"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." ~ John Stuart Mill
We had a snow and icestorm here in Virginia on Tuesday of last week and ever since, my son has been out of school and bored, so he has been spending a lot more time than usual surfing the internet.
On Thursday, I did something horrible to my car while trying to propel it up our driveway on the ice, which is on a slight incline up to the road. It makes a tremendous racket and the oil smokes. That is, if I can get it started. The engine died as I was limping it back home and I could only manage to let it coast into it's place in the driveway. Since then, it sits, silent, cold and still. It seems to be laughing at me. I don't know how much it will cost, because I don't know whether it is just a fouled plug or two, or if it has something much more serious wrong with it. I can't afford to find out just yet. Wish me luck.
Also, I finally got a job. Apparently my 13 years experience in marketing management outweighed the fact that I am over 40, white and male. Between the ice storm and actually having a job to go to, my time to post entries on this blog and comment on others has been severely reduced.
So for those of you who eagerly await digesting my pearls of wisdom everyday, I apologize.
In a recent comment thread, I made the statement that I am not so much pro-war as I am anti-defeat. More accurately, I would have to say I am mostly anti-war, but more pro-victory. I will be the first to say I hate war. I don't understand those who would opt to go to war before all other options are exhausted.
It bothers me when I hear people make comparisons between the number of casualties in this war versus casualties in Viet Nam, Korea, WWII, and WWI. Yes, there are significantly less deaths in this war than in the previous wars, but one death is nevertheless a tragedy. I think keeping score is abhorrent.
I will not indulge in that.
One of my Liberal commenter's insists there is a way to settle this conflict between Islamic terrorists and Judeo/Christians without resorting to war. And I agree that negotiation will almost always work under certain circumstances.
But those circumstances involve a pretty big "IF .
If the terrorists had the same Judeo/Christian values that we do. If they followed the teachings of Christ rather than the teachings of the false prophet Mohammad. If they didn't consider serving God as murdering innocents. If their idea of negotiation wasn't deciding among themselves whether to use bombs, rocket launchers, or airplanes to kill as many innocent Americans and Jews as they possibly can.
The leaders of the Islamic Jihadists have repeatedly said they will not negotiate. They are continually saying they will never stop waging Jihad until the "infidels" are wiped off the face of the earth.
They have one purpose and one purpose only. The complete eradication of anyone who does not agree completely with them. Buddhist temples have been targeted. Even other Muslims have been killed because their particular sect was not in complete agreement with the Jihadists. Peaceful Muslims are at as much risk of being attacked as we Americans and Jews. No one is safe while the Jihadists exist.
These are not reasonable people. They are vicious, cold blooded animals with a one track mind.
Genocide.
This war on terror is not the preferred method of dealing with enemies. It is the only method. It is a necessary evil. There is only one option:
Kill or be killed.
Any other option is a fantastic exercise in futility.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
86 comments:
Well, the post-modern left shares a lot with the traditional right on matters of war and peace, which explains in part Bush's low poll numbers lately.
What they have in common is this-- the far left and the far right see everything in terms of culture. They both work the assumption in different ways. The far left sees the United States as a homogenizing force, creating McWorld of corporations that has to be resisted by noble, local traditions. The far right sees the world like Samuel Huntington where the world contains irreducible cultures, and we should protect our own, or die.
This makes all the more interesting that J.S. Mill was quoted, because he belongs to old paleo-liberal tradition which took classical thinkers like Cicero and Marcus Aurelius seriously. Neocons, which are pretty much the same thing as paleolibs, teach that the nature of the culture matters far less than the nature of the regime.
In this context, we can see where both the right and left go wrong. The left treats all regimes in an egalitarian way, as if the atheist and materialist regime of North Korea should be treated the same as the apocalyptic fundies who lead Iran. The left may also focus on the culture -- the Iranian people are very pro-American -- and ignore what the regime has in store for everyone else.
The right makes different errors. People from Tucker Carlson to Joe Scarborough argue that it is time for the Iraqis to control their own destiny, as if the Americans are simply babysitting. They forget that defending the democracy there, where 70% of the people voted under the worst conditions, **is** putting them in charge of their destiny. Why we should stand by and let armed minorities of fanatics decide the future of Iraq is never really explained; for the provincial temperament where only our own culture matters, the question never arises.
My hope is to make a bad situation better, if possible. The practical definition of a quagmire is something that once you're in it, you can't get out of it. It was not only predictable, but predicted.
mudkitty--
When did the quagmire begin? With the Iranian Revolution of 1979? With the destruction of the Khobar towers in 1995? With the attacks on the USS Cole in 2000? The Beruit barracks bombing in 1983? The destruction of the American embassies in Dar es Salaam and Nairobi in 1998? The killing of 17 Americans in Somalia in 1993? The destruction of the WTC in 2001?
And I'm just mentioning violence against Americans-- I haven't even mentioned the violence in Spain, the United Kingdom, India, the Philippines, Russia, Israel, Sudan, Algeria, Turkey, Egypt, and other countries where Revolutionary Islam is killing people.
Revolutionary Islam is a mix of Marxism, National Socialism, and fundamentalist Islam. Its adherents are at war with civilization, including the Great Satan, whether we fight back or not. People who think this struggle began with Bush are deliberately ignoring the big picture. Bush changed the course and decided we were going to fight back--- Democrats want to change the course to the way it was with Reagan and Clinton-- stick our heads in the sand and try appeasement again.
The idea that a "Quagmire" was predictable and predicted is not necessarily true, in my opinion.
With that said, even if it is true, does that mean we are not supposed to do whatever we can to stop the terrorists?
Mudkitty, do you really think that if we did nothing because we thought that once committed, there would be no way to extract us, that we should have done nothing, thus letting them overrun us and destroy us?
What do you think your children or your children's children would think of your cavalier attitude towards their eventual extermination?
Since this kind of war has never been tried before who is to say it is going badly. When was the last time a nation invaded, took over , gave back?
