Comments on: WHAT’S A HYPERPOWER TO DO?

By: illegal bukkake free asian bukkake

illegal bukkake free asian bukkake — Wed, 13 Sep 2006 20:32:05 +0000

illegal bukkake free asian bukkake

zd00linkar

By: Leonidas

Leonidas — Tue, 21 Feb 2006 13:56:09 +0000

Sorry, but Fukuymama should shut up about how “badly” the war is going until after the war is over. He can criticize all he wants to after that. It’s time to start prosecuting sedition.

By: Rick Moran

Rick Moran — Tue, 21 Feb 2006 01:54:46 +0000

Cao:

You read my mind. I thought about it today but decided instead to do it on the 22nd which is the date I believe we should celebrate the General’s birthday.

By: Cao

Cao — Tue, 21 Feb 2006 00:53:47 +0000

Excuse me, sir, I had hoped for a tribute to George Washington here today. Ah well, time seems to be getting away from us all….cheers, Rick!~Cao.

By: protein wisdom

protein wisdom — Mon, 20 Feb 2006 21:14:46 +0000

WMD Redux - The "Intelligence Summit" fallout

After watching the ABC "Nightline" report on Wednesday, which provided a sneak preview of some the Saddam tapes featured by the bi-partisan Intelligence Summit over the weekend, I found a few things to be clear: ABC, working from what som…

By: LomaAlta

LomaAlta — Mon, 20 Feb 2006 19:59:14 +0000

Mr. Moran said: “And I also believe he tragically underestimates the threat of Islamism both from a domestic political point of view and a real world miscalculation of their intentions…. While the necons may be dead wrong about any number of things, their decision to go to war in Iraq and their belief that democracy in the Middle East will eventually make us safer still sounds like the correct policy to me.”
—–
You have given us much to think about and I tend to agree with you. However, I don’t think it is realistic to think of the radical Muslim terrorist threat in terms of the Middle East only. President Bush and his administration have an open borders/mass amnesty policy 4 1/2 years after 9/11. With 2000 miles of open border and several million illegal aliens from anywhere in the world walking across (the Border Patrol admits to catching one million a year which they say is 1 in 3 and some think it is as little as 1 in 7), we are inviting terrorist strikes in America. I don’t see how this can be ignored in any comprehensive assessment of threats to America.

By: Andy

Andy — Mon, 20 Feb 2006 18:44:27 +0000

Kissinger’s conduct during the the Paris negotiations with the Viet Cong puts a lie to his so called brillance and understanding.

By: Rick Moran

Rick Moran — Mon, 20 Feb 2006 16:55:55 +0000

Chris:

The fact that Fukuyama is - was - so closely identified with the necons makes his critique devastating in that he has given plenty of ammunition to the left.

I agree his analysis has flaws - I point out that he ignores certain facts in his critique of the war - but I believe his criticism of the neconservative idealized view of the consequences of their actions is spot on. The belief by Rumsfeld that the occupation could succeed with only the troops he invaded with has been proved wrong by events. Iraq descended into chaos as a direct result of a series of wrong decisions that were promulgated not by commanders on the ground but by pointy headed idealists at DoD.

Where Fukuyama gets it so wrong is where you point out - in policy alternatives. I did a post yesterday about the left’s lack of alternative strategies after 9/11 and the same holds true for Bush’s critics on the right. And Fukuyama’s alternatives - what he gives of them - I refer to as “tepid Clintonianism;” the belief that the striped pants anti-Americans at the State Department can solve all the worlds problems if we only give them a chance.

I am for putting America’s interests first, last, and always. And as an academic, Fukuyama is not.

By: Chris

Chris — Mon, 20 Feb 2006 16:19:32 +0000

Rick, I fail to see how anything can be taken to the woodshed by someone whose own arguments you rebut. This is the same Fukuyama that interpreted the fall of Communism wrongly, along with most of the foreign policy and intelligence establishments. This smacks of splitting differences in order to claim that one was on the winning side all along.

The highlighted arguments from you and Joyner seem to me to be wishful thinking of a particularly wistful bent. Most of Fukuyama’s suggestions are impractical at best, and counterproductive to boot. Our “unilateral” foreign policy has stripped away the veneer that clung to the world stage throughout the 90s. We know who our true allies are, and what institutions we may place our faith in. We are also beginning to flush our enemies out into the open, i.e. Putin in Russia.

I found Fukuyama’s arguments to be Monday morning quarterbacking of a most obvious sort. As Joyner pointed out, criticizing past events is not a policy alternative.

By: AcademicElephant

AcademicElephant — Mon, 20 Feb 2006 15:08:37 +0000

This is really interesting Rick–especially vis a vis Kissinger, who has had some of the most interesting things to say about the Bush Doctrine and the Iraq war–much more interesting than, say, Brent Scowcroft. Kissinger seems secure enough in his own (considerable) legacy to point out that realpolitik as he practiced it in the early 70s and the sort of shuttle diplomacy he used in the Middle East isn’t applicable to our current predicament–in other words that it was the right policy then, but that doesn’t make it the right policy now. I don’t think Fukuyama can see that.