Saturday, July 14, 2007

An Experiment

"One is left with the horrible feeling now that war settles nothing; that to win a war is as disastrous as to lose one." ~ Agatha Christie

Let's get one thing out of the way first. I don't care if Senator David Vitter's number was on the DC madam's list. I won't back off my original predictions until proven completely wrong. There are thousands of numbers on that list, and Vitter's is one of them. One out of thousands. One number does not prove me wrong. Only until every name on that list is revealed will I recant. And then, only if it proves that I was wrong, and that there are more Republicans listed than Democrats.

Until then, I have only one more comment to make on the matter:

Larry Flint, publisher of Hustler magazine has offered a million dollars to anyone who comes forward with proof of sexual scandals involving Washington politicians. He wants to publish names of all Senators, Congressmen, Presidents, and any other politicians who have been caught with their pants down, so to speak, with the exception of those who aren't "hypocrites". Those are Flints words, not mine.

Who do you suppose are hypocrites in Larry Flints eyes? Here's a hint:

Flint is a Democrat.

If any more selected names are eventually revealed by Hustler, unless the entire list is published, mark my words. All the names published will be Republicans and/or religious leaders. And the Liberally biased American media will be happy to broadcast it to the unwashed masses.

Consider the source. It's Hustler. It is the nature of the beast. This isn't rocket surgery.

Now. That was not my intended topic for this entry. The following is:

I've been giving quite a bit of thought lately, to the ideological differences between Liberals and Conservatives in several seemingly eternal and divisive issues. The war in Iraq, National (socialized) health care, global warming, taxation, and welfare, among other things.

Liberals have, for the most part, embraced the concept of a "cut and run" policy in Iraq. They have expressed a belief that if we pull our troops out of Iraq, the terrorists will be satisfied and stop murdering innocent civilians and attacking Americans, both military and civilian. After all, they believe it is the United States fault that they have found it necessary to invade Iraq and protect Iraq from the evil American Imperialists, don't they? If we weren't over there, there would be no need for them to continue to bomb us.

Conservatives insist that if we pull out before the "job is finished", chaos would overrun Iraq, and terrorists attacks will increase dramatically, both here and abroad. it has often been said by many, (me included) that we are fighting them in Iraq so we won't have to fight them over here. It is predicted if we leave Iraq, the terrorists will follow us to our shores and begin to attack American civilians.

Osama bin Laden has said, America is a paper tiger, meaning that we are weak-willed and will cave at the slightest hint that we are in danger. President Bill Clinton's pull out of Somalia (sorry Rick and Goat) after the "Black Hawk Down" episode is the inspiration behind bin Laden's famous quote. Osama saw how America reacted to the tragic events in Somalia and became emboldened to perpetrate further attacks on America and America's interests abroad.

The Liberals would have us believe that somehow we have made him change his assessment of America's resolve.

However, they can't tell us how we did that.

Conservatives (me included) believe if we remove our troops from Iraq, bin Laden and his support groups (including the New York Slimes, Washington ComPost, etc) will see that as a sign of weakness and will immediately move to complete the annihilation of any nation that isn't 100% Muslim, according to bin Laden's narrow definition.

We believe the Islamic terrorists ultimate goal is not to force the United States and their allies out of Iraq, but rather, global domination, by converting everyone in the world to Islam. If we don't convert, the only alternative is a swift and merciless death.

There is no other choice. Anyone that believes all religions can live together in peace and harmony is delusional. The Islamic Jihadists have made their point crystal clear.

Liberals appear to believe it is possible to negotiate with terrorists to achieve an ultimate goal of a one-world global utopia, where all people can live together with mutual respect for all religious and ideological differences.

There appears to be no way to resolve these differences between Liberals and Conservatives short of testing them.

So, I propose an experiment.

Firstly, let's establish some ground rules:

It is vitally important that no word of this experiment is allowed to leak out or the results will be tainted, and any conclusions reached will be rendered meaningless and neither side will be vindicated. Under no circumstances can the media be informed.

No one can be made aware that this experiment is ongoing except a very minimum of principles involved. Only the President and a select few military leaders can be allowed to know what we are doing.

With these conditions satisfied, the President should order a massive retreat of all forces in the Middle East, down to the last cook and bottle washer. Completely leave Iraq to only the citizens and insurgents. Re-deploy all the troops to friendly countries just as close to the Iraqi border as we possibly can.

Then, we wait to see exactly what the terrorists will do in response.

If, as the Leftists insist, they quietly and peacefully disperse back to their own countries and return to farming, or banking, or drilling oil wells, or whatever they did before they enlisted into bin Ladens army, we will know at last, that the Liberals were right all along, and we can all become registered Democrats.

