The New Republic

We'll see. Democrats don't have the spine to fix brain-dead Senate rules and this crop of "liberal" senators hasn't done much to change any dynamic. Plus, from what I've read, don't count Scott Brown out in the least.

- tmmats

January 8, 2013 at 3:38pm

If nothing else, they can move the "center" back to the center from off to the right where it's been for a generation. But I do expect some broken furniture to get there, which may frustrate purveyors of DC conventional wisdom who define "moderate" as what pleases the Republican Party and media elite.

- rayward

January 8, 2013 at 3:55pm

You forgot Frank Church.

- icarus-r

January 8, 2013 at 4:06pm

"Humphrey, whom I knew well, was a remarkable and unique human being; he would have made a marvelous president." I doubt that. I understand he was against the Viet Nam War in private, but he was too afraid to voice his opinion during the 1968 presidential campaign. I was one of the demonstrators in the street at the Democratic convention in Chicago in 1968, yelling up at Humphrey's hotel window, calling for him to at least acknowledge the presence of opponents of the war. He never did. He had a chance to act, even in a mild way, on his beliefs, and he didn't. I hope the new liberals in the Senate are unlike Humphrey when it comes to any new war. In a liberal democracy, war is only justified in cases of self-defense. An American invasion of Syria or Iran as they are today is only self-defense in the minds of paranoids and power freaks.

- magboy47.

January 8, 2013 at 8:57pm

Magboy, I just got out of the service that year and participated in demonstrations against the war though not in Chicago. I have since done a lot of reading about the war and came to the conclusion that I was wrong. Anyway, I voted for the Democratic ticket that year and I have blamed the anti-war left (myself included) for Nixon being elected President.

- arnon1

January 8, 2013 at 9:46pm

"In a liberal democracy, war is only justified in cases of self-defense. An American invasion of Syria or Iran as they are today is only self-defense in the minds of paranoids and power freaks." What an hysterical thing to say, Magboy. So the US should not have fought Hitler since he actually didn't attack the US. Oh, I know he declared war on us. Had he not done that we should have allowed him to kill all the Jews of Europe. And the way we left Vietnam in part because of the hysteria of people like you led to death of tens of thousands of people in that region. Countries "democracies" included don't live in isolation and at times need to take pro-active action in order to defend its values. You are a pathetic little Jew.

- arnon1

January 8, 2013 at 10:56pm

I'll amend the last sentence to: You are a pathetic little OLD Jew.

- arnon1

January 8, 2013 at 11:02pm

"In a liberal democracy, war is only justified in cases of self-defense." The sheer idiocy of this comment is mind boggling: suppose there are only two democracies in a world of tyrannies and one of those democracies is attacked should the second democracy wait until it is attacked before it engages the tyranny that attacked the other democracy? "An American invasion of Syria or Iran as they are today is only self-defense in the minds of paranoids and power freaks." The hysteria I mentioned above has to do with the comparison of Syria and Iran.

- arnon1

January 8, 2013 at 11:23pm

I just realized that I confused Magboy with a poster from Pennsylvania. I apologize for the confusion. However as to the substance of my critique of Magboy's views of when democracies should go to war, I stand by that. If he wishes to rebut my argument I am ready to defend my views in terms of geopolitics as well as ethics.

