"Never give a sucker an even break" ~ W. C. Fields
I just read an excerpt from Jim Webb's official Democratic response to President Bush's State of the Union speech on Marie's blog.
This paragraph jumped out at me:
"Not one step back from the war against international terrorism. Not a precipitous withdrawal that ignores the possibility of further chaos, but an immediate shift toward strong regionally based diplomacy, a policy that takes our soldiers off the streets of Iraq's cities and a formula that will in short order allow our combat forces to leave Iraq."
Well, at least he admits that it isn't a good idea to just cut and run.
But a "strong regionally based diplomacy"?
Is he mad? Are the Democrats mad? (by mad, I mean crazy) Have the Democrats lost all semblance of common sense?
How many times must the terrorists Muslim jihadists demonstrate that they cannot be negotiated with before that point is made? Does L.A. or New York or Washington DC have to disappear under a mushroom cloud for them to get the message?
You cannot talk these animals into stopping the killing.
In my little twisted brain, the following scenario is played out:
A group of Democratic lawmakers enter into a negotiation session with the leaders of al Queda, and after some intense discussion where both sides agree to give up some sanctions and tactics against each other, the Democrats rise from the table, shake hands with the terrorists, and turn their backs to leave, smiling in their satisfaction over a successful negotiation that will at last end the aggression in Iraq.
Before they can get out the door, however, the al Queda representatives suddenly fall on their guests and cut their heads off, videotaping the entire murder. Then, they turn and smile at the camera, and say, "Praise be it ever to Allah, the jihad is just beginning, and Allah has delivered the enemy into our hands. Furthermore, everything we have agreed to was a lie."
I challenge the Democrats to prove this scenario is not accurate. I suggest you send Teddy and San Fran Nan to begin with. And throw in Al Gore and Jimmy Carter just because they are the most annoying.
Diplomacy? Please. Give me a break.
UPDATE: Google has forced me to switch to the "new Blogger". I see little difference between this and the old blogger, except that I have had to remove comment moderation. Previously, comments have been re-directed to my e-mail address for me to make the decision to publish or reject before they get posted and, now when I hit "publish" I get an error message telling me the website I am trying to access does not exist. Therefore, I can no longer moderate comments until I can figure out how to contact Blogger to resolve this situation. In my opinion, Blogger has not become simpler, but more complicated. This is progress?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
37 comments:
The Dems have a pathological affinity for "diplomacy". If they were in office when Pearl Harbor was attacked they'd be looking for a regional diplomatic solution to the Japanese attack.
They are incredibly blind when it comes to diplomacy - they can't understand that Syria & Iran are not looking for stability in Iraq. They would be seeking diplomatic solutions while an Iranian nuclear-armed missle was headed toward Tel Aviv.
There is never a point when the Dems will say "enough of this diplomacy - bomb them".
They are pathetic.
So you agree with Stalin?
“Sincere diplomacy is no more possible than dry water or wooden iron.” ~Josef Stalin
I’m more of a Sun Tzu man - at least on this point:
The supreme excellence is not to win a hundred victories in a hundred battles. The supreme excellence is to subdue the armies of your enemies without even having to fight them.
~ Sun Tzu
Or maybe Paine:
An army of principles can penetrate where an army of soldiers cannot. ~Thomas Paine
Or Churchill:
The statesman who yields to war fever...is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events. ~Winston Churchill
Or even Asimov:
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. ~Isaac Asimov
And certainly the Bible:
Overcome evil with good. ~Paul
What it comes down to is that many appear to realize that one need not be dealing with one who wants peace. Merely one who is able to recognize their own interests. Peacemaking and diplomacy is just the art of making those who’d like to do violence realize it is not in their best interests to do so.
And one can do this, even with a madman – although it’s trickier.
Francis Lynn has left a new comment on your post "When Will The Democrats Learn?":
The Dems have a pathological affinity for "diplomacy". If they were in office when Pearl Harbor was attacked they'd be looking for a regional diplomatic solution to the Japanese attack.
They are incredibly blind when it comes to diplomacy - they can't understand that Syria & Iran are not looking for stability in Iraq. They would be seeking diplomatic solutions while an Iranian nuclear-armed missle was headed toward Tel Aviv.
There is never a point when the Dems will say "enough of this diplomacy - bomb them".
