Battle of the Blogs: Medienkritik vs. George Soros

(By Ray D.)

I recently wrote George Soros an email expressing disagreement with an item on his blog, and surprisingly, he published my email and posted a reply on his blog.

+++UPDATE: GEORGE SOROS DEEP-SIXES THE MEDIENKRITIK EXCHANGE+++

The email I sent to Mr. Soros and his reply HAVE SUDDENLY AND WITHOUT EXPLANATION BEEN REMOVED from www.georgesoros.com. Both my email and Mr. Soros' reply were up on his blog for several days before they mysteriously disappeared within the past few hours. It probably isn't a coincidence that this all happened after Instapundit.com linked this story. I have emailed Mr. Soros for an explanation. Fortunately, we still have the full exchange for you here:

My Email to Mr. Soros:

Mr. Soros,

You state: "All my experience has taught me that you can't introduce democracy by military means." I respectfully disagree. Just look at Germany and Japan today, two of the most prosperous democracies in the world. Had the Allies not militarily removed the Fascist governments of those nations in the Second World War, they would have never developed into democracies. And the post-war effort that went into turning those nations into democracies was expensive, tedious and costly in terms of human life and also in financial terms. But it was well worth it. The same is true in Iraq today. A peaceful, democratic Iraq will not come cheaply. But the alternative, an Iraq run by Saddam Hussein and his murderous thugs, or even worse, an Iraq run by Islamo-Fascist terrorists, would be far worse in the long-run and far more expensive in terms of our security as a nation and a planet.

As someone who spent the last 5 years in Germany I am convinced that it was right for the United States to act and remove Saddam Hussein from power. There is nothing the United States could have done to convince nations like France or Russia to take 17 UN resolutions seriously and actually enforce them. Saddam Hussein knew that and tried his best to play off Europe and the USA against one another. Fortunately, President Bush didn't let him get away with it. It may not have been the most popular move in certain countries for the US to remove a mass murderer like Saddam Hussein, but it was the right move. As someone who comes from a nation formerly ruled by tyrants the likes of Saddam Hussein you should be applauding the President's liberation of a long-suffering people. I hope that you will consider my opinion.

Sincerely,
Ray D.

Mr. Soros' Response:

The analogy with Post-war Germany and Japan is a false one. We didn't attack them in order to introduce democracy. They attacked us and were soundly defeated. We then treated them generously [The Marshall Plan] - not the way we treated Germany after the First World War - and they responded positively. They became true democracies and faithful allies of the United States. It took President Bush's policies to upset the Germans. As you know, German Chancellor Schroder managed to stay in power by taking an anti-American platform. This goes to show how much damage Bush has done to America's standing in the world.

I'm all in favor of removing tyrants like Saddam but the way we went about it has made it more, rather than less difficult, to do it in the future, because we acted unilaterally and arbitrarily. How to protect the world against the likes of Saddam is the great unresolved problem of the present world order. We certainly cannot do it on our own. Please read the second part of my book The Bubble of American Supremacy, where I set forth a more constructive role for America in the world.

Clearly, Mr. Soros does not fully answer a number of points brought up in my email. Here is my formal response to his email:

My Reply to Mr. Soros:

Dear Mr. Soros,

In your reply to my email you fail to address the central point of my argument: That democracies can be successfully introduced and established through military means. A number of the world’s democracies, including the United States of America, were born of military conflict and revolution. Your assertion that “you can’t introduce democracy by military means” has been repeatedly proven wrong by history.

You further contend:

“The analogy with Post-war German and Japan is a false one. We didn’t attack them in order to introduce democracy. They attacked us and were soundly defeated.”

With all due respect: I never claimed that the United States attacked Japan and Germany in order to introduce democracy. Nor did I claim that the US attacked Iraq or Afghanistan solely for that purpose. My point was that military action ultimately brought freedom, liberation and democracy to Japan and Germany following the Second World War despite the tremendous cost to the United States and its Allies in both human lives and financial resources. America’s military liberation of Iraq and Afghanistan from regimes of mass murder has also provided those nations with an historic opportunity to establish free societies. Democracy will not come easily or cheaply. No one has ever said it would. But the alternative, a terrorist state, is something that the free world simply cannot afford.

Your statement that “we didn’t attack them (Japan and Germany) to introduce democracy” also stands in stark contrast to the following passage from page 157 of your book, “The Bubble of American Supremacy”:

“In World War II, America fought for the survival of democracy and human rights---although the expression human rights was not as popular then as it has become since.”

You also made no attempt to answer my concerns involving the United Nations. I wrote, "There is nothing the United States could have done to convince nations like France or Russia to take 17 UN resolutions seriously and actually enforce them.”

Over a twelve-year period, Saddam Hussein refused to cooperate and abide by international law, hoping to eventually have sanctions lifted so he could resume development of weapons of mass destruction. Neither France, Russia nor China, all members of the Security Council with veto power, made any serious attempt to hold Saddam to over a dozen Security Council resolutions. In fact, the opposite is true. In 1998 when Hussein refused to cooperate with UNSCOM inspectors, France, Russia and China refused to back tough measures to get inspections back on track, resulting in the collapse of the UNSCOM inspection regime and the expulsion of UNSCOM inspectors from Iraq. It is also important to remember that all three nations had extensive business dealings with the Hussein government and were owed billions in debt by Iraq. Recently, allegations that Saddam bribed Russian and French officials have also prompted new questions as to those nations’ true motivation for resisting military action to enforce international law in Iraq.

Mr. Soros, on page 108 of your book you quote the following passage from a UN commission reporting to Kofi Annan:

“The Security Council should take into account in all its deliberations that, if it fails to discharge its responsibility to protect in conscience-shocking situations crying out for action, concerned states may not rule out other means to meet the gravity and urgency of the situation---and that the stature and credibility of the United Nations may suffer thereby.”

Not only did the United Nations fail on Iraq for twelve years, it also failed on genocide in Rwanda and it failed repeatedly in the Balkans. How can you honestly expect Americans to trust their national security to an organization with a track record of failure in a post 9/11 world? How do you expect the UN to effectively stand up to Iran and North Korea when they weren’t even able to deal with Rwanda or Kosovo? Clearly, “the stature and credibility of the United Nations” has suffered over the past decade.

Additionally, I disagree with your wholesale dismissal of any comparison between “Germany and Japan” and Iraq as “false.” In fact, a number of useful comparisons and analogies can be drawn between the two while keeping historic differences in mind:

The most useful comparison of Nazi Germany to Saddam’s Iraq involves the proposition that we cannot appease dictators and allow them to become imminent threats. In the 1930s the world stood by as Adolf Hitler violated one international arms treaty after the other. A pacifist policy of appeasement and multilateral diplomacy through the League of Nations was initially pursued to deal with Germany’s rearmament and expansionist tendencies. Hitler, a dictator armed with a clear ideology of hate and aggression, was allowed to flout international law while snatching up neighboring states one by one. Finally, when it was already far, far too late, the world took decisive action to stop Nazi Germany. By that time the Fascist state had become an “imminent threat.” 55 million people died in World War II.