But if, as I suspect, they immediately step up their attacks against civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan, and abroad, and if they do indeed follow us to America and start blowing up amusement parks, football stadiums, casinos, and government and financial buildings, it will be proven that the Conservatives have been right all along and all Americans will register as Republicans.

And, if the terrorists run amok, as I believe they will, the President should not be questioned nor criticized should he decide to just nuke the entire Mideast, and thereby eradicate Islamic terrorism once and for all.

That should settle once and for all the question of whether surrender or achieving victory is the best policy.

Next: National Health Care. Stay tuned.

61 comments:

Francis Lynn said...

I have more interest in reading matchbook covers then reading anything the NY Times has to say, but I noted their recent editorial stating that US troops must be pulled out now. It is an insane editorial.

"When Congress returns this week, extricating American troops from the war should be at the top of its agenda.

That conversation must be candid and focused. Americans must be clear that Iraq, and the region around it, could be even bloodier and more chaotic after Americans leave. There could be reprisals against those who worked with American forces, further ethnic cleansing, even genocide.

Potentially destabilizing refugee flows could hit Jordan and Syria. Iran and Turkey could be tempted to make power grabs. Perhaps most important, the invasion has created a new stronghold from which terrorist activity could proliferate.

The administration, the Democratic-controlled Congress, the United Nations and America’s allies must try to mitigate those outcomes — and they may fail. But Americans must be equally honest about the fact that keeping troops in Iraq will only make things worse."

So, the NY Slimes says that staying in Iraq will only make it worse, but at the same time says that leaving Iraq will cause even more chaos & even genocide.

It's a lose-lose situation with Bush as far as the Slimes is concerned. If he stays the course he's the goat, if he pulls the troops out of Iraq he's the goat.

No wonder my bird refuses to even use the Slimes for his droppings.

Don't ya just hate & detest these useless, un-patriotic slime-balls on the Left?

Francis Lynn said...

Jules Crittenden has a great post on the Slimes editorial. http://www.julescrittenden.com/2007/07/08/genocide-prefered/

Abouna said...

I like your plan and agree with it, but I would go one step further. If after we pull out and the terrorists follow us here and start blowing up shopping malls, amusement parks and government buildings, then we should round up all of the liberals who pushed for the pull out and charge them with treason.

Mark said...

Thanks, Abouna. I was afraid people might get the wrong impression and think I had gone soft on the war. It's just that I am so confident that we conservatives are right that it would almost be worth it to prove the dems wrong, but do you think they'd ever admit to being wrong?

Jim said...

Liberals have, for the most part, embraced the concept of a "cut and run" policy in Iraq. No they haven't.

They have expressed a belief that if we pull our troops out of Iraq, the terrorists will be satisfied and stop murdering innocent civilians and attacking Americans, both military and civilian. Never heard anybody say they believe that. You're making it up as you go along.

After all, they believe it is the United States fault that they have found it necessary to invade Iraq and protect Iraq from the evil American Imperialists, don't they? Nonsense!

It is predicted if we leave Iraq, the terrorists will follow us to our shores and begin to attack American civilians. By whom? The same people who predicted that there were WMDs in Iraq? The same people who predicted we would be greeted with flowers and candy? The same people who predicted Iraqi oil would pay for the cost of the war? You believe ANYTHING these incompetents predict?

The Liberals would have us believe that somehow we have made him change his assessment of America's resolve. Which Liberals would that be?

Liberals appear to believe... Appear? To whom? What kind of argument is that?

If, as the Leftists insist, they quietly and peacefully disperse back to their own countries and return to farming, or banking, or drilling oil wells, or whatever they did before they enlisted into bin Ladens army Which Leftists insist this? I believe that most leftists believe that with Americans out of the way, the Iraqis themselves will hunt down and kill al Qaeda themselves.

Goat said...

One major argument I have , it was Somalia not Bosnia where Black Hawk Down took place, get your facts straight before posting is a good rule to follow.Africa and Europe are different places. What will you say if the new strategy works?

Goat said...

Well that is very wierd, I posted a comment to a moonbat site and wound up here. Good post BTW Mark, I just can't figure out how the web made this jump. If a comment shows up blasting a lefty it was not aimed at you Mark.

Dan Trabue said...

Mark, I don't believe that a one of your assertions about what liberals believe is accurate.

