So what's your point?

You think Newbold's a dipstick? Could be, but I'm impressed with his criticism of the administration's failure to address the root causes of terrorism. After all, the war on terrorism will go on forever unless and until the U.S. does so. Do you believe otherwise? And if so, what is your basis? No C&Ps please. Show your work; you're being graded.

t.i.c.,

Salmo g.

Aw heck Salmo, you want me to read the article. tee hee. It's interesting that when a link is posted the tickles someone's nerve endings, a response is generated. In other cases a from the heart comment is a bit of ephemera.
At any rate Newbold raises some interesting points and then drops back into the rhetoric game too often. I think they shoud have gone in with a lot more manpower, I think eliminating the Iraqi Army was a mistake. I also think that the terrain in Afghanistan does not lend itself to large scale operations. More commando and spec ops territory with call up assets when needed. Some folks need a scape goat. Rhummy fits the need. Since they have a while to wait to dump Bush. Any port in a storm.
I'm auditing, no grade needed or expected.
Terrorism has existed for centuries and will continue to exist for many more centuries. The most useful thing you can do with a terrorist is turn him, or retire him, martyr seems to be the current euphemism.

Sard,

I figured you were just auditing, but that takes so much of the fun out of it.

Seriously tho, if cyber-space can possibly be so, what do you think of the administration's unwillingness to even have any dialog regarding the root cause of terrorist threats against the U.S.? My opinion is that they recognize doing so goes against the administration's interest, so they will try to dodge the topic forever. They have too many interests wrapped up in the causes of terrorism, so identifying them and addressing them can only work against them. Do you agree?

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

You are being a bit partisan for me. You want a cause for terrorism? Pick one. There are so many that any choice will probably work. It is unfortunate, that in the efforts to unite the American citizenry, terrorism doesn't seem to have a chance. A sexy broad on 'American Idol' stimulates more interest, it seems. Until you lose a bit of flesh or a loved one close to you becomes burger, it just doesn't seem to have an impact. It's political fodder and not much more.
Can you imagine the effect on the ...war... if the American public spoke with one mouth and acted with one cause apparent, and acted like a team? I believe the effect would be shattering for the 'terrorists, insurgents, murderous criminals or religious fanatics.' Take your pick.
Either the United States tosses aside any form of would be world leadership and crawls into the dungeon of isolationism or we get out in front and lead. We make a bunch of mistakes. Goes with the territory. The main one, in my opinion, is the dithering method of following up on any effort began by one or the other of the political parties. However, the unity of our warring political system cripples our endeavors no matter how deserving or noble.
The Tribes know all about that one. The Sioux make a treaty with one administration and then get to watch that treaty chewed up and spit out by the next administration.
All our adversaries know that all you gotta do to achieve your goals in the face of American opposition is woo the Media and make the party in power for the moment, look bad. By that I mean make them look worse than they make themselves look. If you have the media helping it is a doable operation. Give the media blood, mayhem and the hint of scandal.
The fact that the United States does more good for more people than any other state or perhaps combination of states is seemingly unnoticed.
People risk life and limb and fortune to get here to have a crack at the American Dream. And yet there are those here that would tear it all down for whatever their pet peeve happens to be.
Bush, Kerry, Gore, Clinton, are just faces to throw darts at if they happen to be on the other side of the coin.
Come on Salmo g. you cannot derive much fun from downing someone you consider beneath your scintillating intellectual stance. Life is just one big Audit. Sometimes you walk away with something much better than any 'grade' sometimes you don't. But the time is never wasted. To stop learning is death.

"The fact that the United States does more good for more people than any other state or perhaps combination of states is seemingly unnoticed."

It isn't unnoticed as much as it is mitigated by the harm we do through a failed foreign policy. I find it difficult when comments are made dismissing the value of human life just because it is happening in Iraq! Americans choose to ignore the reality of the loss of Iraqi civilians in a battle WE started. I understand the gravity of war and death is synonomous with war which is why I feel obligated to look for the real reasons for invading Iraq.