Many point to Saddam’s Iraq and 2003 and declare that there was no “imminent threat” to the United States. Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction and it was therefore wrong to invade. I ask them: Should we have waited for Saddam to become an “imminent threat?” Should we have waited until he was in a position to kill millions before stopping him? Was there any doubt that he would have sought weapons of mass destruction if given the chance? This is the same man who invaded two neighbors, used chemical weapons to murder thousands of his own people, fired SCUD missiles at Israel, and killed, tortured, imprisoned and suppressed millions more. Not only would it have been wrong to further pursue an ineffective diplomatic path in dealing with such a man in a post 9/11 world, it would have been dangerously irresponsible.

We have written a number of articles on our website comparing Germany during and after World War II to Iraq. I invite you to look them over and decide for yourself if the comparisons that they draw are valid or not. You can view a few recent examples here, here and here.

Mr. Soros, you also add in your reply:

“I’m all in favor of removing tyrants like Saddam Hussein but the way we went about it has made it more, rather than less difficult, to do it in the future, because we acted unilaterally and arbitrarily.”

I appreciate the fact that you are in favor of removing tyrants like Saddam Hussein. Unfortunately, had we followed your plan to deal with Saddam through the United Nations, his regime of mass murder and torture would likely still exist today. I would contend that it is the fundamentally flawed United Nations system, chronically blocked from taking any real action to enforce vital resolutions, which has made it more, and not less difficult to remove brutal dictators from power. Mr. Soros, on page 118 of your book you state that NATO military action in Kosovo was justified even without a UN resolution, you write:

“I believe we were justified in intervening in Kosovo without UN authorization, and we would have done better if we had relied on NATO and not the United Nations in Bosnia. But unilateral action that goes against international public opinion cannot be justified, and it can endanger our national security by turning the world against us. That is what the Bush administration has accomplished by its rabid unilateralism.”

I disagree that the United States should base its national security policy on “international public opinion.” In many parts of the world it was unpopular to stand up to the Soviet Union during the Cold War, yet it was the right thing to do. In many parts of the world it was unpopular to oppose Fascism in World War II, yet it was the right thing to do. Bluntly put: The United States should not and cannot change its foreign policy to match the ever changing whims and fancies of international opinion. To ask it to do so would not only be impractical, it would endanger the nation’s security. It was right to act in Kosovo, and it was right to act in Iraq, where, by the way, the humanitarian situation was far worse.

You label the Bush administration’s actions as “rabid unilateralism” and on page 174 of your book you even call them “rampant unilateralism.” How so? The Bush administration spent months at the United Nations hoping against hope to see real action on Iraq. Nothing the President or anyone else could have done would have convinced nations like France, China and Russia to fully enforce the seventeen Security Council resolutions on the books concerning Iraq. That was the fundamental problem. We all know that the three veto powers opposing the US had big money tied up in Iraq. For them it was more about national interest and less about international justice.

So did President Bush subsequently engage on an “arbitrary” and “unilateral” campaign? Not at all. How can you call putting together a coalition of dozens of nations “ rabid unilateralism?” Tell the leaders of Great Britain, Poland, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Denmark and the Netherlands that Mr. Bush is rabidly unilateral. Soldiers from all of those nations have fought and died next to American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. President Bush was enforcing the UN resolutions that the UN itself could not and would not enforce. How can we see a body that cannot even enforce its own laws as “legitimate” Mr. Soros?

Bluntly put: The United Nations Security Council and the five veto powers do not have a monopoly on the terms “multilateral” or “legitimate” nor does acting outside the United Nations necessarily make an action “unilateral” or “illegitimate.” That seems to be where we have a fundamental difference of opinion.

To me, a failure to confront a humanitarian crises or international threat through the United Nations is far more illegitimate than a willingness to take action outside the United Nations to confront that threat. Until we fundamentally reform the United Nations, this will always be an issue and a problem. I appreciate the suggestions you make in your book on UN reforms. The problem is actually getting them implemented.

You write in your reply:

“It took President Bush’s policies to upset the Germans. As you know, German Chancellor Schroeder managed to stay in power by taking an anti-American platform. This goes to show how much damage Bush has done to America’s standing in the world.”

Mr. Soros, as a citizen of both Germany and the United States, I can assure you that anti-American sentiment in Germany has been around far longer than George W. Bush or any of his policies. Additionally, Chancellor Schroeder is not the first German leader to win an election or profit politically by taking advantage of this anti-American sentiment. Nowhere is this more clearly demonstrated than in former President Jimmy Carter’s autobiography “Keeping the Faith.” Here is what President Carter wrote in 1982:

“Helmut Schmidt seemed to be torn between the conflicting political forces in his country. In private conversations he was very tough in dealing with the Soviet threat, often the leader among Europeans in proposing strong action. But in German political debates, he emphasized the opposite facet of the same question and seemed reluctant to do anything that might be interpreted as anti-Soviet. At times this conflict made it difficult for Americans to understand him and was the reason for some of our problems. There were many reports from news reporters and others in Europe and in the United States concerning his critical comments about me, Secretaries Vance and Muskie, Dr. Brzezinski, and other officials in our government. These persistent criticisms, often highly publicized, helped to legitimize anti-American sentiments in Germany." (Pages 537-538, "Keeping Faith")

It is also common knowledge that the majority of Germans widely opposed Ronald Reagan’s tough stance against the Soviet Union and his decision to station Pershing rockets on the European continent in the 1980s. Yet that decision was a decisive step in winning the Cold War.

Sadly, anti-Americanism has a long and storied history in post-war Germany and in much of Europe for that matter. The chronically biased reporting of the media further exacerbates the problem. If you followed our website regularly you would know that. If I had millions to spend, I would invest some of them in publications like Medienkritik that seek to uncover and expose outrageous, anti-American bias in the European media. Few things have damaged transatlantic relations more than that bias.

Your claim that it took President Bush’s policies to upset Germans is simply incorrect and clearly contradicts the historic record. The fact that Chancellor Schroeder shamelessly exploited anti-American sentiment to win re-election after promising the United States not to make Iraq a big issue is more of an indictment of his character than anything else. It is also interesting to note that Germany’s most extreme parties, the Communists and the Neo-Nazis share Mr. Schroeder’s firm anti-war, anti-Bush stance.

Mr. Soros, throughout your arguments you fail to hold European politicians and journalists responsible for the current transatlantic rift, choosing to place most if not all of the blame on the United States and President Bush. Not only is this approach one-sided, it is patently unfair. That is not to say that the United States bears none of the blame. It simply means that there are two sides to every coin.

I would suggest you change the name of your book from “The Bubble of American Supremacy” to “The Bubble of European Impotence.” I don’t say that in an attempt to be funny or insulting. I say that because the Europeans’ lack of real military power makes it impossible for them to intervene in major international crises without the United States backing them up. That means that, without the US, the Europeans are necessarily confined to diplomacy to resolve problems, leaving them largely impotent when diplomatic channels prove ineffective in dealing with ruthless dictators like Saddam Hussein. This was demonstrated with remarkable clarity during the Bosnian conflict. European forces were unable to deal with a relatively minor conflagration in their own backyard until the United States stepped onto the scene and flexed its military muscle. The same will be true in Iran, and the Iranians know it. They know as long as they play the European diplomacy game that they have nothing to fear. The only power that can truly hold them accountable is not the EU or the United Nations, but the United States.

