This is very fine work, Ben. Lots of goog reading to get caught up on and this is a critical debate. I am grateful that Newt has sparked it and others are discussing it. The one mistake that I see being consistently made in this discussion is the false premise that thr Founders created three separate, but equal branches of government. This myth has been self-servingly perpetuated by law schools and the political class because elevating the judiciary to equal status with the legislative branch allows the elites to bypass the people and the legislative process. Article III of the Consitution makes it very clear that Congress is dominant over the judicial branch rather than being equal to it.

This is why I proudly own a James Lileks Giant Foam Finger(tm).  It's not something that is Left specific. The comments over at NRO are pretty cringeworthy (it's a perfectly cromulent word) at times.

A staple of online discourse is the attitude that states, "I'm right. You disagree. Therefore, you're evil and/or stupid."

I've seen some of that here, but very little. I have also observed the same mellowing of some of the more strident people here that James of England describes. Peer pressure does have its benefits.

Cuba being the classic example. This was the first time I saw it done with North Korea.

Appears to be tottering? My first clue would have been the history of massive famine, but I'm not particularly smart. Did I miss something? 

Punishment in not a proper role for police. That's for people farther up the justice system to decide such as judges and juries.

Police in the United States are trained to use deadly force to protect themselves and others from death or serious bodily harm.  In your arson example, deadly force could very well be justified.

Police use of deadly force to protect property is going generally be considered unreasonable. The biggest mistake that I see cities making here in the United States when it comes to these sort of situations is not using lawful and reasonable overwhelming force early in a riot situation. That overwhelming force does not need to be deadly force considering all of the less-than-lethal options that are available these days, but it does need to happen quickly to preserve life and property.

A primary difference between police and military special operations teams, for example, is that the goal of police tactical units is the preservation of life including the lives of the people they seek to arrest. That's not necessarily the goal of a military unit whose specific objective could very well be taking of life in furtherance of the larger military mission.

I've had the same thought. You'd want one that is politically stable enough for a long term commitment, but whose people wouldn't be vexed by having a larger American military command in their country. South Africa is the only one that could potentially work some day down the road, but that's a country with quite a few problems still so I could see why it would be non-starter currently.

At least with Germany, you don't have the timezone issues like you would if you put it in the eastern side of the United States I suppose you could put it in Italy which puts you on the other side of the Mediterranean from North Africa.

Maybe if Zimbabwe becomes free someday...

Conservatives aren't getting anyone particularly conservative this time around. While both Gingrich and Romney have admirable qualities and will make for a marked improvement over Obama, I wouldn't describe either one as particularly conservative. 

Romney is probably the best man left standing given that he has a proven track record of being an effective executive and is much less likely to blow up his own campaign/administration in a spectacular manner compared to Gingrich.  However, I suspect the most radical thing we'll get out of him is decreasing the growth of the government rather than reversing it.

He strikes me as a classic Republican "Run The Welfare State Better Than the Democrats" type of candidate.

They're both part of the political establishment. Romney is the Next Guy In Line(tm) who the Republicans traditionally like to nominate. Gingrich might have rubbed a lot of people in the DC establishment and conservative media the wrong way, but he's about as establishment as it gets given his career in politics and his lobbying after he got out.

Ron Paul certainly isn't part of the Republican establishment, but given how long he's been in office and how he uses pork spending to retain his position, he's not exactly Cincinnatus either.

It's already in the hands of the establishment. Gingrich and Romney are as about as establishment as it gets.

Iowa does matter. Its traditional role is to provide candidates with a cheap media market that thins the herd down to a manageable amount of candidates before the other states ultimately make the decision.

Iowa won't matter for Paul because he's not getting the nomination. He's running as an orthodox libertarian in a party that isn't a libertarian party. That's not to say that he can't influence the race. He's got a passionate base of people who love to give him money so he can help decide whether it's Gingrich or Romney who ultimately gets the nomination.

Ron Paul could very well win Iowa, but it no more assures him of the nomination than it did for Mick Huckabee who won it the last time around. The only way Ron Paul wins the nomination is if the GOP has secretly transformed itself into a larger version of the Libertarian Party.

Ron Paul is doing well because he has a portable and enthusiastic base of libertarian support and he's passionate at a time when people are sick of squishy politicians. He also has the benefit of being "other" with a GOP primary voter base that is stuck with an awful choice between Gingrich and Romney. 

I've said it before and I'll say it again because I still do not understand, but I'm amazed at how weak the GOP primary field was this time around at a time when the GOP has a tremendous advantage. It really is the stupid party. How on earth could the remaining viable choices be the three fundamentally flawed candidates of Paul, Gingrich, and Romney?

Michael,

Welcome to Ricochet. My question is very simple. Now that it's all over for the United States, do you think our involvement there was worth the price we paid?

I gave up on the debate about half way through after suffering from Ron Paul fatigue and recognizing that I've heard what these folks have to say many times over in these debates.  From the portion of the debate that I watched, they all looked pretty good other than Gingrich trying to defend himself on the Freddie Mac and Paul on foreign policy (of course) and his hypocrisy on his own pork earmarks for his district. Paul and Gingrich looked fine beyond those issues.

I expect that Romney, Gingrich, and Paul will have decent results from the Iowa caucuses and that Paul will drop off pretty quickly once the primary states start voting and we'll see whether it's Romney or Gingrich in the end.

I'm sorry to hear that your friend died, Peter and Rob. He struck me as man of good humor and sharp intellect and I always looked forward to reading what he had to say about the events of the day even if I didn't agree with his atheism.