Oh, and One Thing to the Appeasement Swine on our Own Shores:
Posted by: Emperor Misha I in Middle East, Useless Swine3:35 pm
Before I hear one more Idiotarian talking head safely here at home in the U.S. of A. advocating, nay demanding that Israel settle for something less than complete victory (meaning, of course, “just hunker down and accept the reality of terrorists blowing up your women and children while the rest of the world yaks on obliviously”), I just want to make ONE thing abundantly clear:
Your “argument” is worthless and completely without merit. There is nothing meritorious about advocating that somebody else sacrifice their own security and lives in order to advance your agenda. In fact, by insisting on doing so anyway, you are no better than the terrorists of Hezbollah and ought to be treated accordingly.
But there’s hope for you yet. His Majesty will take your proposed “solution” seriously enough to listen to it once, and not one fraction of a second prior to that, YOU and your families, friends and THEIR families have moved to Israeli. A border town of Israel, to be exact. Then, and ONLY then can you advance your idiotic “ceasefire” and negotiations with terrorists while rockets and bombs are tearing YOUR children to shreds.
You’ll still be idiots, but at least you’ll be idiots with a say in the matter.
Until then, just shut up.
Shut the FUCK up.
Because I’m getting angry, and I get extremely disagreeable when I’m angry.
You’re objectively pro-terrorist.
Chew on that for a moment.
AM YISROEL CHAI!
Entries (RSS)
The VERY BEST THING that could happen in the middle east would be for Condi to say, loudly and publicly, “Yo, Israel - Get your thumb out, and GET THIS OVER WITH. Quit screwing around, and win this war. Don’t worry about Syria or Iran - we got yer back!”
Se if that gets the muzzies attention. If not, Cry Havoc!
July 30th, 2006 at 3:55 pmKill them all - the Devil will know his own!
July 30th, 2006 at 3:59 pmBy ED Misha’s logic, it is just as impermissable to advocate for war unless directly involved, or even to cheer on one or both of the warring parties.
July 30th, 2006 at 4:11 pmPerhaps I’m confused…
Israel cannot walk away from this with the hizzies intact! They’ve tried playing the UN’s game and all it got them was dead citizens.
July 30th, 2006 at 4:19 pmEnough!
Go IDF!
Well here’s the chance for all the compassion cowboys from lib-tard land to sign up and become human shields for the terrorist towel heads and walk the walk of their flabby, silly talk…
July 30th, 2006 at 4:30 pmPictures Showing The Cowardly Hezbollah…
Here is a video from Ynet that shows more proof of the cowardly Hezbollah tactic of hiding amongst civilians
……
July 30th, 2006 at 4:36 pmNot really, barnold. Supporting a war is simply that: support. You’re not urging someone into a suicidal situation: it means you have someone’s back. It isn’t necessary to be directly involved in a conflict if you know enough to stop an enemy at the gates. In fact, it’s simply plain ol’ common sense. (Which I am finding that many “progressives” lack)
What the talking heads are doing, OTOH, is demanding that someone else (Israel) take a specific set of actions that would, in fact, be suicidal to their defense. More to the point, these demands are made from a point of complete ignorance.
One does not urge an action, the other does. And I think it is safe to say that if you demand someone take a certain action, you should at the very least be informed on it.
July 30th, 2006 at 4:36 pmActually, you get extremely agreeable to me when you’re angry. Must be a reasoning thing. Some can and some can’t.
July 30th, 2006 at 4:55 pmSorry, I don’t know a word of Hebrew…What does AM YISROEL CHAI! mean?
July 30th, 2006 at 5:11 pmAm Yisroel chai= “the people of Israel live”—is an oft-recited dictum, an anthem, of the Jews
(had to look that one up, myself)
July 30th, 2006 at 5:32 pmSince chai means life, I’m guessing it means something like “Long live Israel.”
July 30th, 2006 at 5:35 pmI meant to say with the hizzies left intact.
July 30th, 2006 at 5:48 pmPatterico has a great example of an appeasement swine…
July 30th, 2006 at 5:50 pmRegarding abovementioned cowardly Hosebullies: They obviously need to be blasted from close up, suggesting something akin to guerilla warfare. Wonder if there are any of those militia types in SoLeb who used to be allied with Israel; they could prove a valuable asset! It wouldn’t be quick or easy, but with external backing the right locals might be able to bleed the Baloneyboys to death.
The remarks on Flopping Aces about networks v. nations are particularly interesting–because we’re a network!
July 30th, 2006 at 6:04 pmThese terrorists need to be wiped out, period. Bad news is they hide behnd woman and children. Sadly, Israel has to attack, knowing women and children will be killed. I just wonder when the left will get the fucking guts to realize and face this. Or perhaps keep appeasing these folks. I wonder how they would feel if they were treated that way themselves. Somehow I think a tad less forgiving than they ask of Israel. I wonder how it will prove for us when we have to fight them. We will, one day……..following the left mantra we are doomed to conversion or death. Somehow I find them a bit suicidal. Fine by me, but I’d just as soon it stayed a spectator sport in this case. I simply don’t give a shit any more, wipe them out…all of them!
July 30th, 2006 at 6:13 pmYou are, and LC Nanashi spelled it out perfectly, so I shan’t endeavor to elaborate any further on the subject.
July 30th, 2006 at 6:14 pmAt least you don’t have to contend with a damspot here
There is just NO getting through to him.
July 30th, 2006 at 6:38 pmDJ, Now you know what we go through damn near every time we talk to a libtard!