1. They have NOT "expressed a belief that if we pull our troops out of Iraq, the terrorists will be satisfied and stop murdering innocent civilians"

2. Liberals DON'T "believe it is possible to negotiate with terrorists to achieve an ultimate goal of a one-world global utopia"

3. The "Leftists" have NOT insisted that if we leave Iraq the terrorists will "quietly and peacefully disperse back to their own countries"

For instance.

So, you are arguing against strawman critters. If you want to do that, fine. But understand that you're not representing reality and so there's no real debate going on, just ranting.

Trader Rick said...

Black Hawk down took place in Somalia.

Mark said...

Dan, you say, "But understand that you're not representing reality and so there's no real debate going on, just ranting."

I say, my blog was never intended to be a forum for debate, It was created so I could rant.

Glad to see you finally noticed.

But you're missing the point. I propose an experiment to settle once and for all which side is right. That's all. Whatever excuse the left uses to justify pulling the troops out of Iraq, let's see who's right.

Mark said...

But wait.

Could it be possible that Jim and Dan are advocating leaving Iraq solely to protect American soldiers, and innocent civilians overseas be damned?

What happened to the argument that we are killing innocent civilians? Isn't protecting the innocents the biggest reason they advocate a pull out?

Jim says Libs haven't advocated a cut and run policy...well Jim, what do you call it when they call for an immediate withdrawal?

Conservatives say Libs want to "cut and run", Libs say "immediate withdrawal"... It's the same thing! I say to-may-to, you say to-mah-to.

Dan Trabue said...

"Whatever excuse the left uses to justify pulling the troops out of Iraq, let's see who's right."

What is it going to prove exactly?

What most of those in my circles have said is that we should never have invaded Iraq. One reason is that it would strengthen, not weaken, terrorism. See the latest news to see that we were right on that point.

Yet another reason is that if we did, we'd end up in a lose/lose situation where we can't leave Iraq without more deaths and we can't stay in Iraq without more deaths.

If we pull out, it likely will have horrible consequences. If we stay it will likely have horrible consequences. That is the "liberal" position.

Strangely enough, this prudence that we cautioned (don't go invaded countries lightly and without a good amount of consideration) is actually a conservative tenet.

Jim said...

The only Democratic presidential candidates calling for immediate withdrawal are Richardson and Kucinich.

Jason H. Bowden said...

mark--

The main ideological difference about war and peace is this. Conservatives look at the world in terms of costs and trade-offs, while liberals look at things in categorical terms of problems and solutions. Hence leftist claims like "war is not the answer" or "we need a political solution."

Conservatives look at war like this. There are no solutions. All peace is temporary. Tyranny and nihilism are permanent possibilities of human life, and force is often our only means to deal with them. Not always though. They way to deal with Iran is very different than North Korea-- one group is a bunch of apocalyptic nutjobs that want to send infidels to hell, the other is ruled by leftwing atheist big-government do-gooders trying to get a handout.

In short, conservatives see the world in dynamic terms, while modern liberals treat everything as if it were a static condition. This is the case when we examine economic growth, or changing the way we look at abstinence, et cetera. Liberals want to distribute the pie, conservatives want to grow the pie. Liberals want to conform to current moral views, while conservatives want to change them.

So, when Harry Reid says the war is lost, a liberal thinks this: we should remove our forces, be nice to the bad guys, and we can build consensus and solve the problem. A conservative, in contrast, reacts like this: if we lost, please tell us who is the winner, what are their goals, and what does the winner want to export to the rest of the globe?

Dan Trabue said...

"In short, conservatives see the world in dynamic terms, while modern liberals treat everything as if it were a static condition."

And yet another misrepresentation of what liberals and conservatives believe. Have you all ever met and listened to a real liberal? Or a real conservative, as far as that goes?

Most of what is said here are gross stereotypes of liberal (and often conservative) positions and ridiculous strawman arguments that may be easy to knock down but have no bearing in reality.

Mark, your "experiment," has this flaw: Most so-called conservatives I know think that leaving Iraq will result in disastrous consequences. Most so-called liberals I know believe the same. So pulling out and seeing if there are disastrous circumstances would prove...that both were right?

The difference is that most "liberals" were saying we shouldn't get involved in this war in this way for exactly that reason (amongst others) and they were right.

Jim said...

Conservatives look at the world in terms of costs and trade-offs

Precisely! The war so far has cost 3,600 US deaths and tens of thousands wounded and a half a trillion dollars.

But Halliburton is making a gazillion dollars out of it, so it is a good trade-off.

Gayle said...

Are any of the liberals here paying any attention whatsoever to the news? There is much pressure from Congress - and I admit some Republicans (RINO's) - to set a deadline on pulling out of Iraq. If this is done, then Mark, we are going to find out for sure who is right, and we know what's going to happen. It's inevitable! We will only wind up having to go back again.