- arnon1

January 8, 2013 at 11:33pm

Yes, arnon, I was born and raised Catholic. At this moment I'm glad I'm not Jewish. The wrath of arnon is a terrible thing to behold. I believe that a liberal democracy does not attack anyone until it is attacked. It takes the initial hit, including the casualties, and then strikes back with a vengeance, and casualties on the other side be damned. If Iran were to somehow manage to strike the U.S. with a nuclear weapon, I wouldn't care if every resident of Iran were smoked by U.S. nukes after that. And if Iran uses a nuclear weapon on Israel, I would cheer for Israel to wipe out Iran and everybody in it. "And the way we left Vietnam in part because of the hysteria of people like you led to death of tens of thousands of people in that region." As you may have gleaned from my comments above, I don't care about the people in other countries who can't stand up and die if they have to in order to oppose invaders or their leaders. THE U.S. IS NOT THE WORLD'S POLICEMAN. I opposed the Viet Nam War because of the catastrophic American casualties--almost 60,000 killed, many times more injured, some of them severely, and almost 60,000 suicides of Viet Nam vets. And what did it get us? The Viet Cong still got South Viet Nam. I never supported the Cong like Jane Fonda and others did. I just didn't care about the people of North or South Viet Nam. It was their battle. WE ARE NOT THE WORLD'S POLICEMAN. How many American lives and trillions of dollars do we have to sacrifice before we learn that? I supported the Afghan War, because Bin Laden and his bloody buddies were holed up there. Afghanistan was at least harboring those who attacked us. And we were attacked by Hitler before December 11, 1941, when he declared war on us. He sank some of our Merchant Marine ships in 1941 prior to December 11. True democracies simply don't attack other nations until they are attacked. Period. It's pretty obvious that we are not a true democracy. That's okay. We're probably as close as anybody's going to get.

- magboy47.

January 9, 2013 at 3:00am

amon 1- Why so vicious and pompous? Free speech is a 1st amendment right in the US, even for posters from PA, and from any religion, or none. What do you think this is, the US House? How about some civility? In light of the outcomes in Viet Nam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, rational people could easily conclude that magboy has a very valid and ethical opinion; much more ethical and valid, than say Emperor Bush II. Screeching at us won't stop our discussion. I basically agree with magboy, and hope these Senators signal a long, progressive Democratic wave, but was wondering what his definition of "attacked" would include, because this is where it gets fuzzy for me. I can see if mutual defense treaty partners are attacked, we would also step in or why have them; or at least amend them so they correctly reflect our stance.

- smabry03

January 9, 2013 at 6:51am

"I just realized that I confused Magboy with a poster from Pennsylvania." Apology not accepted from a "pathetic little Jew!" Especially since I was an unfertilized egg (or at least half of me was) at the time of the Democratic convention in 1968, and I definitely was in favor of cutting off all aid to South Vietnam in 1975 as I was approaching my fourth birthday. Arnon, in case you're interested, I too think that abandoning South Vietnam and other SE Asian allies in 1974-1975 was a tragic, horrible US mistake although major US combat involvement in the Vietnam War before then was too. And I don't think that only crazy people or the Israel Lobby want the US to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons or Syria from imploding completely. Just so we're on the same page.

- wildboy

January 9, 2013 at 9:15am

arnon - you're an angry, bitter person and you're posts are tedious, mindless and intrusive for it. Please take your anger elsewhere or get it taken care of, manage it in some other way. This board is not a therapists office, please find one.

- WandreyCer

January 9, 2013 at 9:19am

WandreyCer the fake humanist will have her little silly say.

- arnon1

January 9, 2013 at 10:27am

Wildboy I apologized for confusing you with another poster not for what I said about liberal democracies not going to war unless they are attacked. I am glad you too were against our hurried withdrawal from South Vietnam that led to the death of tens of thousands of Vietnamese people. The way we fought the war was horrible and tragic, abut we did need to defend South Vietnam from a communist takeover.

- arnon1

January 9, 2013 at 10:30am

No problem, Arnon. Was just joking, you know.

- wildboy

January 9, 2013 at 11:46am

Agreed wildboy.

- arnon1

January 9, 2013 at 11:51am

"I basically agree with magboy, and hope these Senators signal a long, progressive Democratic wave, but was wondering what his definition of "attacked" would include, because this is where it gets fuzzy for me." smabry03, My definition of "attacked" is not written in stone. Anywhere the U.S. has troops after a war in which we were attacked directly, as in WWII, I would consider a legitimate area of self defense. I was stationed in Berlin in the early Sixties at the height of the Cold War. No Allied combat aircraft were allowed there. We soldiers and the citizens of West Berlin were under constant threat of a wipe-out attack from the Soviets and East Germans. If that had occurred, which it almost did during the Berlin Crisis in the fall of 1961, would I say a full counterattack was self defense? You betcha. As for self-defense treaties with other nations, I would honor them if our homeland were at risk. Otherwise, I wouldn't even make them. The U.S. has enough weaponry to kill everyone in the world a thousand times over. We don't need no stinkin' self-defense treaties. And Israel doesn't either. If Israel were egregiously attacked, she could kill everybody in the Middle East a thousand times over, too. All by herself. The defense treaty we had with South Viet Nam was really about spheres of influence. The U.S. was determined to dominate the Pacific Ocean early on in the 20th Century, and FDR was appalled when the Japanese occupied Indochina prior to WWII and attained access to the oil and rubber there. That was when the seeds of the Viet Nam War were planted. I guess I subscribe to the Norman Mailer Theory of Self Defense. Wait until we're directly attacked and then unleash the furies. It's not very subtle, but neither am I--as some here on this site can attest to.