The fundamental imbalance of power arising from Europe’s inability to live up to its military obligations and its lingering dependence on the USA provides for an environment of inequality and resentment. Many European nations such as France and Germany have come to define themselves through their resistance to US “dominance” or “hegemony” which they define as “unilateral” despite the fact that the US is currently in a coalition consisting of dozens of nations in Iraq. They insist that the US seek “legitimacy” through “multilateral” channels. In reality, these terms are code words for European checks on US power. Despite your claims to the contrary Mr. Soros, there is nothing particularly “multilateral” or “legitimate” about one, two or even three nations with a veto in the UN Security Council, (France, Russia and China) determining whether US actions are justified or not. To me, a Chinese dictator sitting in Beijing should not have the right to determine what is “multilateral” or “legitimate” in the world, yet that is exactly how the UN Security Council works. To expect Americans to put their security in the hands of such a dictator is, again, not only unrealistic but also dangerous, particularly in a post 9/11 world.

The solution is for European nations to step up to the plate in accepting greater international responsibility. Until they do so, they will never be accepted by the United States as "equal partners." That means they will have to spend far more on their militaries so that they can actually resolve conflicts such as the one in Bosnia without US help. A stronger Europe would allow the United States to spend less on its military and more on international aid. A stronger Europe would contribute to a greater equilibrium of power in the world. But a stronger Europe standing side-by-side with the US in partnership will never become a reality if Europeans don’t become proactive and simply continue to blame the United States for all the world’s problems. I fear that your criticisms contribute to and reaffirm this complacency born of blame.

Unfortunately, in your book and on your website, you choose to largely ignore the failings of the Europeans, the UN and the international community. You and many others have turned President Bush into a convenient scapegoat for virtually everything. I believe that this flagrant lack of balance also runs rampant in the European press and has done serious damage to transatlantic relations. If we refuse to look at this problem from a more comprehensive, balanced position, we will never be able to solve it. And the European bubble of impotence and resentment will continue to grow and grow.

In closing I want to point out that my wife’s family is from Russia. Both of her parents are scientists who were able to make it through some very tough times in the USSR because of the philanthropic work that you did Mr. Soros. For that I say “thank you.” Again, I hope you consider my opinion. It comes from the heart.

Sincerely,
Ray D.
Medienkritik

To conclude, I must say that Mr. Soros did have the decency to publish my email in its entirety on his blog. Despite the fact that I disagree with him on a number of issues, I appreciate the fact that he is willing to engage in a tough and open debate on these important matters. (UPDATE: I stand corrected, Mr. Soros has now decided to suddenly remove my email and his response from his website. Hardly conducive to an open discussion.)

Now it is our visitors' turn to evaluate all of this. I look forward to reading your comments...

Update: Check Ray's "Open letter to George Soros". Here is Mr. Soros' reply to the open letter. He claims a remarkably selective "technical error" removed our posting from his site...you be the judge.

UPDATE: I just noticed a very strange exchange in our comments section on the disappearance of my email from the Soros site. A "Robert" suggested that "maybe it was a technical error." Then the same person with the identical IP number wrote us and claimed responsibility for the technical error, identifying themselves as "viola". Robert was also the first person to point out the permalink to my missing email. He also vehemently defended Soros when we questioned his "technical error" explanation. He clearly knows an awful lot about the Soros site...

Comments

[Caroline]

What does Soros have to say about the motivations of the UN security council members who were taking bribes from Saddam through the Oil for Food Program and who were working towards undermining the very sanctions which were presumably "containing" Saddam? How would Soros reply to Bat Y'or's (not sure how to spell that)analysis of European countries having aligned themselves with Arab interests 30 years ago in order to insure oil supplies and who are gradually moving towards "Eurabia"? Does he really think that we share all the same interests as the Europeans any longer? Does Soros have any comments regarding the fact that we basically bombed Germany into complete submission and couldn't care less about the civilian casualties - in fact we ruthlessly shot anyone even suspected of insurgent activity - while in Iraq we have tried to minimize civilian casualties and in fact it may be our very humane approach that it is preventing the insurgents from having to accept certain defeat - that, along with the fact that they must surely take comfort from the anti-American media coverage and the defeatism of people like himself, thus prolonging the conflict? What does Soros have to say about the fact that he was a major player in getting the McCain-Feingold legislation passed and as soon as it was passed he went right through the back door loophole to undermine its intent by throwing millions at the Democratic 527's? What exactly is his agenda? And if right-wing Republican did what he has done this election season would he be the first one crying foul?

[Walter Wallis]

Right after the election, Soros is going to give back all theymoney he cheated small depositors and businesses out of.

Walter E. Wallis
Palo Alto, CA

[Tanker Schreiber]

But Germany never attacked us. Neither did Italy.

[Scott]

Soros: "It took President Bush's policies to upset the Germans. As you know, German Chancellor Schroder managed to stay in power by taking an anti-American platform. This goes to show how much damage Bush has done to America's standing in the world."

Huh? Did he really write this reply, or did some intern write it? This makes no sense whatsoever. And whoever wrote this reply didn't address any of the key points. I'll bet I can guess what he considers a more constructive "roll" for America in the world.

It's the medieneinheitsbrei, stupid!
You should read this...

Have War Critics Even Read the Duelfer Report?

By RICHARD SPERTZEL
October 14, 2004; Page A18

After the release of the Iraq Survey Group's Duelfer report, the headlines blazed "No WMD Found." Most stories continued by saying that Iraq did not constitute an imminent threat to the U.S. and thus the U.S. was wrong to eliminate that threat. This reflects the notion that Iraq was only a threat if it had military munitions filled with WMD. The claim "Iraq was not an imminent threat" was also expounded by pundits that seemingly crawled out of the woodwork as well as those opposed to President Bush. But have these individuals read carefully the report before engaging in such anti-Bush rhetoric?
* * *

While no facilities were found producing chemical or biological agents on a large scale, many clandestine laboratories operating under the Iraqi Intelligence Services were found to be engaged in small-scale production of chemical nerve agents, sulfur mustard, nitrogen mustard, ricin, aflatoxin, and other unspecified biological agents. These laboratories were also evaluating whether various poisons would change the texture, smell or appearance of foodstuffs. These aspects of the ISG report have been ignored by the pundits and press. Did these constitute an imminent threat? Perhaps it depends how you define "threat."

The chemical section reports that the M16 Directorate "had a plan to produce and weaponize nitrogen mustard in rifle grenades and a plan to bottle sarin and sulfur mustard in perfume sprayers and medicine bottles which they would ship to the United States and Europe." Are we to believe this plan existed because they liked us? Or did they wish to do us harm? The major threat posed by Iraq, in my opinion, was the support it gave to terrorists in general, and its own terrorist activity.

The ISG was also told that "ricin was being developed into stable liquid to deliver as an aerosol" in various munitions. Such development was not just for assassination. If Iraq was successful in developing an aerosolizable ricin, it made a significant step forward. The development had to be for terrorist delivery. Even on a small scale this must be considered as a WMD.

Biological agents, delivered on a small scale (terrorist delivery) can maim or kill a large number of people. The Iraqi Intelligence organizations had a history of conducting tests on humans with chemical and biological substances that went beyond assassination studies. While many of these were in the 1970s and 1980s, multiple documents and testimony indicate that such testing continued through the 1990s and into the next millennium, perhaps as late as 2002. Do we wait until such weapons are used against our domestic population before we act? Is that the way that some people wish to have the U.S. protected from terrorist activity?

