Bolton gets a Wedgie!
- His full name is Anthony Wedgwood Benn, known affectionately as Wedgie sometimes! He's a good guy.

Nothing is more embarrassing than getting your ass beat by your father. Even after you left his house so long ago, you went to the gym, gained some weight, and made a name for yourself in the neighborhood. You come back, and your father can still whoop your ass. Sad.

! thats a hilarious metaphor

Well, the English know what decline is, but they still have the Commonwealth. And the US has nothing, and very few friends either right now.

I should have guessed....no response from Bolton. Bolton, while I don't agree with him on everything he says, is clearly a witty guy and it would have been great to see his response to all of that. But of course, that was conveniently cut out.

Bolton is witty? Where is he hiding that? Or did you mean comical looking?

john bolton is a witty ole blood sucker. to agree with any of his policy is to endorse crimes against humanity.

why would you want to genocide a country where the majority is under 30 years of age. iran is persia, we destroyed the euprates and now to persia.

the atom bomb the persians have is cultur and civilization. all we can give to civilization is walmart and mr. W.

As to Benn's quote, have we forgotten Guernica or Dresden?

HP, i'd guess it was cut out because most of us could fill in Bolton's tired old arguments, mimic his little barking noises, etc, in our sleep. And most of us, by now, prefer to hear the deceivers catch it. We're sick of seeing them skate scot-free. We think that time is past. I know I do. Trust me, once I actually would have been offended by a Brit saying half these things to a US official/pol. It's taken exactly two illegitimate terms of one pseudo-president to enjoy such a dressing down delivered into the face of an installment like Bolton. The arrogance and stupidity and harm done by the Bush administration could never be overlooked for a moment, no matter how witty Bolton came back. And while perhaps normally I'd find it a bit cruel to throw Vietnam in "our" face as part of any televised talk show jibe, you have to admit that when you take a terrible and costly lesson like the Vietnam War and repeat its errors, thus showing you make a mockery of all those lives lost in what should have been a lesson at best...you sort of deserve a verbal smack becuz ya probly asleep at that point.

I think it is clear from what he said up to the point where it cuts off that Bolton's arguments in response to those statements aren't going to be convincing. I think the first exchange says everything that needs to be said, and that Benn's cross examination at the end is more of an epitaph to the discussion.

A finally somebody speaks the truth to the moron, to his face.

"As to Benn's quote, have we forgotten Guernica or Dresden?"

Or to be fair, the British terror-bombing of Iraq itself in 1920 or so. That was the first instance of mass-terror bombing of a civilian population, carried out by the RAF. So Britain also knows a lot about mass-murdering civilians, with the USA now following in the footsteps of the British Empire.

Parece que los Anglos no pueden resistir la tentacion atacar y matar milliones de los civiles, en cualquier decada.

Whether the British Empire or the US Anglos today, the regimes stand for murder, displacement and ethnic cleansing-- ironically in this case, doing in Iraq in 2007 what the British had done in 1920. With failure on both occasions.

Wondering what every bodies thoughts are on this article?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/11/looking_at_iraq_through_the_lo.html

i guess i'm interested in most of the people's comments here...but i can't promise much more than that. :)

False dichotomy there. Korea was a completely different war. It was a nation divided, one side invaded the other under the auspices of foreign powers, if anything Korea became a plaything for the superpowers, with disastrous results, and it was Eisenhower who in part won election by promising "To Go to Korea" and end the conflict (the war is not technically over, there is only an Armistice, South Korea success could very well end in a single massive artillery barrage).

My uncle died in those forsaken hills, as many others Puerto Ricans of the 65th Infantry regiment only to be abused, humiliated and punished when they refused to be cannon fodder for their continental officers who thought them inferior and incapable of fighting even though the regiment was one of the highest decorated units of the entire war. In many was, it was the lessons not learned in Korea that led to the disaster that was Vietnam.

Rafael, why do you think we 'lost' Vietnam? I agree with you that there are parallels between Vietnam and Iraq, but probably for very different reasons. Just curious what your reasons are.

