See me after tonight.

Right here bubba...

Still copying off the other kids, I see.

Just putting it in a framework you'll be sure to understand. Always amusing to see you squrim.

Hey bit, tell us again how Palin has Democrats quaking in fear...

See me after tonight.

A. A very poor thinker
B. Someone who's opinions are entirely shaped by dogma and ideology.
C. Both of the above.

Still copying off the other kids, I see.

Hey bit, tell us again how Palin has Democrats quaking in fear...

It teaches us nothing of the sort

Which explains why the British and Soviet empires still exist today.

Ah. So THAT's how you manage to argue against it

Argue against what? You have presented nothing but a lame position that what you think is "inarguable". Its is not cause for an argument, just a laugh.

A moment ago, you were chastising W for NOT taking BinLaden at his word

Actually I was referring to what Bush was told by an intelligence officer, who was correctly reporting Bin Laden's objectives. It had nothing to do with "taking Bin Laden at his word". I leave that to you. Bush told him to take a hike. It's not confusing bit, do try and keep up.

Gosh, you are so deep!

It's hardly a requirement. Indeed, being deep is counter productive to understanding you.. but I'll manage.

Only if you are.
A. A very poor thinker
B. Someone who's opinions are entirely shaped by dogma and ideology.
C. Both of the above.

Ah. So THAT's how you manage to argue against it, and keep a straight face. I had thought to ask. Thanks.

Perhaps it is that they have not bought into Bin Laden's sucker play that Iraq is "the central front". But if you want to take Bin Laden at his word, hey, thats you.

A moment ago, you were chastising W for NOT taking BinLaden at his word. Which way we goin' with this?

And what does history teach us? Empires have ample military power, and the willingness to use it. In the long run, it simply does not work.

It teaches us nothing of the sort, unless you ae

A. A very poor thinker
B. Someone who's opinions are entirely shaped by dogma and ideology.
C. Both of the above.

Thanks for playing.
You better get some practice though.

I understand you quite well

Gosh, you are so deep!

t is inarguable that 9/11 occurred because we showed reluctance to use our ability to protect our interest, on repeated occasions

Only if you are.
A. A very poor thinker
B. Someone who's opinions are entirely shaped by dogma and ideology.
C. Both of the above.

Bush was warned Bin Laden was "determined to strike in the US".
Perhaps if he had said "we have to keep a very close eye on that bastard, make this a top priority" instead of "ok, you've covered your ass" things would have been different.

I submit that soft power only comes into play when the country exhibiting soft power has both the military might and the will to use that might.

We are pretty close to agreement on this. You have to keep your powder dry. But there is using your might, and there is using it wisely. Read some Eishenhower.

The "Cut and run" push by the Democrats like Murtha for example, and yes, by Obama, too... sends exactly the wrong message in that regard

Perhaps it is that they have not bought into Bin Laden's sucker play that Iraq is "the central front". But if you want to take Bin Laden at his word, hey, thats you.

I was speaking in terms of covering both the historical

And what does history teach us? Empires have ample military power, and the willingness to use it. In the long run, it simply does not work.

Clearly. you do not understand what I said. Being good at killing people, all by itself, is not enough. We could not have won the cold war without soft power.

well, wasn't it this blog a very short while ago where I saw someone, and I forget who, suggest that we spent 40 years over-estimating the Soviet Union's military ability because of suppsoed CIA screwups and misestimatons? If we take that at face value, then yes, we could have won it on Military power alone.

That snark aside, and to the contrary, I understand you quite well. More than is good for your argument, I shoudl think.

I submit that soft power only comes into play when the country exhibiting soft power has both the military might and the will to use that might. It is inarguable that 9/11 occurred because we showed reluctance to use our ability to protect our interest, on repeated occasions. Every time Obama BinLaden hit us, we reteated, emplying soft power instead. 9/11 was the drect result of our reluctance to use our Military.

The "Cut and run" push by the Democrats like Murtha for example, and yes, by Obama, too... sends exactly the wrong message in that regard.