It is asserted that Iraq was not supporting terrorists. Really? Documentation indicates that Iraq was training non-Iraqis at Salman Pak in terrorist techniques, including assassination and suicide bombing. In addition to Iraqis, trainees included Palestinians, Yemenis, Saudis, Lebanese, Egyptians and Sudanese.

As for the U.N. inspection system preventing such R&D, why did Iraq not declare these clandestine laboratories to Unscom and Unmovic and why did these inspection agencies not discover these laboratories? Might it have been that there were multiple informants working inside Unscom and Unmovic that kept the Iraqi Intelligence Service informed as to what sites were to be inspected? Information collected by ISG indicates that this was the case. In late 2002 and early 2003, equipment and materials were removed from several sites 24 hours before U.N. inspections. Such informants were said to be active since 1993. Ergo, no surprise inspections.

Furthermore, sanctions were rapidly eroding. Unscom was aware of this erosion but not to the degree that apparently developed post 1998. The accounts of bribery of officials from several countries that were pushing for lifting or weakening sanctions are legend and have been extensively reported this past week. Inspections can not be effective without the full support of the U.N. Security Council. Such full support did not exist from late 1996 onward. Perhaps, now we know why. Iraq exploited the power of wealth in the form of oil to buy influence in the Security Council and within governments throughout the World. This has now been well documented.

Was Iraq an imminent threat? With the regime's intention and the activity of its intelligence organizations, and with the proven futility of uncovering its clandestine laboratory operations by the U.N. inspectors, it is hard to draw any other conclusion. Regretfully, terrorism is the wave of the future. The report by Charles Duelfer is unclassified and makes very interesting reading for those who really want to know. For those with a closed mind, it will be a waste of time.

Mr. Spertzel, head of the biological-weapons section of Unscom from 1994-99, just returned from Iraq, where he has been a member of the Iraq Survey Group (ISG).
URL for this article:

http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB109770814784244752,00.html

[bsc]

nickpicker-

You are right that the Germans and Italians declared war on us. But why did they? The Triparte Pact obviously did not require it (the Japanese felt no compulsion to assist Germany in June of 1941).

The reason had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor, but everything to do with US support of Britain, then Russia, against Germany.

Also, US and German naval forces were going at it quite heavily in 1941. Even had the US-Japanese peace talks been sucessful, Germany and the US would have been at war by summer of 1942.

[Caroline]

Isn't it the leftists who are the ones who complain most vocally against the US going into Iraq who cite North Korea and claim, "They HAVE the WMD's"! They are truly the threat!" ( and what exactly is implied there - that we should attack a country that already has nukes??). Obviously its too late! Why does the left think it was a mistake to take out Saddam BEFORE he actually had WMD's? The truth is - they don't believe what they are actually saying! They know darn well what the Duelfur report shows - that Saddam may not have yet had the WMD's but he definitely planned to have them (consistent with his history - showing a willlingness to actually USE THEM - which even King Jong Il has not yet demonstrated) and was bribing UN Security Coucil members to undermine the sanctions so that he could redevelop them. How can any sane person claim that this was not the "right war at the right place at the right time"? We took Saddam out before he got the darned things! If the sanctions had been undermined and we were now with Saddam where we are with Iran - the left (that includes the anti-Iraq war Europeans) - would be saying what they're now saying about Iran and North Korea - Bush you idiot - on your watch Saddam got WMD! Its all bullshit. The left is lying ( and I say that as someone who has always voted Democratic in my American voting life). It has been stated American policy since Clinton in 1998 to support regime change in Iraq. They tried several internal coups via the CIA. They failed. Everyone involved was slaughtered. The internal Shia uprising after Gulf War I failed - everyone was slaughtered. The sanctions were failing - not only killing innocents but lining the pockets of the French and the Russians and all those who "nobly" (apparently from the European and American leftist POV) - opposed the war! What hypocrites the left are. They are the ones who were screaming most loudly about the sanctions killing the innocent Iraqis in the first place! Anyone with half a brain realizes that the the main motivation behind the American and European lefts' vitriolic opposition to the Iraq war is that 1) it was waged by a Republican American president (thus threatening their own power base) 2) they are in denial about Islamic jihadism because it throws their own liberal, multiculturalist values into question 3) they came of age during Vietnam and they won the "culture wars" with their emotional masturbation of "self-discovery" as indicated by their music and other cultural products and 4) they are simply spoiled beyond belief - having grown up in a world in which men much better than them made it possible for them to have the freedoms that they take for granted. And I think that is doubly true of the Europeans. I'm glad Bush is pulling the troops out of Europe. It is exactly what the Europeans need. Nothing like having to die to protect all you hold dear - free speech, women's rights, freedom of religion, in other words EVERYTHING we in the western world take for granted - for the bloody left to just wake up (or should I say grow up).

[Pato]

I've met with george soros and he is a goddamned pompous and babbling idiot.
Here we have a world currency trader who manipulates world markets for his own capitalist gains, now claiming germany was treated "unfairly" after WW1.
This hungarian imbecile ought to keep his stinking nose out of the US election.
And yes Ray, old man Soros had no answers to the bulk of your points. This man is a shallow and cunning despot. His ideologies match that of the dusty and backwards euro MPs.
He states- "How to protect the world against the likes of Saddam is the great unresolved problem of the present world order. We certainly cannot do it on our own."
Well old man- the US, the Danes, and the Brits and Aussies, Tongans, the koreans and the japanese AND 17 hunagrian truck drivers did it you awipe!

[Caroline]

Pato - spell it out please. What are Soros' ambitions - particulars please. I understand he is against the war on drugs and frankly I have to agree with him on that. So do many Americans on both the far left and the far right. But that is about all we know. What is his agenda?

[JR]

@Caroline
you wrote:Anyone with half a brain realizes that the the main motivation behind the American and European lefts' vitriolic opposition to the Iraq war is that 1) it was waged by a Republican American president (thus threatening their own power base) 2) they are in denial about Islamic jihadism because it throws their own liberal, multiculturalist values into question 3) they came of age during Vietnam and they won the "culture wars" with their emotional masturbation of "self-discovery" as indicated by their music and other cultural products and 4) they are simply spoiled beyond belief - having grown up in a world in which men much better than them made it possible for them to have the freedoms that they take for granted. And I think that is doubly true of the Europeans.

Not much to add to your 4 points, you hit the the bullseye. As a born German, now a naturalized US citizen, I am working for a US company here in Germany and I can attest to every single point of what you're saying. I belive I am in a pretty good position to evaluate, having lived many years in both countries. Especially the denial part about Islamic fundamentalism is so true. Germans are soooo multi culti. Over here the motto is: Erlaubt ist was gefällt. Which means, if you like it, it should be allowed. This mental mindset (which is actually a self destroying disease)rules over all aspects of life. Gay marriage, gay child adoption, sexual content on TV and so on so forth... Germany has degraded so much on moral and ethics, that today, a christian who openly refers to GOD, is been looked at funny. Like, you can't be serious.
I feel blessed, as I am moving back to the US one day, but I feel sad about my ex-countrymen. They are helpless slaves on a sinking ship where the captain is the Media.
JR

[Axel]

This is the most pathetic reply I've seen in quite a while ... and the fact that it comes from such a billionaire proves that economic success and intelligence aren't necessarily linked.

