again proving that cowtowing to the minority, social programs, free medical care, college educations, and subsidies for the "The poor" yields poor results politically and socially. Cincinnati had 84 murders in 2006, and yet Chief Striecher, and the city council insist that taking guns from the law abiding will solve deeper social and racial strife. Here across the river in Kentucky, we rarely cross the bridge, unless we absolutley have to for work, medical, or the occassional Bengals or Reds games which allow us to only cross the bridge and walk into the stadium.

"Federal funds not being unique" ? I beg to differ strongly. NYC has, in fact, been treated like Louisiana (Katrina) without having to have an act of God in the form of a flood. In 1975 the bankers and city fathers marched to Washington to ask congress for money for their failed plans of a racial and social utopia through their mountainous overhead for social programs, subsidies and free medical and college educations. At that time NYC had floated so many bond issues that it flooded the market with "Less than" desirable credit ratings to the investors. The answer was three fold. Increase taxes, reduce expenses, or go into debt. There was never any doubt as to which course of action the leaders of NYC would take.

While in Washington, the bankers and city fathers painted the picture of the worlds largest city going bankrupt. Essential services would be halted and millions of people would be without garbage disposal, transportation, and even without police protection. Starvation, disease, and crime would run rampant throughout the city. It would be a disgrace for America. David Rockefeller at Chase Manhatten persuaded his friend Helmut Schmidt, Chancellor of West Germany, to make a statement to the media that the disastrous situation in NYC could trigger and international crisis. Congress actually passed a bill that would allow NYC to recieve direct loans up to 2.3 billion, and amount that would more than DOUBLE the city's current debt to the banks. Those were forgiven, and more were allowed. As I stated in another post, "Prosperity through insolvency" Proof that liberal dreams of a utopia through debt and taxes will never work to cure racial and "Poor" strife without putting the tax payers in a position of hate.

NYC.............without a doubt it's a rare place to visit with cultural diversity, arts, fashion, film, finance, Donald Trump and every thing else that comes with being at the tip of the geographic epicenter to far left liberal ideology. Why in the hell else would Hillary Clinton try to pass her self off as a NY'er. NY got dupped.

[NotME]

1. -Would Dennis Kucinich then be a hero if he were president and stuck to his beliefs no matter how half-baked they are?

*No. He would be an idiot. President or not, he DOES stick to his beliefs, and he is still an idiot. Most Americans agreed, according to the election results. BUT, by sticking to his idiotic beliefs, he demonstrates courage and conviction. That, in and of itself, is rare and admirable amongst politicians. He is not a hero to me, but I can respect him genuinely for sticking to his beliefs and being true to himself. Same goes for the President. The President is a hero. He demonstrates courage and conviction about something beyond how pot should be legal and "Imagine" should be the National Anthem of the United States of America. He believes that the best way to prevent another 9/11 is by spreading democracy. You can dissagree, but can't you see the apples and oranges distinction here?

2. -How does democracy prevent "radical Islamic takeover of the world's governments"? Couldn't Islamists win elections?

*Sure, they could win elections, but they can lose them too! They apparently have less faith in democracy than you do as a means for them getting into power. That's demonstrated by the fact that they almost never give people a real choice in the matter.

-How does democracy help Mubarak and Musharraf who are holding back these "evil doers" as best they can given the circumstances? Couldn't it undermine them?

*I can almost see your point here, but thankfully there are more sensible citizens in Islamabad than there are extremists in Karachi, annd the same goes for Cairo. If that ever changes, we might be in trouble.
-How does cutting contact and threatening the Syrians even though they have helped us against AQ and could have helped stem the flow of insurgents in Iraq because they have an interest in a stable Iraq help America?
Al Qaeda and Iraq are 2 completely different subjects, especially to the Syrians. But they have been minimally helpful with regard to AQ. They have no interest in seeing Al Qaeda's brand f religious fanaticism take hold in their country; but they have every reason to try and work to prevent a potential Shiite Arab state from growing powerful on their borders!
-How does ignoring our oil dependency and thereby some would say financing of terrorism prevent "enslavement that will threaten our personal freedoms and take much of the world back into the Dark Ages."?
Not really sure where you're going with this one.

3. - Countries don't have allies/friends they have interests, how is it in the interest of other nations?

*Ask France! They're having a pretty tough time controlling what they are determined to keep calling an "immigration problem" for the moment.
Besides, after living in Europe for years, I have determined that cowardice is a virtue to many Europeans. This is my opinion, and is based entirely on my own personal beliefs - but I have no desire to see us start asking ourselves about their interests before we determine what course to pursue towards our own agenda.
*As for non-European countries, I think that Ethiopia is sending a clear message to the World of just where they stand on this issue. They didn't want Al Qaeda setting up an Islamic state on their border, so they took care of the problem. As we speak, I am told that the Somalis are fleeing to Kenya!