I agree with most of your post except, I have an underlying difference of opinion when it comes to the undercurrent of support for the current administration.

"Can you imagine the effect on the ...war... if the American public spoke with one mouth and acted with one cause apparent, and acted like a team? I believe the effect would be shattering for the 'terrorists, insurgents, murderous criminals or religious fanatics.'"

I like the statement above with a slight modification rather then American replace it with Global. What I mean to say is after 9/11 we had an opportunity to lead the world on how to fight terror. We chose to lead by might fueled by the desire for revenge rather then intelligence. We did not unite the world with our foreign policy yet we had such an ample opportunity to asses the problem of terrorism and and address it from there globally.

What do we do instead? We change the focus on terrorism to a country that just so happens to be the lynch pin to the neocon's idea for the new middle east?!??!??!

I struggle to understand how anybody who refuses to identify themselves as a neocon can support this administration!

Since so many had their hands in the 'oil for food' scandal, France, Germany, even Kofi and son, I can understand why a more representative coalition of the bigger nations was not possible. I would have been very embarrassing to swing at Saddam with one hand while accepting his dollars and oil with the other.
I do like the idea of a remodeled Middle East. The Middle East has been a festering carbuncle on the butt of civilization for far too many generations.
I hope you don't mean one world, one goverment by the use of the term 'global.'
What is a neocon? Is it anything like a garsnarf?

If you know anything about the plan for the new middle east you know what a neocon is! If not then you have not done any homework on the current administration and the philosophies it brought to office. I assume since you are such a staunch supporter of this administration you know these things and you are therefore attempting to deflect from the conversation by claiming ignorance to the title. Not surprising considering where your loyalties lie.

History has proven that forcing wills and forcing changes on a people let alone a region is ultimately a failed philosophy. If you believe change in the middle east will come forcibly then you are not a student of history.

Using the corruption in the UN as an excuse for not using the momentum and support we received following 9/11 is pathetic. Why should anyone have supported the invasion of Iraq? It was a misguided decision based on a flawed philosphy. And Iraq had nothing to to do with 9/11 of terrorism. Saudi Arabia has more to do with terrorism than Iraq ever did. When is the invasion of Saudi Arabia?

You got a point about the Saudis. I believe we are in the clockwise progression for the Middle East.
Since I am not privy to the inner workings of th administration I will plead ignorance to the envisioned future of the Middle East. Hell I am ignorant about a lot of things. Please feel free to let me in on the inner sanctum musings.
Yes it is my administration, yours too. You use the 'pathetic' motivations for your position on issues, I'll use mine.
My loyalties are with this country, with all it's faults, with all it's damn fool citizens, with all it's apathetic voters that cannot even manage a better turn out than the recently allowed vote in Iraq. I didn't like Clinton, I didn't like Carter, I didn't like Nixon, etc and so forth. They were still my presidents, and their administrations were my mine. It seems unique to support the ventures of this country now days, but I do.

I know, Salmo g. Another pasted link. This guy does have some valid points.
http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,95904,00.html?ESRC=eb.nl

Btw did you notice that the House Armed Services Committee passed a funding bill on a 60 to 1 vote for the military and war efforts. The money and the improvements were needed but the real suprise is the vote. 60 to 1

"It seems unique to support the ventures of this country now days, but I do."

My support does not come blindly! I support many endeavors of my country but just because my country does it does not mean I support it. I will never support a President just because they are my President. If the emperor is not wearing clothes shouldn't someone tell him?

Seems an illogical form of Democracy or even Patriotism.

Sard,

Thanks. Yeah, there are a multitude of causes for terrorism. Within that multitude, if you actually care about reducing it, it's unfortunately necessary to identify some of them. Particularly those in large part created and extended over time by our country. In a prior discussion - if it can be termed such - with TK, I presented the rationale that numerically we cannot kill all the Muslim terrorists in the world due to their population size, its rate of increase, and our nation's part in policies that actively encourage Muslims to hate the U.S. enough to take up arms against us. He never disputed that.