Because the U.S. intervention in Vietnam was done to prop a corrupt goverment in the South and that goverment did not survive, therefore the war was a failure. And don't buy into the "we never lost a single battle on the field" mantra, because the answer to that is "true, perhaps, but also immaterial".

And for the record, we is a lot of people, I didn't loose anything, and I don;t know of anyone who lost in Vietnam, I know a lot of its victims, but no one who belongs to this "we" thing. Even if someone them delude themselves into believing that they belong in that group.

Well Rafa, I do understand the idea you have of looking for clarity talking about Vietnam and I will avoid the "we" construct. BUT, I was drafted and so were thousands {hundreds of thousands} of others so I lost a lot and spent years resisting the draft and my friends that went to Vietnam lost a lot, most in the psychiatric sense but many lost essential limbs or brain function, and the Vietnamese lost a lot not only in the resistance to the American actions in North and South Vietnam, but in the actions of the French before that and the Chinese for 500 years before that. The Americans actually carried on the war for a very short period, historically speaking. Those tunnels in Vietnam were built over centuries of invasions.
I am only just getting warmed up here.
In terms of whether an undeclared war was lost or not, it plainly was.
I am not sure of your age {I am 55} but certainly I would have to insist that, having lived through the period intensely, Vietnam was not just a battle and war lost, but much more than that in terms of its effect upon the US psyche.
I do like your various comments about Korea, the famous 65th Infanteria and almost all of what you say at Nez's site.
Maybe I just don't get the idea of what you mean about the "we" reference. I think it is perhaps factual that generals and captains of industry are perhaps the only individuals besides politicians and ideologues who would gain in wartime but I also think that even they could be losers along with all of the combatants of both or multiple sides and also the civilians of the battlefield country since there is little to be gained ultimately even by winning. As long as there have been wars, the futility of any aspect of the endeavor seems to be the most common theme.
Thus, I would suggest that anytime entities engage in war, the whole concept is to limit losses and in that way eventually declare Victory. But it is about the losing.
As to the obsolescence of even that concept, I refer you to the unexpected sage, Sean Penn.

Now we have to talk about whether the US "lost" Vietnam? Come on, HP. This is just fuckin' crazy. The USA got its ass shredded in those jungles. The depth of our defeat is legend, everyone knows it, and the only people trying to paint over it with a nice imperial brush are the same types who want to convince us the Iraq occupation is a success. (Or will be! Any! Moment! Now!) I don't mind having dissenting views around, it's good to have a variety of voices, but I'm not going to litter up my pages with brain disease and denial. Vietnam was a disaster for the USA. I grew up knowing this and I suspect we all did. Now that those who ran from the draft (like every other sensible person) are in power, they feel ashamed, they need to distort the past so it throws a justifying light on their inane policies in the present day; they want to rearrange facts, and they use their random tools and mouthpieces on the ground to help them bolster their chosen illusion. You are free to be one, but not here. I won't entertain this ridiculous Bushian insinuation that the USA only "lost" Vietnam because we left early. If we would have stayed, our entire country would have been in revolt before long, and if for no other reason, that's a clear decider. You can't fight a war your nation opposes. Even if you kill every person on the ground. And if you want to throw in your lot with a few greedy powermad anti-american administration ghouls heldover from an era slowly fading, feel free. But that's not the crowd I entertain here. Only because I don't want to propagate an aura of insanity in this place, or waste everyone's time with arguments we have long settled. So save the lunacy for your periodic NAFTA comment-convulsions. Which I'll allow. For now.

It is sickening that most Americans will not see this. Especially since,right after the gulf war, Dick Cheney dais that they would have not had a cjance to get saddam, and that an occupation of Iraq was an impossibility to sustain.

I cant wait until these people are executed for war crimes.
Bush, Cheney, Rice, Bolton et al

Salon had this story posted today. I only mention it because of the article's title:

American empire, going, going ... Great empires were extraordinarily pluralistic, argues Amy Chua, until they frayed into xenophobia and decline. Can the U.S. steer another course?

well I hate Bolton and always have. The fact that Bush could nominate someone to the UN who doesn't even believe it should exist and has spoken so disparagingly of it before he was nominated is ridiculous. What a nutjob Bolton is, for real.

