What a jackass. Here's a counter-argument: maybe the Europeans arent so keen to nip some of these problems before they become full blown crisis because the Europeans arent called upon to pull everybody elses bacon out of the fire 2 or 3 times a century.

Obviously, Mr. Slater has never spoken to a native of Atlanta or for that matter most anywhere in the South. It has been a long time since the Civil War, and while the South may have justly lost it, the very real horrors of that defeat still linger.

There are sometimes when I think I should like just one Iraqi city subjected to the same sort of ultimatum to which the city of New Orleans was subjected, but I would wish what happened to Atlanta on anyone even in my darker moods.

You ask too much from the pseudo-celebs at the H-Bomb. You can't expect them to have any sense of historical knowledge past last months Vanity Fair or the New Yorker. Heck its too much to ask for them to comprehend WWII, Korea, and Vietnam in proper context, what makes anyone think these people even know about the Civil War. If they sat through your typical US History class, it was the "war to free the slaves" and thats it. Face it these clowns get their history from TV Movies of the week.

Actually he's got it backwards. Our commitment to fighting wars outside our borders rather than waiting until it comes here is a direct consequence of the American Civil War.

Still, it wasn't happening to america or americans. It happened to southerners. And a long time ago.

Europe got it in recent memory. And they're not eager to do it again. Particularly germany. The english and the french weren't even eager for WWII, and now the germans have joined them in getting a lot more subdued about the conquering business.

We got a bit subdued after vietnam. And that wasn't even much of a defeat. More like we spent a lot of money and didn't win. We pulled out without a lot of trouble, nothing like Dunkirk. A lot of people figure that the homeless vietnam vets just had something wrong with them or they'd have gone out and gotten jobs and turned middle-class like all the other respectable people do.

If we'd gotten a lot of cities bombed and widespread hunger, retired people getting jobs moving rubble that paid in dormitory space and food, we'd probably be a lot more hesitant to start wars today.

9/11 was like a pinprick, not like losing even one city. Just barely enough to drive us mad.

And the civil war ended 140 years ago, and a lot of americans figure that the bad stuff mostly happened to rebels who deserved it. A handful of exceptions like Chambersburg would hardly persuade them. For modern americans, suffering in wartime is something that only happens to soldiers, not often. A lot of americans figure that if we get into a war and it doesn't go as well as the Gulf War did then it's cause for scandal.

"Still, it wasn't happening to america or americans. It happened to southerners. And a long time ago."

"9/11 was like a pinprick, not like losing even one city. Just barely enough to drive us mad."

Are you real? Beacause dude, Karl Rove would have to invent you if you aren't.

By Mr. Slater’s logic, if a country has had collateral damage from war inflicted on it, then they would not have the will or inclination to inflict similar damage on its foe. Well, let’s look at recent history. The British in WWII were attacked by Germany with a great deal of collateral damage inflicted on the British populace. Yet, the British government and its citizens had no problem inflicting the same and in some cases more collateral damage on the German populace. Just ask the citizens of Dresden, Germany what they think of the British mind set following the bombing of Coventry.

The problem with Mr. Slater and all of his education is that he apparently has not had the opportunity to be around heartless thugs. He has been shielded in ivory towers where there can be disagreement but know one takes a punch at the other guy and these are the rules he is use to living by. However, the thugs of this world do not live by these rules. Hitler did not, Hirohito did not, Saddam did not, and the thugs in Iraq, Iran, ect. do not. They live and “play” by other rules the rules of the jungle. The jungle can be a dark a scary place, a place that Mr. Slater does not want to think about.

Mr. Slater should look to our war with Japan for a constructive path for the US to take in dealing with the most recent batch of thugs. Japan, was a nation of very well armed, zealots determined to fight to the end with a religious motivation from an emperor whom they considered a god. The path for war against Japan that Franklin Roosevelt (a liberal) chose and that the US citizens strongly backed was total war which included collateral damage to civilians, lots of collateral damage to civilians. When we fire bombed Tokyo to ashes, left most of their armies dead on south Pacific island and then nuked two entire cities full civilians and yes little babies, then and only then did Japan capitulate. This was the language that a thug who thought he was god could understand.
Yet today, Japan is one of our greatest allies. They have become a great peaceful nation because we conquered them and then imposed our will on them through General Macarthur who basically wrote their constitution.