I like your experiment. I wish we could do it that way and end the entire debate.

Attention liberals: It makes no difference any more why we went in to Iraq. What is done is done. It's in the past. You may sit around hollering we had no right to be there until the cows come home, but the fact of the matter is that we are there. It doesn't even matter why we are there anymore. The point is moot! Let's please focus on reality and the present, and not try to armchair the past with what is at best, questionable hindsight.

Erudite Redneck said...

"Round up all of the liberals who pushed for the pull out and charge them with treason."

Hell, Abouna, why don't you just warm up the ovens?

Mark said...

Halliburton? That's funny. Why do Libs think everything goes back to Halliburton? All they have to do is chant Halliburton, Halliburton, Halliburton, like some mystical mantra, and they win all arguments.

Halliburton? Please.

BB-Idaho said...

Gayle's " It doesn't even matter why we are there anymore." begs the question-would it matter if we weren't?

Mark said...

No, BB, it wouldn't.

Dan Trabue said...

abouna said:

If after we pull out and the terrorists follow us here and start blowing up shopping malls, amusement parks and government buildings, then we should round up all of the liberals who pushed for the pull out and charge them with treason.

Why the liberals? They're the ones who've said that Bush's Iraq policy would create MORE not less support for terrorists, and we were right. So, IF we're going to start rounding up US citizens for treason for increasing terrorism, shouldn't we begin with the ones who helped increase it?

Brother Abouna, your argument makes no logical sense (not to mention it's a bit scary what you seem prepared to do with your fellow citizens).

Abouna said...

No, They NEVER would admit to being wrong. As a matter of fact if Bush were cave and pull the troops out, or if the Dems pull them out should they win the White House in 08, you can bet that they will find some way to blame Bush and the Republicans when we are attacked again.

Abouna said...

Erudite Redneck: I could go for that. Who knows, perhaps baked liberals just might taste good.

If they push to pull our troops out of Iraq, and that causes the terrorists to attack us here, then the libs would be traitors in my book, because they gave aid and comfort to the enemy.

Erudite Redneck said...

Abouna. Call me ER.

Be sure to get some Republican ovens ready, too. Oh, and lots of everyday people ovens. 'Cause it sure ain't just libs sick of the War that George Built.

Dan Trabue said...

When abouna came for the Lefists,
I remained silent;
I was not a Leftist.

When abouna locked up the Christian liberals,
I remained silent;
I was not a Christian liberal.

When abouna came for the Republican veterans opposed to this war,
I remained silent;
I was not a Republican veteran.

When abouna came for me, there was no one left to speak out...except for Mark, and he was under close watch...

Mark said...

Ha ha! That's funny, Dan.

Jenn of the Jungle said...

The muzzies already see us as pathetic weklings, heck they use our own media to crush us. I makes no difference what we do unless we do it hard core and brutally. It's the only thing they will respect.

WomanHonorThyself said...

nice goin Mark!..youre spot on ...Libs have to live in denial they are far too weak morally and spiritually to face painful Truths.

Publius said...

The hypocrits are men like Vitter who mouth the Republican mantra "family values," predict that gay marriage will destroy the family, then frequent whorehouses and cheat on their wives-- thereby commiting acts that have the possiblity of destroying their own marriages.

That's hypocrisy.

And that's what is despicable. Not that he went to a whorehouse for sex. Who cares--I don't. He should have kept his mouth shut about his commitment to "family values" and carried on with his favorite prostitute. No one would have cared. No one.

As for your other "rants," by all means have them. They're all you've got.

You and the rest of the 26 percenters who for reasons unknown to the 74% of the rest of the country are determined to stick by the president who is now just about as popular as Jimmy Carter was.

Carter had his fans, too, as he sank in the polls.

ANd apparently George Bush has you guys.

Even a person as unpopular and detested as Bush needs his supporters.

I salute you for your loyalty. That counts for something, I suppose.

You'll continue to justify it, too, just like the Carterites did.

ELAshley said...

Wow! That's harsh Mark. Nuke the entire middle east?

Aside from that, I'm with ya all the way.

As I see it, Michael Savage has it nailed:

"Liberalism is a mental disorder"

ELAshley said...

I'd comment further but Dan's kinda stunk the place up.

Donald Douglas said...

Just stoppin' by for a quick hello!

Have a great week!

Jim said...