- magboy47.

January 9, 2013 at 12:23pm

In an era of globalization and cyber warfare, being attacked is a much more complicated concept than mere physical attack. You may not intend subtlety Magboy, but the implications in your comments are quite subtle. I agree that Norman Mailer was not a subtle writer.

- arnon1

January 9, 2013 at 1:38pm

btw, Magboy, did you listen to Barney Frank's comments on cutting defense among other matters? What did you think? http://www.tnr.com/blog/plank/111746/barney-frank-the-ethics-globalization-video

- arnon1

January 9, 2013 at 1:51pm

Why did we need to defend South Vietnam against a communist takeover when we were defending an unpopular regime rooted in colonialism and killing lots and lots of Vietnamese in brutal ways to do so? In fact, South Vietnam underwent a communist takeover. Are we worse off as a result? Are they? Does anyone think that most Vietnamese preferred our war, fought for our own self-interested purposes, to the subsequent communist takeover? In war, one must consider not only what can be gained, but what will be lost, and by whom. A war fought in the territory of Vietnam for our geo-political purposes at enormous cost to the Vietnamese was immoral then and is still immoral with the benefit of hindsight. One might as well say that we need to invade Syria. And doubtless there are those who, despite the sordid history of Vietnam, think that we do. Maybe the same people who think our war on Vietnam was justified or think that we needed to invade Iraq.

- roidubouloi

January 9, 2013 at 11:20pm

"In a liberal democracy, war is only justified in cases of self-defense." Says arnon: "The sheer idiocy of this comment is mind boggling: suppose there are only two democracies in a world of tyrannies and one of those democracies is attacked should the second democracy wait until it is attacked before it engages the tyranny that attacked the other democracy?" Oddly enough, the UN Charter allows war only in the cases of self-defense (including collective self-defense) and when authorized by the UN Security Council. Imagine the sheer idiocy of those Americans in drafting the UN Charter! How sorry it is that we weren't beset by neo-cons back then who could have prevented the tragedy.

- roidubouloi

January 9, 2013 at 11:24pm

"Oddly enough, the UN Charter allows war only in the cases of self-defense (including collective self-defense) and when authorized by the UN Security Council. Imagine the sheer idiocy of those Americans in drafting the UN Charter! How sorry it is that we weren't beset by neo-cons back then who could have prevented the tragedy." The neo-thinker Roid doesn't get the irony of his comment. What magboy said was that a democratic nation (emphasis on nation) has the right to go to war only when one's own country is attacked, i.e. war is only legitimate in cases of self defense. He didn't say anything about the UN. I disagree with what he said (or rather I wold define self defense more broadly than he did.) Still, at least magboy's view is logical. Roid's view is illogical since the UN is an international organization which says that only it can decide on what is and what is not "legitimate self defense." Hence, from the UN's point of view the US had no right to go to war against Cuba during the missile crises. From this point of view Kennedy was a war monger and a neocon when he sent military advisers to South Vietnam. From this point of view Truman was a neocon when he engaged in a police action in South Korea. Truman too then was a neocon. There are other cases I can site when democratic nations went to war because they deemed that they were being threatened. Only a nation can decide if it is under attack or not; not the UN. Of course as with most activities in the world it's the powerful nations that get to decide when they are "being threatened" while the less powerful have to allow the UN to decide for them. So much for international law.