Sadly, Mr. Slater needs to spend a night or two in the jungle

"it wasn't happening to america or americans. It happened to southerners. And a long time ago..."

LOL. Hey! You mean we actually won! Yeeehaaw!

(grin)

Last night I drove up the Shenandoah Valley to see a play in Staunton, Virginia. As I drove past Lexington I couldn't help but remember the "Field Of Lost Shoes" where we finally started committing 15-17 year old boys to the war. On the way back, I followed the path of Hunter's Raid where Union General Hunter (a vicious anti-southerner) burnt VMI to the ground, torched houses and barns, terrorized the citizenry (although he was no terrorist) and was finally stopped by sheer luck and gumption at Lynchburg.

People still talk about it. I spoke about it to my wife, and I'm not a history re-enactor or any of that. It's just where I live. We remember.

I think one of the great things about being a Southerner (besides the culture) is that we know and understand how America loses a war, how cities can be shelled, what's is like to commit everything you have. Maybe most folks could care less, but it's important to me.

I would suggest watching "Gods and Generals" for those of you who have a small amount of interest and like your history a la Hollywood. Makes for a good Friday night movie!

He seems to have not heard of Pearl Harbor either.

He seems to have not heard of Pearl Harbor either.

Or the campaign in the Aleutians, or Guam, which were both US territory and which were invaded and occupied by Japan during World War II. Or Washington D.C., which was sacked and burned by British troops during the War of 1812.

Just more proof of the complete lack of knowledge of history among the so-called "elites" in this country. Jackasses.

Re: WW2,

The Republicans were severe critics while the war was in progress. As are the Dems today for this war. It would be nice if the Rs knew that bit of history.

More often than not the criticism of war fighting is more about ins vs. outs than any party principle.

Do we even have to reach for examples by citing battles from far flung territories or stretch the allegory by including the civil war?

Didn't somebody once burn Washington to the ground? Wouldn't that count as a collateral damage inflicting, infastructure destroying invasion?

What is with Huffington post? And why does Yahoo host those knuckleheads right alongside Reuters and AP?

To assert that Americans are gung-ho and cavalier - that we're "comfortable" with bombing "little countries around the world" (Iraq is little?) is to assert nonsense. Forget calling that a strawman argument, it's a false premise to begin with. The fact that the discussion is occuring alone disproves that assertion. The fact that there are rules of engagement, and constant review of military personnel's action is a further debunking. The fact that the US can do far, far more damage - carpet bombing, anyone? - and has refused to is even more proof against.

Okay, Slater is right about one thing: If the US were being bombed daily, and houses broken into by a foreign army, folks would be less receptive to war. That's true. But how is it relevant? Even if American citizens were any less "gung ho" than now, how does that address the morality of the situation? The necessity of certain actions is independent of any enthusiasm that may or may not be behind it, and whether Americans were eager or reluctant to go to war doesn't address whether they should have or not. Whether Americans were frothing at the mouth to get Saddam or were crying reluctantly as they boarded planes and ships is not the question; whether we needed to address the issue of Saddam and his regime is. Leveling charges of being "cavalier" and "gung ho" is just hollow rhetoric.

That's very true, Simon. And the criticism was quite strong and partisan at times. But once the war started, the criticism was rarely of the validity of the war, or even of the deceptions of the FDR administration leading up to the war. Criticisms and investigations were made by Congress of the Pearl Harbor attack itself, and of various procurement scandals. Major decisions that are now controversial such as the internment of Japanese nationals and the exclusion from the Pacific states of Japanese / Americans received little partisan discussion.

There was some partisan comment on the overall strategy of the war, especially in the first couple of years that saw continuing reverses and stalemates in the Pacific theater. A lot of this had to do with the political asperations of Gen. Douglas MacArthur, thankfully the GOP voters of the time killed that early.

The Republicans cooperated in the issues of operational and communications security such as the code breaking operations even though such would have greatly embarrassed the FDR administration of the time.

An additional thought to my comment to Simon above:

If the same kind of criticism was being made in WWII as today, we would have seen literally years of criticism by the Republicans of the FDR administration's failure to build up the armed forces fast enough, train them well enough and equip them with airplanes that were the equals of our enemy, or tanks that were not death traps.