When this is all over and we leave Iraq . It may serve as the textbook example of how to civilize a barbaric nation. No doubt it will serve as an example of how anti American liberals can impede a nation at war.
Congratulations Mark, on finding a new job! I'm glad for you. I just hope you can get to it without your car in working condition.
I'll let you guys argue with Mudkitty... I've given it up for Lent! :)
You're right though, Mark; there's no diplomacy to be made with people whose soul purpose in life and death is to kill you. When they are willing to kill themselves, their wives and their children in order to take you out, then trying to talk sense into them is not possible. They left the area of reason a long time ago. I really don't believe they've ever been reasonable. History sort of backs me up on that.
Don't worry about not visiting as often as usual. Just stop by and let me know when you've done a new post.
Mark said, "The idea that a "Quagmire" was predictable and predicted is not necessarily true, in my opinion."
Your opinion is refuted by the facts. Read it here. In this report, the US Government itself predicted what has happened.
I read articles and op-eds in the newspaper prior to the invasion that did indeed predict exactly what has happened. That is why I have always been against the war. Anyone who has any sense of the history of the region and can play chess could have predicted what has happened.
Any look at history, Jim, will show that we've had problems with this enemy since the Barbary Coast pirates during Jefferson's presidency. That's when he received the Q'uran that Ellison swore his oath of office upon. And the thug leader at the time could've been reading from bin Laden's handbook if Osama hadn't been born a couple hundred years later. Thus, predicted problems or not, the need for more democracies in the ME is paramount to stability in the future, and our current involvement requires victory for our immediate future.
BTW, Mark,
Congrats on the gig. Best of luck with it.
I notice when Democrats talk about quagmires, they never mention Bosnia. We're still there. Where is the exit strategy?
Nobody in his right mind likes war, but conflict has always been with us. In 5,000 years of recorded history, there is absolutely no evidence that humans are evolving into a more peaceful species. Only the weapons of warfare evolve.
The peaceful world that pacifists fantasize about won't just happen. We will not have peace until evil is eliminated. At this point in history we are the one country that is wealthy enough and determined enough to stand up to evil regimes. In all the history of the world, I cannot think of a single brutal regime that changed its ways through diplomacy. If a single ruthless dictator survives the 21st century, it will be a failure for the entire human race.
I can understand how some people are not up to the task. Not everyone can be a hero. Not everyone has the stomach for a righteous fight. I understand that. What I don't understand is why these people aren't content to sit it out and why they insist on not only undermining our efforts but giving encouragement to the enemy.
Excellent post, Mark! You nailed it.
OK Jim, I looked at your link. The first thing I notivced was it is on a CBS site, the same network that spawned Dan Rather, and Mary Mapes, so their credibility is suspect to begin with. Then, I see they have made use of the ever present "anonymous spokeswoman", a tactic the Liberals news media uses awd nauseum. We are supposed to take the word of a network that gets their info from anonymous sources? Give me a break! They could have gone down to the local anti war rally and asked some drugged up hippie and reported it came from an anonymous source.
To top it all off, they obviously cherry picked the report so it would look as if the report supported their leftist agenda. Look at the story again. "Some participants"? That word "some" means there were a few participants that disgreed that no Arab country would tolerate a long term prescence.
But for the sake of the discussion, I'll assume you and left wing CBS are right, and a quagmire was predicted, as I said, "even if it is true, does that mean we are not supposed to do whatever we can to stop the terrorists?"
I notice none of the LIbs have ventured to answer my question, "What do you think your children or your children's children would think of your cavalier attitude towards their eventual extermination?"
Well said, "kill or be killed." That is their creed and goal. One in which liberals do not or purposly refuse to accept or understand. One cannot , "talk, " with someone who looks at you and sees only someone who his fanatical religious beliefs calls for him to kill!
The mill quote is so good please forgive me for repeating it:
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." ~ John Stuart Mill
But somehow, even if I repeated it a hundred times with illustrations each time from history I doubt it would make a dent in the pacifist appeasers who never have an answer for how to defeat evil. Their only answer is to handcuff the good guys.
Sorry to hear about your car Mark. Sounds expensive.
OK, Mark. Everything that CBS says is a lie.
How about this at the National Security Archive?
Who is "pro-war"?
Not me. I'm for peace. But I realize that it sometimes takes swinging a mighty stick to achieve it!
What's a "quagmire"? A quagmire only exists if one panics.
Was our liberation of Germany a "quagmire"? We sure have a whole lotta troops left over there. What about Jay-pan?
Quagmires are good! When you really THINK about it!
I'm not to wild about the phrase "The War on Terror". I think it a misnomer. Terror is a tool, not a cause. And we are fighting against a cause. Call it the War on Islamo-Fascists or the War on Jihadists or the War on Islamic Extremists - they are more accurate. Alas, they don't roll off the tongue as easily as the War on Terror, nor would they sit well with those in D.C. who don't want to further upset Muslims.
That said, we are in this for the very long haul & we should viciously go after as many as we can while at the same time trying to work toward reform of authoritarian Islamic governments in the treatment of their own people & in the anti-West, anti-Christian & Jewish bile they encourage. Easier said then done.
We don't think the American public has the patience for a long-term war against the vile creatures that threaten us. In time it will grow weary on them & accomodations will replace this seemingly never-ending War on Terror.
OK Jim, I am willing to concede that there were some who predicted that war with Jihadists in Iraq would not be easy. In fact, I'll go so far as to remind you that even President Bush said it would be a very long and difficult struggle.
But you are focusing on the wrong point, ie, Does that mean we are not supposed to try to stop terrorism?
You might want to lay your head on the chopping block, and turn down your collar for them, but I am not ready to surrender yet.
The Islamic Jihadists terrorists want to exterminate anyone who isn't an Islamic Jihadist Terrorist. Completely.
I will ask a third time:
What do you think your children and your children's children would think of your cavalier attitude towards their eventual extermination?
"But you are focusing on the wrong point, ie, Does that mean we are not supposed to try to stop terrorism?"
Mark, as you should know by now, no one is opposed to working to stop the use of terrorism by anyone.
