Centerfield

Wow, great stuff from Lieberman.

I'm honestly OK with either presidential candidate prevailing, so long as it leads to our nation (and other like-minded nations) prevailing in the WOT. Vigorous debate, yes. Loss of our sense of underlying commonality, no.

The escalating demonization practices by both sides in the debate are worrisome.

P.S. Good site, I picked up the link from your comment in a Kevin Drum thread.

Hi Hubris. Welcome. Your blog is funny as hell, man!

William,

Thanks, my fragile ego needed that! :)

Well, it's true.

We can add you to our centrist blogroll, if you like. Seems like you poke fun at both sides about equally.

I would be honored.

I'll gladly reciprocate; the type of analysis on this site needs to be publicized.

A last comment: I agree that the fellow named Terry Ott on the Drum thread was pretty damn eloquent.

Are we calling the Iraq war wrong because of morality or because we are losing more lives and money than expected?

There's a difference of opinion over whether the original decision to go to war was wrong. Several of our regular bloggers agree with it, while others (like me) don't.

I don't draw that conclusion based on morality. It's perfectly ethical -- even benevolent -- to remove one of the world's most brutal dictators. There was no apparent avenue for getting him out of power short of military action.

I do question whether the United States can carry out the resulting nation-building exercise, given the level of suspicion towards us in the region. And I doubly question the competence of the Bush team in nation building.

So, to sum up, those are practical concerns rather than moral ones.

Rachel,

That's an interesting observation. People constantly raise the point that a mortar attack just occurred as proof that the war is failing, or more precisely, that it's "another Vietnam."

Given the huge number of casualties that occurred in previous conflicts that did not elicit similar reactions, I have to assume that it's a product of modern information sharing (television, then the internet).

Don't get me wrong; I don't mean to downplay the intense tragedy of a single death. It's just that it skews our perception of, and tolerance of, losses. It's akin to when local news emphasizes local murders and you get the impression that a murder wave is sweeping the city. Can you imagine what the reaction would have been in WWII had there been a digital camera and modem within reaching distance of every conflict?

William, I share your doubts on the current course of our nation-building efforts.

Hubris is now added to the highly-esteemed Centrist Blogroll.

If you, or anyone else, wants to actually feature the blogroll on your site, you can do so using this javascript code:

<script language="javascript" type="text/javascript" src="http://rpc.blogrolling.com/display.php?r=94d35839930fc534f801ea7d6955a95c"></script>

Thanks guys for the insight. I was afraid I'd be roasted - blogwise of course. Back in 2002 I was definitely against the war - It looked like Bush's personal issue (and still might be). But after a lot of Dems voted to give the Admin the money without restraint, I felt pretty much resigned to support it. I supported it more after hearing the experiences of one of the Human Shields, who said Iraqis were begging us to get rid of Hussein. I just wish that if Bush was going into war, he'd back up the 200,000+ troops and cash at first. Things might be easier. Then maybe not.

You're welcome. Hopefully no one will roast you for taking either side on that issue (or others) here. We have a pretty diverse group in terms of opinions on things. And we like it when you say what you think.

I've added Hubris to my blogroll as well, but I use Blogrolling, William! I agree with your assessment of his site -- gave me a good chuckle... especially the one about Condi's facial expressions.

As for your comment about information sharing, Hubris, I think you've made an excellent point. Vietnam was the first conflict to come under such intense scrutiny (although not nearly as much as now because the technology wasn't as advanced) and that scrutiny radically changed our views about warfare in general.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think Vietnam was also the first major conflict we engaged in that used guerilla tactics so extensively. Of course, the terrain probably had a lot to do with that. The tactics that would have worked in Europe or Africa would be useless in a jungle. However, I don't think our military was sufficiently prepared for it -- the American public certainly wasn't prepared to see the affects of it!

I suspect that embedding reporters with the troops was the only way the military could have some surety that the coverage of the war that was inevitable could be covered with some accuracy and positive spin.

Oh, yeah, and this speech is why I sooo wish the Dems could have been smart enough to go with Lieberman! Bush would be in serious trouble right now if they had!

Heather,

Thanks for the compliment!

On the bright side of things, the increase in information should eventually (with greater access to technology in all areas) lead to less effective one-sided propaganda. For example, the Iraqi bloggers give perspectives that greatly differ from that of Al Jazeera.

I'd rather see Lieberman as an effective Senator and Statesman reminding the nation of a middle ground or constructive choices than as a embattled and compromised President under attack from both sides.

I have a friend who reads Baghdad Burning and Where is Raed. From that perspective, she sees Iraqi bloggers as not being too happy about their liberation.

Hubris, you're really, really, funny. Thanks.

Heather, look at Jeff Jarvis on Buzzmachine for other Iraqis.

On Vietnam, here's a value question: if the US had stayed another 5 years, lost another 50 000 soldiers, but created a split S. Vietnam (like S. Korea) and avoided the Cambodia Killing Fields (of 2.5 million murdered), would that have been better?

I think yes. I think communism is terrible, and war is hell, but some activities are more noble than others.

The Christian-human rights supporting West is at war with radical Islam in fascist regimes and in non-state multinational terror orgs. We either surrender or fight. If fighting we either defend, containment like, or try to remove root causes -- the fascist dictators.

We're in Iraq, in a race to democratize the Middle East. The Islamofascists are racing to get nukes, and give them to terrorists.

There is absolutly no guarantee that a U.S. pyhrric victory in Vietnam would have prevented the Cambodian Killing Fields.

There is, however, absolute certainty that the U.S. defeat in Vietnam eventually ended the Cambodian Killing Fields.

I don't know why I bother responding to someone who links to the perverted exploitation site blackgenocide, or uses disgusting racist language ("Please massah, please massah, please massah, we dumb as logs blackies") like you.