[Trish]

Soros immigrated to the US in the 50s. I do not know where he gets off talking about "we" in regards to WWII. The "we" are those of us who lived in the states back then or were told why we did what we did my parents and grandparents. His view of WWII can only be that of the son of a European.

[ralph]

Soros did what you usually do when your contention or thesis is rebutted:

-no democracy by military means; Ray easily refuted this assertion.

slight and swift modification of his statement

-no democracy by military means unless you have been attacked; Soros gives no argument or proof to make sure that this averment is not a simple dogma as true as: no democracy by miltary means unless you have been attacked by aircraft first ...

What is really making me angry: His reflections on WWI and on german antiamericanism -here is why:

The Weimarer Republik was overthrown because a relative majority of Germans voted Hitler and the rest did not defend democracy -apart from the SPD, no resistance to Hitler and his "movement", the retreat of the Bürgerlicher Block when Hitler grabbed power and toppled democracy. Wilson was perhaps way too idealistic and far too weak to make his juridical ideas become real; but he never promised to Ludendorff etc. that the armistice would be concluded on terms of his famous 14 Points: So it became a widespread legend that western democracy came to Germany by means of american (and left-wing) fraud. So,
it´s our responsability to have chosen Hitler leading Germany astray -not yours: Or did the USA compel us to pick the Führer by coercive force ...

America is not responsible for our resentment against the US; jews are not responsible for antisemitic hatred. Not America should change, Germany should changes is attitudes towards the US. Antiamericanism is a german flaw and not due to the failings of America during her history.
German grudge against America -is this a sound argument that will really buttress the campaign of JFK II?

[@JR]

They are helpless slaves on a sinking ship where the captain is the Media.

And I feel sorry about you because you have no brain!

[Sandy P]

Other than the German 13(?) and U-boats off the coast, when were we attacked by Germany?

----

Soros is the main driver behind Campaign Finance Reform, which makes the MSM the gatekeeper during the final 60 days of the election.

[Sandy P]

And I mean the homeland - not the cat and mouse stuff.

--Sadly, anti-Americanism has a long and storied history in post-war Germany and in much of Europe for that matter. ---

Why limit yourself to post-war?

Let's go back 100-150 years.

---

Caroline - George doesn't like the war on drugs. George has billions, George could fund world-class drug treatment centers in perpetuity, but he chooses not to. Me, the taxpayer, will have to pick up the cost of treatment for those who are not as responsible/recreational.

If you're spending walking-around money to unleash it on the world, you should be willing to spend more walking-around money to help the mistakes get their lives back.

But no, he'll keep his billions and put the bill on me, the overburdened taxpayer.

[Hartmut Lau]

Ray,

I think you missed the point on this one.

Soros is correct - you cannot "introduce a democracy with military means."

You can, of course, accomplish what has often in history been the necessary prerequisite: remove the source of oppression that preceded democracy.

Just as George III did not voluntarily let his North American colonies establish a republic, so Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein would not have volunteered to let "Gutmenschen" come establish a democracy on their turf.

But that's where military means come to an end.

The "establish a democracy" piece is a decidedly un-military task. The absence of others to do this task in Iraq has led to the fact that it has fallen to the military - and thus many good young men and women in uniform are doing thier level best in Iraq. That is, people trained by the military to do things military (e.g., use artillery to put accurate "steel on target") are now pulling police-like patrols, organizing village elections and putting in sewer systems.

By contrast, the US Army had prepared and put into place what were essentially civilians-in-uniform to establish a military government in Germany post-8 May 1945. Those people, not trained infantry, armor & artillerysoldiers but trained "military government" lawyers, administrators and educators, undertook the "introduce a democracy" work. Unlike 1945-49, the current effort (and I by no means wish to denigrate the hard work by the stalwarts doing it) is more ad hoc in nature - with the attendant difficulties.

[Gabi]

Die Süddeutsche, mal wieder. Da sitzt Schröder plaudernd mit Gaddafi und man läßt einen Schriftsteller zu Wort kommen, natürlich einen ganz objektiven:

"Eine Polemik zur US-Wahl

Ein verhasster, lügenhafter, rücksichtsloser Präsident

Der Albtraum George W. Bush muss mit der Wahl am 2. November ein Ende haben. Von John le Carré"

Armes Deutschland! Sollten wir nicht mal darüber nachdenken, was es bedeutet, jetzt mit Gaddafi rumzuschleimen?

[Gabi]

Ganz interessant von Reuters Deutschland:

"Mit großem Abstand hätten sich Wähler in acht Ländern - Australien, Großbritannien, Kanada, Frankreich, Japan, Mexiko, Spanien und Südkorea - für eine Wahl Kerrys am 2. November ausgesprochen, berichtete die britische Tageszeitung "Guardian" am Freitag. Lediglich in zwei Ländern - Israel und Russland - habe die Präferenz der Befragten bei Bush gelegen. Im Schnitt aller zehn Länder hätten sich 54 Prozent für Kerry und nur 27 Prozent für Bush ausgesprochen. ..."

[Franz Hoffmann]

1.) Soros should not only read his own books, but also what one of the main persons in second World War has said: Winston Churchill. He says in "The Gathering Storm": Many of the lifes that were sacrified in this war could have been saved, if the world would have reacted earlier against the actions of Hitler. Many of those peace loving peoples which were protesting against tough actions against Hitler had to pay this with their lives in the following war.
2.) He should read what Hillary Clinton had to say before the Congress in her speech, supporting the Iraq war: That Saddam had broken or failed to fulfill every resolution of the Security Councel (Chapter 7 resolutions, implementing the use of force against Iraq) and that the time had come to take this all serious and go to war against him.
Which also was the official justification of the Bush government to go to war...
3.) It´s the helpless behavior of all Soros-like people against dictators saying: Something will be done... Going together with the whole world against Saddam could have solved this... So, living on planet earth, George should have noticed, that all the good countries in the UN have their own interests in mind: France and Russia were promised huge oil-contracts, Schröder had to win an election (he knew one half year before he was using this in his election campain, that this war would take place!!! If you need information, ask me) and so on.
4.) It takes time and patience... All those nice people, sitting in cafes, telling you: "Life is unique, use your time, enjoy your life as good as possible, take what you can", are telling the oppressed, tortured, suffering people of countries like pre-war Iraq: "Well its bad now, but be patient, everything will get better, were on your side...etc.. blablabla".
Those people were dead even before they could think of the things above.
What an ugly heap of hypocrisy.
How this works you can actually watch in Sudan. Didn´t hear anything from Soros about genozide in Darfur, concentration camps in North Korea, etc..
One should install a clock counting the hourly death toll of those countries before the UN headquarter ( Germany has such a clock, counting the amount of his debts per second) or in the office of George Soros or of Kofi Annan (you remember "never again"?).
5.) Not all the Germans share the opinion of the big media here. But many had no chance to get informations from other sources as the one sided german press and TV-stations. So one must not wonder if they just repeat what they heard from the media. What you could watch and read sometimes was sheer propaganda -or how do you call strictly one sided information.
Greetings from Franz Hoffmann

[Ray D.]