July 30th, 2006 at 7:09 pmFrustratin’, ain’t it?
Fox News is starting to piss me off. Innocents my ass. The IDF needs to bulldoze a 50-mile kill zone in Lebanon.
July 30th, 2006 at 7:23 pmAnd just how can they tell if they are civilians or not? Hezbullah does not have uniforms and they fire weapons from heavily populated areas. All this “civilian casualties” business stinks to high heaven.
July 30th, 2006 at 8:05 pmWhat fun to encounter a clump of such short-sighted homicidal maniacs as represented on this blog.
As if we needed any confirmation that neo-cons firmly believe that only through more and more violence and mayhem can we protect our security. Kill all the terrorists, shock and awe them until they say uncle. It worked so well in Iraq. Whoops, I forgot, we’re not supposed to talk about Iraq anymore. That’s starting to get a little embarassing for us: the only superpower and we can’t even hammer democracy down the throat of these lowlife A-rabs.
Speaking of embarassment, in case any of you have bothered to check, the Israelis are, comparably speaking, having their asses kicked. They have not achieved any of their objectives (rockets still going off, captured soldiers still AWOL). Israel appears to have woefully underestimated the capabilities of Hezbollah and has no clear strategy - except your guys favorite, grr grr kill kill. And, dag nabbit, the world community is getting upset at all those messy deaths and the rubble everywhere. Of course, we don’t care about world opinion, we don’t need those losers, we can go it alone.
The joy you guys get out of seeing Moslems killed by proxy shouldn’t blind you to what makes sense for our own security. By destroying Lebanese infrastructure, Israel is working against their own self-interest, and ours in the US.
Unless, of course, the only viable plan is to kill all the terrorists, and all the would-be terrorists and all the children that could grow up to be terrorists. And then, finally, we can plant the seeds of democracy.
July 30th, 2006 at 8:05 pmNeighseighr,your Lebanese arent you? You go right ahead and bend over for the terrorists you pitiful coward.
July 30th, 2006 at 8:11 pmYou seemed pleased that Israel has had casualties.That makes you a stinking anti-semitic leftard too.Take off your pink Hezballah cheering uniform.It shows you for the asswipe you are.
LC’s,sorry for the expletives.
Actually it is my understanding Hezbollah is getting it’s ass kicked. So if one rocket hits Israel, it should be deemed a failure? Tell that to the dead Lebanese. Tell that to the UN getting trashed in Beirut, much to my everlasting delight. In any event, Israel reserves the right to attack, regardless of ceasefire. In my mind I say turn up the heat, literally clear a zone out, you leave, surrender or die. For as for other wars…it generally proves the restraint heeded by the left that encourages our enemies, where use of brutal, massive force would end the difficulty. In this country it will require more damage here at home. And as for homicidal maniacs…I suggest you talk to Hezbollah….or Hamas…..and nothing will ensure our security better than wiping these vermin out. Both here at home and wherever they attack. Oh, and as for world opinion………
July 30th, 2006 at 8:21 pmDear Spazzmomma,
Please point out were I indicate pleasure that Israel has taken casualties.
You provide a perfect example of the neo-con position:
- those that support killing terrorists are brave
- those that advocate some kind of bullshit “nuanced” position are cowardly
That’s it, that’s all it takes to be a macho macho man - advocate in the most extreme terms for death to all terrorists and war whenever and wherever possible. So congrats, you have proven yourself irrevocably as a archtypical chickenhawk - oh brave pounder of the keyboard and mouther of militaristic phrases. We stand in awe of your manly mastery of the keyboard and mouse.
And no, I’m not Lebanese. In fact, I’d guess that I am as american as you are, though your rabid hatred puts you along side of some of the worst specimens this country has ever had to put up with. I am also not anti-semitic, but I’m going to guess that you harbor extreme rascist positions regarding Moslems, hence the lack of concern about the deaths of Lebanese. They’re scum, right? They’re all the same, right? They all have rockets in their basements, right? We need to kill them all, right?
And you guys call yourselves americans! Hard to imagine that so many could have drifted so far away from what this country stands for.
July 30th, 2006 at 8:31 pmWhat fun to encounter a clump of such short-sighted homicidal maniacs as represented on this blog.
You should come to my family reunion!
BYOW Bring your own weapon
What a maroon!
July 30th, 2006 at 8:33 pmHey caveman - hasn’t the average number been about 100 rockets per day, not 1? Bear in mind, it gives me no pleasure that Israel finds itself in a no-win situation, precisely because this is such bad news for us. It’s hard to imagine a scenario in which Hezbollah doesn’t come out stronger ultimately than it was going in.
And I know you cream your pants just typing the words “brutal, massive force” - ooh, such fun.
Did I imply that Hezbollah and co. are NOT homicidal maniacs? Of course they are. I’d just prefer a policy that did not clearly lead to the creation of more and more maniacs willing to die for their cause.
No matter how much pleasure you get out of swimming in the blood of these guys, sooner or later we’re going to have to come up with a better idea than “kill them all”.
July 30th, 2006 at 8:38 pmMaxxdog - sounds like a great family. Your long hair just cain’t cover up your red neck - or something like that. And do try to keep up with laws on incest.
July 30th, 2006 at 8:40 pmOh but it does, no matter how much you try to deny it, as is self-evident to anybody who can read your spew.
You positively revel in it because you think it gives you a perfect argument against those who advocate killing those who would kill you before they succeed.
Of course, the point you miss is that any lack of success on the part of Israel is precisely due to their unwillingness to act in the fashion that you and yours love to accuse them of endorsing.