It's just that the majority now think that the invasion of Iraq is the direct opposite of what should be done to oppose terrorism. That it encourages rather than discourages terrorism.
I am very glad to see you come out in support of diplomacy where appropriate. On that principle than, we fully agree. It's just the question of "where is it appropriate and more helpful than war?" that we would need to hash out our differences.
So, to answer your question (asked for the third time), we reject the question. We ask in return, what will your children think of your cavalier attitude towards their eventual extermination?
In other words, we are opposed to Bush's policy because we think it encourages, not discourages, terrorism.
Well, Dan. You think wrongly. How can you look at the years previous to 9/11, when there was at best, token military action, and say that we were better off? How can you say military action has no place, when after pulling out their troops, Spain was hit? One can rightly argue tactics, but to say that military action against scumbags who won't negotiate, that insists we are worthy of extermination, it just doesn't seem logical or intelligent, particularly with recent history to argue against it. What also seems illogical, is to assume that military action would result in the enemy just rolling over and surrendering. Why would they do that considering their radical ideology and willingness to die for the cause? Of course they'll try to counter-attack. They have years of proof that it's just a matter of wearing us down. The left is all to willing to cement that attitude. We are in this position due more to years of NON-military action. We HAVE to carry on to reverse this attitude. We have to increase pressure so that they come to believe that messing with us is far too painful to consider. That's simply the way it is. When the enemy steps out from the shadows, arms raised, weapons dropped and pants soiled, that's the best time to negotiate. And by negotiate, I mean dictate terms. We can negotiate with those who want to side with us in the WOT. Not those with whom we do battle.
"One can rightly argue tactics, but to say that military action against scumbags who won't negotiate, that insists we are worthy of extermination, it just doesn't seem logical or intelligent, particularly with recent history to argue against it."
You are free, of course, to think thusly, Marshall. As I am free to disagree with you.
I think that it is not particularly logical or intelligent to try to stop terrorism by attacking a nation unprovoked, presenting ourselves as a dangerous, rogue nation that places itself above the law. And I think recent history supports this position.
And I think that this is why the majority of Americans and the world disagree with you.
Not that the majority is always right (the majority in Congress were clearly wrong when they allowed Bush to begin this invasion in the first place), but sometimes, a thing is so obvious that the majority just agree.
Think what you want, Marshall. And I shall, as well.
Law?
I thought leftists thought all laws were living documents, which can be interpreted to fit any designated need.
And what the hell is international law anyway? Is there an international police force with international badges? What activists mean by international law is almost always what the UN says.
If you remove a dictator with a consensus including the UK, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain, Japan, the Ukraine, Italy, South Korea, and other totalitarian governments, one is acting like a rogue state in the Democrat mind.
But if you get the approval of France, Russia, China, Venezuela, Iran, and Cuba, then you represent the International Community. This speaks VOLUMES about where the ideological sympathies of Democrats reside.
By the way, everyone is free to visit my new political blog, ChicagoCon. I'm giving Democrats headaches again, back by popular demand.
Sorry for not bothering to read any comments here Mark. Just don't have time to enter into any more debates, so better if I don't look.
Just thought I'd add these quotes:
"There's only one guaranteed way you can have peace, and you can have it in the next second: surrender."
-- Ronald Reagan
"There is no victory at bargain basement prices."
-- Dwight D. Eisenhower
"The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it."
-- George Orwell
Jason said, "I thought leftists thought all laws were living documents, which can be interpreted to fit any designated need."
No Jason, you're thinking of George W. Bush and his signing statements.
Lone Ranger, regarding Bosnia, remind me again how many US military personnel have been killed in Bosnia.
Mark said, "I am willing to concede that there were some who predicted that war with Jihadists in Iraq would not be easy."
No, they didn't predict it wouldn't be easy. They predicted that it would be a fiasco, had little hope of success, and would lead to greater instability in the region.
Mark said, "In fact, I'll go so far as to remind you that even President Bush said it would be a very long and difficult struggle."
Did he say this before or after he declared the end of major military operations? He said it AFTER it was obvious that he had created the greatest cluster-fuck in US history. 20-20 hindsight and all that.
Dan, myself, a majority of US citizens and most of the world understand that Iraq and the "war on terror" is a false conflation by this administration and the wingnuts who support it.
Terrorists are not pinned down in Iraq because we are there. In fact see recent reports of Al Qaeda regaining its operational strength in Pakistan. Most non-wingnuts will tell you that al Qaeda is a minor player in the Iraq war.
Can you imagine how effective we could have been on the real war against terror if we had actually put our resources into fighting it instead of blowing up and invading Iraq simply because we could, because actually, they thought it would be easy?
Once again, Jim, you fail to focus on the real issue. It matters not what was predicted or when it was predicted. The question still remains:
Even if a "quagmire" was predicted and/or expected, does that mean we are not to do whatever we can to stop terrorism?
Let me bring this pointless argument to a close by answering for you.
Obviously, you think we should not try to stop terrorism. You have given terrorism your tacit approval by your refusal to answer the question. How hard a question is it?
Maybe a better question is this:
Is your name really Jim? Or is it Osama bin Laden?
Your love of our enemies disgusts me.
Mark, why does disagreement with you have to mean support for terrorists?
You said:
"Even if a "quagmire" was predicted and/or expected, does that mean we are not to do whatever we can to stop terrorism?"
Look at it this way: Suppose I had a child who was misbehaving. To stop that misbehaving, I put him in a cage and poked him with a stick every hour. After all, he was misbehaving!
Now someone comes along and says, "Dan! What are you doing?!"
I would rationally say, "Well, I'm stopping misbehavior, of course!"
And the person responds, "But Dan, what you're doing is wrong."
I would perforce have to respond, "What?! You support misbehaving?! How horrid of you!!"
Or would I?
We, the people, are NOT saying, "let's ignore terrorism," we're saying, "Let's respond wisely to terrorism to stop it. Invading Iraq was not a wise way to stop terrorism, and in fact, is exactly the opposite of what we ought to be doing."