And what is all this talk about the US empire declining. If we're happy and fed (which we aren't all...)then who the f%$^ cares. I know I posted about the many military brats I know who have lived overseas. Well, even military people agree, not all of those bases are needed. How much money would that free up to fix domestic problems if we closed some more down? I personally think that if America focuses on our own problems, becoming the kind of country we say we are, and getting priorities in order we will stay a leader and make more than enough money. Less money will be needed for things like defense in that case, too, because less countries will be pissed at us.

So I say worry about our own problems, and try to take care of them ourselves like responsible adults. If other countries like working with and we make even more, than icing on the cake, but we shouldn't depend on using other countries for making money. And to me that's what the word "empire" in this case connotates, America using the rest of the world for our own gain. If that's what empire means I'm glad if that goes away. I think we can be prosperous without doing that, and we will be much safer.

well I hate Bolton and always have. The fact that Bush could nominate someone to the UN who doesn't even believe it should exist and has spoken so disparagingly of it before he was nominated is ridiculous. What a nutjob Bolton is, for real.

And what is all this talk about the US empire declining. If we're happy and fed (which we aren't all...)then who the f%$^ cares. I know I posted about the many military brats I know who have lived overseas. Well, even military people agree, not all of those bases are needed. How much money would that free up to fix domestic problems if we closed some more down? I personally think that if America focuses on our own problems, becoming the kind of country we say we are, and getting priorities in order we will stay a leader and make more than enough money. Less money will be needed for things like defense in that case, too, because less countries will be pissed at us.

So I say worry about our own problems, and try to take care of them ourselves like responsible adults. If other countries like working with us and we make even more, than icing on the cake, but we shouldn't depend on using other countries for making money. And to me that's what the word "empire" in this case connotates, America using the rest of the world for our own gain. If that's what empire means I'm glad if that goes away. I think we can be prosperous without doing that, and we will be much safer.

I didn't mean to post that twice but I added a missing word while it was loading, I didn't know it had all ready gone through. And also, while I did meantion that we're not all happy and fed, I think America is prosperous enough right now that we could be. We may need to worry about certain problems - change some values to where certain people make millions while teachers get paid nothing, for example. There is no reason in a country will this wealth that so many are in poverty. I'm not saying America doesn't have problems, but they're not ones that more money will fix, we have enough money!

We certainly have the money, if we'd spend it in arenas other than killing people in other countries.

The talk about the decline of empire right now is timely because America's been closing down throughout Bush's terms. Naomi Wolf talks about the ten steps a government goes through to become a fascist dictatorship, and America's been through 9 of those 10 - number 10 is declaring martial law. We're hitting a social evolution that most nations don't survive - usually because their enemies defeat them.

Ah, Benn, a voice of sanity. What is so unfortunate about these American officials like Bolton is how uninformed they are. Hispanicpundit, I think you and Bolton confuse wit with empty bullying. The rest of the world is brighter than you think and sees through the Boltonisms.

The woman at the beginning brought up a very good point about how many Iraqis have died under the U.S. occupation compared to how many died under Hussein. Most Americans don't acknowledge that since they don't know any Iraqis. That probably has to do with the fact the U.S. won't allow any Iraqi refugees into the country.

I also think there's also a lack of perception of Iraqi people as people rather than abstractions, or maybe metaphors. That certainly is encouraged by a lack of contact with actual Iraqi people, but also a hint of manifest destiny.

I personally think that if America focuses on our own problems,becoming the kind of country we say we are, and getting priorities in order we will stay a leader and make more than enough money.

Yeah, exactly!This sentiment can be said of all empires-but especially ours at this hour!We HAVE got enough issues at home to not be concerned about trying to run the affairs of another country anywhere else-and if we don't deal with our own problems we may/many of us lose the priveledge of being well-fed and confortable-those of us fortunate enough to be. We have needed to put our own house in order for a while now, but time does not seem to be on our side now to spend so much effort expending energy in trying to control everyone else's business.

yeah...its funny, abw. it seems the more we fuck things up over here, the more we go looking to defocus and cast our gaze on the rest of the world. if it weren't so sad and tragic, it would be hilarious.