No it isn’t. It’s actually quite easy. Hezbollah exists as a force only because of the support of the “government” of Lebanon, the puppet regime of Syria and their puppet masters in Iran. Take those away and you have a bunch of untrained savages trying to assemble whatever they can find beneath the sofa cushions into weapons.
The reason that they’re still around isn’t because of excessive force being employed by us and Israel, it’s because of the exact opposite.
Your hilarious lack of understanding of the nature of the threat we’re facing and the factors upon which it relies for its continued existence aside, what IS that Magic Policy that Moonbats love talking about yet somehow never can seem to specify?
Really, I’d be most interested.
Oh, and please don’t suggest anything that has been tried and failed before. Unless you’re determined to look like a fool, that is.
July 30th, 2006 at 8:52 pmWe have not yet implemented the idea of kill them all. And please don’t project your sexual fantasies onto others. It’s demeaning to yourself. But be my guest…….if that’s the best you can do, go for it….
July 30th, 2006 at 8:52 pmI receive no pleasure….not from killing. You make a great many assumptions not in evidence.
Yes, a hundred rockets a day…but for how long? Let us compare that to the Israeli bombardment you lament…….I daresay you will run out of Lebanese before Israel runs out of Jews………
Oh by the way…please name the war Israel has lost……….something about crickets churping……
Caveman - let’s see, a war Israel has lost. How about the ~10 year war against Hezbollah in Lebanon?
And the fact that Israel has been under almost constant attack from Palestinians… does that sound like a country that’s victorious? I’ll agree that in the traditional old-fashioned wars, they were clearly victorious. In the asymetric wars of today… not so victorious.
My apologies if you see sexual fantasies everywhere. I’ll have to tone down my writing - wouldn’t want to get you all excited, if you know what I mean.
And BTW, I lament every death over there, except the deaths of militants focused on the destruction of Israel. Those guys are getting what they deserve.
July 30th, 2006 at 9:05 pmI’d say Israel didn’t lose…..that’s what. Victorious, yes? Yhey survived and fought them back. Unfortunatly they have been restrained by others,
July 30th, 2006 at 9:19 pmAs for your fantasies, your flatter yourself. May I suggest music as an alternative…say start with an organ solo……….
The ONLy deaths you lament are those that do not promite your desire to weaken Israel. You speak of an alternative way but never define it……why don’t you? Tell us how you would resolve this issue….and please don’t list something that has been tried before………..
I wish you all the luck in the world getting Israel and Hezbollah to agree to it…Hezbollah brooks no compromise…they want Israel gone. Yet you lefties yap and lament, but never solve.
Go ahead, list a viable alternative……..
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6162397493278181614&hl=en
neighseigher, take the time and watch this vid.
July 30th, 2006 at 9:25 pmMaybe you’ll learn something, maybe not.
Dear Emperor,
I guess you must be psychic since you know what I believe better than I do. How helpful in an argument to be able to see through the smoke screen of stated, written words and see the real underlying truth. Kind of typical for neo-cons: dream up a position for somebody that they didn’t espouse, then attack the position vehemently. Kind of like shooting fish in a barrel. So much harder and tiresome to try to actually argue against what someone is saying.
So, again, I find no pleasure WHATSOEVER in the fact that Israel has backed itself into a corner. If you want to believe that for some reason I am secretly chortling to myself in glee over their dilemma, so be it. I leave you to your world of illusions.
With regard to Hezbollah’s position coming out of this - I agree that if we nuke Iran and Syria and join Israel in some kind of Sherman-esque march-to-the-sea sweep through the mid-east, killing everyone in sight, yeah OK maybe Hezbollah goes down for the count. Perhaps you see that as a reasonable approach. Again, though, we can’t let a single breeding couple survive, right?
Now to the policy question - I’d first like to know what you think makes so many people want to strap on bombs and kill themselves along with a few infidels? I’m not talking about the religious leaders now, but the followers. The guys that lead these groups are clearly fanatical maniacs bent on some crazy notion of a totally Islamic world. They need to be killed, no way around that. The thing is - why would anyone be listening to them? What would need to happen to get these folks to dismiss this fanaticism and consider alternatives, like going to work, coming back home, watching TV, screwing the little woman, rinse and repeat?
Got to run (my bedtime) - but would be curious about your thoughts on this. Perhaps you hold to the “they’re all mad dogs who hate us because of our freedom” philosophy. The first step is determining why recruits to fanatical Islam are so readily available. Why is this violent extremism so easy to sell to so many recruits? What policy might we pursue that would ultimately offer viable alternatives? Ponder on that, Emperor. I’m trying the Socratic method.
July 30th, 2006 at 9:27 pmAargh, the bullshit keeps raining down - and yet I need to get to bed. Maxxdog - thanks for the link. I need no lessons in the brutality of radical Islam and the danger it represents. Seeing the 9/11 footage of course makes one wonder why we didn’t keep after those guys.
Caveman - please keep your sexual fantasies to yourself. You’ve got some kind of fixation there that you should deal with - just not on this blog. Also, I know that you, and many others, enjoy attributing a belief to someone so you can then attack them for having that belief. It’s fun, isn’t it? And makes for easier arguments. Try to see if you can read and understand this - I have no desire to see Israel weakened. None at all. As in zero. I would like Israel to exist as a strong, vibrant, secure country with no need for bomb shelters anymore. No fear from random acts of terrorism. OK? Is that clear? If you continue to state that I believe something other than what I just wrote, then I’m going to have to believe that you actually want the terrorists to win. Despite anything you say about wanting to kill them all (or whatever nonsense you may have been spouting here or elsewhere). Despite what you’re saying, I know that you really love the terrorists and want them to triumph.