Therefore, the only way to end, or at least minimize the "war on terra" is for the U.S. to reduce the global motivation for Muslims to hate us to the point of acting on that hate.

I'm kinda' with Wailuku regarding your attempted point of the American public uniting in opinion and expression. I doubt it would affect the terrorists or insurgents significantly. Their motivation comes from a source other than American public discontent and lack of unity.

The lack of American unity does reduce the efficiency by which any national task or policy is executed and achieved. But that lack of unity is also a big part of what makes us distinctly American. Supporting the administration - if you agree with it - and opposing the administration - if you disagree with it - is among the most patriotic of possible American actions. Unconditional support of an administration just because it's in power at the time, and whether you agree with it or not, is the complete opposite of individual freedom. I'll take Patrick Henry any day, thank you.

Part of my responsibility as an American is to do what I can, and believe, will continue to make this a land where people will continue to risk life and limb to get here to have a try at achieving their dream. Which has a lot to do with my personal disgust and opposition to the current administration. Sorry for being a bit too partisan, but I haven't found a way to avoid it.

I guess I'm not quite as intellectual as you infer, as I didn't understand the last paragraph in your 5/20, 4:13 post above. I used to try to avoid any putdowns, even in this forum, but it was TK I think, who finally cracked my willpower, and I caved. I don't think you're intellectually inferior; I just don't understand some of your reasoning, so I question it in hopes of generating a more revealing response from you. I should reduce the arrogance of my posts, but it seems like I would have to type (and I'm not a good typist!) even longer and more thoughtful posts. I'll see if I can't cool it a bit, tho.

You can audit cyber-space, but like they say, there is no dress rehearsal for real life, and you can't audit that. I agree that to stop learning is death, or at least a very close approximation.

Yeah, another C&P in your 8:04 post, but it's a pretty good one. I like most everything he says, but I instinctively distance myself from anyone supportive of Bush. Just a survival instinct I must have picked up some where.

He mentions Condi Rice a bit. I've been perplexed by Condi ever since she joined the Bush team. I saw her when she was a Dean at Stanford a few times and thought I'd never met a more intelligent and informed and reasoned person. Then she joined Team Bush and seldom utters a reasoned sentence anymore. I figured she joined just to pad her resume, but I don't see how the lobotomy could have been worth it.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Last first. How can your opinion of Condi be so invalidated by her being a part of the administration?. Perhaps she knows much that we don't.
It's easy to see the errors made by others in action. Heck just watching someone bowl makes the spectator an pro'. You can see everything the person did wrong. However, stepping up to have a go at it erases all the critique data and one makes the same mistakes.
It seems we all have to use a personna for the dialogue on the site. Some of those personna are delibrately designed to be offensive. Some are just naturally offensive, and some, the few, are without a facade. I admit to being a bit nasty when I'm targeted by someone who plays the 'insult your intelligence game.' I'm easy. Fish on, and so forth. However, I have enjoyed this dialoge with you. I cannot always find the right words to convey my ideas on a given subject, but that's the human condition. Most wars and other problems are based on a misunderstanding.
I agree that this country is founded on the concept of personal freedom of both thought and action. But there are some fundamental disagreements in what the difference between 'what is an action or conduct' and what is say 'freedom of speech' A while back some court judge ruled that burning the American flag was just an expression of First Amendment rights. BS. Burning our flag is a form of unacceptable conduct. And the consequences should be costly and painful for the perp. Just an example. Sorry for the digression.
I believe that the Islamic Fundamentalists hate us just 'cause we are not worshipping Allah in their prescribed manner. They kill, what I call their own, for the same reasons. They are a murderous cult and shoulb be land fill irregardless of their numbers. Saudis beware.
I also believe that many of the 'insurgents' in Iraq are the minions of both Syria, Iran and a lot of wannabe martyrs. There is no way, in my opinion, to woo these folks into pals by changing our behaviour. If we pull out before the task at hand is finished, I believe they will just have a easier time of hitting us at home. The conflict between East and West, if you will, has gone one for centurys and I see no immediate solution for the dichotomy. There are parts of the Muslim world that would be happily left alone to pursue life, liberty, and... Too bad we cannot get them all into rabid consumerism.
I cannot even begin to list the things I disagree with about this administration, however, I believe open and raucous protests in the streets aid and abet the enemies of my country.