We. don't. support. terrorism. We have other ideas of how to stop it.
"We ask in return, what will your children think of your cavalier attitude towards their eventual extermination?"
You mean "conversion", don't you, Dan?
At the point of a gun...or by threat of suicide bomber?
"Did he say this before or after he declared the end of major military operations? He said it AFTER it was obvious that he had created the greatest cluster-fuck in US history. 20-20 hindsight and all that."
Wrongo, Jimbo!
He's said it since the day after 9/11!
It was shmucks like Wes Clark who said it would be a cakewalk...remember?
I didn't think so.
Dan, disagreeing with me doesn't necessarily imply that I think Jim supports terrorism. Read my comment again. I said his failure to answer the question about stopping terrorism implies that he supports terrorism.
As to your point of stopping a child's misbehavior. Depending on what type of misbehavior, and the age of the child, possibly caging your child and poking him with a stick every hour may just be appropriate.
If the specific behavior was locking his puppy or kitten in the cage and poking it with a stick every hour, showing the child exactly how the puppy/kitten feels may be the most appropriate way to deal with this type of behavior, especially after you have tried repeatedly to talk him out of picking on the puppy/kitten, and he simply refuses.
Thanks for the analogy. It explains exactly why we need to end this terrorism by any means we have at our disposal.
"It explains exactly why we need to end this terrorism by any means we have at our disposal."
NOT by any means necessary. I will not kill your children, for instance, to stop terrorism. Nor will I kill my children nor will I kill the terrorists' children.
"By any means necessary" is the motto of terrorists, one that we must reject.
Once again, Mark, you fail to recognize this very critical point. Terrorism and the war in Iraq are only marginally related.
As I have said many times over, you continue to erroneously conflate the war in Iraq with the "war on terror."
Most of the world understands that this conflation is false. Therefore any discussion on the war in Iraq and our support or lack thereof for that war, has absolutely no bearing on how we respond to terrorists or terrorism.
So you will get nowhere by accusing us of anything regarding terrorism based on Iraq.
Jim,
Your stance on Iraq is indeed indicative of your stance on terrorism. We've had terrorist leaders state that victory in Iraq is important to them. Why do you not believe that? If it wasn't important to them, they wouldn't be there at all. As far as what you think the whole world thinks, who freakin' cares what they think? Most of the rest of the world wouldn't save their own mothers if they were about to lose their heads by terrorists. The rest of the world (with a few exceptions) supported us after 9/11 for about, oh, twenty minutes and then ragged on about how we brought it upon ourselves.
Ya'll on the left haven't come up with anything but whining and whining won't defeat terrorism. You ragged about Iraq, about surveillance, about Gitmo...you've got nothing but whining. You wanna negotiate with the scumbags? Try negotiating with your average inner city street gang. If you can negotiate away their guns and drugs, perhaps you'll have half a chance with a group of fanatics who are willing to die at the drop of a hat.
So just because I like to remind you guys, you support terrorists by your lack of workable alternatives and by obstructing every plan that come from the Commander in Chief, who's job it is to run the war. This is supporting terror because it doesn't help one iota to defeat it and it gives them the idea that we are not willing to do what's necessary to get the job done. Disagreeing and dissent might be your right, but it is worthless without alternatives.
I'm done ranting for now. This is what happens when I visit blogs after bowling night.
"Ya'll on the left haven't come up with anything but whining and whining won't defeat terrorism...
you support terrorists by your lack of workable alternatives and by obstructing every plan"
And you are free to think that. Most of us disagree with you. We understand that the Iraq invasion is not about stopping terrorism and is only making things worse. To oppose that invasion, then, IS part of our plan to stop terrorism.
Additionally, we have outlined many approaches to stopping terrorism. You are free to continue to say that we've offered nothing, but it's not reality.
For evidence that Bush's Iraq Invasion is only making terrorism worse (and thus is NOT helping the "war on terrorism"), look here.
This article shows that fatal terrorist attacks by jihadists worldwide have increased by a factor of seven since the Iraq Invasion.
This has been obvious to most of us for a long time and was predicted before the war began. We, the people, are no longer standing behind the war merely to stand behind the war. Not every action the US takes is a correct one merely because we are the US. Sometimes, despite the best of intentions, we are wrong.
The Iraq Invasion was a wrong step in the "war on terror" and the majority of the people have said, End it.
"Once again, Mark, you fail to recognize this very critical point. Terrorism and the war in Iraq are only marginally related."
Clueless.
"The Iraq Invasion was a wrong step in the "war on terror" and the majority of the people have said, End it."
Sorry, Dan. In November 2004, the majority of the people said, "Kick their asses!"
Bush is still president...for almost two more years...and the "people" decided that.
Terrorism and the war in Iraq are only marginally related, eh?
What do you suppose those IED's are used for? Planting flowers?
When a person strolls into a crowded marketplace in Iraq and blows himself and half the people up, that isn't terrorism?
Garsh, maybe i don't understand what the word terrorism means.
Or you don't.
Okay, I'll amend that to say Terrorism and the War in Iraq are related only insofar as the war is further proof that Bush's actions are only going to make terrorism worse.
Reality is reality. There was no significant terrorism in Iraq before we invaded, now there is. As there is a significant increase in terrorism around the world.
Thanks to Bush.
Oh right, Dan, and the destruction of the World Trade Center Towers and Pentagon that killed nearly 3,000 innocent men women and children was just an unfortunate accident.
Sheeesh! There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Did I say that the Twin Towers wasn't a terrorist attack? No.
I merely pointed to the fact that terrorist attacks are up and that the majority of us who are opposed to the Iraq Invasion aren't opposed to it because we hate America, but rather, because we believe that the invasion is exactly the wrong thing to do to stop terrorism.
We said that in February 2003, before the war (remember when MILLIONS globally came out in opposition to the proposed invasion - unprecedented in history?) and we're saying that now, with the facts bearing it out.
Terrorism is on the rise.