They are pathetic.
Ok. Sorry folks. there were some comments that went to my e-mail address for comment moderation but Blogger wouldn't let me publish them without switching over to a Google account. So, when I did that, blogger just erased the comments already made so I am copying and pasting each comment that I thought I had allowed so they will appear but they will appear under my name. sorry folks, don't blame me, blame Google.
Apparently, Google is dictatorship. I cannot continue to do my blog the way I want to.
Dan Trabue has left a new comment on your post "When Will The Democrats Learn?":
So you agree with Stalin?
“Sincere diplomacy is no more possible than dry water or wooden iron.” ~Josef Stalin
I’m more of a Sun Tzu man - at least on this point:
The supreme excellence is not to win a hundred victories in a hundred battles. The supreme excellence is to subdue the armies of your enemies without even having to fight them.
~ Sun Tzu
Or maybe Paine:
An army of principles can penetrate where an army of soldiers cannot. ~Thomas Paine
Or Churchill:
The statesman who yields to war fever...is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events. ~Winston Churchill
Or even Asimov:
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. ~Isaac Asimov
And certainly the Bible:
Overcome evil with good. ~Paul
What it comes down to is that many appear to realize that one need not be dealing with one who wants peace. Merely one who is able to recognize their own interests. Peacemaking and diplomacy is just the art of making those who’d like to do violence realize it is not in their best interests to do so.
And one can do this, even with a madman – although it’s trickier.
No, Dan, I don't agree with Stalin. There is one huge difference between the current struggle we are engaged in and the ones that Stalin et al were referring to:
We are not fighting against countries or armies. We are fighting civilian murderers who do not negotiate. Period.
Whatever Stalin and all the others you quoted said does not apply in this case. This is an entirely different kind of enemy.
Perhaps that's what the Democrats are having trouble understanding.
Perhaps we can compromise and talk with the Iranians, reach common ground, and achieve a consensus that allows them to exterminate only 2/3rds of the world's Jewish population instead of all of it. /s
You're absolutely correct mark. Negotiating with Hitlers is a recipe for disaster. You can give a Gorbachev diplomacy, but giving a Hirohito diplomacy is just screaming to get yourself Pearl Harbored.
dan--
Politics is not therapy. When people are trying to subjugate and/or exterminate you, trying to help them find the "real me" is not only a colossal waste of time, it puts millions of lives in danger.
I don't agree with Stalin, but unlike you, I recognize that there are Stalins in the world. Posting that quote refutes your entire philosophy. People who think diplomacy is a sham use it to dupe people like you. In today's world, diplomacy with Jintao or Putin may be unpleasant, but it is necessary. Diplomacy with an Assad or an Ahmadinejad or a Chavez is simply putting a big KICK ME sticker on your back.
No one is advocating that America should be like a ruthless Stalin. But we shouldn't want the George McFly Jimmy Carter foreign policy either.
Fellas, you can side with folk like Stalin who refuse to believe that diplomacy can work if you want.
I'm just saying, "No thank you," for myself. And thankfully, the majority of my beloved country agrees with me.
We in the US believe that diplomacy works if we make it work. We can overcome evil with good. We believe that violence should be truly a last option and that deadly violence against innocent people (as in the Twin Towers or Hiroshima) is not an option.
You don't like it, take it up with the Great American Public.
Mark, you are right when you say:
"We are not fighting against countries or armies. We are fighting civilian murderers who do not negotiate."
And what do we do when we're dealing with civilian murderers? We treat them like the criminals they are and arrest and prosecute them. I'm fine with that and the US citizenry has been anxious for our leaders to do just that.
But instead, we've waged wars against nations - even as you admit that we're not at war with nations.
The Democrats have hopefully learned that Bush's way just can't possibly work. We must use better ways - diplomacy, just peacemaking, good police work, overcoming evil with good, that kind of thing.
Don't kid yourself, Dan. The Democrats have learned nothing. Not long ago, four Christians went to Iraq to negotiate and try to convince the enemy that "we Americans" want peace and brotherhood with them. One, a guy named Fox, was beaten and murdered for his troubles. Good plan. Worked out well. These were guys that think as you do. Sounds nice. I wish it would work. It doesn't. Get your head from your hindquarters and realize who we're dealing with. You can risk your family's lives if you wish. I'd rather that mine never have to deal with the likes of Islamic terrorists or anyone like them. All talking with the enemy is useless. We must talk with those who wish to negotiate or with those who've been liberated from the control of those madmen. But with the madmen you don't negotiate, you dictate terms of surrender.