4. - Why didn't we do this in the first place? We said we "didn't want the coalition to dictate the mission, we wanted the mission to dictate the coalition". Other nations especially the Europeans do not see this as black and white as the president, why do we expect them to see it this way now?

*They don't see ANYTHING as black and white. They have in their minds that to see anything in anything less than hued shades of beige is un-intelligent. They're so open minded that their brains are falling out! Spain, after being told that more trains were going to be bombed if they didn't pull out, capitulated. Are you suggesting that capitulation is something we should examine for its merit in order to bring ourselves more in line with the European way of thinking?

5. - Courage and idealism certainly have their time and place, when are they good substitutes for cold detached cunningness and realism?
Never! The only place we dissagree is in our definition of reality! I think that those things are NOT mutually exclusive. Idealism isn't failing to recognize facts for what they are. Idealism can also be seeing the totality of the situation with complete clarity - and knowing that there tomorrow, if you play your cards right, you will see something far better.

*Lastly, here's what I think. I think that like too many other Americans, you saw this war as something like pulling up to a drive through and ordering a victory and a small order of fries to go. You're still sitting at the window, and the clock is ticking, and you want your money back. You have buyers remorse. You're convinced that since the rest of the world seems to think this is all a big mistake, it must be a big mistake! Well, that might be a good reason to examine the question of whether we are correct to be in Iraq, but it certainly is not an answer in and of itself. Remember that once upon a time, only one man in the world thought that the Earth was round! Everyone else called him an idiot.

[echoes]

Originally Posted by NotME

*Lastly, here's what I think. I think that like too many other Americans, you saw this war as something like pulling up to a drive through and ordering a victory and a small order of fries to go. You're still sitting at the window, and the clock is ticking, and you want your money back. You have buyers remorse. You're convinced that since the rest of the world seems to think this is all a big mistake, it must be a big mistake! Well, that might be a good reason to examine the question of whether we are correct to be in Iraq, but it certainly is not an answer in and of itself. Remember that once upon a time, only one man in the world thought that the Earth was round! Everyone else called him an idiot.

Greetings,

Agreed! Moving out now, as someone far smarter than I can debate the entire topic.

Holly

[Razor]

Originally Posted by 82ndtrooper

Only in NYC can a toll booth operator earn more than a college trained radiography tech.

Well, its been my observation that salary isn't (and shouldn't) always be tied to education. That toll booth operator is sitting in a small glass enclosure for 8+ hours at a time, in the heat of summer and the chill of winter, putting up with rude drivers upset that its taking 10 seconds of their valuable time to get change for a $20 and a receipt. The toll booth operator puts up with this hundreds to thousands of times each shift, worse around peak traffic hours and holidays.

Having been on the receiving end of many radiography techs' work, I think that there are plenty of toll booth workers that would prefer working in a quiet, relatively stress-free, climate controlled environment where they pretty much call the shots with the patients.

Sometimes salary is tied to how much crap a person will tolerate for the money (i.e. mill and factory workers working rotating 12 hour shifts, over weekends and holidays).

For the record, no, I have never worked in either of these jobs, nor do I know anyone beyond a passing familiarity that does.

[82ndtrooper]

Originally Posted by Razor

Well, its been my observation that salary isn't (and shouldn't) always be tied to education. That toll booth operator is sitting in a small glass enclosure for 8+ hours at a time, in the heat of summer and the chill of winter, putting up with rude drivers upset that its taking 10 seconds of their valuable time to get change for a $20 and a receipt. The toll booth operator puts up with this hundreds to thousands of times each shift, worse around peak traffic hours and holidays.

Having been on the receiving end of many radiography techs' work, I think that there are plenty of toll booth workers that would prefer working in a quiet, relatively stress-free, climate controlled environment where they pretty much call the shots with the patients.

Sometimes salary is tied to how much crap a person will tolerate for the money (i.e. mill and factory workers working rotating 12 hour shifts, over weekends and holidays).

For the record, no, I have never worked in either of these jobs, nor do I know anyone beyond a passing familiarity that does.

Razor,

Good points !! However, this conundrum is the democrats old tired "Redistribution of wealth" disguised as "Social responsibility" Hence the reason that a scientist abandons his or her area of expertise to take on the labor position of working for the local railroad or mill. The incentive to create, produce, and advance is losed in the muttle of watching those with less education, and non competitive attitudes achieve a higher rate of economic stability. This is not theory, it's fact ! If an scientist at Abbot labortories is watching his neighbor succeed with far less education then what is the incentive to become academically greater ? There's been a number of times that I wished I had taken that same route.