Hey Hartmut,

You write:

"You can, of course, accomplish what has often in history been the necessary prerequisite: remove the source of oppression that preceded democracy."

That is essentially what I was trying to say. Democracy would often be impossible without wars and revolutions. In other words, wars and revolutions have been necessary to the introduction and establishment of democracy in numerous countries. Of course you don't need an M-16 or a tank to write a constitution. That was never my point. When I wrote:

"That democracies can be successfully introduced and established through military means."

I did not intend to say that I see military action as the only aspect of creating a democracy. I did not intend to exclude or even downplay the importance of peacekeeping and building civilian, democratic institutions in establishing democracy. Again, I was simply pointing out that military actions were necessary to the introduction and establishment of democracy in numerous countries including the United States, Germany and Japan.

What Soros is trying to tell us is that it isn't possible to replace a dictator with a democracy through military action. That is where I think he has it wrong. At the same time, I agree with you entirely that a great civil effort must be made after the enemies of democracy are militarily defeated to ensure and sustain the success of a free society. No argument there. I agree that the Marshall Plan was a major success and that we ought to invest heavily in Iraq and Afghanistan as well to get those countries going economically and give them a boost on their way to becoming free and open societies.

---Ray D.

[Gregory Markle]

Actually, Soros is dead wrong on the comparison of Germany and Japan with Iraq. Iraq did wage an aggressive war and was attacked for it...the mistake was in not removing Saddam in 1991. How well does Soros feel the post-WWII era would have gone if we had adopted the same strategy used in Gulf War I...allowing the aggressors to remain in power? Does he feel that allowing Göring and Doenitz wrestle for power and the resulting government would have been a good idea? Does he feel that a Japan still under the sway of it's military governors ruling with the blessings of the Emperor would simply have beaten it swords into plowshares and become the nation of pacifists they are now?

If he does, the man is a fool.

[Karl B.]

The great irony here is that MORE military was needed, not less, to introduce democracy to Iraq. The civilian types cannot do their job absent adequate security.

Many of the posts above are pathetic in their rabid personal hatred of all people left of center, most of whom would be right of center in Germany. Attempts to turn Iraq into a go-alone by the Republicans just won't work. There was broad backing for a confrontation with Iraq after 9-11. The aftermath of the war was mishandled badly by Bush, Rumsfeld & Co., but otherwise everyone gritted their teeth to give Bush authority to go forward. And don't forget that many traditional conservatives also opposed the war in Iraq. The showdown with Iraq was not a left-right issue even if the subsequent mishandling of the military victory is. Perhaps a more bilateral approach to the peace would have prevented that.

And let's get real about US foreign policy, too. We certainly are trying alternatives to military might.

Iran? Check out: http://www.iht.com/articles/2004/10/15/news/iran.html

North Korea? Bush is sticking to a multilateral approach. We are skeptical about the likelihood of success in both cases, but we are patient and willing to give these approaches a chance to work since so many others have failed and since force is and will remain a last resort.

One hopes that the Europeans understand that they will not succeed in Iran unless they can credibly threaten economic and, if needed, military harm to Iran for failure to comply with European (and US) demands. [Or are the Europeans telling Iran "you better do what we want or we'll send thousands of Americans to their deaths as a response." (Get real FAST Europe.)] This gets us right to the heart of Ray's point that Old Europe's dependency on US military might is still a major fuel source for resentment and anti-americanism.

I agree with Ray that much of the blather about unilateralism by the Europeans is pure BS. Clumsy diplomacy certainly played a role, but look at Schröder and Chirac. Bush, Schröder and Chirac are the three stooges of diplomacy and each gets a share of the blame for the big falling out. That IHT Iran article is a sign to me that all parties understand that the stakes are just too high to allow a confrontation at the UN such as Iraq II to happen again over Iran. The UN will not survive another such failure. Of course, if the Europeans fail to get their way with Iran but then try to block the US in the Security Council, that will also be the end of the UN as we know it.

Ray, I thought you had very reasoned arguments and a balanced view towards Mr. Soros. Too bad your followers spew nothing but hatred.

[Robert Z.]

SPIEGEL ONLINE does it again:

http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,282606,00.html

There are two polls:
First question: For whom would you vote?
Second question: Who do you think will win?

[Ray D.]

@ Karl B.

Thanks Karl. Certainly some of the comments above are more constructive than others. But most of them are not spewing hatred. I also think it is inaccurate and a little odd to call the people who comment here "my followers." We leave the comments section open for everyone to have a voice. Only cases of extreme obscenity, etc. are ever deleted.

In terms of handling the aftermath of the war, I just don't think things are going as badly as the mainstream media portrays them. They have tried to portray this as a debacle and disaster from day one and some people are beginning to believe the hype. They focus almost exclusively on the negative when so much good is also taking place, so of course people think it is going badly.

I have no illusions about Iraq. It is a violent land, and no other "plan" could have changed that fact. The fact is that there is a plan in place to train Iraqis to take over security for themselves. That is exactly the right thing to do and that is what the administration is doing. The main problem is that we have a lot of Monday morning quarterbacks who falsely think they could have done everything better. If Kerry wins the election we will see first hand if his "plan" (BTW, I still don't really know what it is) is better. The media won't be able to blame Bush for every roadside bombing and shooting in Iraq anymore. Given Kerry's history of weakening America's military and intelligence, I am not so sure the result will be appetizing for his supporters. At least the Germans and French will like us again...gag...

---Ray D.

[Harry]

Karl --

Re: Bush "sticking to a multilateral approach"... why is a coalition of 31 nations that happens not to include Germany and France not multilateral? If your complaint is that the US provides all the firepower, then why do so many people with views at least superficially similar to yours have a different view of the European interventions of the 1990s? The US supplied almost all the firepower then, as well.

I also wonder if you've thought through your position. North Korea probably has nuclear weapons. Is it not clear that the NoKo case is different for that reason? Is it not also clear that we'd all be better off if the NoKos had been prevented from obtaining nukes?

Re: the idea of Europe imposing "credible economic sanctions" on Iran -- give me a break. Amid the "credible economic sanctions" imposed against Iraq by, among others, France, Germany, and Russia, trade between those countries and Iraq was never more lucrative. Any half-awake observer would rightly suspect that EU sanctions against Iran would be another shambolic farce. Sorry, won't wash.

[Jabba the Tutt]

Harry, your right. Russia is building the Mullahs nuclear plant at Bushehr and is now negotiating on sending the nuclear fuel. Thanks Vladimir.

Living in a battleground state, Michigan, has it's advantages. I received a 8-page election/book brochure in the mail from our friend George Soros. This Billionaires for Kerry member's concern for my future is just so heart-warming.

George wrote in his second paragraph of the brochure entitled "Why We Must Not Re-elect President Bush":

If we re-elect him now, we endorse the Bush doctrine of preemptive action and the invasion of Iraq, and we will have to live with the consequences. As I shall try to show, we are facing a vicious circle of escalating violenc with no end in sight. But if we repudiate the Bush policies at the polls, we shall have a better chance to regain the respect and support of the world and to break the vicious circle.

I wrote George at georgesoros.com and asked him, since John Kerry strong statement in support of preemption during the first debate, how is opposing preemption turn into opposition to Bush? They both support preemption. Does George know something 'we' don't? Did the two billionaires get together and Kerry whispered to George, 'Say, old chap, ignore what I say on 'preemption', it's just politics'?