The majority of us realize that if you want to stop terrorism, you do so at its roots, arresting those who commit crimes and not feeding it by attacking sovereign nations.
Continued personal attacks on those opposed to Bush's foreign policy is certainly not the way to stop terrorism.
Dan, the reason terrorists attacks are up is because Bush and his administration, while being undermined constantly by those who still think terrorism is simply a "crime", has so far prevented any further HUGE attacks on our soil, there fore the terrorists have to resort to smaller ones in other countries. hundreds of smaller attacks don't measure up to one HUGE one that kills thousands of Americans at once. Think of the results of the attacks rather than the number.
You do not stop terrorism by impeding the efforts of those who try to stop it, either.
Continued personal attacks on Bush's foreign policy is certainly not the way to stop terrorism
"Continued personal attacks on Bush's foreign policy is certainly not the way to stop terrorism"
But IF you think (as many of us do) that Bush's policies are contributing to the cause of terrorism, then personal attacks on his foreign policy is EXACTLY one way to stop terrorism.
I'm not asking you to agree with me about Bush, I'm just asking: Can't you see that IF we think his policies are making things worse, then we MUST stand up to them and doing so is NOT anti-American but patriotic in the extreme?
I'm asking you to end the personal bashing of those fellow Americans and brothers and sisters in Christ who are merely following their conscience to stand up against evil as we see it.
Talk with us, if you wish, about why what we believe is wrong, but there's no reason to say things like, "Obviously, you think we should not try to stop terrorism. You have given terrorism your tacit approval..."
That's just a ridiculous statement. NO ONE is giving terrorism our approval.
Good luck with the car and the new job Mark :-)
As for the war, I'm still waiting for any other solution besides keeping them on the run and unable to coordinate another attack on the US when those who have stated thier entire purpose in life/or/death is to see America destroyed or everyone in it become Muslim.
No one want's war, but I havent heard any other alternatives!
I thought I had commented on this post but I guess not. That Mill is quote is one of my very favorite quotes.
And yes, Congrats on the job!!
Dan,
Sadam and his boys were terrorizing their own country. He had a lock on it and outsiders would've been whacked. But there is evidence that he had some dealings with terrorist groups, including testimony of a former Iraqi general close to Sadam. Be that as it may, it is painfully apparent that there is a faction (majority? doubt it) that disagrees with the president. Noted. Now please back off, or offer REAL alternatives. You claim there have been some, yet I can't recall seeing anything that is worth a damn. It is one thing to offer, it's quite another to offer something worthy of acceptance. I don't say this to disparage, disparaging as it may sound, but it's simply the way it has gone thus far.
Also, don't forget that Sadam supported terrorist activity by paying off the families of suicide bombers. From the beginning, Bush targeted also the nations that supported terrorism, so there's just one more reason hitting Iraq was a good idea. Still is.
Well, Marshall, you're still free to think that all you want.
But that argument is losing in the war of public opinion. Done lost, if you ask me.
No Marshall, Dan has presented alternatives. They are:
1. Behave better and more righteously than our enemies.
2. Negotiate with them.
I have one question for Dan, and anyone else that thinks we can talk these animals out of killing innocent people:
What part of "The leaders of the Islamic Jihadists have repeatedly said they will not negotiate" do you not understand?
Mark, I'm sure we've covered this before. There IS no doubt some segment of jihadists out there who are not wanting to be forced to do anything and who want nothing more than to kill and damage the great satan. Just as there is some segment of the general population who want nothing more than to be a serial killer and who can't be reasoned or talked out of it.
That small minority, you deal with by prison and law enforcement (or mental institutions, if they're truly troubled).
The majority of jihadists and certainly the VAST majority of Muslims can be made to see reason, they can find why it is not in their interest to kill innocent people.
The more we portray ourselves as The Great Satan (which we do when we place ourselves above the law and when we take actions like we have in Iraq), the more support and sympathy the die-hard jihadists have. The less we portray ourselves as the Great Satan (by behaving morally and within the law) the less support those who'd commit terrorism will have.
The more we make this a war against Islam, the more Muslims we'll have to kill. Just as if it appeared that someone were waging war on Christians, even normally non-violent Christians might feel inclined to fight back.
It's human nature to oppose that which opposes you. The more we are clear in our opposition to terrorism (not Islam) AND refusal to engage in terrorism (killing of innocents), the more support we'll have from Muslims to stop terrorism.
In other words, we can wage war on terrorism and have the support of the world, or we can make this a Muslim war and have the opposition of 1 billion people.
You tell me which one makes sense.
Simpleton.
"I'm not asking you to agree with me about Bush, I'm just asking: Can't you see that IF we think his policies are making things worse, then we MUST stand up to them and doing so is NOT anti-American but patriotic in the extreme?
I'm asking you to end the personal bashing of those fellow Americans and brothers and sisters in Christ who are merely following their conscience to stand up against evil as we see it." -Dan (Who somehow still thinks himself above the rest of us mere mortals)
"End the personal bashing"...LOL!
We are not permitted to bash anyone who agrees with Dan, folks. We are the floor upon which those folks tread. We lowly conservatives.
You continually bash your brethren with whom you disagree, Dan.
Us'n lowly conservative types aren't allowed none o' dem der personal attacks...even when clearly warranted. Them elitists like Dan can attack any ole time they like...any ole way they like...and it's okay...'cause they's true Christ-EE-ans.
Dan, You know, despite our differences, I respect you and your opinion, but...
"There IS no doubt some segment of jihadists out there who are not wanting to be forced to do anything and who want nothing more than to kill and damage the great satan." ???
SOME?
That's it for me. I give up. Dan you are completely delusional.
Mark, are you seriously still trying to connect Iraq with 9/11?
"Dan, You know, despite our differences, I respect you and your opinion, but..."
Yes, Mark, I realize that. You are quite respectful of me generally... just not my opinions.
It's a starting point.
I hope I'm equally respectful of you.
