"Stay The Course" (explained for Liberals)

[amicus]

Loosely following the clatter in the news by the desperate and disparate Democrats as the election comes down to the wire, I am reminded of a saying in the film, "Field of Dreams": "Go The Distance"

While one can never, in a short sketch, cover all bases, the Arab conflict basically, in the past half century stems from the creation of Israel in the middle east.

The United States, being the first nation to formally recognize the existence of Israel, immediately became the 'Great Satan', 'a friend of my enemy is my enemy'.

Under the Democrats, the US let Europe fall to the Nazi's without lifting a hand to help. Truman waited until North Korea, armed by the Soviets, invaded the South before reacting, and then settled for a truce. Kennedy/Johnson, following Eisenhowers tentative approach to the French in IndoChina, lost the Vietnam Conflict by total mismanagement and loss of purpose.

Under Democrats Carter and Clinton, fledgling Islamic Terrorists operated with impunity, taking innocent American lives in a dozen places around the world.

It is the definition of the Democrat Party that they remain basically isolationist and non interventive regardless of atrocities abroad, even if they do include US citizens and one may as well include Wilson and the late entry into World War One as American isolationism.

9/11 was a direct result of social liberals refusing to take on the responsibilities of a 'world power' to maintain peace around the globe.

The response and reaction by the current administration was quick and decisive in Afghanistan, where terrorists were pursued and defeated within months of the disaster upon America soil.

So, Stay the Course and/or, Go the Distance, means the same thing: Complete what you have begun with your best efforts to succeed.

Monday morning quarterbacks always have a 'better answer' than the plan that was in fact carried out and such is the case of the social liberal, anti war, isolationist left wing in US Politics...

Basically it is but 'sour grapes', as the left cannot by demonstration and example, be called upon to defend basic American principles...they cannot and will not defend that which they do not believe in.


amicus...

 

[Pure]

haven't you heard, ami, 'stay the course,' according to Bush is NOT the accurate way to describe the US Iraq policy, in fact he says he's not used the phrase. now it's 'get the job done.'

 

[cloudy]

haven't you heard, ami, 'stay the course,' according to Bush is NOT the accurate way to describe the US Iraq policy, in fact he says he's not used the phrase. now it's 'get the job done.'

or, in Tex-speak: "Git 'er done!"

 

[Pure]

update for ami, the non-social, non-liberal

sorry you're out of the loop on this one ami; check fox news or whatever:
---

"It's never been a stay-the-course strategy," [White House aide] Bartlett said. "Strategically, we think it's very important that we stay in Iraq and we win in Iraq. And if we were to cut and run and go and leave that country too early it would be a disaster for American policy."

"But what we aren't doing is sitting there with our heads in the sand. We're completely changing and making tactical changes on a week-by-week basis as we respond to the enemy's reactions to our strategies," the presidential adviser said.

----------
Washington Post

Bush used "stay the course" until recent weeks when it became clear that it was becoming a political problem. "The characterization of, you know, 'it's stay the course' is about a quarter right," Bush complained at an Oct. 11 news conference. " 'Stay the course' means keep doing what you're doing. My attitude is: Don't do what you're doing if it's not working -- change. 'Stay the course' also means don't leave before the job is done."

By last week, it was no longer a quarter right. "Listen, we've never been stay the course, George," he told George Stephanopoulos of ABC News. "We have been -- we will complete the mission, we will do our job and help achieve the goal, but we're constantly adjusting the tactics. Constantly."
---

brought to you by the local chapter of Nihilists Inc.

 

[Rumple Foreskin]

Under the Democrats, the US let Europe fall to the Nazi's without lifting a hand to help. Truman waited until North Korea, armed by the Soviets, invaded the South before reacting, and then settled for a truce.

Ami, I'd never, ever try to reword your thoughts, but I do believe that in the second sentence, you meant to say, CHINESE, not North Koreans. In either case, the logic is, uh, strained. There was nothing for Truman to react to prior to the N Korean invasion of the south and we were already in a reaction mode (against NK) when the Chinese crossed the Yalu.