BTW, we've discussed the benefits of population discomfort in winning wars in an earlier post. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were ultimate examples of that. This strategy was leveled against a people that, hey, get this, were in almost complete support of their emperor. We stopped the war because we had the bigger guns and we kicked their asses with extreme predjudice. The negotiations took place on a ship where we dictated surrender terms. Then, we imposed a government upon them and by golly, they are now our friends and have benefitted by our doing what we did.
So, you're saying terrorism works if you just do it on a grand enough scale? Let's hope bin Laden and his buds don't heed your words...
why even discuss this? We need a leader that will just nuke them and be done, and if you think that won't send a message about who is the bigger bully here then I ask you to recall the 80's nut Momar Kadaffi we blasted his butt and he quietly disappeared like the coward he was. Lord where have all the real men gone? Certainly not into Politics.
Jason I like your theory and your pictures are great too :)
Ha, Dan! I don't need Osama to hear my words...he has the New York Times to tell him what cowards our people are.
Everytime the Dems and Liberals start talking fairness or negotiation or cutting and running he gets more bold. It is not the Presidents fault they still attack us, it is the perception of weakness he gets from the good ol' American media
To stand opposed to terrorism is not cowardice, Mark. And those who call for nuking cities like Marshall and brave Sir Anonymous are cowardly advocating terrorism just as much as those who support bin Laden.
Let's join together in a united front with the majority of Americans who gladly stand opposed to terrorism and who say, "NO. We will not resort to terrorism to accomplish our goals."
Dan, when the New York Times reports to the terrorists everything we are doing to stop their attacks on America, when they continually undermine the Commander in Chief, when they and their friends stir up dissension and pretend that they think negotiation will work with these animals, they are not standing against terrorism in any guise. They are wholeheartedly supporting terrorism.
And so is anyone who wants to cut and run.
So, is that a Yes, you will join with me in opposing our use of terrorism, or a No?
I don't see you opposing terrorism, Dan, except for what you call terrorism from our side.
I do see you supporting appeasement and surrender to the Islamic Fascists.
Do you understand that we can't oppose that which we embrace ourselves?
So, will you join with we, the people, in opposing our use of terrorism? Why are you reluctant to answer this straightforward question?
And if you see me supporting appeasement and surrender, feel free to show me where I said that and I'll apologize and correct the wrong. Or, if you can't show me where I've indicated that, perhaps an apology is in order from you?
Diplomacy is not the same as appeasement.
Hi Mark! I like your new picture. :) New to me, anyhow. Sorry for not being around for such a long time.
You asked three questions on this post and I can answer them easily, although I suspect you already know the answers: "Is he mad?" YES! Are the Democrats mad? (by mad, I mean crazy?" YES! "Have the Democrats lost all semblance of common sense?" NO! You cannot lose what you never had.
Regarding Beta Blogger, I haven't been forced to switch over yet, and won't until I have to, although I created a trial blog in Beta just to see how it works. It does away with the need for using HTML, but I like using HTML! I don't think I'm going to like the change, but oh well.
Gayle, thanks. What is HTML?
Will no one join me in saying, "No! We are Americans! We shall NOT use nor endorse terroristic means to accomplish our ends"?
sigh...
Dan it's Ms. Anonymous, and it appears that you - like the cheese are standing alone.
So, will you join with we, the people, in opposing our use of terrorism?
I'm sorry, Dan...I must have skimmed over something. How are we employing terrorism, ourselves, exactly?
It's not that I want to pick on Dan but you can't negotiate with crazy people. This is war no matter what Washington calls it we are engaged in War, the time for nice talking is over. Our troops are there and its time to show our Aces get the job done and bring our Troops home.
dan--
Diplomacy with people who are working to destroy you is always appeasement. Did the Munich agreement give us peace in our time, as Neville Chamberlain promised? No, it gave us 50 million dead. That is the logical consequence of the peace movement. By opposing a little pain now, peaceniks create a lot of pain down the road.