Dan,
WE know we're fighting terrorism. The Islamist terrorists are making it a war on Islam. WE know the difference between an Islamic terrorist. THEY muddy the waters by insisting we're Islam haters. Considering the terrorists we've had trouble with are mostly Islamic, how do you think we can more sharply separate the two?
One thing that would help is for those like yourself who insist that we are killing civilians, as if we're targeting them, would stop saying such things. When those like yourself stop highlighting the isolated cases of savagery by a few soldiers. When those like yourself stop saying we're breaking the law when we're clearly not. When people like you point out for all the other liars and misinformed the truth of what we're trying to do, the things we have done, and the things we're willing to do on behalf of our foreign neighbors, rather than to denegrate our people by questioning (without evidence) our motives.
We are taking actions that will result in the killing of innocent civilians (who happen to be Muslim). No, we're not targeting them, but we've allowed a policy that is killing them just the same.
When we kill the innocent, we become the enemy. It doesn't matter that it wasn't our intent to kill them.
If Iran began to bomb us to stop the war in Iraq, it may not be their intent to kill innocent people, but we both know that, once that killing began, we wouldn't care.
It'd be a bit naive to assume anything else of human nature. It's the way we work.
I and many others more intelligent than I have suggested many plans (see here or here, for starters) on ways to oppose terrorism where it is apparent it's just the terrorists we oppose. With Bush's policy, this is not clear at all.
"When we kill the innocent, we become the enemy. It doesn't matter that it wasn't our intent to kill them."
Unless we are abortionists, right Dan the Enlightened?
(Just because you ignore me, pal, don't mean others do.)
"If Iran began to bomb us to stop the war in Iraq, it may not be their intent to kill innocent people, but we both know that, once that killing began, we wouldn't care."
Unless, of course, they said "DEath to America" as they began their bombing and their past record is one of supplying and finacing those whose every intent is to kill civilians, right?
Sheesh!
Kill or be killed was also an argument Hitler made (only substitute the term Jew for Muslim.) He kept making that argument while FDR was saying the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.
Dan,
Your head is planted firmly. Our forces take great pains, often at great personal risk, to avoid civilian casualties in fighting a foe that fights from behind civilians as a routine tactic. Shall we take losses repeatedly rather than risk a single civilian loss? That's pretty much S.O.P.
And still, the vast majority of Iraqi civilian deaths are at the hands of the very people we're fighting. Trumpet THAT for awhile. At least then you'd be speaking truthfully and appear to be aware of reality.
I looked at your links. The first has already been proven false as Sharon ordered the pullouts from the settlements and what did we see? The Palestinians moved in, trashed the place, and have been lobbing missiles into Israel ever since. Yeah. Let's try that ourselves. Good idea.
The second link is a web site that furthers the already discarded notions that we don't know the roots of terrorism. Nonsense. The roots are in the beliefs of Islamic fascists. These beliefs go back centuries. It further states in their official sounding jargon that we are the problem and that our activities are the source of the trouble. That if we stop our miltary action, all will be well. See the above concerning Palestine.
You've proven my point. You've got no ideas worth the time of debate because your ideas are not reality based. It shows a complete lack of understanding of the type of asshole we now fight. I say again: Try your ideas on the gang-bangers in our own cities. If you can turn them around with your happy talk, then maybe, and that's a huge maybe, you might get through to those who prefer death than to give you the time of day.
Mudkitty,
Hitler was a liar and a thug. He was not being attacked until he first attacked others. You also need to remove your head from the confines of your hindquarters. Sheesh!
Marshall said:
"You've got no ideas worth the time of debate because your ideas are not reality based."
You are free to think so, of course. I think that the majority disagrees with you and YOUR ideas are based upon fantasy and you are ignoring human nature. Regardless if the majority disagrees with you, I do.
I live in an urban setting with gangbangers and have never needed to deal with them in any way different than my ideals I've expressed here.
I suspect the majority agrees with me and you have lost the argument, we'll be ending this war and working on stopping terrorism in other (ie, effective) ways. I suppose we'll have to wait and see which direction our nation takes.
And are the gangbangers still doing business and causing innocent deaths? What good is your philosophy if it hasn't provoked any changes in their behavior? What good would it then do in a global scenario? It's not a matter of human nature, but of who's nature? We're not speaking of the average human being here. We're talking about extremists. Wake the hell up.
I am awake, thanks.
As to this:
"What good is your philosophy if it hasn't provoked any changes in their behavior?"
Does this apply for military answers too? I mean, what good are violent answers if there are still terrorists in the world?
Marshall, it's a fallen world with people who do bad things. That's the way it is.
We all are looking for the best ways to deal with these sorts of problems. I disagree with Bush's solution - think it's hopelessly misguided. You seem to support it (or want it to be even more violent?).
We disagree. That's just the way it is.
In a democratic republic, the will of the people will make the final decisions, good or bad.
I believe your argument has lost. Keep making your arguments for the best solution you can think of. I'll do the same.
And may the right thing be done in the end.
A quick story:
I saw a fella beating his girlfriend. He was surrounded by about five of his buddies who were watching on.
I intervened. Told him he'd have to stop that - stepping between him and the young lady. I told him what he was doing was wrong.
He told me to mind my own business and get lost if I knew what was good for me. His friends stood behind him.
The young lady was gone by this point. I told him again what he was doing was wrong and he had to stop. He asked what I was going to do about it. I said, I was just there to stop an assault.
He punched me. Once.
I looked to his friends and told them that they need to take their friend home, he was making bad choices. They sided with me, apologized and took him home.
The Bible tells us, a soft answer turns away wrath. It's difficult to fight someone who won't try to hurt you back. It's against human nature.
Did I stop all violence for all time? No. But would a violent response have stopped all violence for all time? Clearly, no.
I stopped that violence for that night and let that girl get safely away. That young man saw that his violence only made him a cad and a coward.
Nonviolence can and does make a difference, WHEN folk have the guts to practice it.