As for the first sentence: http://bestsmileys.com/lol/12.gif

Rumple Foreskin

 

[Pure]

ami,
as to the Dems letting Europe fall to the Nazis, you have to remember that the Republicans were even LESS inclined to intervene.

indeed Ayn Rand was quite opposed to the US entry into WWI and WWII: see below:

http://ariwatch.com/AynRandOnWWII.htm

From ‘The Roots of War’ in The Objectivist June 1966 (the bracketed text is an exact quote from the essay):

‘Just as [Woodrow] Wilson ... led the United States into World War I, ‘to make the world safe for democracy’ ’ so Franklin D. Roosevelt ... led it into World War II, in the name of the ‘Four Freedoms.’ ... In the case of World War II, [those overwhelmingly opposed to war ... were silenced and] smeared as ‘isolationists,’ ‘reactionaries,’ and ‘American-First’ers.’ ’


[author of the article:] Obviously Ayn Rand was sympathetic to the American-First’ers. I’m going to tweeze this apart though, just to be sure.

The operative word here is ‘smear.’ People with whom you agree do not smear ’ that is, you do not believe they do ’ they point out facts. Obviously Ayn Rand is criticizing those doing the smearing. She wouldn’t have used the word ‘smear’ if she weren’t sympathetic to those ‘overwhelmingly opposed to war.’

‘Silenced’ is another key word. It disparages those doing the silencing. She did not say ‘properly silenced,’ which would have taken the sting out of it.
Note that Ayn Rand sees U.S. entry into WW II as equivalent to that of its entry into WW I. One was as bad as the other.


Ayn Rand continues:

‘World War I led, not to [Wilson’s] ‘democracy,’ but to the creation of three dictatorships: Soviet Russia, Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany. World War II led, not to [Roosevelt’s] ‘Four Freedoms,’ but to the surrender of one-third of the world’s population into communist slavery.’

[author of the article] After saying that World War II did not lead to Roosevelt’s ‘Four Freedoms’ she mentions disaster. She contrasts Roosevelt’s promises with what we actually got. Clearly she thinks Roosevelt helped bring about the disaster. (And she was right, as we shall see in another article.)

---------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand


Rand detested many prominent liberal and conservative politicians of her time, including prominent anti-Communists, such as Harry S. Truman, Ronald Reagan, Hubert H. Humphrey, and Joseph McCarthy.[41] She opposed US involvement in World War I, World War II,[42] and the Korean War, although she also strongly denounced pacifism: "When a nation resorts to war, it has some purpose, rightly or wrongly, something to fight for – and the only justifiable purpose is self-defense."[43]

She opposed U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War, "If you want to see the ultimate, suicidal extreme of altruism, on an international scale, observe the war in Vietnam – a war in which American soldiers are dying for no purpose whatever,"[43] but also felt that unilateral American withdrawal would be a mistake of appeasement that would embolden communists and the Soviet Union.[42]

 

[elsol]

Next... can you explain:

"If it don't fit, you must acquit."

 

[amicus]

Pure: I was slightly amused at your usual ploy in avoiding the subject and issue of a thread and in this case, attempting to insinutate, 'guilt by association', or in this case, strangely, guilt by dis-association.

Then I went back through my original post, to confirm my memory...I made no mention of any of the writings of Ayn Rand, not a single reference, so your Pavlovian response to my thoughts is just that...Pavlovian, mention Amicus and Pure attacks.

Further, I subscribed to the Objectivist Newsletter from the first issue, volume one for more than a decade, if memory serves and then picked up again after the split with Nathaniel and Barbara Branden and subscribed to the Ayn Rand Newsletter for a time.

I read them all, cover to cover and no where did I discover the information you pasted in your response. That is not to say they are not her words or her writing, but I have never discovered them and I thought myself to be rather well read concerning Ms. Rand.

Next, I discovered, upon submitting a term paper for my daughters class in Grad School, that 'Wikipedia' was not acceptable as source material at that level. Now I occasionally reference Wikipedia, though less so than in the past, especially since I have run across several articles prefaced with the Caveat, "This article containes contradictory information and may not be valid..."

Although the term 'Randroid', has often been attached to me, even though it is well known that I harbor deep differences with Rand, especially concerning Abortion, then one might reasonably expect the attempts at guilt by association would fade away...oh, no...not in your case, as if comparing my thoughts, agreeable or disagreeable, were anything but an attempt at character assassination on your part.

Any one even remotely aware of US History will immediately make the connection that one of the two major political parties is far more 'anti-war' and pacifist than the other, if you are not sufficiently knowledgeable to distinguish just which party that is, I suggest perhaps you study a bit more before blathering on all over the forum.

amicus...

 

[elsol]

And while you're at it...

In the Mallrats, they keep talking about 'wanting to have sex in an uncomfortable place... like the back of a Volkswagen.'