[tk27]

Originally Posted by NotME

1.He believes that the best way to prevent another 9/11 is by spreading democracy. You can dissagree, but can't you see the apples and oranges distinction here?

2.
*Sure, they could win elections, but they can lose them too! They apparently have less faith in democracy than you do as a means for them getting into power. That's demonstrated by the fact that they almost never give people a real choice in the matter.

Al Qaeda and Iraq are 2 completely different subjects, especially to the Syrians. But they have been minimally helpful with regard to AQ. They have no interest in seeing Al Qaeda's brand f religious fanaticism take hold in their country; but they have every reason to try and work to prevent a potential Shiite Arab state from growing powerful on their borders!

Not really sure where you're going with this one.

3. *Ask France! They're having a pretty tough time controlling what they are determined to keep calling an "immigration problem" for the moment.
Besides, after living in Europe for years, I have determined that cowardice is a virtue to many Europeans. This is my opinion, and is based entirely on my own personal beliefs - but I have no desire to see us start asking ourselves about their interests before we determine what course to pursue towards our own agenda.
*As for non-European countries, I think that Ethiopia is sending a clear message to the World of just where they stand on this issue. They didn't want Al Qaeda setting up an Islamic state on their border, so they took care of the problem. As we speak, I am told that the Somalis are fleeing to Kenya!

4. *They don't see ANYTHING as black and white. They have in their minds that to see anything in anything less than hued shades of beige is un-intelligent. They're so open minded that their brains are falling out! Spain, after being told that more trains were going to be bombed if they didn't pull out, capitulated. Are you suggesting that capitulation is something we should examine for its merit in order to bring ourselves more in line with the European way of thinking?

5. - Never! The only place we dissagree is in our definition of reality! I think that those things are NOT mutually exclusive. Idealism isn't failing to recognize facts for what they are. Idealism can also be seeing the totality of the situation with complete clarity - and knowing that there tomorrow, if you play your cards right, you will see something far better.

*Lastly, here's what I think. I think that like too many other Americans, you saw this war as something like pulling up to a drive through and ordering a victory and a small order of fries to go. You're still sitting at the window, and the clock is ticking, and you want your money back. You have buyers remorse. You're convinced that since the rest of the world seems to think this is all a big mistake, it must be a big mistake! Well, that might be a good reason to examine the question of whether we are correct to be in Iraq, but it certainly is not an answer in and of itself. Remember that once upon a time, only one man in the world thought that the Earth was round! Everyone else called him an idiot.

1. No I cannot, you are assigning value to each of the beliefs, this is an analytical error. Dogmatism is dogmatism, I am not going to celebrate a flat learning curve.

2. Syria provided actionable intelligence to us post 9/11 that helped thwart AQ plots and saved American lives. A cursory look at the Syrian economy would reveal that they have a huge interest in pipeline from Iraq to their coast for export, money that is badly needed.

3. You just said AQ and Iraq are two completely different subjects

4. What does capitulation have to do with realism?

5. I've always been more Fowler than Pyle

* I was a proponent of going into Iraq, the window of opportunity was there in '03-'04, my politicians bungled it, were too dogmatic and didn't except reality, that window is shut. Yes people believed the world was flat, they were dogmatists rooted in black and white thinking.

[echoes]

Originally Posted by tk27

* I was a proponent of going into Iraq, the window of opportunity was there in '03-'04, my politicians bungled it, were too dogmatic and didn't except reality, that window is shut. Yes people believed the world was flat, they were dogmatists rooted in black and white thinking.

IMHO, "You never know what will happen, when you step out your front door".

I support Our decision, and Our Troops, peroid.

Holly

[aricbcool]

Originally Posted by tk27

* I was a proponent of going into Iraq, the window of opportunity was there in '03-'04, my politicians bungled it, were too dogmatic and didn't except reality, that window is shut. Yes people believed the world was flat, they were dogmatists rooted in black and white thinking.

Could you be more specific please? Which window are we talking about? Are you specifically saying that the war in Iraq is lost, with no chance for victory? Are you implying that we had our chance but have now bungled it so badly that we might as well pack it in? Or am I reading too much into your analogy?

--Aric

[tk27]

Originally Posted by aricbcool

Could you be more specific please? Which window are we talking about? Are you specifically saying that the war in Iraq is lost, with no chance for victory? Are you implying that we had our chance but have now bungled it so badly that we might as well pack it in? Or am I reading too much into your analogy?

