[linskyjack]

For any of you who want to read the piece on Brent Scowcroft and his falling out with the Bush administration, I suggest you catch it in this week's New Yorker. It really is the story of two schools of foreign diplomacy----the Idealists (who believe it or not, in this case, are represented by the neo-cons who contrived this war feeling that you could social engineer a new country dedicated to western ideals) and the realists, who essentially said that when you invade a country you essentially own it and thus, Iraq was a fatal error. Its also gives great insight into the reason that we didn't finish the job in Iraq during the Gulf War-----the planners had decided that it would be impossible to placate the warring factions and to bring any form of democracy to that part of the world, and thus was unrealistic.


I tend to believe that each event has to be dealt with as a unique occurence---some require a more idealistic view, and other, a more realistic view. Some require a combination of the two. Brent Scowcroft is bitter because whenever he tried to express the views of the realists (Baker, Kissinger, etc) he was given the cold shoulder by the White House. He compared his experience with Monkey Bush, to the elder Bush---who insisted on hearing the worst possible scenarios before making a major decision before going to war. Its obvious that the was different from the idiot son and to this day, Scowcroft and Bush Sr. maintain a very close friendship. Read the article---it's worth the price at the newsstand.

[bassetman]

Don't be ideal, be real!

[Ciberblade]

Your incessant disrespect negates any points you wish to make....guess you're an idealist.

[plschwartz]

I think that Scrowcroft is overly generous in using the term "idealist" to describe the B-team neocons (see http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...NG62FDUGL1.DTL )
There is to me a sharp difference between an idealist and a fanatic. In the end the idealist wants to serve others; the fanatic wants to serve himsekf and aggrandize his own image. The first comes from love of others (agape). The latter from love of power.
Anybody see Chaney as acting from agape?

[linskyjack]

I think there is a thin line between a "proclaimed" idealist and a fanatic----History is replete with idealists- Mao's, Stalins, etc. who all posited a world free of poverty, run by working people for the betterment of all. The net result was the mass murder of millions.
The Neo-Cons "idealism" looks good on paper, but beneath the surface is a zealous, almost religious view of the world that in my mind is terrifying. As far as Cyberblade's mention of my incessant disrespect, well get over it. 2000 Americans are dead, their families are forever shattered, and you have problems with me calling the moron who sent them to Iraq monkey boy.

[iltos]

interesting jack....and you infer a valid point....it is usually the "liberal agenda" that is dismissed as idealistic by a more conservative ethic

it has been argued here time and again, for example (and not without some merit), that no social program for the needy will ever solve the problem of those who are needy due to the range of human nature, or that enviromental policy is not a very pragmatic consideration in today's world of increasing economic pariety

in a very real sense, these are both idealistic notions...that a society should find a way to support its own less fortunate, and that our environment is something other that a resource for consumption....personally, i find neither of these ideas to be an either/or scenario, believing that the one of the functions of any community is to determine and strive for its ideals

but ideals (whatever they may be), when they are imposed from without, quickly lose the potential of their significance...it's probably the strongest arguement against a large federal government compelling the states to adopt social policy, environmental policy....even education policy....we are just too diverse a community nationwide for that kind of "engineering"

as an ideal, the constitution sought to protect that diversity with its federal checks and balances, and its local/national assignments of responsibility....the success of american materialism is due in part, however, to the increase role of the federal government in our lives, determining rights and boundaries for all of us....

is it a good thing, from the standpoint of the ideal of this "great experiment"?...

one thing that we all seem to agree on is that it is a dangerous thing, this gigantic and permanent federal bureaucracy, whose paycheck (like ours) can only be justified by product, and so must constantly be in a state of production, whether its necessary of not....personally, i don't think that's exactly what the founding fathers had in mind.

ok...i'm rambling here .....my point is that ideals are internal to a community....their exportation, for whatever noble or ignoble reason, is the root of imperialism, emprire, and conquest.

[Ciberblade]

Originally Posted by linskyjack

I think there is a thin line between a "proclaimed" idealist and a fanatic----History is replete with idealists- Mao's, Stalins, etc. who all posited a world free of poverty, run by working people for the betterment of all. The net result was the mass murder of millions.
The Neo-Cons "idealism" looks good on paper, but beneath the surface is a zealous, almost religious view of the world that in my mind is terrifying. As far as Cyberblade's mention of my incessant disrespect, well get over it. 2000 Americans are dead, their families are forever shattered, and you have problems with me calling the moron who sent them to Iraq monkey boy.

I can only suppose you were addressing me. You disrespect the office -- it is clear that the 2000 dead mean nothing to you but a political agenda -- it pleases me that most Americans do not think the way you do.

