In the comments on my previous post, My Democrat friend, ER, had this to say:
"I think you take the backbiting and squabbling, which we have ALWAYS endured in our history, much too seriously The differences between some of us and others of us are genuine and cannot be glossed over.... The only few places this country is "desperate" is in these little computer things, and on cable TV. The rest of the land is going merrily on its way."
ER, I have to respectfully disagree with you here. I don't think I am taking this situation too seriously at all. I think the people of this country aren't taking it seriously enough.
And I don't mean to sound as if I'm glossing over our differences. Some of our differences are critical to the freedom of life liberty and property that we so enjoy, but nevertheless, are in jeopardy if certain lawmakers were to have their way.
But the present danger means some of these issues will have to take a back seat while we focus on the eminent threat to America. I know I am just your humble friend and uneducated blogger, but this is the way i see it.
There was an author on a radio program the other day that said there are already members of Al-Qaida in America and they are in possession of nuclear devices, as much as 70 of them, and they are poised to detonate them.
I don't necessarily believe that this assertion is true but it is an assertion that must be given some consideration. The existence of America is at stake.
We bring the entire beef producing industry to a virtual standstill because we find that one dead cow had mad cow disease, but we can't place any importance on the possibility that we are under eminent danger of a nuclear assault?
There are substantial differences in the war on terrorism and the war between the states besides the fact that this time nuclear and biological WMD's may be involved.
For one thing, our enemy is not uniformed men standing in ranks directly in front of us armed with single shot muzzle loaders.
They are small groups of insanely misguided religious zealots that are determined to completely remove western civilization from the face of the Earth. They are not fighting to preserve the union according to their own principles.
And, as I have stated, they may already have the technology to do that. Maybe not nuclear, but certainly technology more dangerous than musket balls. At any case is bears closer examination.
This is a threat that will not go away if we keep our heads buried in the sand long enough.
This is what I mean when I say we must unite in our efforts to neutralize this threat expediently.
I am not going to insult anyone's intelligence by suggesting that some people have forgotten what happened on September 11th, 2001. That horror will be forever imprinted on our memories. I only mean to point out that there is a very real threat to our security here. And when I say security, I mean people, not just our Nation.
Yes, ER, we are going merrily on our way, under the watchful eyes of our ever vigilant government. NOT! More likely under the watchful eyes of the enemy who sits patiently waiting for the opportunity to unleash Holy Jihad directly in our living rooms.
I say again, we must unite. Lets stop complaining about having to wait a few minutes while we are being scrutinized at airports, train and bus stations, and in the entrance to government buildings. Lets insist that the right people get searched and the hell with accusations of profiling. Profiling is exactly what we need to do, except we need to take it further. Don't just profile 18-24 year old middle eastern males, but profile anyone that looks like they could be some kind of threat.
Oh yes, I know there are many that will scream discrimination or that we are violating their right to privacy or their civil rights.
But we need to remember. There are other rights that need to be protected as well.
We should voluntarily give up some rights to protect the more important rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Temporarily. And before anyone overreacts to this statement, let me state, for the record, that I am as much in favor of our rights to privacy as anyone. But we need to get real. The only way we can prevent a holocaust is to quit fighting amongst each other.
ER, you said, "Divided we fall? No.
Divided we fight. And sometimes we NEED to fight among ourselves. Maybe this is one of those times"
Not this time. This time we are not fighting against division. We are fighting against destruction. There is a big difference.
United we stand.
Lie Of The Day
"[The Republicans] turned our bridge to the 21st century into a tunnel back to the 19th century," claimed Hillary Clinton, in Ohio.
THE TRUTH:
That's funny. Republicans keep winning elections! Note to Dems: when in a hole (or tunnel), stop digging!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
21 comments:
It amazes me how some people don't think we are in a "real war" since there are no visibly uniformed soldiers invading our shores. And to call Iraq "Bush's War", not seeing the significance of removing Saddam and planting the seeds of Democracy in the Middle East, an investment gamble for our longterm survival. If we fail in Iraq...if we fail in Afghanistan...if we fail to protect our homeland, much of the blame is due to our own lack of resolve and divisiveness.