--Aric

This board doesn't care for my, or anyones, armchair quarterbacking. Did we win over the people and provide for their basic needs following in the months following the fall of Baghdad? We sent a businessman/bureaucrat to run the CPA, my opinion is that we would have been far better served if we has sent a council made up of this boards moderators.
I don't know what a victory would be, any such victory would be in relation to a regional, global, and US climate, it would happen in the context of everything else. Pack it in? We have a few interests there to look over, but I believe we should no longer sacrifice our citizens in the name of Iraqi democracy.
So are you reading to much into my analogy? Again, my opinion is that its not a black-white thing, and thats the tragic part.

[aricbcool]

Originally Posted by tk27

This board doesn't care for my, or anyones, armchair quarterbacking. Did we win over the people and provide for their basic needs following in the months following the fall of Baghdad? We sent a businessman/bureaucrat to run the CPA, my opinion is that we would have been far better served if we has sent a council made up of this boards moderators.
I don't know what a victory would be, any such victory would be in relation to a regional, global, and US climate, it would happen in the context of everything else. Pack it in? We have a few interests there to look over, but I believe we should no longer sacrifice our citizens in the name of Iraqi democracy.
So are you reading to much into my analogy? Again, my opinion is that its not a black-white thing, and thats the tragic part.

I care for your armchair quaterbacking. Especially when it comes to clarifying vague statements I don't understand. Let me ask you this. If you don't know what a victory would be, how can you be sure all the "windows" are shut?
I may be less dogmatic than others but I believe that we're sending our citizen soldiers out in the name of US National Security. Think about it. If Iraq was a small, non-muslim, African country, do you think we'd give a damn about their government, or their stability?
That's the key word, stability. The stability of the Middle East plays a primary role in protecting US National Security, especially in our post-9/11 world. While everyone talks about ideology and whether or not it's ethical to force democracy on a tribal people, or even more useless, whether or not we should have gone in there in the first place, few are looking at what the cost of failure will be to the National Security of the US.
If we stop "sacrificing our citizens" as you put it, we'll have more than just the blood of a failed democracy on our hands; we'll have given unmeasurable strength to our enemies. The defeat of the US by any Muslim opponent (even if said opponent is a factured country in the midst of civil war) will embolden and empower those that wish to do us harm.
In regards to your original statement of the window being closed, remember. Our country is the most powerful country on Earth. The window for victory shuts when we say it does.

--Aric

[tk27]

Originally Posted by aricbcool

I care for your armchair quaterbacking. Especially when it comes to clarifying vague statements I don't understand. Let me ask you this. If you don't know what a victory would be, how can you be sure all the "windows" are shut?
I may be less dogmatic than others but I believe that we're sending our citizen soldiers out in the name of US National Security. Think about it. If Iraq was a small, non-muslim, African country, do you think we'd give a damn about their government, or their stability?
That's the key word, stability. The stability of the Middle East plays a primary role in protecting US National Security, especially in our post-9/11 world. While everyone talks about ideology and whether or not it's ethical to force democracy on a tribal people, or even more useless, whether or not we should have gone in there in the first place, few are looking at what the cost of failure will be to the National Security of the US.
If we stop "sacrificing our citizens" as you put it, we'll have more than just the blood of a failed democracy on our hands; we'll have given unmeasurable strength to our enemies. The defeat of the US by any Muslim opponent (even if said opponent is a factured country in the midst of civil war) will embolden and empower those that wish to do us harm.
In regards to your original statement of the window being closed, remember. Our country is the most powerful country on Earth. The window for victory shuts when we say it does.

--Aric

I imagine Iraqi's to be just as pragmatic as any other people, willing to go with something new if it meets their needs, but there is a shelf life to this, a window of opportunity if you will, meet none of their needs and back to the old was of sectarian violence. I do not belief this is an outrageous statement. And to be frank, I believe that when the Black and Decker drills are brought out and used in a manner not proscribed on the box, that window may have closed.

The region is of national security concern for one reason: its resources, our way of life depends on it so we have a vested national interest in the region. Otherwise Iraq would be just like a backwards African country (the importance of African countries is rising for much of the same reason, witness Africa Command). I have no problem facing this ugly reality, and no problem aggressively addressing it. My problem is that nothing has been asked of myself and the American people to address this, we aren't even paying the bill for our efforts in Iraq. Only our nations professional servicemen and their families are bearing the cost, this is not right.

As far as emboldening any Muslim opponent (IMHO Muslims aren't the problem, its where they live that is)- our staying in Iraq is a pretty damn good recruiting tool for AQ don't you think?
And again I don't like any of this, I wish I didn't think it was the case.

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by tk27

...our staying in Iraq is a pretty damn good recruiting tool for AQ don't you think?

No, I don't.

Did their cause suffer when we left Saudi Arabia?

TR