Hey, this is kind of fun. I can make up positions for folks I’m arguing with! And then argue against those positions! Wow, I sure can argue good.
OK, I really got to run. See you crazy guys tomorrow.
July 30th, 2006 at 9:39 pmCorrupt governments, shitty or nonexistent economies, a religion that blames their lack of opportunity and shitty living conditions of the eeevvvviiillll jjjjooooossss, an offer of 72 virgins if they’ll just endeavor to kill as many jjjooiiisssshh women and children as they can, and governments that permit and encourage this foolishness, because they can continue soking up every “foreign aid” dollar that comes their way for newer and better weapons to kill the eevviill jjoosss with? At least for starters, since we are next on the agenda.
How about “Choose Life?” The only time they ever seem to listen is when they are getting their asses kicked. Knock them down. Put a boot on their collective throat and say “This is really very easy. Knock this shit off. Stop being murderous asshats and join the rest of the civlized world. Lord knows we pay you enough money for the damn oil. Spend it on your countries rather than bombs. This is your last chance. If I stop the car again bubba, the last thing you’ll see before allah’s firey, amorous embrace and your 72 raisins is a blinding flash. Don’t make us do it.”
July 30th, 2006 at 9:51 pmNo, you sound like an idiot…and what is your solution to the problem? Sweet dreams.
July 30th, 2006 at 9:52 pmI don’t see any raining down here. Must be local to your vicinity. You know, discounting for drift due to air currents, objects tossed directly up into the air will fall (relatively close) to the point they were initially tossed from.
Indeed— it’s called the Kerry Maneuver…pick a position, make a stance, move away from it and deny your were ever there to begin with until it’s convenient to point out you were there to begin with.
Let’s keep it really simple, considering that we neo-cons don’t have the comprehension skills to interpret multi-syllable words.
CIRCLE JERK…using the “Socratic” method of course.
Mish-
Too late, way too late.
Anyone tossing “Neo-Con” out in the first paragraph of drivel, defaults to Godwin’s Law.
G.A.M.E. O.V.E.R.
July 30th, 2006 at 10:04 pmNo more than yourself, who can detect hair length & skin color from afar:
Then, after that cute condescension (based on some polite stereotype, perhaps deriving from the work of that noted anthropologist J. Leno) protesting:
No apologies for not laughing at yours.
July 30th, 2006 at 10:08 pmNeighseighr, the liberal mentality is supposed to favor human rights, civil rights, democracy, multiculturalism, diversity, etc., but, if Hezbullah wins, wherever Hezbullah and all their ilk win, it is the end of civil rights, human rights, democracy, multiculturalism, diversity, etc.
Americans who oppose Israel defending itself are coming down on the side of their own worst enemy.
And make no mistake, you are defending the Jihadi’s with your “yes but, the Israelis are doing X, Y and Z”. Your assigning moral equivilence where there IS none; and in so doing, you’re , at least tacitly, defending people that don’t rate any sympathy whatsoever.
The civilian causelties are a human tragedy, but in war they have to be expected to occur. The difference is, when they are Israeli caused, they ARE unintended ,and the Israeli’s mourn them; Hezbullah deliberatly targets civilians,and when they succeed, they celebrate.
BZZT.. Wrong again, oh rightouse one. The Israelis left Lebanon, because they were willing to take the chance that a plan such as you seem to be in favor of (ie,letting the UN be a “peacekeeping force)just might bring peace w/o furthur bloodshed…that worked out REAL well, didn’t it? Hezbullah used that time to firmly entrench themselves into the Lebaness government itself, and to build up stocks of missiles with which to bring more terror down on Israeli CIVILIANS when they deemed the time to be right.
F.E.T.E.
July 30th, 2006 at 10:12 pmNeighsaighr,you stated: Why is this violent extremism so easy to sell to so many recruits? What policy might we pursue that would ultimately offer viable alternatives? I would not be so stupid to ask those questions if someone had a gun pointed at my head.I would punch them in the throat first. You dope! Do you really think you can reason with these people?
July 30th, 2006 at 10:25 pmAlso,you said: As if we needed any confirmation that neo-cons firmly believe………
We?…. You got a frog in your pocket or did you forget to take your medication?
The Emperor says:
“Your “argument” is worthless and completely without merit. There is nothing meritorious about advocating that somebody else sacrifice their own security and lives in order to advance your agenda. In fact, by insisting on doing so anyway, you are no better than the terrorists of Hezbollah and ought to be treated accordingly.”
This is the same battle plan American leftists have insisted upon since the 1960’s (as far as I know; it could be possible they used it in the 103-’s/40’s too). Insist that THEIR country disarms before the enemy does. They said the US should dismantle its missiles before the Soviet Union. They insist Israel should “be the bigger person” and stop fighting first.
Morons.
Until Hamas and Hizb’allah surrender, the Israelis should stop their outright bombing campaign only to limit themselves to surgical missile strikes.
July 30th, 2006 at 10:34 pmNo. I know it as well as you do, not better than. There’s a difference there. And it’s got nothing to do with being psychic either. Simple observation will do just nicely, and I’m pretty good at it. Thanks for noticing.