A guy named Fox tried that very thing in Iraq. He was beaten and murdered after being kidnapped with three other well intentioned but totally stupid men. That they weren't all murdered is miraculous. Your story proves my point of "who's nature?" Your jerk was merely bullying a woman, not murdering her. If he had been, your intervention would likely have resulted in two murders. Perhaps you'd have scared them off, but it's not likely if he was already intent. It's not in the nature of psycopaths to be reasoned with, or they would not by psychos.
Truly, I really don't want you to attempt your lame philosophy with gang-bangers. I don't think it will end well. But if you could sit with them in a neutral situation, they'd only laugh at you or play you for something they could get and ignore the rest. That's their nature.
More violence? Yes, indeed. If we can raise the level of violence after confirming our targets, absolutely. The purpose is not to change their minds, but to kill as many as possible for the sake of protecting the innocent. The more we kill, and the quicker we kill them, the more likely, however, they WILL be persuaded. They may still want to kill us, but they just won't want to take the chance. That's their nature.
"It's difficult to fight someone who won't try to hurt you back."
It's difficult to survive a person who's intent on killing you if you don't fight back. Or you could run. In fact, you could cut and run! But that won't stop him from trying to kill you. Ever. It's not in his nature. You need to stop imagining that the people we fight are like us and have our sensibilities and values. They clearly don't, thus, your plan won't work at all.
Brother man, go with works for you.
Just don't ask us to go along with you unless you can make a better case, which you haven't thus far.
Bottom line: Bush's approach is driving up support for terrorists (due to basic human nature). The preferred approach and what we'll be likely doing now that Bush's approach has been outed as a total failure is to go after terrorists in ways that makes it clear that it's only terrorists we're after.
Invading countries where some terrorists MAY exist or in an effort to "draw them out" is not going to do that.
Dan,
Excuse me for saying so, but your an idiot. Either that or you don't really speak English well. Bush's strategy always had within it the aim of targeting ONLY terrorists. As stated ad nauseum, our troops go out of their way, and at great personal risk, to avoid civilian casualties, which is no easy task since the scumbags don't wear uniforms. Are the troops doing that on their own, or under orders and training? If your response isn't the latter, supply proof. So that approach has been in play from the beginning. I know you like to believe our guys are just randomly shooting up the place, but it just isn't so, nor has it ever been.
Your last paragraph supports my first sentence here. It doesn't in any way resemble the facts surrounding the invasion. Please pay attention.
Excuse me. That should've read:
..."you're" an idiot."
In a hurry.
"I know you like to believe our guys are just randomly shooting up the place, but it just isn't so, nor has it ever been."
For the record, I've NEVER said this and do not believe it. Regardless of that, though, the perception is that we invaded a nation unprovoked and as a result of that invasion, tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis are dying.
Bush's plan has failed and you have failed to make the case for it. We, the people reject your argument.
You can believe it all you want, but We, the People are going another route.
Peace.
Dan,
Your welcome.
"I know you like to believe..."
"For the record, I've NEVER said this and do not believe it."
You say it every time you state things like, "...as a result of that invasion, tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis are dying."
These statements can only be taken as an accusation that Bush and our troops are responsible for the deaths. The deaths are caused by the people we are fighting and it is they who should be blamed always. If they weren't the scumbags they are, we wouldn't be there fighting them. It is their fault and their fault only because the cowards fight from amongst the innocent purposely to prevent our retaliation, or to have cause to blameus when we do retaliate. But to allow them to carry on with their agenda would also cost lives, and who's fault would that be? So the perception isn't worth a steaming pile of freshly dropped dung from a goat and the reinforcement of such perceptions by the left is worth less. But it is a willful desire to distort the situation to further the left's notions that Bush is failing.
And for the record, as long as we are there putting our best foot forward, "failing" is the best one could say. We haven't "failed" as long as we are there fighting, and it's an insult to our military to say so. But here's the truth, the we meet true obstructions and challenges, we aren't "failing" as long as we're there working to achieve mission objectives.
"These statements can only be taken as an accusation that Bush and our troops are responsible for the deaths."
They may "only be taken" that way by you, but not the majority of reasoning human beings. You are free to read whatever words you want in to what I say. All I will ask you is to limit what you accuse me of to what I've ACTUALLY said, and not what you think I mean by what I said.
Of course, you are free to accuse me of whatever you want, as well. But part of the reason that people have troubles with some of those who self-identify as "conservative" is their presumption that they know best what people mean and what people want.
I mean exactly what I say and not a bit more. Thank you, very much.
This presumption and arrogance is why Bush and his supporters are losing ground, why he is nearly universally disapproved of.
We, too, love America and the world and want to do what's morally and practically best for ourselves. But it seems to be not enough for your type to merely disagree with that, you must demonize those you disagree with. We're "idiots" and we "hate America" and are "traitors."
In the real world, people recognize such demonization as the losing argument that it is: When you can't argue your position with reason and facts, then demonize the opposition.
Hitler was so much more than a liar and a thug. Hitler had the world most efficient army in the known world, at that time in history, marching across Europe. Hitler killed 20 million people, if you include American casualties, and believe me, I do include American casualties.
Don't be so cavalier in invoking the Hitler meme.
Mudkitty,
He could've had a .420 batting average and Hitler would still be a liar and a thug. What the f***?! I was referring to your statement that he used similar language. Evil will use anything, especially those things that deceive others into thinking evil is good. Thus, him being a thug and a liar negates your using him as an example to counter the argument. Is that plain?
Dan,
Distort all you want. Play semantic games all you want. It won't change the facts. Are you or are you not blaming Bush for those deaths? If so, how can that be other than he meant for them to die? You damn well know what he believes he is doing. You damn well know it's our policy to avoid civilian casualties at enormous cost. So if you don't exactly use words like, "shooting up the place", you cast the same aspersions with your own heinous words. Bush is NOT to blame, the enemy is. This is not debatable. What the hell makes you think we'd be there at all if the scumbags didn't compell our actions? What possible purpose would Bush have to invade anywhere, use military force at any time, if not provoked? And considering who did the provoking, it isn't possible that Bush deserves the blame. Shame on you for making that perfectly clear accusaton. Aren't you getting dizzy spinning it so much?