- arnon1

January 10, 2013 at 2:26pm

"From this point of view Truman was a neocon when he engaged in a police action in South Korea." Gee, and here I thought that the Korean action was authorized by the UNSC. So much for history. "Only a nation can decide if it is under attack or not; not the UN." Well then, any nation that thinks its defense requires that it go to war goes to war in self-defense. So much for aggressive war, illegal war, and, yes, so much for international law. We need arnon to inform the UNSC, the ICC, and the ICJ that they are all wasting their time. Arnon has spoken.

- roidubouloi

January 10, 2013 at 3:19pm

As usual Roid missed the point, the UN did not authorize either our sending military advisers to South Vietnam nor did it authorize our threats to Cuba by Kennedy. Both actions were taken in the name of self defense. The Korean action was authorized (the USSR I believe had walked out and didn't veto it) but this was a fluke still Truman had trouble at home: "On June 25, 1950, Kim Il-sung's North Korean People's Army invaded South Korea, starting the Korean War. In the early weeks of the war, the North Koreans easily pushed back their southern counterparts.[114] Truman called for a naval blockade of Korea, only to learn that due to budget cutbacks, the U.S. Navy could not enforce such a measure.[115] Truman promptly urged the United Nations to intervene; it did, authorizing troops under the UN flag led by U.S. General Douglas MacArthur. However, Truman decided not to consult with Congress, believing that most legislators supported his position; this would come back to haunt him later, when the stalemated conflict was dubbed "Mr. Truman's War" by legislators.[114]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_S._Truman#Korean_War Yes, Truman the "neocon" or is it the neo-liberal?" I prefer the latter. Reminds one of the Bush's war doesn't it? History can't be reduced to neat formulas like "war is only justifiable when..." That is the point.

- arnon1

January 10, 2013 at 3:58pm

Oh, you have a point that it is possible for someone to miss? The Vietnam War was self-defense? At least the Russians in Cuba posed a threat to us, although quite analogous to the one we posed to them from Turkey and quietly dismantled as part of the outcome of the Cuban missile crisis. You might well argue that it was Russia, not the US, that was engaged in self-defense and succeeded in abating the offensive threat we posed. Korea reminds you of the invasion of Iraq by Dumbya? Does the French Revolution remind you of the Spanish American War? Does the battle of Agincourt remind you of El Alamein? It was Truman who resisted the urging of the neo-cons of his era to go to war with Russia. It was on his watch that liberals devised the strategy of containment instead. You really need to work on your history, arnon. In your hands, it is reduced to unintelligible mush in which everything resembles whatever you want it to and nothing that actually happened actually happened. After you are done reducing it to unintelligible nonsense, there are certainly no lessons to be drawn let alone, god forbid, neat formulas.

- roidubouloi

January 10, 2013 at 8:58pm

The history of the Vietnam War is that we frustrated the elections that we knew would have brought Ho Chi Minh into the presidency of the unified country and then assisted the leftover colonial government in resisting a South Vietnamese rebellion -- remember the Viet Cong? -- first with advisers and then with a massive build-up of American troops to fight the insurgency. That in turn drew North Vietnamese armed forces into South Vietnam. Some self-defense. Since it is we who were invading what was to have been a unified country under the agreements reached in Geneva, one would have to say that it was the Vietnamese who were defending themselves against us. Of course, for neo-cons, self-defense is whatever they want it to be and justifies whatever military adventure they wish to pursue, illegal or not. That thinking has a rather ignoble history in the 20th century, one that mutual self-defense pacts and the UN, both of liberal devise, were meant to overcome. But the neo-cons never tire of peddling the same crap and the same tortured versions of history to justify the same crap, and if a few hundred thousands or millions of people elsewhere suffer for it, killed, maimed, rendered homeless, made refugees, why, that's the price of our self-defense, one that the rest of the world should expect to pay without limit.

- roidubouloi

January 10, 2013 at 9:23pm

Here comes little old Roid with his little history lesson which isn't history and his useless points about international law which no one observes. He does love to play judge doesn't he. Too bad this little rich boy never got to buy himself a law court somewhere. If you weren't so tedious, Roid, you would be a total nonentity.