Can you explain that one too, please.

 

[JamesSD]

You know what really really makes me sad?

I like Amicus's politics more than I like G.W. Bush's.

 

[Pure]

ami, you better 'stay the course.' do your thing. you're much too cranky to talk to today, but let me say i kind of admire your Wilsonian idealism about spreading democracy with US power.

 

[Seattle Zack]

Under the Democrats, the US let Europe fall to the Nazi's without lifting a hand to help.

And you pretend to be a writer, when you know apostrophes are posessive and plurals aren't ... well, never mind.

 

[amicus]

Seattle Zack]And you pretend to be a writer, when you know apostrophes are posessive and plurals aren't ... well, never mind.[/[/I]QUOTE]

~~

And then I thought 'posessive' had 4 s's, possessive...but then...you never claimed to be a 'writer', now did you?

well...never mind...yes, I agree...since you cannot find the topic or the subject with either hand, why not be picky...are you female?

amicus...

 

[Boxlicker101]

Ami, I'd never, ever try to reword your thoughts, but I do believe that in the second sentence, you meant to say, CHINESE, not North Koreans. In either case, the logic is, uh, strained. There was nothing for Truman to react to prior to the N Korean invasion of the south and we were already in a reaction mode (against NK) when the Chinese crossed the Yalu.

As for the first sentence: http://bestsmileys.com/lol/12.gif

Rumple Foreskin

Actually, Rumps, North Korea did invade the South. When the ROK and the US and allies responded, after some setbacks, they overran the north all the way to the Yalu River. That's when China got involved.

As for isolationism, the worst example was Harding and the Reps. who refused to join the League of Nations. That refusal may or may not have had anything to do with WW2. At the same time, I have believed since I was a child that the FDR's Secretary of State should have gone to Munich and stood shoulder to shoulder with France and England and told the Axis "NO". That, of course, is hindsight.

 

[amicus]

Thanks, Box...Isolationism was not only the province of the Democrat Party, most of the nation agreed that involvement in European conflicts was not in the best interests of America and I can understand that. But, as I have drawn attention to in other posts, America was not ready to assume the mantle of world power at the beginning of the 20th century and was reluctant to do so even after world war two.

Were I to attempt to be 'fair and balanced' as Fox news claims, I would note the Roosevelt did push the envelope in assisting Great Britain in every way short of declaring war prior to our involvement; I would credit the Truman administration for standing against the Soviets in the Berlin Airlift Crisis, and JFK for the blockade of Cuba during the missile crisis of the early 1960's.

However, I am not trying to be fair and balanced, I am trying to show and I think if one has knowledge of history they will see I am accurate in tying the Democrat party to inaction when the times called for action.

And my point is the basic flaw in left wing politics in America, the refusal to act to defend principles on a pre-emptive basis.

Even at this moment, there is a program on the military channel concerning the 30 percent drawdown in the USAF following the Gulf War and during the Clinton years, imagine the US Air Force and all the associated industries that supported the technology of that time, being forced to cut back, to discharge all the experienced combat veterans, supply resources, training facilities and on and on and on. The Democrat party is a true danger to the safety and security of the Nation and that is my point, which I will try to make again and again, like it or not.

amicus...

 

[amicus]

And forgive me...but posting that brought another factor to mind which plays heavily on the current Iraq war in terms of 'not enough soldiers to do the job' mantra, by the left.

The result of the Clinton drawdown, not only of the Air Force, but the military in general and the Intelligence services of the US, Commanders in all branches of the service were forced to 'do more with less'.

They did so by going high tech, eliminating labor intensive tasks and replacing them with state of the art electronics that could be operated by far fewer personnel.

This brought about a 'revolution' in military tactics and battle plans that exceeded the capacity of old time, cold war commanders to comprehend.Which is why you see all the 'retired officers' appearing on television to criticize the current war efforts...the reason being...they were left out, by-passed, overlooked and put out to pasture...

Interesting, eh?

amicus...

 

[TheEarl]

Were I to attempt to be 'fair and balanced' as Fox news claims, I would note the Roosevelt did push the envelope in assisting Great Britain in every way short of declaring war prior to our involvement.

And we do admire the way that you selflessly and altruisticly charged us exorbitant interest and war-profiteered from our desperation and then afterwards used that debt to crash our economy whenever you didn't like our foreign policy, Suez being a prime example.

Sorry, pet peeve. Carry on.