Kevron,
What's the point of your last two posts? Is there one?
Congratulations Marshall. You've managed to trivialize both WW2 and the holocaust with your sloppy terminology and ideas.
Marshall opined:
"Bush is NOT to blame, the enemy is. This is not debatable."
You've stated an opinion about a point and stated that your opinion is not to be debated.
I hope you'll get over it that we have decided it is worth debating.
marshall--
You won't get Democrats to take responsibility for anything. Since they love Vietnam comparisions, I'll make one -- 2,500,000 people were slaughtered in Cambodia when the dominoes fell after the Americans pulled out.
Morons like Comrade Chomsky attempt to explain the actions of the Khmer Reds therapeutically, as if they were acting out their traumas of Western intervention. In reality, what happened was a statement of the great conservative Edmund Burke carried out in practice:
"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing."
The Democrats, for all their clamor about human rights, don't care about the bloodbath that would ensue if we don't get it right. They will simply refuse to take any responsibility for their actions and do what they do best -- talk, and blame Bush.
As always, it is much easier to demonize your brothers and call them monsters than it is to come together and reason like adults.
By all means, let's kill all the Democrats - if they're endorsing the deaths of millions of people, they ARE monsters. Kill them now and be done with it.
dan--
We simply want you guys to listen to reason. There is no justification to be ashamed of yourself, your country, and Western civilization.
You can't demonize everything around you, and then claim *you* are being demonized when people question your demonizing.
If you can't bring yourself to accept Bush has good intentions, even if you disagree with his policies, at least have the dignity to love yourself more than you love your enemies. There is no virtue in blind self-destruction.
1. I have demonized no one. (feel free to show me where I'm wrong)
2. I have never suggested Bush isn't acting out of "good intentions."
3. We all know what the road to hell is paved with.
4. You and some others here HAVE demonized Dems and those who don't support Bush, saying that
a. We "don't care about the bloodbath that would ensue if we don't get it right."
b. We "believe our guys are just randomly shooting up the place"
c. We would prefer to ignore evil and let death and destruction come.
d. And that we are "morons," "giving encouragement to the enemy," want to "cut and run" etc, etc.
We disagree with you. We think Bush's policies are making things worse, not better. We are opposed to Bush's policies because we love our country and want to make our world and nation a safer place.
We have heard your arguments and don't think they hold water - partly because you use the practice of demonization. If we're not for you we're for the terrorists. We want to see death and destruction.
Those are not arguments at all, just an arrogant way of trying to bully people into going along with your plans.
That approach is not working any more.
Allow me to illustrate the difference between the two approaches (mine and you who feel the need to demonize, not merely disagree):
One of the reasons that I’m opposed to war-as-solution is that it is not an affordable way to deal with troubles. Because we’re occupied in Iraq, it is taking our money and manpower away from other places where oppression is happening. Hundreds of thousands of people are dying in Darfur alone.
And if we used war-as-solution to try to settle the problems there, then our money and efforts would be invested there and we couldn’t afford to deal with Iraq, or the Phillipines, or Colombia, or Liberia, etc, etc, etc.
If we truly are concerned about averting genocide and oppression globally, then we must needs invest in other solutions besides military ones. We simply can’t War our way to Peace (even if it worked).
That is one of my rationalizations (one of many) for opposing this invasion.
Now, if I were to take the demonization route to dealing with those who’d disagree with my opinion, it would look like this:
What?! You don’t want to stop genocide!??? What sort of sick puppy are you?
You just want to let people suffer and die and do nothing to stop the destruction in Darfur. You may say you’d like to see the killing stop, but unless you agree to start investing in a solution there, then you’re just enabling genocidal maniacs.
If your type were in charge during WWII, you’d have urged us to ignore Hitler!
You disgust me, you and your coward-*$#@ friends!
See the difference? Let’s discuss the merits of various approaches. Let’s disagree and stand by our ideals. By all means!
But let’s not resort to name-calling and statements that say the Other Side supports terrorism and death. That’s just ridiculous and a waste of time.
There’s too much at stake to waste time with that way of dealing with our fellow Americans and members of the world community.
"Dan, Can't you ever just debate without getting totally unhinged? This is your style all the time and then you act soooooo innocent and mistreated."
I've had my Christianity question. I've been called a traitor, coward, moron, idiot and a fool. I've been called a terrorist supporter and been told I support the killing of millions.
And yet, I'm the one who is over-reacting and coming "unhinged"?
Miss mom2, on this, then, we agree. By all means, state your point of view. Argue for what you believe is right.
I will do the same.
What I won't do is, when you disagree with me, tell you that you're a traitor, a fool and not a Christian. I will simply state my position as I understand the facts and would appreciate that others do the same.
Others may choose not to and that's fine, too. But they should realize that when they resort to telling others what the Others think (as opposed to saying what they themselves think) and calling names, their position will not be taken very seriously.
Tell me this much, if a god is a god, than how could a god die? Isn't immortality one of the classic attributes of a god?
"What I won't do is, when you disagree with me, tell you that you're a traitor, a fool and not a Christian."
Seems to me that if what I say is traitorous, foolish, or unChristian, you are duty-bound to inform me of such as long as you can support it somehow. So if I say that you're an idiot, it's because you refuse to consider the reality of the situation. That reality is that the foe we fight has continually stated their intentions and disdain toward us, they have continually proven that they mean what they say, they have done so since the Jefferson administration, and their goals have remained unchanged since the Crusades. The debate is how we should fight them, not whether we should fight them. No one wants to war, except the enemy. If we stop, they won't. This has been proven by the Palestinian version of these clowns. Israel moves out, Palestinians move in and being closer to Israeli cities, begin lobby shells upon them. On their other side, Hezballah kidnaps their soldiers. It never ends and you and yours won't see it. How you can't or won't is beyond my ability to comprehend. It's so freakin' obvious it's idiocy. If that offends, prove me wrong. I can take it if you can show that your position is the truth. World events and history, unfortunately, are against you.
Post a Comment