I don’t know if you’re chortling, but you certainly are enamored of your fantasy that Israel is, in any shape form or fashion, in danger of being defeated by Hezbollah. Otherwise, why would you cling to it so desperately in order to bolster your “argument” when it is obvious to anybody with the brains G-d promised locusts that it is, indeed, a fantasy?
Or perhaps you really DO believe that the Arab world is crying out for an immediate ceasefire because of their deep concerns for Israel, should she continue to be “defeated” by Hezbollah?
This would be true if you were to assume that the only way of taking out the regimes of Iran and Syria would be to “kill everyone in sight”, which would be a first in the history of warfare, so I’ll kindly disregard it completely before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.
Answering a question with a question? How — innovative. Never seen that one before.
Funnily enough, you provide the answer yourself in the very next sentence:
See? The religious leaders. The very same religious leaders that are quite unwilling to strap on bombs themselves.
Those are the ones making people want to strap on bombs and kill infidels, a task made ever so much more easy by the fact that their “holy” book is one long tirade against anybody who isn’t a Muslim, along with numerous exhortations to go kill them all or turn them into slaves.
So back to the question that you won’t answer: What is your Magic Policy that will make it all go away?
July 30th, 2006 at 10:57 pmBeth–Thanks for the translation.
Xystus–You just might be on to something with the militias idea. The regular Lebanese army clearly isn’t up to the job of rooting out Hezbollah.
July 31st, 2006 at 8:26 amFor anyone still reading this:
I continue to enjoy the group think so vividly on display here. How sweet it must be to live in a black and white world. You’ve got the good guys here and the bad guys there. Our role, as the good guys, is to kill as many of the bad guys as we can. Then, the survivors will be convinced to become good guys. Now that’s something even a 2 year old can understand. I’m guessing you guys believe there’s some kind of total number of terrorists and that every time a terrorist is killed, the overall count goes down by one. You perhaps have already heard and rejected the comparison with the many-headed Hydra, that grows 2 heads back each time 1 is cut off. In your view then, and please correct me if I’ve got this wrong, every dead terrorist improves our security. Period. So it’s simply a matter of finding and killing them all. Correct?
Not that anyone is likely to be interested, but let me try this one more time:
I sincerely believe that Israel has the right to defend itself and can make its own decisions about the best way to do that.
I also believe that the actions Israel is taking will NOT lead to the dismantling of Hezbollah or a reduction in anti-Israel/US sentiment. In fact, I believe that the most likely outcome is an increase in Islamic fundamentalist terrorism. And why not, given that there will be even more “proof” that Israel/US is unconcerned about the loss of Moslem lives/infrastucture. More shame, more sense of impotence.
My primary concern is for the security of the US - and thus I support actions that enhance our security and criticize actions that do not.
Given where we are now, what could happen in Lebanon that would result in enhanced security for the US?
Unless you subscribe to the “each time we kill a terrorist our security is improved” school of thought, I can’t see how Israel’s actions help us. Perhaps you can enlighten me.
July 31st, 2006 at 10:59 amYou still haven’t answered the question, Neighseighr.
What is your magic policy?
I think the policy asserted here is pretty good. Kill the bastards. I mean, it’s not like Israel is killing them one at a time. But let’s stay with your Hydra analogy for a second. Then how do you kill the Hydra? Give it what it wants? Feed it victims so it’s happy, and doesn’t mess with us? That’s just stupid.
To kill the Hydra, you cut it’s heart out. What is the heart of this Hydra? Syria and Iran. They can either bend to diplomatic pressure, or bend to military force. If you are convinced that we must coexist with the Hydra, then you pull it’s teeth. That’s why any cease-fire must be predicated on the hezzys giving up their arms, disbanding, and leaving Israel the fuck alone. It must also address Iran and Syria’s role in the region.
What seigh you?
July 31st, 2006 at 11:34 amfmragtops-
Actually, Hercules killed the Hydra by burning the neck stump after cutting off each head. I’m not sure how best to translate that into the current world situation, so will drop the analogy for now.
I have no magic policy - and don’t believe there is a silver bullet lurking out there. But I do have some thoughts on the subject.
Most importantly, I do not think we can kill our way out of this problem. My understanding is that there have now been multiple (two? three?) generations of Arabs in the Middle East who feel they’ve been screwed multiple times. Whatever the truth may be, this is their perception. Humbling wars with Israel, punishment doled out by the US in Afghanistan and Iraq, etc. have appeared to confirm their powerless status, their weakness, their lack of importance on the world stage. From an economic standpoint, they face high levels of unemployment, low standards of living. So, you’ve got this fetid mix of low self-esteem, shame, poverty, lack of hope. Now, along come these fanatical religious leaders who find a very attentive audience. If I have no life and no future, I’m likely to listen to someone who promises to build up my sense of pride, of belonging to something worthwhile, even if it means I need to blow myself up to achieve it. Please note: I am not condoning any of this, just trying to define the context for the upswing in Islamic terrorism.
So, I’m suggesting that outfits like Hezbollah can continue to draft new recruits because the social and economic conditions are so dire that providing a way to fight back becomes an attractive option. Put another way, I don’t think that the terrorist rank-and-file are natural born maniac killers. They become that through their indoctrination and training.
The question becomes, how do we stop the flow of recruits? There may always be a small subset of Moslems who intellectually argue their way into adopting a terrorist position. These few elites, typically well-educated and perhaps wealthy, will likely always find a rationale for their hatred. However, if we stop the flow of foot soldiers, the suicide bomber contingent, then the threat from terrorism goes down.
