Friday, December 16, 2005
Future History
There are some things--discrete, even small actions--which tell you something about the greater whole. The first thing I think of, along this line, is the self-immolation of a Buddhist monk in Viet Nam in, I believe, 1964. Young people mainly know of this symbolic protest as the arresting cover of a middling 1992 Rage Against the Machine CD. But it told us a lot at the time, namely, that we had lost the moral high ground there and would never regain it.
The similar telling action regarding Iraq is more difficult to pinpoint. I've narrowed it down to two things--the holding up of the inked finger several million times in 2005 or the bombing of the wedding in Jordan. We know from either of these that what the MSM calls the insurgency in Iraq will fail. And honest, thinking people know it absolutely.
Here's what will be written about the Gulf War 2 in 50 years: America, Britain and a small coalition liberated Iraq from the Hitler-like despot Saddam Hussein who was captured, tried for his crimes and executed.
Whether that sentence will be followed by: This liberation ended in tragedy for the Iraqis as their experiment with democracy devolved into savage Civil War; or future historians will write: This liberation was the beginning of a democracy movement throughout the Middle East, is unknowable at this time. Keeping a democracy going is a difficult, constant struggle. But the opportunity for the Iraqis to succeed or fail is a wonderful gift from, well, mainly the United States, made worthy and noble by the sacrifice of our troops. It is the thing that will be remembered in the future when Murtha, Dean, Reid, and Pelosi are merely forgotten footnotes in the grand volumn of the history of the World.
The similar telling action regarding Iraq is more difficult to pinpoint. I've narrowed it down to two things--the holding up of the inked finger several million times in 2005 or the bombing of the wedding in Jordan. We know from either of these that what the MSM calls the insurgency in Iraq will fail. And honest, thinking people know it absolutely.
Here's what will be written about the Gulf War 2 in 50 years: America, Britain and a small coalition liberated Iraq from the Hitler-like despot Saddam Hussein who was captured, tried for his crimes and executed.
Whether that sentence will be followed by: This liberation ended in tragedy for the Iraqis as their experiment with democracy devolved into savage Civil War; or future historians will write: This liberation was the beginning of a democracy movement throughout the Middle East, is unknowable at this time. Keeping a democracy going is a difficult, constant struggle. But the opportunity for the Iraqis to succeed or fail is a wonderful gift from, well, mainly the United States, made worthy and noble by the sacrifice of our troops. It is the thing that will be remembered in the future when Murtha, Dean, Reid, and Pelosi are merely forgotten footnotes in the grand volumn of the history of the World.
# posted by Roger Fraley @ 8:10 AM 
Comments:
<< Home
Murtha will be remembered as the Clement Vallandigham of our epoch. To bad we can't ship him to Canada.
Roger,
The text in history books tends not to be as editorial and your version might suggest. I agree w/ the the first sentence, although however Hilter like Saddam may have been, I doubt he will be so described.
As for the second sentence, it will be a report of what occurred. I doubt "tragic" will make it into the text as all civil wars are tragic, or at least are the cause of multiple tragedies.
As for "The opportunity for the Iraqis to succeed or fail is a wonderful gift from well, mostly the United States, made worthy and noble by the sacrifice of our troops" has given me pause. Is the gift more wonderful and noble b/c of the sacrifice of our troops? I will ponder this. Is it more wonderful and noble b/c of the deaths of 30,000 Iraqis more or less? Some of them have been victims of Saddamists (can't we just call them Saddamites?), Al Qaeda, and others fighting against our vision of the Iraqi future; some were Saddamists, Al Qaeda members, and others fighting against our vision of Iraq; and some were bystanders to history.
I continue to challenge you to explain why you believe democracy will flourish, or at least function, in Iraq. "The future is unknowable" is not a convincing argument. If you merely want to state "It's a matter of faith," I'll stop asking the question.
Our 2 greatest allies in the mid east are Saudi Arabia and Jordan. Both of these states are monarchies. Both are relatively stable, but like many such states are a successful assination away from chaos. As you know, I like and admire King Abdullah. He is not, however, governing a democracy and I, for one, do not suggest that he should.
Remember St. Ambrose (Bishop of Milan 374-397): Si fueris Romae, Romano vivito more; si fueris alibi, vivito sicut ibi.
I am a proponent of democracy, but our system of government is not a beneficient drug like an antibiotic, which when dispensed will heal the afflicted. It may heal the afflicted. It may also kill them. You are correct that the future is unknowable, but any physician practicing to the standard of care will first determine whether the patient is allergic to the medication b/f prescribing it. I believe the flaw in your reasoning is that you continue to evaluate the situation based your own experience and the American experience in general.
The Iraqi peoples do have the benefit of either.
As for The Honorable Dean, Reid, Pelosi and Murtha, it is their status, not their views, that will make them footnotes to history.
Do you believe that the Honorable Cheney, Rice, and Frist will get more print?
All the best.
Tony
The text in history books tends not to be as editorial and your version might suggest. I agree w/ the the first sentence, although however Hilter like Saddam may have been, I doubt he will be so described.
As for the second sentence, it will be a report of what occurred. I doubt "tragic" will make it into the text as all civil wars are tragic, or at least are the cause of multiple tragedies.
As for "The opportunity for the Iraqis to succeed or fail is a wonderful gift from well, mostly the United States, made worthy and noble by the sacrifice of our troops" has given me pause. Is the gift more wonderful and noble b/c of the sacrifice of our troops? I will ponder this. Is it more wonderful and noble b/c of the deaths of 30,000 Iraqis more or less? Some of them have been victims of Saddamists (can't we just call them Saddamites?), Al Qaeda, and others fighting against our vision of the Iraqi future; some were Saddamists, Al Qaeda members, and others fighting against our vision of Iraq; and some were bystanders to history.