SPQR (and Simon)

Let's not forget the statements by one party that the war itself is "unwinnable" and the frequent assertations of "we're in a quagmire"

Topping that off is the assertion by many that the election system itself is so broken that the president is a phony and the war illigitimate.

Nope. There are some parallels to WWII, but as I've said before, I'm having a hard time differentiating between the bad guys and the loyal opposition. Both are fighting political battles for the opinion of the U.S. electorate, and both seem to have similar goals. The bad guys just shoot at us. And if you think shooting at us is anywhere near as dangerous to the war effort as the political fighting, you don't know much about low-level warfare.

Huffington Post is DU for "celebrities". Back when it first opened Lawrence from isfullofcrap, myself and a few others did a few weeks of tracking of the H-Bomb, but lost interest due to it being so lame.

The best part of H-Bomb was seeing how crazy Jim Lampley was. The guy's a leftist of the Democratic Underground far left fringe type. And he was utterly outclassed by anyone who bothered to fisk his lame writing.

Basically H-Bomb is Arianas attempt to stay relevant in the land of the "movers and shakers". After her husband left her for another man, and she was completely shamed during the California recall election, she put up H-Bomb in a desperate attempt to stay relevant.

Heck even Tina Brown knew when to throw in the towel with her failed TALK, as did Steven Brill with Brills Content. When Salon became unreadable and utterly worthless everyone wanted to make a Drudge knock-off, but none of the lefty versions are anywhere near as successful.

In general I agree with Simon and SPQR. In fact the Republican response to WW2 were in some ways similar to the current democrats- first pushing to stay out of war at all costs, then grousing that we werent prepared for it. Not all the critics but some. Consistancy goes a long way, which is why a Joe Lieberman (or even Hillary) will carry more weight with his critiques than a John Kerry ever could.

There are legitimate criticisms and ways to have them addressed that are neither defeatist nor opportunistic. For instance:

-It is legitimate to raise questions about potentially contraversial programs. This can be done without revealing operational details to the world.

-It is not legitimate to sit on a powerful intelligence committee and then claim ignorance because you failed to follow up on programs you were briefed on (however sparsely). If you know a program exists, it is in your power to know every single detail of it if you are willing to pursue it hard enough.

-It is legitimate to ask tough questions about intelligence failures that led us into our current position. It is also legitimate to ask if and how politics affected those estimates.

-It is illegitimate to blast the administration for relying on intelligence estimates your own party agreed with and acted on when in power.

-It is always legitimate to raise tough questions about the level of progress (or lack thereof) on the ground rebuilding Iraq.

-It is legitimate to propose a timeline for the withdrawal from Iraq. It is legitimate to propose and define metrics.

It is, however, highly cynical and destructive to frame the debate where you: demand withdrawal, lay claim to any longterm withdrawal plan as agreeing with you (um, the only alternative is staying forever), and then claim defeat in the war based on those criteria. You are thereby ensuring any possibe outcome in Iraq be viewed as a defeat for Bush but more importantly for America. That may or may not be true, but if it is not accurate you are doing terrible harm to your nations interests.

As far as I can tell, his complaint is not so much that the US starts wars as that we lose so few of them.

If ANYTHING Americans are far too reluctant to use military force ANYWHERE in the world, at any time, even when it might save the lives of thousands of Americans, let alone millions of others.

Evidence:

Clinton ordering the Navy to pull out of Haiti when confronted by thugs at the piers. Clinton refusing to intervene in Rwanda (for fear of well, killing people), running away in abject fear in Somalia (cited over and over again by bin Laden); half-hearted bombing only efforts in Iraq and the Balkans.

But wait, there's more: Suppressing the results of a greatly obstructed investigation (according to none other than Louis J. Freeh, appointed by Clinton in the first place) when Clinton was afraid of the consequences of Iran being the perpetrator of the Khobar Towers bombing; refusal to kill Bin Laden when it would damage a Mosque!!! or kill a Gulf Princeling!! and so on.

America also sat out the early part of WWII with strong isolationist pro-Nazi Leftwing and Rightwing sentiment (Communists strongly backed Hitler until June 1941). America after Vietnam (which it fought VERY carefully so as to not provoke a nuclear response by China or the USSR) mostly avoided responding to DIRECT ACTS OF WAR such as the invasion of our Embassy.

When brutally and sneakily attacked on 9/11 we did not nuke Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia even though we were justified and the consequences would have been not that much (none of these nations had a Nuclear Umbrella from China or Russia).