Step one has to be resolving the Israeli/Palestinian problem. Easier said than done, I know. But if the US inserts itself again into the diplomatic negotiation and works at it patiently, we could get it done. We’ve squandered so much political capital at this point that it’s hard to see that we can be effective in this role. However, if we help broker an agreement, say one that calls for two states, and we commit to safeguarding each state’s security, who knows? There might be a solution lurking out there. Just by making it clear that the US and the rest of the world community wants to achieve a lasting peace and is clearly commited to an impartial balanced solution, even that could make a difference.
Beyond resolving the Palestinian issue, building up the economic base, developing local economies, helping establish or improve agricultural and tourist industries - that’s how to ultimately solve the problem. If even a small percentage of the money that poured into Israel after WW2, from private donations and government aid, could be directed at building up the economic base of countries not blessed with large oil reserves, that would make a big difference I think.
So, some kind of Marshall plan, funded perhaps by the richer Middle Eastern countries. Or some other process, as long as it’s oriented towards improving local economic conditions. Most folks (even Arabs!) want security, a job, hope for a future, etc. Israel got an incredible leg up - and of course also had a citizenry dramatically committed to making things work. I’m not an expert in economic/social policy by any means so would leave it to experts to come up with some kind of plan. However, I’d guess that if we could get the violence to stop and get people focused on improving conditions on the ground, the terrorism problem would begin to abate.
Brute force, exercised without constraint against civilian populations is unlikely to convince a terrorist to drop his terrorist ways. We have abundant history that tells us that. Did the German reprisals stop the French Resistance? I do believe that the Osamas of the world truly hate the West and will do everything in their power to destroy us. However, if they can’t convince others to sign up, they will have much less power. So our goal must be - create conditions under which folks have no incentive to become human bombs. Kill them all just doesn’t seem like a viable approach.
July 31st, 2006 at 1:53 pmNice to see you were paying attention to my answer to “why?”.
Your solution misses the mark, however.
Everytime we have gotten between hizbollocks and Israel, and brokered a “peace deal”, the result has been a resumption of hostilities by hizbollocks with greater intensity and better weaponry.
July 31st, 2006 at 2:19 pmNo more deals. Get the hell out of Israel’s way, and let them secure their peace.
But there can’t be a “peace deal” without a resolution to Israel and Palestine. Without that, I’d agree, any positive result will quickly fade as new hostilities break out.
Describe how Israel will be able to secure a lasting peace based on blowing up most of Lebanon. Do you think that will scare off all other terrorists? If so, based on what precedent?
Somewhat related question:
July 31st, 2006 at 3:37 pmLaunching rockets indiscriminately with no capability to distinguish between military and civilian targets is clearly an act of terrorism. However, if a terrorist attacks a military target, is that ipso facto an act of terrorism?
naysayer sez:
Are you referring to the civilian airliner that was crashed into the Pentagon? I consider that an act of terrorism, and it was aimed at a military target. Shall we nuance this further?
July 31st, 2006 at 4:09 pmHow convenient. Your argument failed, so move along. Nothing to see here. The analogy would be to nuke them, burn everything to the ground ans salt the earth. A very notion that appalls you. Nice try.
BTW. I do a pretty good moonbat impersonation, and you out-moonbatted me. Thanks for the moonbattery lesson.
The reason they keep getting new recruits is because they are ruled by thugs, and thus have no economy and no hope for a future. They are also indoctrinated that it’s the fault of the US and the Joos that they live in Shitopia, but it’s the fault of the thugs that rule over and enslave them. Furthermore, it’s often the best way to secure a future for their family. They get paid to become suicide bombers. It’s not like they can get a job. No democracy.
THe solution is just like we’re doing in Iraq. Topple the regime. Secure. Rebuild, and institute democracy. When people are capable of succeeding (ie Free) then they cease to commit acts of terror.
Buh Bye
July 31st, 2006 at 4:12 pmWell said, FIAR.
No, I know how Hercules killed the Hydra, but like FIAR said, you would be totally opposed to annhilating entire cities and salting the earth, so I took a more indirect route.
I will give you props for actually being interested in debate and not just flinging pooh like most trolls.
The problem with your policy is, as Lord Misha directed you not to do, been tried and has failed. The rest of the Middle Eastern countries, especially the rich ones, don’t want this problem solved. If they wanted it solved, it would be over already. Since the countries in that region prosper because of, not in spite of, this conflict we have to impose our will on it.
Also, blowing up most of Lebanon would work if they tried it. Eventually everybody will be dead, or their will will break. Razing the middle east would work, but that’s a solution nobody wants. At least not yet. Your ilk likes to accuse Israel and the US for being brutal, but you know if we decided to cast aside concerns of kiling civilians, and decided to be truly brutal we could wipe out every life form that exists in that part of the world, and then rebuild it in our image.
Your option is not an option because all the criteria you call for cannot be met. The only way they will be met is to make the middle east fear us more than they fear terrorists.
July 31st, 2006 at 4:32 pmWell, the knowledge that the civilized world is tired of you being a murderous asshat, and will kill you for your trouble can be a deterent to those still possessing a spark of reason, and for those that don’t, don’t you think the rest of the world is better off without them?
Which the paloswinians have been offered time and time again. The time for talk is over.
July 31st, 2006 at 8:16 pmJaybear - get your head out of your ass. I was referring to the Hezbollah attack on Israeli soldiers. I know your world perspective revolves entirely around 9-11 when, mirabile dictu, the US discovered that it was not all powerful. That really kicked you in the balls didn’t it.