While the relatively small number of combatants in Iraq who call themselves al Qaeda but have no capacity for planning and executing an attack within the US keep our troops busy, those leaders of al Qaeda who actually do have the capacity to plan and execute such attacks are free to implement those plans thanks to the "strategy for victory" implemented by the Bush/Cheney administration.

Dan Trabue said...

elashley said:

"I'd comment further but Dan's kinda stunk the place up."

I love you, too, Brother Eric. We'll get through this together, won't we?

Mike's America said...

Mark: If the consequences of a U.S. withdrawal weren't so horrific I would be in favor of a plan where Democrats would sign an ironclad pledge to take full responsibility and promise to resign from office and never run again if the worst came true.

But I suppose that true to form, the minute we left, the "news" media would stop running stories of the carnage and focus on whatever good "news" it could manufacture.

Timothy said...

OK, the oven thread in this is sick. To charge someone with treason, while a bit filled with hyperbole, is one thing. To equate that with what took place in Nazi Germany, is another all together.

Erudite Redneck said...

Tim: Pbthththt.

Hate is hate, and A-bone-a hates. And so do you. You both need to reopent of it.

Dan Trabue said...

"the oven thread in this is sick."

Because it's okay to charge over half the nation with treason (with the implication that they should be locked up or executed - which is what happens to those who commit treason), but not point out the similarities to fascism with that thinking?

Timothy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
ELAshley said...

Libs DO want to cut and run... it's all they want in Iraq. They are both ignorant to our losses historically, and ignorant to suggest the bad Muhammedmen will leave us alone and cease their killing of civilians when we leave.

They accuse the Bush Administration of a "Bull in a China Shop" war strategy, allowing the nation of Iraq to descend into chaos. But that's exactly what will happen-- TEN FOLD --if and when they get what they want, which is a precipitous pullout from the War on Terror. It is extremely foolish to bloody a mans nose then turn your back on him. And advocating such a policy is a colossal display of ignorance.

The ignorance of Democrats isn't that they are stupid-- they're not! No, their ignorance lies in the fact that they know full well what will happen to the region once we leave and they believe we will be better served by withdrawing anyway. That's not simply Ignorant... it's Foolish and Dangerous to boot.

Dan may well have a point about calling for the imprisonment of Liberals... and the other... but he's dead wrong if he's arguing from the belief that Democrats have the moral high-ground in this War. They do not: They ARE cowards. They are Liars. And they do it all in the name of "Political Power", NOT in the name of "Serving the Public Interest".

BB-Idaho said...

"It is extremely foolish to bloody a mans nose then turn your back on him." sounds a lot like "You break it,you own it."

Mark said...

For the record, EL, I never said we should nuke the entire Middle east. I said "if the terrorists run amok...the President should not be questioned nor criticized should he decide to just nuke the entire Mideast."

Lone Ranger said...

Liberals are moral and physical cowards. For all their posturing about being concerned for the poor and repressed, they aren't willing to lift a finger to help them if it means any sacrifice on their part. Somalia is a perfect example of that. The United States under Bush Sr. organized a military coalition with the purpose of creating a secure environment in southern Somalia for the conduct of humanitarian operations. The coalition, called Unified Task Force entered Somalia in December 1992 on Operation Restore Hope and was successful in restoring order and alleviating the famine. But then the Clinton administration took over and the operation descended into chaos. We retreated from Somalia with our tail between our legs, leaving the civilian population to be starved and enslaved.

There is no war in the world that liberals think is worth fighting. They bleat about our inaction in Darfur, but if we ever did what was necessary to clear up the situation there, it would be Iraq all over again, with liberals undermining every effort to win.

And what about the Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand -- every country where there is a large population of Muslims? Are our foreign policies encouraging Muslims in those countries to murder and destroy too? OR are we engaged in a battle against pure evil that must be won in order to save civilization and humanity from destruction? If you believe that Jesus is God, then you believe in Satan too. Which side of this struggle do you believe Satan is on?

BenT - The Unbeliever said...

"If you believe that Jesus is God, then you believe in Satan too. Which side of this struggle do you believe Satan is on?"

I imagine an evil deity would be rooting for each side to kill as many of the other as possible. I would also assume a good deity would be encouraging both sides to kill as few as possible. No which side is which I guess comes down to which side kills the most people.

A simplistic view might say that any side debating conditionally or unconditionally "nuking" and entire region of the globe would be the bad side.

BenT - The Unbeliever said...

The idea that if we disengaged from Iraq we'd suddenly be overrun with islamic suicide bombers is baffling to me.