All evidence suggests that Americans are one of the more peaceful nations on earth; given that we mostly don't respond at all to great provocations (basically, a non-stop terrorist war against us by Muslims around the world) since the murder of our diplomats in Khartoum, 1971, by Yasser Arafat.

Did not Pancho Villa invaded the U.S with arguably the worst army in the world? (What a deed!, it sounds good, isn't it?) I think Pershing and Patton had a really good day pursuing them back and forth from the border.

Moreover, Spain and Portugal have not been invaded since 1814, just like the U.S, if you don't take seriously my first paragraph.

OK, now let's get into the task:

An important condition to the development of a stable democracy seems to be isolation from foreign attacks. England got it from her Royal Navy; America from two Oceans, daring leaders and divine intervention in the 1812 war.

Therefore I don't think that not being bombed is a drawback, on the contrary, it is a condition necessary so a subtle an delicate way of government such as a democracy can be developed.

America is well ahead from Europe. They simply don't let their country to be attacked, they prefer instead to fight in foreign land, which is essential in mantaining and improving a democracy.

Still, it wasn't happening to america or americans. It happened to southerners. And a long time ago.

Ever heard of J.E.B. Stuart, or Lee's invasions of Maryland and Pennsylvania?

What Slater should have noticed is that, unlike Europe, we have no experience at submitting ourselves to totalist ideologies. Or experience at defeatism, spiritual exhaustion, existential nausea, self-pity, surrender and collaboration.

I think Jim brings up the most poignant point of the WW2 comparison. The US was firmly isolationist in its national character post WWI and into the early stages of WWII. Yeah we helped with materials, but it wasn't till we were outright attacked that we got involved in a significant matter. It would be interesting to discuss that if Japan had not decided to attack, at what point if any would the US have interfered?

If you think about it we were not the world superpower that we are today at the onset of WWII. The US was still dealing with the lasting effects of the depression. And while we had a good sized Naval force, our ground troops were not as seasoned or prepared as our European counterparts. Our mobile infantry was years behind in comparison to Germany and the UK, and even the Italians.

Mexico invaded the U.S. on April 25, 1846.

The U.S.-Mexican War 1846-1848

Unless, you are a Whig or a Mexican, in which case the U.S. invaded Mexico in January of 1846.

But, of course, winners write the history.

#14 from SPQR,

There were all kinds of investigations by various commissiions starting with the Roberts Comission trying to prove LIHOP or MIHOP (Let/Made It Happen On Purpose). They were always grasping at straws. Some times subtly some times blatant.

Politically, rebuking Japan for its stance on China was popular and at the same time going to war with Japan was not.

It was always Rosevelts intention to let Japan strike the first blow. He had no idea how weak the actual defensive measures taken were. The attack on the Philipines was expected the attack on Pearl not.

In any case there has been a cottage industry of serious proportions still trying to prove that Rosevelt was directly behind the Pearl Harbor attack.

#15 SPQR,

That in fact was exactly what happened. Read the Chicago Tribune of the day.

Rosevelt was blamed for not being prepared despite Republican avoidance of the rush to war. Sound familiar?

#16 from Daniel Markham,

I concede your point and raise you a Lincoln in 1864. Democrats this time.

#18 Mark,

You have my positiion down. Well put.

#23,

There was a de-facto war with Germany going on in the Atlantic from the summer of '41.

War with Japan was to be postponed or avoided for as long as possible. It was thought that we didn't have the resources for a two front war.

Politically, rebuking Japan for its stance on China was popular and at the same time going to war with Japan was not.

That sounds familiar, doesn't it? Lots of people upset about women's rights in arab countries and democracy in china etc, but they mostly just want to criticise and not actually start bombing.

It was always Rosevelts intention to let Japan strike the first blow. He had no idea how weak the actual defensive measures taken were. The attack on the Philipines was expected the attack on Pearl not.

That's the way I read it too. So, isn't the Pearl Harbor diapute arguing about the finicky details? Rooseveldt intended the japenese to attack the philippines and pull us into war. He didn't expect them to attack Pearl Harbor and pull us into war. How much difference is that?

Simon (#26)

I call. Either party should show their hand. Let's see who's got what.