George is also touchingly naive for such bare-knuckled capitalist, who overthrowns whole currencies on his whim, to think that the Islamo-fascists are going to regain respect for America with the election of John Kerry. I love this cycle of violence stuff too. Islamo-fascist terrorists have been murdering Americans for 40 years with zero response from the US until after 9/11. Suddenly, George is concerned about violence. Where was he during the hostage crisis, Achille Lauro, Lockerbie, African embassies, Khobar Towers, USS Cole and the first World Trade Center bombing. No cycle of violence there, uh, George?

And lets be serious, there are countries out there, who love to see dead Americans and mourn and show their 'respect'. Why should Americans care a whit about the 'respect' of those countries?

[matt]

Ray - well done!

[Johnny Walker Red]

To the best of my knowledge, the only wars in US history in which we were attacked first were the Civil War (Ft. Sumter), WWII (Pearl Harbor), and the WOT (9/11). We shot first in the Revolution, War of 1812, Mexican War, Spanish-American War, WWI, WWII versus Germany & Italy, Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War, Iraq War.

[banai]

First of all, my compliments for your excellent posts to Mr. Soros. I wish I had the energy and ability to put together information that well.

I am a trained psychologist and marriage counselor and my question comes very much from that background. My question to Mr. Soros is: "Why the hostility for Mr. Bush?"

Let's just say that it could be proven that Soros is 100% right and Bush is 100% wrong. Both men believe that we should take action to spread democracy to countries other than our own. Both men have acted on their belief. Now in this case, there is an honest disagreement; Bush says it's worth it to try to impose democracy by force and Soros disagrees. Why can't Soros take the position that they agree on the big points, but they disagree on the specifics this time, and that he believes Bush's actions will be counterproductive? Again, why the venom?

This is a social science, not physics. As much as I suport Bush I'm not 100% certain that this will work out, any more than Churchill could have been 100% that his choices would pay off. But I do think that overall it's the wisest and safest choice for myself and my children. But most of all, I see no need to have contempt or hatred for Mr. Soros for seeing it differently than I do. I'm wondering why he can't treat our side with equivalent respect?

[banai]

Nitpicker, I'm sure you're right. I guess I should remember that when I'm at work, most of the time there is at least a moderate good faith effort to work things out. Not so in the power struggles of the real world. Maybe I got suckered by Soros's posting of Ray's comments.

BTW, you can add Grenada to your list.

[Kathianne]

George Soros' sole mission at this time, seems to be to defeat GW Bush. Frontpage Magazine has a three part series up now, that is a very interesting read:http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/readarticle.asp?ID=15392&p=1

The other 2 parts are links at the bottom of the first.

[Erik Eisel]

Ray,

Very good idea to write Soros. I wish it could be somehow proved that the answer came from him.

I have a different question for Soros: I'd like to know when UN diplomacy, as opposed to military might, ever introduced democracy?

Forgeting the analogy to German and Japan for a moment: Does Soros have a "plan" for introducing democracy into the Muslim world that precludes military means? Does he expect all Muslims to experience a conversion process by reading the second part of his unreadable book?

[applesweet]

Amazing and spectacular posts. I have to commend you on a well built blog.
Soros has been a vague figure for me until lately. I have begun to read up on him. It is amazing that a man who can manipulate money markets as well as he does with an agression that parallels physical violence is against pre-emptive strikes against tyrants. How many lives did Soros ruin with his pre-emptive attacks?
What I am watching from my living room of a very modest home, (probably be judged a hovel by Soros) is exactly the same thing that happened as Hitler was being groomed by certain european countries for his role in contemporary history. Europe had every chance to stop Hitler before he came into full power. I have my own conclusions as to why this was allowed.
I suspect Soros would like to see Kerry elected president because he is a very weak willed individual. That makes him easily controlled by someone like Soros. So who is really going to be the leader of America if Kerry is elected. Kerry or Soros? That way by proxie we would have our first foreign born president.

[Joel Mackey]

Karl,

I think your recollection of the timeline of events is somewhat skewed. Kerry and Edwards both supported the Iraq invasion as late as 2003. They did not change thier position or thier rhetoric about thier position, until Howard Dean threatened thier positions in the Democratic primary.

I cannot understand why the Democrats have to denigrate the war effort and the coalition (please spare me any attempts to state that thier current rhetoric is based on facts or principles). They could easily support Bush's actions, while criticizing legitimate shortcomings in our intelligence gathering and analysis institutions, but essentially making the Iraq issue a push as far as poll numbers. They could then pressure domestic issues and other foriegn relations issues for political advantage.

This would avoid any chance of heartening our islamo-fascist enemies, or demoralizing our armed forces.

Instead, the subtle impression that I get from the Democrat message is that the UN is more legitimate than our own government.

I do not care a whit about a German winning elections in Germany by running an anti-american campaign, I find it very concerning that an American could win an American election by running an anti-american campaign.

[applesweet]

Addendum:
I have a scenario in question form.
What is Europe planning if in the near future for some unseen reason all of the US troops are redeployed on home ground?
I believe the only reason some of the continent has not seen a serious uprising of their unassimulated immigrants is the fact there is still a US military presence nearby.
It's so hard to fathom how a whole continent can not remember the hard and fast lessons of WW2. They have lost so much that is not replaceable. So why is it they think they can continue on the same reckless path of denial and irresponsibility without severe consequences?
What if American is finally in a position to where she cannot respond, even if she wants too?
Does it not occur to anyone this is a possibility?

[bwright]

I had never heard of GS until this past year, when my mentor described how GS made his money. Except two days earlier my older brother had mentioned GS as "some rich a-hole who spends his money promoting gun control and [the whole 527] thing." I wonder if someone that irch is anti-gun because gun is a power beyond the control of money, and if the US were to fall into some socialist vacum, and the ss ever role up, it will be guns that save us, and if it never does, at some point it may be guns that prevented it.

-B

[Keith]

I have not read all comments, this point may have already been made.
The peaceful democratic Germany was clearly forged from the wreck of Nazi Fascism. It was also forged despite the influence of an equally dangerous Stalinist influence. An influence powered by a brutal westward advance of a vengeful ideal.
The potential for failure in Germany in 1945 survived for 40+ years with tangible proof of its existence. We won that war and we'll win this one too.

[Miguel]

Hey!! That guy Soros is NOT an American. He was born in Georgia, in the Caucasus, which by then was the USSR, so he's originally A SOVIET CITIZEN. Hmmm, very interesting. I'm not American, I'm Mexican, but if I were American I wouldn't give a hoot about what other nations think of the USA. I don't understand why people like him are so worried about someone else's opinions. I wouldn't give a damn, period. But, again, that guy was a SOVIET CITIZEN for many years, perhaps that's why.

[Carridine]

Ray,
EXCELLENT post gutting Soros' feeble anti-westernism, anti-Bush Syndrome.

Concur yr analysis.

Miguel, you're an idiot... Try to use Google before spread your nonsense next time - Soros was born in Hungary, moron.