I mean Osama Bin Laden and Al-Quaeda didn't suddenly spring forth on September 1st and perpetrate terror on the 11th. No, AQ had been in existence for decades before September 11th. And before AQ there were other terrorist groups who hated American culture and policy. Yet somehow even though the nation didn't have the shield of the PATRIOT ACT. And we weren't waging a war in another part of the globe to draw off terrorists, America was still safe.

In 1978 we didn't have a prison in Guantanamo, but no suicide bombings. In 1987 no rendition policy to countries that practice torture and no truck bombs outside shopping malls. In 1996 no homeland security department and no snipers in Manhattan.

The world didn't change on September 11th. You just saw something scary on television. It's alright to be afraid. You shouldn't let your fear make your decisions though.

Mark said...

Well, Mr. Unbeliever, my proposed experiment would prove one side or the other right, wouldn't it?

9/11 was meticulously planned. So too, is the coming bloodbath that will ensue should we cut and run before we win the war in Iraq. Apparently, you and John Kerry are the only ones alive who still believe Muslim extremists are peaceful people.

On second thought, it wouldn't prove anything to those who refuse to admit reality.

BenT - The Unbeliever said...

What would "winning" in Iraq mean Mark? Are you waiting for a pro-American government? That ain't never gonna happen. Are you waiting for OBL to concede defeat? I don't think he anguishes over the deaths of his troops. What conditions signify victory in Iraq to you? How can we get to that state from where we are now? This is one of the positions conservative take that puzzles me. How can more military and confrontation lead to a reduction of anti-americanism? I am not advocating for capitulating to those who hate us. I am asking if our current strategy is working and being successful.

Mark said...

"How can more military and confrontation lead to a reduction of anti-americanism? I am not advocating for capitulating to those who hate us. I am asking if our current strategy is working and being successful."

First of all, I don't give a rat's ass if the rest of the world is anti-American. Most of them are socialist or Islamic nations anyway. If America is liked by these people, America is doing something wrong.

And if you read any factual reports instead of the daily Kos and DU, you would know the surge is working. We knew going in this wouldn't be a cakewalk and that it would take time. Bush said from the beginning this would be a long struggle, but there is definite progress.

When is liberty and freedom not worth the price? Would you have us surrender so you can enjoy the few months or years you have left before your head is separated from your body? Or will you just convert to Islam to save your own defeatist ass?

Because, you know, conversion or death is the Islamists ultimate goal for anyone who isn't Muslim.

Are you willing to sacrifice your freedom to worship at the church of your choice for a few measly years of uneasy peace?

What is victory in Iraq? An Iraqi government that can govern itself without outside help or interference.

BenT - The Unbeliever said...

I try to be a practical realist Mark. I try to build conclusions from solid facts.

For the "surge" to work the number of average daily attacks on Americans must fall by 90%. That would get us back to were we were in June 2003.

The troop levels called for under the surge plan cannot be sustained past March 2008. There will simply be no more troops ready to rotate into the country.

The current plan isn't working and it isn't going to work. There is no way for the American military to stabilize the country. So elaborate again for me Mark how do we get from here to "winning"?

BenT - The Unbeliever said...

As to the idea that OBL wants to kill or convert all westerners I say, "Him and what army?" Because we have one. It's a bit distracted right now in Iraq, but you can bet if some massive wave of Islamic fundamentalists appeared over the horizon then we still have the navy and coast guard, which would be plenty to wipe the floor with OBL's ass. Don't try to scare me. I'm a real American I don't get terrorized!

Jim said...

When is liberty and freedom not worth the price?

When the liberty and freedom is for people who don't particularly care, and Americans are the ones paying the price.

Lone Ranger said...

Talk about simplistic -- to think that evil needs an excuse to "spring forth." You can't bargain with evil. You can't negotiate with evil. You can't bribe evil. Never in the history of the world has diplomacy caused a brutal dictator to change his ways and embrace peace. The only way to deal with evil is to stand up to it and destroy it.

Liberals simply aren't up to the task. I understand that. Not everyone is cut out to be a hero. I don't care if they cower in a corner. As George Orwell said, "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."

What baffles ME is why liberals don't just sit down and shut up. Why must they undermine every effort of their betters to fight evil on their behalf? Don't they realize that what happens to one of us will eventually happen to all of us? If you can turn a blind eye to the suffering if innocents who have to live under evil, surely you can turn a blind eye to heroes who are trying to make the world a better place.

If a single murderous regime survives the 21st century, it will be a blot on all mankind. And those who sacrifice everything they had to bring peace to the world will not be to blame.

Dan Trabue said...

"First of all, I don't give a rat's ass if the rest of the world is anti-American. Most of them are socialist or Islamic nations anyway."