M.Simon re: your #26,
There were complaints about preparedness for the beginning, but if the partisan complaints of WWII mimic'd the noise we are seeing today, there would literally have been several orders of magnitude more complaint about every decision made, every weapon program, every operation. The carping about pre-war preparedness from the Chicago Tribune really pales in comparison.

There were investigations of Pearl Harbor but the claims of LIHOP were really post war. The allegations of the time were of the character of negligence. If the parallel held up, there would have been articles of impeachment introduced for Pearl Harbor, the Phillipines, Guadalcanal, the Torch landings, Kasserine Pass, the Bulge, Japanese American expulsions, Patton, Adm. Darlan etc.

The Bataan death march ignored for coverage of each and every German POW killed on the back to the rear.

Every Frenchman killed in the D-Day preparatory bombing campaign would have a photograph in the NYT, and good lord, can you imagine the NYT of today dealing with Dresden?

Donald:

And, of course, the real irony associated with this comparison is that had Sherman not burned Atlanta the northern Copperheads (our US analog for the "give us a break" Europeans) would have prevailed in the election of 1864, allowing the North to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory and perpetuating slavery for at least a few more decades. What turned the tide in that election was the novel idea that the South was actually losing, which the press of the day, for some reason, tended to doubt.

Slater is even farther off than many of the commenters suggeest IMHO. Slater and other Huffpo types will get themselves all worked up about Gitmo and the like. If we were invaded (unlikely with all our nukes), we would really take the gloves off. Gitmo would be a country club compared to what we would do. It would be win at all costs. Think Dresden times 5.

Slater, being the crapweasel he is, doesn't seem to understand exactly how much care our soldiers exercise to not hurt civilians. He also forgets that Zarqawi et al aren't/weren't even Iraqis.

He also seems to have no clue that the number of insurgents is probably around 10 to 20 thousand out of a population of 26 million. Of course there are other sympathizers of the active insurgents, but a tiny percent of the whole population. He also doesn't understand that Iraqis are the biggest victims of insurgent violence. Is he suggesting they died because they invaded their own country? I could go on, but this is plenty. Slater is a simpleton, not worth much trouble.

All successful campaigns have had blunders (Pearl Harbor, Arnhem, Gallipoli, Bull Run, etc.). The Iraq campaign has had blunders. Therefore the Iraq campaign will be successful.

The conservatives are right, we don't teach math very well any more.

What is certain is that the ignorance of history demonstrated by the shrill critics of the Bush administration is nothing short of astounding.

By any rational comparison with historical military operations, the current war against terror has been an immense success, and the operations in Iraq conducted with an unprecedented level of concern for collateral damage, concern for civilians and favorable political outcome.

Europe's Gut Feeling Is That War Means "Humiliation At The Hands Of Evil"

Rising Up From Flanders Fields
Where you stand depends in part on where your soldiers lie.

By Father Raymond J. de Souza

National Review, May 1, 2003, 9:30 a.m.

"... Different moral lessons were learned on opposite sides of the Atlantic from the wars of the past century. It is not so much a question of this war but of war in general; not so much the morality of war but the moral of the war story.

North Americans learned from the First and Second World Wars that noble causes could be fought for nobly. ...

... That is not the common European experience. While Canadians visit Juno Beach at Normandy with pride and Americans visit Omaha and Utah Beach, there are no such places of unalloyed national pride associated with the Second World War for the French, the Germans, the Austrians, or the Italians.
George Weigel, the papal biographer, once asked his subject what he learned from the Second World War. Pope John Paul II answered instantly: " I learned the experience of my contemporaries: humiliation at the hands of evil."

The moral of the war story for so much of Europe is just that: humiliation and evil.

When a German thinks about World War II, he does not think about the "finest hour" but of national shame. A Frenchman does not think of triumph in a noble cause but of defeat and collaboration. Austrians bought their safety at the price of their honor; Italians needed, as it is wickedly observed, to "be liberated from their allies." The low countries were crushed; the Iberians and the Swiss declined to participate. Russia suffered terribly to win the war and then inflicted further suffering on her own people and throughout her empire during the peace.

The Holy See, too, felt the pain of humiliation, with the tiny Vatican City State surrounded. The Church felt compelled to moderate her voice to preserve the neutrality upon which her freedom depended. It was a defensible policy but there was no glory in it — there was only humiliation in the face of evil.