Sard,

Thanksk. I appreciate your response and enjoy the discourse. We just disagree about a few things.

About Condi: I'm sure she knows things that I don't. However, saying stupid things and saying things that flat don't add up detract, rather than enhance her credibility. And part of it is a guilt by association thing. She has aligned herself with a dolt of a president. It would be irresponsible of me not to hold that against her. Especially after having seen her previously align herself with people of true genius. If she's doing it because she believes it will enhance her resume, I find that incredulous, but will accept it as possibly plausible. That Powell left the administration causes me to want to still believe in him and his values.

I guess I can see where we begin to diverge. I don't care to see someone burn an American flag, but I do believe that burning an American flag is the ultimate example of American freedom, if you get what I mean. Along with Patrick Henry's "give me liberty or give me death," one of the other founding fathers said something along the lines of, "I may disagree completely with what you say, but I would fight to the death for your right to say it." I gotta' admire the moxey of those old boys.

I agree that a lot of Islamic fundamentalists hate us just for being Western or non-Muslim. Most Muslims, like most Christians, don't take their religion to such an extreme. Most Muslims really do want most of the same things we want: family, jobs, relative economic stability, the freedom to come and go and basically do as they please. Some of those erstwhile middle of the road Muslims become insurgents, or support insurgents, because they are enraged at certain behaviors of the U.S. Chief among them used to be our unilateral, lop-sided support of Israel to the direct detriment of Palistinians. While that is still a major bother to them, it is mostly supplanted these days by our occupation of Iraq. I know that's a real abbreviated sketch, but I get this from friends who have worked with and remain in contact with Arabs who continue to try to reform that hell hole that would be Palistine.

This is just one of my many reasons for disgust at the administration. Instead of win-win, the knotheads created a lose-lose quagmire. If we stay, we lose. If we leave, we lose. Yeah, I know this is a form of armchair quarterbacking, but I'm in no position to influence, only to voice my complaint. And I think the quagmire adds to the bag of pretty clear, cogent, and convincing evidence that the movers and shakers of the administration all rode the short bus to school. Oops, another cheap shot at intellect, but it's darn hard to feel any other way. Call me an intellectual snob, but I resent having my country run by people who behave like lower life forms.

As for getting a lot of Muslims into rabid consumerism, that's funny. That describes what most Iranians were like pre-Khomeni (sp) and most Iraqis were like pre-Gulf War I. Don't you wonder who or what caused them to change their focus?

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Just catching up, I'll have to say that was the most civil, reasonable and thoughtful debate I think I've ever seen here, in my short tenure anyways. Hats off to two true gentlemen, pint o guiness on me simetime.

"I believe that the Islamic Fundamentalists hate us just 'cause we are not worshipping Allah in their prescribed manner"

Fundamentalist is the key word here, I think. It seems to me at times that we have the same fundamentalism here, it's what steers me against this particular admin. I see too many parallels between the tactics of the elite/fundamentalist Muslims and the elite/fundamentalist Chritians of our nation. We went into this war under the direction of a man who beleives that God personally speaks to him, and "works through him".
I may not have such issues with how this admin operates if they weren't doing what all politicians do while claiming that God is on their side, and noone elses. Extremism is the squeaky wheel, and we all have to suffer for it's whining. Moderation is the quiet child that goes without over and over again.