I reject the notion that we've created more terrorists. Sit on our collective asses like we did through the 90's and stick our heads in the sands, we may lose less lives in the short run, but in the long term, we'd invite more 9/11's, and with nuclear devices in the hands of terrorists, on a much greater and grander scale. Preventing that is why 1700 dead American soldiers, as tragic as that is, is nowhere near the kind of losses we would potentially suffer by not taking an aggressive response to terrorism. But it in perspective to a single day at Normandy or Iwo Jima. As Victor Davis Hanson points out, so far our soldier losses are .6% of our military dead in WWII. Meanwhile, thousands of terrorists have been killed or captured.
Michelle Malkin, by the way, makes a great case for racial profiling.
We agree that there is a threat.
We disagree that a reasonable response is that everyne should sit down and shut up and do what they're told (Jane Fonda excepted).
I think this nation is string enough for us to bicker amongst ourselves, as usual, AND deal with the threat.
--ER
On a bigger scale, I am troubled by the fact that the free countries of the world are not standing together in solid defiance against global terrorism as much as they should.
On another hand, the "war on terrorism" is a total misnomer, isn't it? It's just crime, on a grand scale, with a political bent. More like a global KKK than a "war." That's one reason nobody can agree on how to handle it! Keep calling it a "war" and the confusion will continue. We need a new word for what this is.
"War is the continuation of Politics by other means" - Clauswitz
”Politics is the continuation of War by other means” - Pero
--------
The political bickering is a far superior way of deciding policy than going to battle against each other.....
That said, I find it humorous how the Left insists on being able to say anything it wishes......But they rarely reciprocate such.
Well, let's see. people are fighting with guns and bombs and fighter jets and helicopters. One side has forces shooting at the other side. Both sides are inflicting and taking heavy casualties.
Even here in the USA, gangs who fight each other en masse in the streets are referred to as having a "gang war".
No, no matter how you phrase it, it's still war. Is it possibnle that sometimes one can become too "hung up" on the wording of something?
In London, News anchors are being careful not to say the offensive word, "terrorist" preferring to use the less offensive word, "bombers".
I'm sorry, but a terrorist is a terrorist, a war is a war, and a rose is a rose.
ER, Once again I must disagree. you say,
"We disagree that a reasonable response is that everyne should sit down and shut up and do what they're told (Jane Fonda excepted).
I think this nation is string enough for us to bicker amongst ourselves, as usual, AND deal with the threat"
I didn't say anyone should shut up. Reasonable debate is fundamental to working through our differences. I said Reasonable.
As far as your other point that we are strong enough to bicker among ourselves AND deal with the threat, I would certainly hope that is true, however, if we can manage to focus on the eminent threat and put the other issues on the back burner for a little while, don't you think we could end the threat that much sooner?
I agree with Mark. Respectful disagreement is one thing; but what I see happening are leaders in the Senate engaging in irresponsible language when you have Reid and Kennedy calling the President a liar; Durbin making frontpage, top of the news in Al Jazeera for a couple of weeks with wild accusations; we have 60 Minutes week after week last year running anti-war, anti-military, and/or anti-Bush segments; all of this gives aid and comfort to those who wish to kill us. They hate our freedom, the way we treat women, our liberal attitudes toward homosexuality, et cetera et cetera. It's not about Iraq; it's not about Afghanistan; it's not about Israel; it's not about troops in Arabia and their oil; it's not even about the Crusades anymore. These killers will use any of it as excuses and justification to do what they do which is killing in the name of Allah.
Re, "Even here in the USA, gangs who fight each other en masse in the streets are referred to as having a 'gang war'."
YES, well, they are fighting over turf, which is really necessary for a "war."
Re, "No, no matter how you phrase it, it's still war. Is it possibnle that sometimes one can become too "hung up" on the wording of something?"
No. NEVER is the discussion of language, words and their meanings something about which we can get "hung up."
So, alas, again, we disagree.
Well, ER, I guess that it all depends on what your definition of "is" is.
I think that the meaning of words absolutley IS something that we can get bogged down in, and this is a very effective tactic used by the left lately to sidetrack the discussion and muddy the water when they begin to lose the ability to logically support their arguments.
The man from Hope's insistance to treat terrorism as a crime problem instead of dealing with terrorism as a series of acts of war is the very reason that this problem has gotten as serious as it is now. Clinton could have had Bin Laden in prison multiple times, except that he didn't want to imprison him, no matter how evil he was, unless he could think of some crime to charge Bin Laden with.
The problem with treating terrorism in it's current form as a "crime" problem is that it is reactionary, instead of pro-active.