Indeed, with the exception of Poland — which fought bravely and lost — and Britain — which fought bravely and won — the moral of the war story for Europe was that, as John Paul is fond of saying, "nothing is solved by war." The subsequent Cold War only reinforced the view that war brings more evils in its wake and further underscored the impotence of free Europe to combat evil in its own neighborhood.

Americans used to talk about a "Vietnam Syndrome." Long before Vietnam, Europe was stricken with doubt that it was possible to fight well, to fight nobly and to win..."

Tom --

It was Suez that stopped Euros from doing anything other than committing slow-motion suicide. Because Suez proved they no longer mattered. Only the US and the USSR mattered.

It's why Euros hate America so much. We matter (and they just don't).

"And, of course, the real irony associated with this comparison is that had Sherman not burned Atlanta the northern Copperheads (our US analog for the "give us a break" Europeans) would have prevailed in the election of 1864"

Er.. i rather think it was the capture of Atlanta combined with a number of other timely advances (Shenandoah, Mobile Bay) that helped Lincoln win the election. Atlanta was occupied in September, but not burned until weeks later.

And more importantly Lincoln was reelected Nov 8, 1864. Sherman ordered Atlanta burned Nov 11.

Mark's right, but I would clarify that on September 1 & 2, Gen. Hood evacuated Atlanta, setting fire to everything he thought might be useful to the Union Army. After the November elections, Gen. Sherman evacuated Atlanta, setting fire to everything he thought might be useful to the Confederate Army.

War is Hell.

Jim Rockford #20:

If ANYTHING Americans are far too reluctant to use military force ANYWHERE in the world, at any time, even when it might save the lives of thousands of Americans, let alone millions of others.

I've said it elsewhere, and I'll say it again, here, because it bears repeating, particularly for readers not exposed to our culture: a huge part of the American approach to war indeed stems from a fierce pacifism.

On the whole, we are not imperialists. To assert that we are is akin to approaching a duck with a squirt gun and a menacing look. We don't understand the threat, as it makes so little sense to us.

We're perfectly willing set up shop in foreign lands, true - but only by buying it. We have assets all over the world, and as a result, we're acutely aware of our exposure. Strangely, to an extent, we feel a bit guilty about it. If a foreign entity decides it doesn't like us there anymore, we're as likely as not to decide we deserve to go, even if we'd paid for our presence. We'll yell and scream that we don't like it, but we still tend to leave. The line we draw between tolerating aggression and repaying it does exist, but it's on American soil, not foreign.

If said entity does finally manage to draw our ire, the sleeping giant awakens. And again, that giant is driven by intense pacifism. Part of the American mindset is that if you want peace badly enough, you'll fight enemies in such a way that they'll never, ever want to fight you again.

I am German and my observation is that Germans do of course NOT have a fresh memory of war. And what Germans know about war could not explain their militant pacifism which is on display every time the US does something and only then (no protesting against any other wars here!)

What everyone under the age of 70 remembers is half a century of peace, detente and the illusions that come with it. That is our formative experience. Meanwhile, the cold war was mostly fought by Americans, who must have a much better memory of war. Maybe not in their own country, but there are many veterans. There are hardly any German veterans under 80.

Of course people here will tell you that memory of the war is what motivates them. The reason is simple: it is convenient. If you can pretend that the experience somehow enlightened you, then you no longer have to feel ashamed for starting the war and killing millions. The former aggressor, by having suffered destruction, is now on a higher moral plane than the liberator. More mature than the liberator who did not start the war and still had to fight and die all across Europe to save it. Do you really want to buy that?

Jim (#38)

It's why Euros hate America so much. We matter (and they just don't).

True, but...

werner (#42)

The former aggressor, by having suffered destruction, is now on a higher moral plane than the liberator.

that's it. We feel in a higher moral plane carrying out a suicidal foreign policy.

Fighting wars in foreign lands instead in your country is a sign that the government works properly and a condition to develop the subtle and delicate way of government the democracy is. Of course wars are awful, but as long as they exist they should be fought as far as possible, keeping that awfulness away from your citizens, your society and your economic and political systems.

Re: #42 from werner ...

The reason I read the comments at Winds of Change is that from time to time somebody says something intelligent that I had never thought of and never would have thought of. It can be a new fact, or an argument other than the one everybody else is already making, or a simple insight. My understanding is improved thereby.

This was one of those posts. Thanks.