Terrorism will be here as long as anybody wants what somebady else already has. Isreal has Jerusalem, Iraqis have the oil and Afghanistan has Osama.

"Either the United States tosses aside any form of would be world leadership and crawls into the dungeon of isolationism or we get out in front and lead"

I can agree with that, I'm not sure I agree with how you interpret it. I think our leadership should lead by example, and up until a pre-emptive strike, we have done just that. I'm young but I can already say that I remember a time when the world held us in the highest regard. I can't say that since my last overseas venture. I know we weren't perfect, Nike's have been made in Malaysia by nimble 9 year old fingers for a long time, but as a progressive society, why aren't we looking to better ourselves first, before taking on Iraq, or even just staying focused on the matter at hand, Osama?

So, I guess somehow that gets me to unity. Brings to mind divide and conquer from Alexander's era. It worries me, (yes, Iknow that sounds paranoid) that anyone can recognize that a nation divided is closer to failure than success, and partisan divide seems to be at one of it's highest points. However, with Geo's latest polls as an indicator, it seems he has at least united most of us in disapproval of his work so far. Can I get a moderate here? Give me exactly half way between George Bush and Ted Kennedy.

Fishpolelease, your absense has been noted. Hope you were catching some fish or at least trying.
Thank you. I don't mind disagreements in philosophies or over issues. I just get irate at some of the juvenile crap that goes on.
Btw I didn't realize how numerically small the Calpuya tribe was. I doubt that anyone has a census prior to the whiteman's diseases that drove many of the tribes into extinction. Just guesswork. At least you are not in Ishi's straits. I hope you are working on getting some redress for the pittance your people received for your land.

Thanks, sard, those are very gracious words. I can't say I've been catching fish, just overloaded with work,...it's a good thing.

Concerning the Calapuya (there are actually three recognized spellings), There are estimates to the 3 to 4 thousand range, and I guess that depends on when you believe the white men first arriveed, if it was the Spanish, French, English or finally Lewis and Clark. At the turn of the century, if I remember correctly, there were less than one hundred documented Kalapuya. My great grandmother was one of those and had eighteen children. If anybody is wondering where, all of the sudden, all these natives came from collecting casino checks, that's pretty much how it happened. Those who survived made a conscious effort in some cases to have large families (many reasons for this obviously) and to try and speed up their understanding of the new world they were subject to. See if you can find the Applegate Report sometime, we had difficulty acquiiring it through the freedom of information act but it was pretty detailed about the native lifestyle and more specifically, my ancestors, before true manifest destiny manifested itself. But, that's off topic I suppose.

Just glad to see some thought filled retorts, in spite of my own trash talking, but if you can't trash talk anonymously in a chat forum, where can you?

Interesting reference to the loss of Iran to the Islamowackos. Salmo g. Do you remember how that all happened? The dumping of the tyrant, the Shah of Iran, and some of the 'sit on your hands' diplomacy that took place.
I will not apologize for the acts of the Shah or many other of the various dictators we have supported for the sake of 'stability' = don't interrupt the machinations of big business. We can rail against the big businesses 'til we are blue in the face and that will not change anything. And when change comes, as it does, often the change is not for the betterment of the average citizen. It is just a new set of power hungry lunatics. Ala Castro, Khoumeni, Pol Pot, and some of the other Idi Amin like nuts.

Fishpolelease, is the Applegate report the diary of the immigrant Applegate, or is there a formal report by that tag? I have read the immigrants commentary on the trip to Oregon. And there many references to Applegate in the history of Nevada, Oregon and Southern Idaho. I found it interesting that many of the battles mentioned in those histories are never mentioned in the standard fare of Manifest Destiny and the resulting decimation of the indigenous peoples.

I, too, must chime in and applaud the decorum of this discussion. Although I tend to agree much more with Salmo's contentions than with Sard's, both sides have been presented with style and class and has made it much easier to evaluate.

Thanks