Crimes are prosecuted after the victims are already dead. Wars are fought (to the best of our abilities) in order to prevent the enemy inflicting casualties.
To quote Donald Rumsfeld,"I don't want to see a smoking gun from a weapon of mass destruction..."
ER, "So, alas, again, we disagree"
I guess, but i still like ya, buddy.
I believe the terrorists don't consider what they are doing to be "crimes."
They declared war on us.
From bin Laden's fatwa Urging Jihad Against Americans
Published in Al-Quds al-'Arabi on Febuary 23, 1998
...[I]n compliance with God's order, we issue the following fatwa to all Muslims
The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies--civilians and military--is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty God, "and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together," and "fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God."
That's war.
Then, if this is war, tell me how we know we've won.
We won't ever know. No eventual victory. No clear defeat. No surrenders. No peace treaty.
It's "war," then, like no other we've ever fought -- and if so, then we need some more words, and rules and thresholds to understand it.
Otherwise, it just goes on and on and on for ever. Like crime.
Korea was a "conflict"
VietNam was a "police action"
This is now a "crime"
OK. I'll accept that. So now that we have the wording (I can't think of the word for that) right, lets do as I suggested, and what the post was originally about. Put aside differences and focus on the problem and possible solutions.
It's "war," then, like no other we've ever fought --
Which is what President Bush had stated. This is a war like no other we've fought before, where the enemy are non-uniformed combatants. Terrorists and those states who sponsor and harbor terrorists are on our radar. We are hampered in this war of intolerance toward terrorism by a world community who still slumbers, despite the fact that al-Qaeda alone since 1998 in have made attacks in 16 countries. Things always get worse before they get better. Better to deal with things head-on, now, rather than let things escalate at a slower rate over the decades. A lot of people may be dying today; but if this war wasn't engaged like it is now, I think a hundred times more lives would be lost over the long haul, while terrorist cells grow and breed in secrecy at leisure; and without us breathing down their necks. I think there's a big picture to be looked at.
OK. Step 1. Define the finish line. How do we know we've won?
If "permanent war" is our position, then either anarchy or tyranny is inevitable, I think.
What is the end? If it's eradication, fine. Let's have some legislators with the guts to put some bills in the hopper to suspend certain constitutional guarantees, and get the hell after it.
Do it decently and in order -- 'cause that's we need to do to maintain the veneer of civilization. Let the civil libertarians scream and holler, as they should.
Congress passes a constitutional amendment or two. Then go to the states. Do it right.
Then, let's start knocking down mosques. Let's start making those we suspect -- those to whom the constitutional amendments were aimed at -- prove their loyalty. If they fail, out they go -- or to Gitmo they go.
I'm serious. What do you say? But we HAVE to do it following the constitution, especially when changing the constitution.
If it's war, and it's on our own soil, then let's do this thing right.
But quit monkeying around with my rights, and others'. Take them away, using the mechanisms in place. But don't pretend they're not there.
And if we CAN'T, through Congress and the state legislatures, muster the courage it would take to collectively set aside some of our freedoms for the safe of our own safety, then, well, this is a challenge that this experiment in democracy simply can't cope with.
Game over. Start over.
ER, Now that I agree with
Man, I HATE when that happens! ;-)
Here. I can fix it:
Chuck Schumer should file it and call it the "Republicans Put Up or Shut Up Act."
ER, I would absolutley support that idea.
You might be surprised at how fast this conflict would turn around with just one unmistakable, undeniable display of American power.
The Arab culture sees appeasement and the desire for negotiation as weakness. The way to finish this is to grow a backbone and start kicking ass. (Pardone moi Francais...)
As long as we insist on squabbling among ourselves as to whether we should do anything about this or not, then we will never win it.
We're already here, we might as well handle bid'ness...
Bridges and tunnels?
How about dumbwaiters(Dr. Dean's comments) and well pulleys?(as opposed to, as Mr. O'Reilly said on the Factor 7/27, "pie in the sky.")
Have democrats been logging in hours in labs a la Governer Reagan at Livermore in the 60s?
Have they been collaborating with scientists and engineers for increased future energy independence, or is Senator Clinton a "pie in the sky" economic conservative and social liberal?
I heard someone on C-SPAN a few weeks ago say that some kind of rift between economic conservativism and social conservatism in the Republican party may be the reason the democratic nominee wins in 2008.
Do the Democrats have such a rift in the same person?
Jonathan King
New Rochelle, New York
Post a Comment