[columbo]

Ciber,

"Disrespecting the office" never seemed to be a problem when Clinton was president (many public figures made derogatory comments about him).

Is "the office" only worthy of respect when a Republican holds it?

[linskyjack]

Originally Posted by Ciberblade

I can only suppose you were addressing me. You disrespect the office -- it is clear that the 2000 dead mean nothing to you but a political agenda -- it pleases me that most Americans do not think the way you do.

Well you must be reading different polls then everyone else in this country. This has nothing to do with a political agenda. This has to do with the President of the United States lying to the American people---the result being the needless death of 2000 plus Americans (another died today). In fact, you are the one with the political agenda, because you continue to support the liar who put our men and women in harm's way by ignoring anything that might throw a wrench in his maniacal world view. I suspect that if you lived during the time of the Third Reich, you would have got angry if I called Hitler a fascist, mental case. How dare anyone demean the noble office of the CHANCELLOR!

Iltos, I have always believed that anyone whose ideals involve a total disregard for reality, human nature etc, is merely an ego-maniac, be he right wing or left wing or anywhere inbetween. That's not to say that idealism can't be a wonderful thing. However, to often, tyrants have hidden behind it in order to enslave or murder those who don't agree with the program. That happens on both sides of the political spectrum.

[Ciberblade]

Originally Posted by columbo

Ciber,

"Disrespecting the office" never seemed to be a problem when Clinton was president (many public figures made derogatory comments about him).

Is "the office" only worthy of respect when a Republican holds it?

Wrong....it is always a problem, or are you not paying attention? The line between discontent and disrespect has been washed away by the fraternity warfare. People don't seem to care anymore...and that is disgusting!

[bassetman]

Originally Posted by Ciberblade

Wrong....it is always a problem, or are you not paying attention? The line between discontent and disrespect has been washed away by the fraternity warfare. People don't seem to care anymore...and that is disgusting!

CB you know I respect you dispite your silly views on some things , but it was the Bush admin and cronies that started the dirties smears of people who disagree with him. He lowered the standard!

i.e.

WASHINGTON, Sept. 25 (UPI) -- Senate Democrats Wednesday expressed outrage over a recent comment by President Bush that they are not interested in protecting national security and accused him of using the war on terror and a possible war with Iraq for political gain.

Responding to a report in The Washington Post that Bush had questioned the Senate's dedication to protect the nation, Sen. Tom Daschle, D-S.D., cited the war records of several Democratic senators, including Hawaii Sen. Daniel Inouye, who lost his arm in World War II and earned the Medal of Honor for valor.

"I can't believe any president or any administration would politicize the war," a visibly angry Daschle said from the well of the Senate. "But then I read in the paper this morning ... the president is quoted as saying, 'The Democratic-controlled Senate is not interested in the security of the American people.' You tell Senator Inouye that he's not interested in the security of the American people. You tell those who fought in Vietnam and in World War II they're not interested in the security of the American people. That is outrageous. Outrageous."

...http://www.upi.com/inc/view.php?Stor...5-011633-8141r

[bassetman]

Just an FYI

idealistic

adjective

Showing a tendency to envision things in perfect but unrealistic form: utopian, visionary. See hope/despair, real/imaginary.
Not compatible with reality: quixotic, romantic, starry-eyed, unrealistic, utopian, visionary. See hope/despair, real/imaginary.

Isn't Democracy the ideal we are supposedly fighting for in Iraq?

[Ciberblade]

Originally Posted by linskyjack

Well you must be reading different polls then everyone else in this country. This has nothing to do with a political agenda. This has to do with the President of the United States lying to the American people---the result being the needless death of 2000 plus Americans (another died today). In fact, you are the one with the political agenda, because you continue to support the liar who put our men and women in harm's way by ignoring anything that might throw a wrench in his maniacal world view. I suspect that if you lived during the time of the Third Reich, you would have got angry if I called Hitler a fascist, mental case. How dare anyone demean the noble office of the CHANCELLOR!

I don't read polls...they are indicative to a prescribed response. I know I have a political agenda -- the difference is, I stand behind mine, where you try and mask yours under false pretenses. Your suspicions are meaningless because we all know how little clarity your memory brings (as I have demonstrated on several occasions) and that you project onto others a view they may not hold, simply to disagree with them...we've talked about your comprehension before.

[Ciberblade]

Originally Posted by bassetman

CB you know I respect you dispite your silly views on some things , but it was the Bush admin and cronies that started the dirties smears of people who disagree with him. He lowered the standard!

I disagree -- the smear side of political personal destruction have been around much longer than Bush has.

And what do you mean 'silly views'?

[linskyjack]

Great non-answer by a guy who values titles and offices more then human beings.