Fiar - the Hydra is not an “argument” - it’s a useful metaphor for a situation where an enemy grows stronger with each attack you make against it. I can’t actually believe that you’re using the complete fiasco in Iraq as an example of success. You are so totally bound in self-deceit, like your brethren here. It must be stark, ball-shrivelling fear that does that to someone. Just for laughs, let’s read again what you wrote:
THe solution is just like we’re doing in Iraq. Topple the regime. Secure. Rebuild, and institute democracy.
Ouch, this is too funny - as the Joker said, we’ve got a live one here… too, too funny. When the situation in Iraq is touted as an example to be copied elsewhere - whoah Nelly, we’ve entered some kind of twilight zone.
fmragtops - Are you seriously advocating razing the middle east? Do you seriously believe it would be a good thing to wipe out every life form that exists in that part of the world, and then rebuild it in our image.? I guess that would make us just like G*d, first the fire and brimstone and then a new world in our own image. Such hubris! And then there’s the little matter of taking the lives of, what, a few million people? But they’re scum, right?
You guys have worked yourselves into such a froth of anger and fear. Do you ever step back and listen to yourselves? Truly pathological.
Of course, this is a blog on the Internet so you’re free to act out your fantasies. It speaks volumes that your fantasies are so violent and hate-filled. Different strokes for different folks, I guess.
I’m out - have fun, you wacky guys. And keep dreaming big - why stop at immolating the middle east? What about those evil EU types? Drinking wine, eating cheese and thumbing their noses at us? Shouldn’t we take them out too? Darn, so little time, and so many people (scum) to kill!
July 31st, 2006 at 9:26 pmNeighseigher
July 31st, 2006 at 9:42 pmDid you see the vids of the Palis destroying the beautiful, functioning greenhouses the Israelis left when they pulled out of Gaza? Sure looks like they want jobs and a decent life to me.
Baruk offered the Palis 95% of what they wanted and Israel got homicide bombers and rocket attacks for an answer! The Palis don’t want peace, they want Israel destroyed!
Just because your sister sits on your face doesn’t mean it’s normal and everyone does it!
What a maroon!
Neighseighr, do you actually read the comments you are responding to? All I said was it would work, contrary to your argument. You keep saying it won’t work, it won’t work. I’m saying it would, but nobody’s tried it yet because nobody wants to. I’m saying people accusing Israel and The US of brutality are just stupid because we could, if we decided to, raze the middle east, and kill every breathing organism in that part of the world.
I’ll continue this discussion as long as you want to discuss. If this thing turns into a name calling contest, I’ll lose patience and move on.
July 31st, 2006 at 9:56 pmI noticed that you completely ignored me when I asked you to NOT suggest something that had already been tried multiple times with nothing to show for it but more dead innocents.
If you want to call repeating the same old failed method over and over again while expecting different results “policy”, then have fun. The correct definition, however, is “insanity.”
And that, as they say, is the end of that or at least it should be.
But since I’m bored anyway…
You’ll note that the rate of recidivism among dead terrorists is 0%. I find that strangely encouraging. What I also find encouraging, at least as far as my solution having a higher probability of a successful outcome than yours goes, is that “killing your way out of a problem” has worked every single time in history, whereas “paying tribute and kissing the feet of your enemies in hopes that they’ll start liking you and leave you alone” has worked exactly ZERO times.
Ask the Greeks what worked with Xerxes. Ask the Romans what worked with Carthage. Ask your grandparents what worked with Tojo and Adolf.
You’ve just perfectly described the conditions that led to the rise of Adolf Hitler.
Now, answer me this: Which approach worked better, Chamberlain’s or Churchill’s?
And if my grandmother were a pine tree, she’d wear cones.
No, it’s not that you’re entirely incorrect. If we can magically abolish the Koran and 1,400 years of religious indoctrination, if we can take everything that makes up their culture, their religion and their perception of history and turn it around 180 degrees, then it just might work. In other words, if we could turn them all into us overnight, we’d be home free.
Now that we’re done fantasizing, can we please get back down to Earth and deal with the reality we live in?
There are two choices: The Israelis want to live in peace with their neighbors, their neighbors want to kill every single Jew and take over every square inch of their territory. “Easier said than done” is an understatement.
No, there is no compromise possible. How can I know that? Because Israel and your beloved “international community” have tried just that numerous times and every single time with the same result: “Now that we have your concessions, stupid infidels, we’ll just resume the killing until we get more of the same.”
Every. Single. Time.
And it should come as no surprise if you actually bother to LISTEN to the genocidal insanity being preached from the mosques over there, the pathological disease that is being indoctrinated and spread in their schools.
THEY don’t even TRY to hide it, so why is it that people like you, rather than just accepting that fact, choose to stick your fingers in your ears and sing “LALALALALALALA! I can’t HEAR you!”
You mean like all the other times we’ve “got it done” only to see the paleosimians resume hostilites as soon as our diplomats board the plane for home?
Let’s try it. Only THIS time, we use YOUR neighborhood as a bargaining chip. THIS time, we make sure that YOUR family and friends live within rocket distance of the apes we’re “negotiating” with.
So you want us to stick our troops in the middle on an indefinite mission of “peacekeeping”, is that it? It’s amazing how much you oppose the use of power, but have no problem advocating that our troops waste their time being tripwires all over the globe. Or you are suggesting, perhaps, that we leave it to the UN? Like, say, in Lebanon? Or Africa? Sorry, but not even the “Palestinians” deserve that kind of abuse.