Don't you think though, Mark, that it would be wise to figure out from what source terrorism comes and trying to deal with the problem at the root of the cause rather than swatting at flies?

And if an anti-American mindset is contributing to terrorism (which many wise people think to be the case), then isn't that the more reasonable way of dealing with the problem? Especially as compared to nuking a region and hoping that that'll do it (but not really knowing because we haven't bothered to figure out why terrorists want to attack us)?

ELAshley said...

The Lone Ranger wrote: "And what about the Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand -- every country where there is a large population of Muslims? Are our foreign policies encouraging Muslims in those countries to murder and destroy too? OR are we engaged in a battle against pure evil that must be won in order to save civilization and humanity from destruction? If you believe that Jesus is God, then you believe in Satan too. Which side of this struggle do you believe Satan is on?"

I'm with the Lone Ranger on this, and I choose God over Satan. Interestingly, there are countless Democrats who would happily impede my efforts to thwart the advance of Evil. So what does that say about those countless Democrats? Are they merely on the other side of the "political" fence, or are they simply on the side or Evil? Here's a hint: If you're not on God's side, you're on Satan's side... Evil's side.

Also, BenT has reduced the "invasion" to a screaming horde brandishing axes and guillotines. The invasion is already underway in Europe and it's not a 'screaming horde'... it's a muslim population that is "out-populating" the Europeans. Out populating them into submission, and already being fueled toward Jihad by radical Imams. The invasion was silent, the indoctrination is in a language few in the West understands, and the end results are fires in Paris, film makers dead in Denmark, subways bombed in London, and an oblivious EU that steadfastly refuses to recognize its Christian heritage in its own Constitution... to encourage its citizens toward the kind of faith they'll need to beat back this 21st century Moor invasion. Some countries in tenth century eastern Europe succumbed to Islam as a state religion. Even Russia was once conquered by the muslims. Think it can't happen again?

Al Qaeda was around decades prior to 9/11? Sorry, not so. Al Qaeda can only trace its roots back to 1989 in Afghanistan, a mere 4 years before the FIRST bombing of the World Trade Center... but Clinton chose to do nothing.

Rendition? Clinton used it in the 90's.

Truck bombs? 1983, Lebanon, USMC Barracks... we tucked our tails and ran home.

Dan wrote: "it would be wise to figure out from what source terrorism comes and trying to deal with the problem at the root of the cause"

It would be wise to take them at their word... that they want to rule the world. That they want to either convert or kill all unbelievers. It would be wise to recognize that these men are twisted by evil! What kind of society is it where muslim mothers celebrate their martyr children? What kind of sick society teaches its children to hate Jews, that Matzo is made from the blood of Christians? That Jews are descended from pigs and apes? There's your source Dan. These people are being controlled by an evil ideology, which is in turn controlled by Evil himself. Wake up!

The ignorance stinking up the place here is astounding!!!

BenT - The Unbeliever said...

EL Mark and the Lone ranger share a striking similarity to OBL. You all believe that those with different religious beliefs from you must be either converted or killed.

EL has previously taken great pains to explain why Terry Nichols and Tim McVeigh were not Christians. In fact EL has a whole list of people who even though they themselves profess to the faith, he won't accept them. But when it comes to other faiths I guess he can't grasp that sort of nuance. If some Hindu extremist somewhere says hateful things about Christianity then ALL Hindus must be in a apocalyptic struggle to destroy Christians. If some Buddhist somewhere does something violent then all Buddhists must be murderous psychopaths, and the religion must celebrate that.

Accepted other religions with the tolerance you would like your own to receive.

"But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also." Matthew 5:39

Those are the words of Jesus the founder of your faith. You believe they are transcribed perfectly. If you believe that this confrontation is divinely mandated then what would Jesus have you do?

Mark said...

Bent, the truth denier says, "EL Mark and the Lone ranger share a striking similarity to OBL. You all believe that those with different religious beliefs from you must be either converted or killed."

That is a lie. I don't believe anyone should be killed because they are a different religion than me. Neither does EL and LR.

Jesus, whom you quoted (out of context) commands his followers to "[G]o into all the world, and preach the Gospel, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commadned you, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost", so yes, I believe those with different beliefs from mine should be converted. What's wrong with that? You obviously want to convert us to atheism. Why is it OK for you but not for others?

And I resent being compared with OBL. That is an insult to me and my friends. You are far more comparable to him than I. After all, you support terrorism with your tacit denial of America's right to defend herself.

You, sir, have overstepped your bounds.

Bent, you are no longer allowed to comment on this blog.

BenT - The Unbeliever said...

