Author Topic: Are you Serious or are you Frivalous?  (Read 2234 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Are you Serious or are you Frivalous?
« on: October 11, 2006, 01:11:52 AM »
Frivolous Politics
By Thomas Sowell

With a war going on in Iraq and with Iran next door moving steadily toward a nuclear bomb that could change the course of world history in the hands of international terrorists, the question for this year's elections is not whether you or your candidate is a Democrat or a Republican but whether you are serious or frivolous.

That question also needs to be asked about the media. In these grim and foreboding times, our media have this year spent incredible amounts of time on a hunting accident involving Vice President Cheney, a bogus claim that the administration revealed Valerie Plame's identity as a C.I.A. "agent" -- actually a desk job in Virginia -- and is now going ballistic over a Congressman who sent raunchy e-mails to Congressional pages.

This is the frivolous media -- and the biased media. Republican Congressman Foley was wrong and is out on his ear. But Democrats in both Congress and the White House have gone far beyond words with a page and an intern. Yet the Democrats did not resign and Bill Clinton's perjury, obstruction of justice, and suborning of perjury by others were treated as if these were irrelevant private matters.

Even when serious issues are addressed, they can be addressed either seriously or frivolously. If you are content to see life and death issues of war and peace addressed with catch phrases like "chicken hawk" or to see a coalition of nations around the world fighting terrorism referred to as "unilateral" U.S. action because France does not go along, then you are content with frivolity.

You may deserve whatever you get if you vote frivolously in this year's election. But surely the next generation, which has no vote, deserves better.

Weak-kneed members of both parties have been calling for a timetable to be announced for withdrawal from Iraq. No other war in thousands of years of history has ever had such a timetable announced to their enemies. Even if we intended to get out by a given date, there is not the slightest reason to tell the terrorists that. It is frivolous politics at its worst.

There has never been any reason to doubt that American troops will be removed from Iraq. They were removed after the first Gulf War. Before that, they were removed from Grenada and from other Western Hemisphere countries throughout the 20th century. Millions of American troops were removed from Europe after World War II.

Why should there be the slightest doubt that they will be removed from Iraq? The only question is whether you can run a war on a timetable like a railroad and whether you need to announce your plans to your enemies.

All this rhetoric about a withdrawal timetable is based on trying to make political hay out of the fact that the Iraq war is unpopular. But all wars have been unpopular with Americans, as they should be.

Even World War II, won by "the greatest generation," was never popular, though the home front was united behind the troops a lot better than today. The last shot of that war had barely been sounded before the cry arose to bring our boys back home.

The exuberant celebrations across this country when World War II ended showed that we weren't looking for more war or more conquests. We weren't even trying to hold on to all the territory we had conquered. There has probably never been a time in history when a military force in the millions was disbanded so quickly.

Even after the first Gulf War, with its quick success and low casualties, the biggest ovation that the first President Bush got when he addressed Congress afterwards was when he announced that our troops would start coming back home.

Those who discuss the current war in terms of frivolous talking points make a big deal out of the fact we have been in this war longer than in World War II. But, if we are serious, we would know that it is not the duration of a war that is crucial. It is how many lives it costs.

More than twice as many Marines were killed taking one island in the Pacific during World War II than all the Americans killed in the four years of the Iraq war. More Americans were killed in one day during the Civil War.

If we are going to discuss war, the least we can do is be serious.


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/printpage/?url=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/10/frivolous_politics.html

"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Are you Serious or are you Frivalous?
« Reply #1 on: October 11, 2006, 08:22:25 AM »
 <<If you are content to see life and death issues of war and peace addressed with catch phrases like "chicken hawk" or to see a coalition of nations around the world fighting terrorism referred to as "unilateral" U.S. action because France does not go along, then you are content with frivolity.>>

But I guess "cut and run" is good serious talk.  Actually "chicken hawk" is excellent shorthand description, saying in two words "person who advocates war but was himself too cowardly to participate in war when it was his generation's choice to serve or not."  It's not frivolous at all, it's an accurate characterization of almost the entire Bush administration.

Also to refer to the collection of third-tier states that back the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq as a "coalition of nations around the world" would be a very misleading characterization of America and the former colonial power's attempt to recolonialize an important oil source.  The other nations count for nothing and have made insignificant contributions.  Do the fucking math for Christ sake.  What percentage of the troops are American and what percentage come from its bought-and-paid-for little flunkies?

Amianthus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7574
  • Bring on the flames...
    • View Profile
    • Mario's Home Page
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Are you Serious or are you Frivalous?
« Reply #2 on: October 11, 2006, 09:00:51 AM »
Do the fucking math for Christ sake.  What percentage of the troops are American and what percentage come from its bought-and-paid-for little flunkies?

About 20,000 troops in Iraq are from other countries. So, nearly 20%.
Do not anticipate trouble, or worry about what may never happen. Keep in the sunlight. (Benjamin Franklin)

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Are you Serious or are you Frivalous?
« Reply #3 on: October 11, 2006, 10:05:25 AM »
So of those 20,000 "others" if what? 15,000 are British, this leaves 5,000, a minuscule amount divided amongst (my guess) 20 countries?  The fact remains the so-called "coalition" is a largely American force, Anglo-American at best, and the contribution of the other countries is, by any scale, puny.  "Unilateral" would be as good a word as any to describe the action, since all the other "participants" together wouldn't have stood a chance in the invasion and in fact would never have attempted it, had not America volunteered to contribute virtually all the manpower.

Amianthus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7574
  • Bring on the flames...
    • View Profile
    • Mario's Home Page
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Are you Serious or are you Frivalous?
« Reply #4 on: October 11, 2006, 10:53:28 AM »
So of those 20,000 "others" if what? 15,000 are British, this leaves 5,000, a minuscule amount divided amongst (my guess) 20 countries?

A total of 34 countries have contributed troops or equipment (24 have contributed troops). The UK only contributed 8,500 troops.
Do not anticipate trouble, or worry about what may never happen. Keep in the sunlight. (Benjamin Franklin)