[Max Darkside]

Unfortunately, the critism of the war in Iraq is a ploy. We can see that from the plentiful pleadings of support before hand by Democrats and the passage of the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998" by Congress and signed by Clinton.
http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/libera.htm

The real issue here is taking executive power in the USA, using whatever lever is handy. The war in Iraq is quite handy because:

1) It is a major action of the Bush Administration

2) The Democratic base is generally anti-war, any war, thus it resonates within the base.

3) As the MSM gravitates to bad news, they have already pumped up the troubles there, ignoring the good, an example of which is seen here in this pictorial:
http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=282896

So undoubtedly the strategy is to:

1) make it appear unilateral because a few countries refused to participate. We now know why.

2) make it appear that Bush RUSHED to war, when in fact it took many years over two administrations to reach that point

3) make it appear that Saddam was not a threat and "move the goal posts" with regard to "imminence".

4) stress "stockpiles" of WMD, when most of the Bush Administration's points were about weapons PROGRAMS.

5) magnify the problems and minimize the gains.

6) scare people regarding unplanned consequences (e.g., draft)

and so on.

The key point is the (D) people want power and will twist history in any way they can to gain it.

[Aaron]

http://www.nlpc.org/view.asp?action=viewArticle&aid=687

This group has staff following Soros around the country alerting people to his agenda.

[Sarah]

And another thing.
You can treaty til the cows come home. It works so well in N. Korea and Iran. I suppose we should have formed a treaty with Saddam, so that he could finish his nuclear weapons systems.

I can hear the media rant in 2008. President Bush should have removed Saddam from power before he obtained nuclear weapons.

No wait. There would be no rant. No trees, no grass, no homes, no life.

[kurt]

I think what Mr. Soros is trying to say is, you can't impose a democracy on a society that’s not ready for it by force.

Plus at this point, we have gone from liberators to occupiers in Iraq. They now hate us and hate all we do and stand for.

Elections we sponsor will not be seen as legitimate and all we do will be held suspect in the mind of the Iraqi people.

At this point, it’s not about politics to me, it’s about the truth.

Are you winning or losing in Iraq right now. Most of the country is not controlled by the Iraqi/US government. It’s a chaotic mess.

And I will tell you why Mr Soros doesn't like Mr. Bush. He sees the Wolfowitz Doctrine/Current Bush Administration Policy of Pre-emptive, unilateral action as an excuse for empire. It’s a dangerous slipper slope and one, by the way, used by Hitler to invade Poland. Go figure why he is nervous. Well I am sure I won’t find any friends here but may be I made you think, maybe.

Kurt

[kufar]

I honestly don't understand why all this fuss about Soros political blathering. Because he is a genius in currency speculation?

Let me see. Michael Jordan is a genius in basketball. I love basketball and love to watch Mike play. By all appearances he is a decent chap. But why should I give a hoot about what Mike thinks about gay marriage or Palestinian state? I couldn't care less.

I could not care less about Tiger Woods views on multiculturalism and John Lennon position on Vietnam war even though I like Lennon music and Tiger is probably the best golfer ever.

Soros is first and foremost a trader, that requires intuition and steely nerves, not analytical skills and sense of history. Ignore his blatherings and expose his hypocrisy about restricting money in politics.

[jason]

i'd say you won. well done. the problem with soros's positions is that they contain problems that he recognizes else where in his arguments, but doesn't ultimately address in a comprehensive solution.

this is typical of most bush opponents. in this situation, this war, you must be able to sit down at the table to debate plans of action, not to dedicate all your energy to knocking the leading plan.

which is of course all we hear these days.

[Kevin]

I think it's unfair that Soros can spread disinformation via advertisements (possibly affecting the outcome of the election) just because he has more money than me.

Therefore, I think we should do the following:

Censure him.
Make a resolution informing him that we don't like his tactics.
Heck, maybe we should threaten sanctions on him! THAT will bring him around!

[Karl B.]

Ray,

From a purely military standoint, it appears that the US IS making progress in Iraq. They appear to have developed an effective approach to cleaning out some of the resistance strongholds, playing on local resentment against the "occupying resisters". It also appears that a fledgling Iraq military is taking root that is willing to fight to clear out these elements. Such a fledgling military is essential to success. They will have to clear out the mosques used as safe houses for the resistance.

Don't read my criticism of Bush on Iraq as an unqualified endorsement of Kerry's platform. He clearly has shifted his stance on Iraq to gain political capital. Given the nasty nature of this campaign, it is a minor sin. In spite of the guarded optimism, the recently-leaked WSJ journalist's letter portrays Iraq as a no-go zone to any foreigner not in full body armor accompanied by armored vehicles. Not encouraging. It is a reality check to anyone hopeful of pulling off some kind of small victory for Iraq.

Harry, I'm not sure I understand your criticisms in your first two paragraphs. I'm not even sure we disagree at this point. I wouldn't let a handful of nuclear weapons stop me from a showdown with North Korea if that were the last resort. Shit, we stared down the Russians over Cuba when life as we know it was at stake. The issue is, are we as Americans still willing to pay the price needed. If you can't remember or haven't read about the military convoys in Miami and all along the Gulf Coast during the missile crisis, you don't know what I'm talking about. The current enemy is nothing compared to what we've faced. We need to get a grip and hang tough. We may get hit, but we're going to get back up and keep coming at them. Contrary to what the politicos are telling you, there just is no real disagreement in foreign policy between mainstream Democrats & Republicans: try it multilaterally. If it works, good. If not, and if our vital interests are at stake, then go it alone. That's not likely to change any time soon. The neocons pushed the envelope on unilateralism and have engaged in a lot of unnecessary chatter that was not needed to justify a confrontation with Iraq. I disagree with some of their broader-reaching unilateralist goals, mostly because of the hubris it reveals. We don't want to be an empire. Empires crumble. Even a traditional foreign-policy analysis of Iraq after 9-11 would have placed Iraq high up on the list of unfinished business. It was an enforcement action in a strategically critical area, not a pre-emptive war.

As for Iran, I hope my skepticism towards Europe's approach came through above. Nevertheless, with England under Tony Blair as one of the three powers dealing directly with Iran, I feel that a higher level of sobriety is guaranteed than with the France/German/Russian axis in Iraq before the war (talk about a fatal conflict of interest!). I have some level of confidence that England will pull the plug on any sort of sloppy deal with Iran. At the point that England starts supporting Security Council action, the canary in the mine will have died, and we'll know it is time for England and the US to put the Security Council to a test. This is multilateralism. It may not work, but we have a certain amount of responsibility as the 800 pound gorilla on the block to allow the Europeans to try their approach. One can hope that if their efforts fail they will have the integrity to back harsh measures against Iran. If not, they risk a severe loss of credibility.

[Karl Rotstan]

Just a quick comment on those who claim Germany never attacked us before war was declared. In fact, German submarines sank a handful of American Destroyers (perhaps the most famous being the USS Reuben James, sunk 6 weeks BEFORE Pearl Harbour) and quite a few commercial ships (ex: the Robin Moor, sunk May 21, 1941 being mentioned by Roosevelt in an address to Congress) during the so-called "Armed Neutrality" phase leading up to December 1941. Indeed, on September 11, 1941 President Roosevelt ordered the US Navy to shoot on sight any vessel threatening US shipping (namely German submarines) and explicitly warned Germany and Italy that their ships entered the Western Atlantic at their own risk.