- arnon1

January 10, 2013 at 9:42pm

Awwww. Little baby arnon is embarrassed, yet again, by his ignorance and pointlessness. If you could rise from incoherent to tedious, arnon, it would be a vast improvement. But there is no reason to think that you can. Still, no loss to the world. You merely tedious would be still be a waste of oxygen.

- roidubouloi

January 10, 2013 at 10:50pm

the masochistic roid is baaack for more. He takes time out from defending the Vietnamese from the Kennedy's to argue against incoherent moi. Roid's behaviior and thought that is totally incoherent.

- arnon1

January 10, 2013 at 11:45pm

You're such a little boy, arnon. I think the childish taunt that you are inarticulately groping for, amidst your pouting, foot-stamping, and tears of frustration, is, "I know you are, but what am I?" There now. Disciplining little children like you isn't really all that demanding. Didn't take any time at all. Ask a grown-up to teach you what the word "rant" means, little one. You don't use it properly. But then, you don't have much of a grasp of English, do you?

- roidubouloi

January 11, 2013 at 7:13am

Oh, and by the way, it was Lyndon Johnson, not Kennedy, who sent troops to fight the Vietnamese rather than advisers and trainers. You manage to mangle pretty much every historical reference that you attempt, don't you? Not that it matters. You are a chucklehead with or without your risible efforts to sound learned.

- roidubouloi

January 11, 2013 at 7:17am

Two more self serving posts by pathetic Roid. The man just doesn't know how to argue. He always misses the main point and goes off on tangents. For example his view that the US was at fault in South Vietnam which wasn't the issue. The issue is who decides if a country is under attack and needs to defend itself? The UN or the he country under attack. There is a double standard here. Powerful nations like the US or Russia decide when they under attack. Small nations need to consult with the UN. So if the US was at fault in Vietnam (which is debatable, though not with a narrow minded and ignorant poster like Roid (all he knows are legal textbook lessons) and it the UN couldn't do anything about it means that the international community cannot enforce its laws on everyone equally. The same goes for Russia in Chechnya.

- arnon1

January 11, 2013 at 11:17am

Very deep, arnon. Powerful nations, particularly permanent members of the UNSC, are not subject to discipline in the manner of weaker nations. A double standard exists. Therefore, self-defense is whatever any nation decides is in its self-defense. Yet the UNSC doesn't seem to agree. No matter, an international treaty organization with 200 members is a mere trifle when arnon speaks. Of course, we do all know that within any domestic legal regime, such as ours, there is equal and impartial justice for all. If there were not, if justice were imperfectly administered, we would be forced to abandon law altogether. It is just a bunch of textbooks when you get down to it. Under the arnon standard, we can say definitively that the US needed to defend itself when attacked by Vietnam. One can only stand in awe in the face of such insights as those shared here by arnon. This, surely, is someone who sees the main point with stunning clarity. If the perpetually muddled arnon could even succeed at a tangent, let alone at making a point, it would be a bloody miracle.

- roidubouloi

January 11, 2013 at 10:46pm

From another thread: 01/11/2013 - 2:43pm EDT | WandreyCer This was a cogent journalism critique, not an advocacy piece one way or the other on Hagel. I look forward to the hearings, they should be interesting. There is some valid criticism both for and against this appointment. Interesting arnon - you have such a touchy hair trigger on anything you consider bias, thought monitoring and name calling at the drop of a hat, rarely bothering to make a case just straight to name calling. And yet you don't hesitate to throw around sexist attacks for no reason. Calling grown women "girl" is sexist. The hypocrisy is worth note. I feel sorry for you. You seem like a smart man with some good in that shriveled heart somewhere. And yet you spend most of your energy on these boards attacking strangers in bitter hateful ways who have done nothing to you. Do you realize that? I'm calling you on it: you are an angry cyber bully hiding behind a computer screen - a sad man really looking for attention in such pathetic ways. You should get therapy rather than spending so much time here displaying nothing but mostly incoherent bitterness. _____________________ wandrey is awfully generous to you, arnon. I am hard-pressed myself to think of any appearances on these boards by a more pea-sized intellect than yours. That of course is the reason you invariably and quickly resort to childish name-calling in the face of disagreement. You are way over your head here.

- roidubouloi

January 11, 2013 at 11:34pm