The Earl

 

[Guest]

Seattle Zack]And you pretend to be a writer, when you know apostrophes are posessive and plurals aren't ... well, never mind.[/[/I]QUOTE]

~~

And then I thought 'posessive' had 4 s's, possessive...but then...you never claimed to be a 'writer', now did you?

well...never mind...yes, I agree...since you cannot find the topic or the subject with either hand, why not be picky...are you female?

amicus...

Tsk, tsk, tsk.

I'll let him answer for himself, but what a pissy thing to say, ami.

 

[Rumple Foreskin]

Actually, Rumps, North Korea did invade the South. When the ROK and the US and allies responded, after some setbacks, they overran the north all the way to the Yalu River. That's when China got involved.

You're timeline is spot on, Box. In my confused way, I was trying to point out the confusion in this sentence by Ami.

Truman waited until North Korea, armed by the Soviets, invaded the South before reacting, and then settled for a truce.

I didn't even mention that the US "settled for a truce" after Eisenhower became President.

I believe it was back in the 1976 election, when GOP VP candidate Bob Dole got into hot water for saying the Democratic Party had lead the country into all of its 20th century wars:

WW I - Wilson
WW II - FDR
Korea - Truman
Vietnam - Kennedy/Johnson

Since then, the GOP has been playing catch-up.

Grenada - Reagan
Panama - Bush I
Iraq I - Bush I
Iraq II - Bush II

While Ami's supporting evidence is questionable, I have no arguement with his contention that following the McGovernite take-over of the Demo. Party in 1972, the GOP has been more militaristic.

Rumple Foreskin

 

[Pure]

CNN last night had a program on conservatives who aren't happy with Bush. William Buckley for instance. ONE reason is that going abroad, Buckley said, to 'spread democracy' is NOT appropriate US foreign policy.

Your usual economic, (small government) conservative, like Ayn Rand OPPOSES foreign interventions unless the US interest is directly involved. So Hitler counts as fair game , but not Ho Chi Minh. It makes sense because militarism costs big money, and (as now) causes government intrusions into people's rights.

It's the social conservatives (=religious right) and neo cons with the gradiose dreams who like the 'bring democracy to the world.' For the religous, it's the war of 'good vs evil' and maybe the apocalypse.

Ami can't quite make up his mind, but wants to be like Bush; so Ami is now very little a Rand, 'small government,' or Reagan conservative. He's 'big governement', like Bush, and socially conservative--against sex education and abortion rights.

As the program pointed out, Bush is actually NOT much of a social conservative, but the 'plan' is to look friendly. Bush doesn' give a shit about gay marriage, i think, but it's a great issue to get the evangelical vote.

Ami will claim to favor liberty and small government, but like Bush, the actions speak louder than the words. Patriot Act, huge rises in gov spending mark Bush's 'reign.' Indeed the prescription drug thing is the *biggest entitlement program* in many years.

CNN pointed out too, that 'no child left behind' is a 'big government' effort. Reagan talked of eliminating the dept of education as a cabinet post.

In short many conservatives, both the small gov type and the religious right (social) ones have grievances. Most, like Ami, will swallow principle and vote Republican. Some however, mentioned by CNN, e.g. Chris Buckley, say it's time for the Bushies to lose so that conservatives can find their principles and take over the party again.

 

[Boxlicker101]

You're timeline is spot on, Box. In my confused way, I was trying to point out the confusion in this sentence by Ami.

I didn't even mention that the US "settled for a truce" after Eisenhower became President.

I believe it was back in the 1976 election, when GOP VP candidate Bob Dole got into hot water for saying the Democratic Party had lead the country into all of its 20th century wars:

WW I - Wilson
WW II - FDR
Korea - Truman
Vietnam - Kennedy/Johnson

Since then, the GOP has been playing catch-up.

Grenada - Reagan
Panama - Bush I
Iraq I - Bush I
Iraq II - Bush II

While Ami's supporting evidence is questionable, I have no arguement with his contention that following the McGovernite take-over of the Demo. Party in 1972, the GOP has been more militaristic.

Rumple Foreskin

Since you are including "brushfire" wars like Grenada and Panama, you might as well go all out:

1901 Philippine insurrection - T. R.
1912 Occupation of Nicaragua - Taft
1915 Invasion of Haiti - Wilson
1916 Mexican Incursion - Wilson
1918 Siberian Expedition - Wilson
1965 Dominican Crisis - LBJ
1975 Mayaguez Incident - Ford
1992 Somalia - Bush 1
1994 Haiti (again) - Clinton
1994 Balkans - Clinton

 

[Pure]

let's keep in mind a few qualitative diffs.