Note that the use of force is not the use of terror. And what exists today is not a struggle against terrorism per se, but a struggle against Revolutionary Islam-- a sick ideology that combines elements of Marxism, National Socialism, and the Muslim religion. We should use all means at our disposal, including violence, to ensure the future of civilization remains in the hands of liberal democrats (i.e. fans of liberal democracy, not the socialist goons in the United States), not in the hands of totalitarian forces.
In the days of Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson, this was not controversial. But the Democratic Party has been throughly McGovernized since then-- they hate the West and everything it stands for-- why else would they be too ashamed to defend it?
WS asked:
"I'm sorry, Dan...I must have skimmed over something. How are we employing terrorism, ourselves, exactly?"
Anonymous said:
"We need a leader that will just nuke them and be done"
Marshall Art said:
"we've discussed the benefits of population discomfort in winning wars in an earlier post. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were ultimate examples of that."
Jason said:
"We should use all means at our disposal, including violence, to ensure the future of civilization..."
(Sounding like he's totally willing to use violence against innocent people, but maybe not.)
This is why I'm asking. The majority of the US - and not just the Dem part - much to Jason's dismay, is opposed to targeting civilians. To taking actions that we know will kill civilians.
Why? Because the majority of the US is opposed to terrorism and stand prepared to fight it - BUT not using the terrorists' own methods. That's why we're better than them.
To the degree that we're unwilling to embrace terrroristic methods.
And so, I was just checking to see if the folk here (whose positions I'm not totally clear of) would agree to this simple statement:
We, as Americans, will not embrace terroristic methods in our fight against terrorism.
As of yet, I've got no one here to sign on. I know that Jason likes to think that it is the willingness to use diplomacy that gives the enemy strength - and he's free to think so if he wants - but many of us think the willingness to try to become like the terrorists is a sure sign of our un-doing.
Given the mood of the US right now, I think this is the majority opinion.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0331-05.htm
Regardless, I think it is the correct opinion.
dan--
We are better than the Revolutionary Islamists because we don't stone women, we don't hang homosexuals, we believe in material prosperity, a free press, the separation and church and state, self-government, free-enterprise, man-made law, and other "Jew" things the revolutionaries hate.
Americans in both parties do not want to become like the Revolutionary Islamists, and there is no risk of us imposing sharia law on ourselves in the near future.
If you admit that Western civilization is good, then you will admit that good has the right to resist evil-- not in word, but in deed. As a general rule the United States does not deliberately target civilians -- if our business was merely to exterminate Iraqis, we have the means to do so and would have done so already.
Instead, we are in the business of what Bush says we are in the business of doing-- regime change, from totalitarianism to democracy.
What troubles you, I believe, is this. There will always be evil people in the world that cannot be placated with nice words. Violence will tragically be required to be used to stop them, and this will result in the deaths of innocent people. I don't like this either. But we need to live up to our responsibilities to those who came before us, and those unborn citizens of the world who will live after us.
Dan, No one here is advocating targeting civilians, at least not targeting friendly civilians. I make that distinction because, unfortunately, our enemies are civilians.
But even if were were engaged in a war against an army or a country, there will always be collateral damage and accidental killing of friendly civilians. It is the nature of war. Killing is part of war.
Usually, the victory in war goes to the side that kills more people. It is an unfortunate fact, but a fact nonetheless.
You are a Christian, Dan. Do you think God is a terrorist? The Old testement is replete with accounts of wars when God told his Generals to eradicate the enemy, including women and children, and in some cases, He even killed off entire towns by His own hand? Is God a Terrorist, Dan? Or do you suppose He just understands the necessity of killing innocents when it serves the greater purpose?
But, to answer your question, Yes I will stand with you in opposition to terrorism. This war is America's effort to eradicate terrorism and make the world safe for the innocents.
We are not killing for the sake of killing, but for the sake of freedom and liberty.
I really don't know why you don't understand that.
I'm dragging my feet on switching to the new blogger because I've heard nothing but complaints about it.
As for the Democrats, I'm not sure a lot of them had common sense to start with.
Thats what I don't get, they have no plan but to "engage them more". Yah, history has proven that it works to talk to evil people bent on killing you. Absurd!!
I see you have another Trabue infection. Talk about a person blinded by the reality of history when it comes to negotiating with evil aggressors.