This won't get posted but I will respond to your questions. I don't preach atheism. An in fact I am not an atheist. I'm an agnostic. If I encourage anything in others I hope it is moderation.

It wasn't me who suggested the nuclear bombing of the mid east. Isn't that also where some of Christianity's holiest sites are?

I believe America has the right to defend itself against any and all threats. Was Saddam Husein a threat to America though? More than Kim Jong Il? More than AQ Kahn? More than Osama bin Laden?

If you're is going to say that your religion motivates and guides all their decisions then I can question your faith based on your decisions. Your faith makes it very clear how you are supposed to threat those who slander and attack you. If you flatly deny those directions I can see you no other way than as a hypocrite.

ELAshley said...

Mark, were you really SO offended by BenT's statement that you won't allow him to comment ever again?

It's obvious he thinks differently than we do. It's obvious Dan and ER think differently than we do. I think they're offensive, but you haven't banned them.

Please reconsider.

-----

No BenT I don't think people who believe differently than me should be converted to Christianity or be killed. They need to become Christian, but forcing someone by offering them conversion or death would fill the ranks with false converts and sow the seeds or eventual retribution. Besdies which NO ONE can be FORCED to become a Christian. In point of fact, NO ONE can BECOME a Christian unless he or she is first drawn to salvation by the Holy Spirit. Everyone who will ever come to faith in Jesus has already been given to Him by His Father... as a wedding gift perhaps. Imagine that, every Christian will one day be married to the Son of God. God has His wife in Israel, Jesus will have his in the Church.

Contrary to what the unsaved world believes, we are not Christian simply because we say so. We are Christian only if the Holy Spirit resides within us. But that's not to say Christians can't or do not do things that are inconsistant with Who lives in their heart. Everyone sins, even Christians.

But as to Hindus and Buddhists going all violent, seeking to convert the world... that's a pretty big "what-if" considering Hindus and Buddhists are perhaps the most peaceful of the non-Christian religions. And just because one Hindu speaks evilly of another country doesn't mean that country is at risk of any serious harm.

Muslims on the other hand, have shown themselves all too willing to kill themselves just to kill a few of us. That is more than simply Evil... it's deranged, and must be opposed.

When Jesus spoke of turning the other cheek he spoke to an individual's proper response to personal injustice. But that hardly applies to standing idly by while someone rapes and murders your wife and Children. Nor did Jesus' answer to personal slights apply to governments protecting their citizens from outside attack.

Radical Islam must be opposed. To just turn the other cheek is suicide.

Mark said...

Bent, I will post your comments out of respect for EL on a trial basis, mind you, but let me set you straight on some of your unfounded accusations. (apparently intellectual honesty is not one of your strong points)

First, I never suggested we Nuke the mideast. Read it again. I said "if the terrorists run amok...the President should not be questioned nor criticized should he decide to just nuke the entire Mideast."

Second, I never said my religion motivates and guides all my decisions, either. I might believe that, but you don't know that based on anything I've written in this entry. You are setting up straw men of your own. Further, you have no right to question my faith or anyone else's.

Yes, my faith makes it very clear how I am supposed to treat those who slander and attack me. My Bible says I am to shake the dust off my shoes at anyone who refuses to listen to the truth, and give you up to give account for yourself before your Creator. So, you can see, I don't deny my directions.

You say you are an agnostic. I say you are the hypocrite. Agnostics reportedly doubt the existence of a God, but you have a God. It is the God of Humanism. Do you know what a Humanist believes? Humanism is the basic idea that man is the center and the measure of all things. There is no God, man is the final arbitrator of all truth. Man is the one that's going to decide what's right, what's wrong, what's good, and what's evil, what's true, what's false. He may have caused some of his problems, but he has the capacity within himself to solve his problems. There are no absolutes. It's only what man thinks. Doesn't that pretty well describe your flawed philosophy?

That is a very fallible God if there ever was one.

Lastly, I want to reiterate what I've already told Dan:

My blog was never intended to be a forum for debate, It was created so I could rant. So I don't have to answer your questions if I think you are just asking them to be argumentative, and I am highly offended not only by your unjust name calling, but also by your tacit refusal to apologize for lying about and slandering EL, LR, and me.

This is my blog. I don't track mud into your house and I won't allow you to track mud in mine.

You will be allowed to comment here for now, but I reserve the right to ban you at any time if you continue to try to create discord with lies and name calling.

Mark said...

Oh, and one more thing, Bent. If you don't like what I write, you are free to leave in a huff. In fact, you can leave in a minute and a huff. So go, and never darken my towels again if you want. I won't miss you.