Kennedy Johnson went into vietnam
Reagan went into Grenada (a bit like Thatcher into the Falklands).

Intervening abroad to 'spread our values' is straight out of Kennedy's inaugural. Bush's second inaugural spoke of bringing democracy into every country of the world. Iraq being the start, so to say.

As Rand pointed out, Wilsonian ideals after WWI arguably stimulated the rise of fascism, just as Roosevelts ideals led to Stalin's taking over half of Europe.

Ayn Rand continues:

‘World War I led, not to [Wilson’s] ‘democracy,’ but to the creation of three dictatorships: Soviet Russia, Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany. World War II led, not to [Roosevelt’s] ‘Four Freedoms,’ but to the surrender of one-third of the world’s population into communist slavery.’




Overseas areas may not be to the US liking--Saddams' Iraq. But putting troops in may create a situation even MORE against US interests and liking--e.g. the rise of al qaeda presence in iraq, increased recruitment of non iraqi's to help the insurrection, etc.

 

[Pure]

conservative foreign policy

http://www.thebinarycircumstance.com/2004/05/04/620/ayn-rand-the-roots-of-war/

Rand in “The Roots of War”

It does not matter, in this context, whether a nation was enslaved by force, like Soviet Russia, or by vote, like Nazi Germany. Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual). Whether a slave society was conquered or chose to be enslaved, it can claim no national rights and no recognition of such ‘rights’ by civilized countries–just as a mob of gangsters cannot demand a recognition of its “rights” and a legal equality with an industrial concern or a university, on the ground that the gansters chose by unanimous vote to engage in that particular kind of group activity.

“Dictatorship nations are outlaws. Any free nation had the right to invade Nazi Germany and, today, has the right to invade Soviet Russia, Cuba or any other slave pen. Whether a free nation chooses to do so or not is a matter of its own self-interest, not of respect for the non-existent ‘rights’ of gang rulers. It is not a free nation’s duty to liberate other nations at the price of self-sacrifice, but a free nation has the right to do it, when and if it so chooses.[1,104]



http://www.thebinarycircumstance.com/2004/05/04/620/ayn-rand-the-roots-of-war/

Rand revisted her comments in an interview with Playboy magazine in 1964.

PLAYBOY: What about force in foreign policy? You have said that any free nation had the right to invade Nazi Germany during World War II . . .
RAND: Certainly.

PLAYBOY: . . . And that any free nation today has the moral right — though not the duty — to invade Soviet Russia, Cuba, or any other “slave pen.” Correct?

RAND: Correct. A dictatorship — a country that violates the rights of its own citizens — is an outlaw and can claim no rights.

PLAYBOY: Would you actively advocate that the United States invade Cuba or the Soviet Union?

RAND: Not at present. I don’t think it’s necessary. I would advocate that which the Soviet Union fears above all else: economic boycott. I would advocate a blockade of Cuba and an economic boycott of Soviet Russia; and you would see both those regimes collapse without the loss of a single American life.

 

[TheOlderGuy]

<snip>
9/11 was a direct result of social liberals refusing to take on the responsibilities of a 'world power' to maintain peace around the globe.

<snip>
amicus...

9/11 was a direct result of Bush and Co. being obsessed with Iraq from day one.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

So, Stay the Course and/or, Go the Distance, means the same thing: Complete what you have begun with your best efforts to succeed.

So, just what is it we're trying to "complete" in Iraq? We can't know if we've completed it until we know what it was we were trying to complete, so would someone remind me what the goal of that invasion was in the first place?

But it seems like the Amicus doctrine advocates waging constant war in the name of peace. Is that it?

Meanwhile, while tarring the democrats as "Tax & spend" for wanting to spend millions to help its citizens is accepted as gospel, how come no one brands the republicans "tax & kill" for wasting billions for no good purpose in Iraq? What's that money bought for us? Security? Anything?

$9,000,000,000 of taxpayer money a month (None billion dollars, in case all those zeros make your eyes glaze over; nine thousand million for our Birtish friends) pissed away on that war. For what? A couple months of that would pay for national health care for a year with maybe enough left over to find a cure for autism or breast cancer or something.

Doesn't that bother anyone? Doesn't that make you fucking furious?

Something wrong here.

Stay the course. That's what idiots say as they drive off cliffs.