Your remark about empire is interesting. Is that how you see us?

Still looking for the little dig, huh? Well, I hate to disappoint you, but the obvious got right by you. I was speaking in terms of covering both the historical and the present day, in context.

The only way to maintain country and empire and the safety and prosperity of the people within it, is to maintain the ability to repel violence, violently.

Clearly. you do not understand what I said. Being good at killing people, all by itself, is not enough. We could not have won the cold war without soft power.

Clearly we need to maintain military superiority. Clearly, if we do not wish to engage in unending conflict, we need to reach the people who oppose up with something other than cluster bombs. Ideas, perhaps...

Your remark about empire is interesting. Is that how you see us?

If we are unable to come up with a solution other than relying on superior firepower, we may well end up where Israel is, in an unending cycle of violence

Well, now... isn't this interesting. You're starting to get a glimpse of reality,Anjin. (Wow... reality... what a concept!)

An overview of history... both recent and ancient, reports exactly that; The only way to maintain country and empire and the safety and prosperity of the people within it, is to maintain the ability to repel violence, violently. Hopefully, though not always, the mere threat of violence is enough to the task.

It also suggests what happens to those who forget, or by intent try to ignore that equation. You may find it distatseful, but it exists, and is in force, and unless you can overcome Human nature all around the globe, every individual, all at the same time, (Highly improbable) it always WILL be in force.

And, as we and Israel both know, even a vastly superior military does not ensure a nation against very unpleasant surprises.

That’s a fair point, but not in the sense of what Bithead was suggesting, which is that somehow American soft power is viewed as a weakness that creates more terrorists.

I'm actually suggesting both.

And frankly, I find frightening your assertion that at at no point along the scale will terrorists see 'soft power' as weakness, thereby generating more terrorists... as I do the assertion that terrorists are common criminals.

I think in both situations you're inviting problems.

My point here is that there's little question that American soft power has created terrorists. The radical violent Islamists certainly think so.

That’s a fair point, but not in the sense of what Bithead was suggesting, which is that somehow American soft power is viewed as a weakness that creates more terrorists.

I think Anderson has it mostly right about the potential effect of American soft power in the region. It seems more likely to me that American hard power has a greater potential to create terrorists than American soft power. Surely images of bombed Baghdad, images of torture, and American troops on holy grounds is a greater rallying call for terrorism against America than are blue jeans, Coke, and pornography, as Anderson put it.

Well, I was using "al Qaeda" in its current sense as an umbrella org, not so much just guys in Osama's cave (damn if I didn't type "Obama" first, ha!).

But does the U.S. have "a war on violent radical Islamists" who aren't attacking the U.S. or its interests? Suppose that V.R.I. are fomenting domestic unrest in Indonesia -- are we at war with them?

If so, why aren't we at war with other non-Islamic domestic terrorists in other countries? Because we particularly hate Muslims? Doesn't work that way.

A "war against terrorism" is not a winnable war. It's not a "war" at all, any more than there's a "war on crime."

I still think that terrorists are just glorified criminals who need to be de-glorified. Where they're acting in rogue states (Afghanistan) or outside effective sovereignty (the NW Province), the military has to be used against them. Otherwise, they're like the Mafia and should be treated as such.

-- Re: "soft power," modernity is a threat to fundamentalists. American culture is threatening to fundy Muslims, some of whom are naturally going to take a violent tack about it. That doesn't stop our soft power from ALSO having a very strong pro-American effect, as Muslims demand blue jeans, Coke, pornography, and democracy.

To be more than nuisances, terrorists need cultural support. American soft power threatens that support. That is why it's so important to them to engage "hard power" and counteract our soft power with images of bombed Baghdad etc.

No, I don’t believe the projection of soft power produces a larger pool of potential terrorists

Have you read Qutb? Very influential in Islamist circles. His specific thesis is that American soft power is a threat to Islam. My point here is that there's little question that American soft power has created terrorists. The radical violent Islamists certainly think so.