You mean like FDR? Surely you can do better than that Mr. Rosenberg.

I asked you a question. You never responded. What would the Arabs have to do to make you admit your policy of peaceful compromise was a failure, the wrong approach?

Posted at August 18, 2006 7:07 PM in response to Accountability in Israel. Why Don't We Try It Here?

On another thread Arnold Evans said that only a little bit of dhimmitude would be required to obtain peace with the Arabs...and that many, many Israelis were willing.

Are you one of those Mr. Rosenberg? What would it take? Would you accept a yellow star but no ovens? No yellow star but no yalmulkes? What?

Posted at August 18, 2006 5:31 PM in response to Accountability in Israel. Why Don't We Try It Here?

Birds of a feather. You two are a match made in heaven.

Posted at August 18, 2006 5:01 PM in response to Accountability in Israel. Why Don't We Try It Here?

I love the reference to "overprotective, overprivileged [Israeli] moms" who don't want their boys dying in war.

That was a reference to Bradley Burston's article in today's Ha'aretz in which he describes how residents of yuppiestan conspired to avoid fighting, to continue living high while others fought to defend them.

No doubt you approve, you shvantz.

Posted at August 18, 2006 4:52 PM in response to Accountability in Israel. Why Don't We Try It Here?

Such bravery. Obviously selfinterest is no mom!

Every soldier has a mom. If you had your way there would be no soldiers. What a fool you are.

Posted at August 18, 2006 4:34 PM in response to Accountability in Israel. Why Don't We Try It Here?

Here's an article about professional finger-pointers;

Error is human; Refusal to admit error is journalism

Posted at August 18, 2006 3:08 PM in response to Accountability in Israel. Why Don't We Try It Here?

Begin suffered from crippling depression all his life

Bradley Burstron writes in today's Ha'aretz about the consequences of listenening to overprotective, overpriviledged moms. Avi Shavit offered the same critique of political correctniks a few days ago.

What would it take to get you to admit that compromise with the Palestinians was impossible? I suspect you would never admit it...and if that's true you should just shut up and stop criticizing politicians who "never" admit error and resign.

Posted at August 18, 2006 2:40 PM in response to Accountability in Israel. Why Don't We Try It Here?

It's a given during wartime that the stakes are enormously high, that passions are inflamed, that there are many setbacks and much uncertainty, that motivations and competence are often difficult or impossible to judge. How best to handle dissent in such a situation is a work in progress.

In your view, has there ever been, or could there ever be, a situation in which the best course of action would be to pull back and cease a war effort?

Of course. Military failure. Unexpected new circumstances such as a change for the better in your opponents leadership. Unacceptable levels of opposition at home. Unanticipated levels of cost. Probably many others.

How do you propose that accountability be brought to bear in the context of the war in Iraq? Is it somehow supposed to appear out of thin air?

I have no simple answer.

The Internet has given voice to all views and to fairly accurate measures of the number and power of their supporters . At this point I see no reason to suppress free discussion. I can - and have - gone to both conservative and liberal forums and disputed dominant views. Anyone can do the same. It keeps things fairly honest - not completely because very large numbers of people prefer their bias to unpleasant facts and dangerous uncertainty - but good enough for now.

What I am suggesting is that, if the war effort were being run passably well with clear aims, there would not be problematic morale among the troops.

You haven't shown that morale among the troops is problematic, you've only asserted it. I countered with what I've seen over at Free Republic and what Robert D. Kaplan has written. Your response is inadequate.

Also there's always griping among the troops and that increases with unexpected risk and danger, with setbacks, with uncertainties.

It's also true that simple and clear aims in a complex and quick changing modern environment is hopelessly utopian.

It may be true, however, that the Administration has failed in some way to do its job, to adequately prepare the troops for what they will be facing.

The troops are responding primarily to what they are experiencing, which is a poorly planned and executed effort in the service of fuzzy and shifting aims.

I don't agree.

If you believe this American public is quick to buy into fairy tails of doom and gloom spun out of whole cloth from a tiny but noisy minority of a minority (initially) of outspoken war opponents, absent any facts on the ground which would justify criticism and skepticism, then you would have this worry.

You have a utopian view both of reality and the American public.

Reality really is complex, difficult to comprehend, full of uncertainties and impossible challange.

And the public? Well, just look at the number of conspiracy theories, the sappy uninformed views, the lazy self-absorption, the celebrity worship, pop culture, illiteracy, dopey get-rich-quick schemes...and "The Madness of Crowds".

Posted at August 17, 2006 5:26 PM in response to The Death of Hezbollah?

Out of your own mouth

Show a little class, a little honesty. Publish my entire response, not just the sentence which wounded you.

you Nazi douchebag

Insults have their place...but only if you know how to use them, how to hurt your opponent, challange him, get him to thinking...and you don't.

Posted at August 17, 2006 2:48 PM in response to The Death of Hezbollah?

No

I'm afraid your view is not "nuanced" enough.

Throughout history nations have taken great trouble to assure public support during wartime, to prevent treason, sedition, defeatism, dissension. Can they all have been wrong?

For the last 500 years English speaking societies, Western societies (and others too perhaps) have tried to allow freer and freer speach, recognizing the downside of forced conformity. It's an experiment. Free speech has its downsides as well.

I was surprised to learn that Vo Nguyen Giap listed "influencing American public opinion" as one the the principal reasons for launching the TET offensive and rated it a success precisely because it was effective in this way. Was he wrong? Was he unique? Hardly and no.

Shall we conduct wars based on fickle public attitudes as revealed in polls and the griping of the troops? I for one say no. It's a sure way to lose. Are you contending that public support, or lack of, has no effect on the morale of the troops? Ridiculous. I suggest you take to reading the posts over at Free Republic on a regular basis.

I see it as "pushing for accountability".

Clearly, there must be accountability.

But "a great many of them have themselves concluded there is no reason for them being there that justifies what they are being put through." is a recipe for disaster. You can't have an army if each soldier is free to decide policy. Nor is it clear in the present situation how many is a great many. If I listen to Robert D. Kaplan in "Imperial Grunts" or the servicemen and their relatives who post to Free Republic I find a great many is very few...and if it is very few, those who say a great many are indeed traitorous defeatists.

Posted at August 17, 2006 2:34 PM in response to The Death of Hezbollah?