Mark: You may have seen this from last year:
http://mikesamerica.blogspot.com/2006/03/iranian-negotiator-boasts-of-fooling.html
""THE man who for two years led Iran's nuclear negotiations has laid out in unprecedented detail how the regime took advantage of talks with Britain, France and Germany to forge ahead with its secret atomic program.
Iran is taking a page right out of Mein Kampf and Hitler's Germany. Act aggressively and talk peace.
The Trabues of this world will wet themselves in appreciation for the fine words of deceitful Iranians. Those on the receiving end will end their lives in horror by the millions.
At every step down this path Iran has upped the ante until now it threatens a nuclear holocaust. We could have strangled this monster in it's crib were it not for the Trabues who handcuff any united and effective action.
If we learned anything from history in the 1930's it would be that an evil aggressor will use any and all means to achieve his aggressive purposes.
And unless the democracies are willing to willing to implement a program of "peace through strength" they will all pay an enormous price later on.
"Yes I will stand with you in opposition to terrorism."
Thank you, Mark. I hope you will understand that targeting civilians in order to "get" the bad guys is part of what the majority is opposed to as un-American.
Looking great and psstttttttt it's nice not having to submitfor your approval it make the comments livley.
You changed it, Dan. Your original question was:
"So, will you join with we, the people, in opposing our use of terrorism?"
Mark agreed that he opposes terrorism. He didn't say anything about our use of it, though he does oppose targeting civilians. I agree wholeheartedly. I would go out on a limb and suggest that use of the word "terrorism" is generally meant by the right to mean attacks on civilian targets. Thus, to say that because civilians die in an attack by us means we're terrorists is a very sick and twisted bit of moral relativism.
You also misrepresented my post by suggesting that I was advocating nuclear attacks on civilians. I was not. I was merely reminding you of a recent discussion wherein Gen. Sherman was brought up. His opinion of war being hell was due to his understanding of what it takes to win wars, which has generally meant inflicting enough suffering upon a population that they beg for it to end and are willing to surrender unconditionally. It was said of him that the thought of what he felt was required did not sit well with him and this illustrates a major difference between the right, which seems ready to do what it takes to deal with tough situations, and the left, who prefer to avoid discomfort while telling themselves everything will be just fine. The latter attitude gets more people killed. The nukes on Japan were said to have prevented far more deaths than continuing with conventional warfare would have. If indeed everyone in this country was fed up with the war in the manner the left says we are, our involvement would end. I'm glad it's not the case and there are enough who see the reality of the situation.
I also want to reiterate another point about the employment of "terrorist" tactics. Intent plays a large role in defining terrorism. Whatever tactics we choose to use, it is never our intentions to harm civilians for the sake of harming civilians. It's the old "ends justifying the means" question and I believe when the end is to preserve the lives of fellow Americans, there is no possibility that should be off the table. It's not as if we are attempting to rule the world here. We're trying to prevent others from that course. I can't believe, and I have little respect for, those who say we shouldn't use certain tactics, that they would feel the same were the lives of their mothers or daughters at risk. I've seen a beheading on video. It's sickening. I would do that if my daughter's life hung in the balance and I would do it without a second thought. At the same time, no threat could force me to do it for any other reason. If you don't see the difference between savagery to protect innocent lives, versus the same for profit or power, counseling is strongly advised. Intent is everything and for a Christian, it shouldn't be news that God judges the heart. He knows the difference.
"Intent plays a large role in defining terrorism."
So, if we don't intend to hurt any civilians when we drop a nuke on their cities, we're good to go? Praise the lord and pass the nukes?
Our intent was to end the war. It was believed at that time that the general population strongly supported the emperor and his goals. That would make them somewhat complicit. But the real focus should be on something that relates to what Mark recently said about someone's gonna die, who should it be? In that case, the choice was between their civilians and our soldiers and possibly civilians later. The choice was clear and it was righteous. If you think that there is any other reason why our leaders would choose to nuke a city, then once again I insist you seek counseling. Keep in mind that those Japanese who were not killed in the blasts thought it a good idea to raise the white flag. That's the whole point of engaging in war-to defeat the enemy. This we did. How many of our people will YOU sacrifice in order to spare the lives of our enemy and their people? And if your answer includes "diplomacy", don't bother me.
Post a Comment