I continue to challenge you to explain why you believe democracy will flourish, or at least function, in Iraq. "The future is unknowable" is not a convincing argument. If you merely want to state "It's a matter of faith," I'll stop asking the question.
Our 2 greatest allies in the mid east are Saudi Arabia and Jordan. Both of these states are monarchies. Both are relatively stable, but like many such states are a successful assination away from chaos. As you know, I like and admire King Abdullah. He is not, however, governing a democracy and I, for one, do not suggest that he should.
Remember St. Ambrose (Bishop of Milan 374-397): Si fueris Romae, Romano vivito more; si fueris alibi, vivito sicut ibi.
I am a proponent of democracy, but our system of government is not a beneficient drug like an antibiotic, which when dispensed will heal the afflicted. It may heal the afflicted. It may also kill them. You are correct that the future is unknowable, but any physician practicing to the standard of care will first determine whether the patient is allergic to the medication b/f prescribing it. I believe the flaw in your reasoning is that you continue to evaluate the situation based your own experience and the American experience in general.
The Iraqi peoples do have the benefit of either.
As for The Honorable Dean, Reid, Pelosi and Murtha, it is their status, not their views, that will make them footnotes to history.
Do you believe that the Honorable Cheney, Rice, and Frist will get more print?
All the best.
Tony
# posted by 
: 11:06 AM
: 11:06 AM
I believe democracy will win out over despotism in the long run because it fits basic human nature better than autocratic rule. Just so, capitalsim will beat out communism and even socialism in the long run because it fits human nature better that socialism. That is why I believe that democracy in Iraq, given a firm enough toehold, will take root and thrive. (I see I've mixed metaphores there).
Pakistan is also one assination away from the ability to become a very repressive Muslim theacracy. So? Why does that make me fear for Iraq's chances.
Of Cheney Rice and Frist, only Rice has a chance to rise above footnote status (and I am a big Dick Cheney fan).
The pendulum has swung, Tone, physics demands it continue in its arc to the stopping point and then perhaps your party will have a chance to be trusted with the reins again, but I doubt it will be in your lifetime.
Pakistan is also one assination away from the ability to become a very repressive Muslim theacracy. So? Why does that make me fear for Iraq's chances.
Of Cheney Rice and Frist, only Rice has a chance to rise above footnote status (and I am a big Dick Cheney fan).
The pendulum has swung, Tone, physics demands it continue in its arc to the stopping point and then perhaps your party will have a chance to be trusted with the reins again, but I doubt it will be in your lifetime.
Au contraire Roger. Communism is nearly extinct b/c it was and is terminally dysfunctional. It doesn't work. Beware imposing ideology on real life.
Socialism is also dysfunctional, however, I suspect that various socialistic forms of government or socialistic institutions w/in government will continue to exist and not all of these are bad, social securirty for example.
Capitalism has by far the most to recommend it but unchecked capitalism has its own dangers which is why we have some Federal statutes and regulations some of which protect us better than others.
I agree w/ you about Rice but how may SOS's make it into the history books?--at least basic texts which I think is what we were talking about.
As you know, I also agree w/ you about Pakistan being one assassination away from a theocracy.
So far as democarcy winning out b/c it fits huamn nature better than despotism, wouldn't it be pretty to think so.
I hope to live a long life, but if you believe the pendulum won't swing back in our life times, remember again that nmeesis follows hubris.
I recently read/heard that what it took the Democrats 40 years to accomplish, the Republicans have done in 10. It's called the abuse of power.
GW2 is not as popular w/ everyone as it is w/ you. The deficit, which does not include the cost of GW2, is not viewed as benignly by many as it is by you.
You may chortle about Dems past and present but the fact remains that the biggest thing the Republicans have going for them is that most Americans have a very short attention span.
Roger, some us believe the Republicans could have done a whole lot better than they have, in both foreign and domestic policy.
It is 9:29 and I want to check out that anime you recommended.
Socialism is also dysfunctional, however, I suspect that various socialistic forms of government or socialistic institutions w/in government will continue to exist and not all of these are bad, social securirty for example.
Capitalism has by far the most to recommend it but unchecked capitalism has its own dangers which is why we have some Federal statutes and regulations some of which protect us better than others.
I agree w/ you about Rice but how may SOS's make it into the history books?--at least basic texts which I think is what we were talking about.
As you know, I also agree w/ you about Pakistan being one assassination away from a theocracy.
So far as democarcy winning out b/c it fits huamn nature better than despotism, wouldn't it be pretty to think so.
I hope to live a long life, but if you believe the pendulum won't swing back in our life times, remember again that nmeesis follows hubris.
I recently read/heard that what it took the Democrats 40 years to accomplish, the Republicans have done in 10. It's called the abuse of power.
GW2 is not as popular w/ everyone as it is w/ you. The deficit, which does not include the cost of GW2, is not viewed as benignly by many as it is by you.
You may chortle about Dems past and present but the fact remains that the biggest thing the Republicans have going for them is that most Americans have a very short attention span.
Roger, some us believe the Republicans could have done a whole lot better than they have, in both foreign and domestic policy.
It is 9:29 and I want to check out that anime you recommended.
# posted by : 9:56 AM
: 9:56 AM
Why au contrair? We agreed about nearly everything, including that the Republicans could have done a lot better in the past 11 years (still not without some high spots) Seen as a precentage of GNP (or whatever measure they use today) our profligate spending is a drop in the bucket so I'm not worried there. And I see great things ahead for Condi (unless questions about her sexuality sink her with the too faithful pary members) beyond SOS. The cartoon is a night, sorry if I screwed that up. Thanks for the continued dialogue.
Post a Comment
<< Home