And what IS it with you and this “protect BOTH states’ security?” The “Palestinians” have absolutely nothing to fear from the Israelis as long as they abstain from blowing up Israeli civilians. If they’d stuck to, say, the Oslo accords that gave them EXACTLY what you’re proposing (undoubtedly a “brilliant solution” in your mind) instead of immediately launching the second intifada, there would BE no problem today. If they’d responded to the unilateral withdrawal from Gaza with something other than Qassam attacks and suicide bombings, then there’d BE no Operation Summer Rains.
You can keep up your “they’re all equally bad” nonsense ’till you turn blue in the face, but the reality won’t magically change to become that which you want it to be.
If even a small percentage of the money poured into Arab countries and the “Palestinian” terrortories in the form of U.S. foreign aid was used on something other than blowing up Israeli toddlers and funding Wahhabi madrassas and terrorist “clerics”… Heck, if even a minute fraction of the funds that the Arabs literally pump out of the ground was spent on that instead of funding terrorism.
But somehow it is our responsibility to make up for the shortfall via our taxes, huh? Somehow we’re supposed to pay for the social advances that the Arabs won’t spend money on themselves, seeing as how that would take funds away from their terroristic activities?
Go ahead, write a check if you want, just don’t expect ME to pay for the rope that they intend to hang us with.
Not to mention that what you’re proposing is to reward terrorism. You’re proposing that we hand the murdering swine who’ve been spending the last 14 centuries hating and killing us a big bag of money in hopes that they’ll suddenly feel bad and decide to stop.
That’s as profoundly idiotic as suggesting that handing over half of your money when you’re being held at gunpoint is going to make the mugger decide to let you keep the rest.
Go ahead, look it up. Find me one example in history where the paying of tribute and the show of obeisance to an enemy has made said enemy decide that he’s had enough, that he has no further demands.
Does the phrase “at this point, Germany has no further territorial demands” ring a bell? If you’ve ever opened a history book, it should. If you’ve ever opened a history book, you also ought to know what happened next.
If you reward negative behavior you get more of it, not less. It’s so simple that toddlers know it. Why don’t you? Why won’t you?, because I refuse to believe that anybody can actually be that stupid.
You can’t buy the love of your enemies. You can buy them off for a while, but only for as long as it takes for them to realize that they want more. That’s how it’s always worked, and the world hasn’t changed one little bit since ancient times, apart from technological advances.
Ferchrissakes, man, how do you EXPECT our enemy, an enemy whose M.O. hasn’t changed for 1,400 years, to react if we were to say “here, we’ll pay you a lot of money if only you’ll stop hurting us”, other than to think to himself “great, it really works. Now all we have to do is to hit him every time we want more. It’s like a fucking ATM, only this one you blow up instead of sticking a plastic card in it?”
We can’t make our enemy love us.
We CAN, however, make him FEAR us.
Same as it ever was. Ask Macchiavelli.
July 31st, 2006 at 11:14 pmMaxxdog,
Are there some Palestinians whose sole motivation is the destruction of Israel? Sure. Are there some Palestinians who want jobs and a decent life? What’s your answer to that one? That every single Palestinian lives and breathes for one sole purpose – to destroy Israel? I have seen videos of Palestinians working in their orchards, in their shops, etc. I have a fundamental belief that most folks, wherever they live, whatever religion they espouse, want to live their lives peacefully and would have little interest in geo-political matters if the basics were available to them. Just as we’ve got you guys here and the like-minded types in the administration, absorbed in your fantasies of death and destruction, the Palestinians have those types too. Sometimes I wish there could be this face-off, you guys, armed to the teeth with keyboards clutched in your manly fists, and the terrorist leaders, with video cameras and mis-firing submachine guns. Oh, and Maxxdog, I don’t need any insight regarding your interactions with your sister – that should be kept in the family. Finally… hey turkey! see you in Albuquerque!
Fmragtops,
Let me see if I’ve got this right. You’re saying “it” would work, but nobody’s tried it. So I’m wrong for saying “it” wouldn’t work, and you’re right for saying “it” would work? Something, that as you say hasn’t been tried yet, would work because… umm, now why are you correct here? Saying it would work over and over again doesn’t really cut it for me. All the shock and awe the US could muster has reduced the terrorist threat in Iraq by exactly how much?
Second point – it’s stupid for people to accuse Israel and the US of brutality because if we wanted to, we could kill “every breathing organism” in the middle east. Hmm, so if someone is down on the ground and you’re beating them in the face with your fists that’s not brutal because you could have used a baseball bat. Interesting argument. Sounds kind of lawyerly to me somehow. Also, I’ll try not to offend you with any name calling. I know all about the delicate sensitivities of neo-cons when those narsty terrorist-loving liberals start using their potty mouths.
Emperor,
Please describe what has happened in the Middle East that most resembled something like the Marshall Plan.
Your comments on killing our way out of a problem reflect the kind of massive lack of imagination that continues to plague our administration. You’re caught up in fighting prior wars, dude. The Greeks and the Persians, the Romans and Carthage, Tojo, Adolf – these are examples of nation states fighting other nation states. I’m guessing that you’re familiar with the term asymmetric warfare. Applying strategies and tactics from “conventional” warfare to this new style of warfare is a recipe for failure. And that’s exactly what we’re experiencing in Afghanistan and Iraq. Failure. Israel is experiencing the same thing. Imagine that – complete, absolute air superiority (heck, the enemy can’t even field a single plane), the best weaponry that money can buy – and no victory.
Typically, you state that Islam is at fault itself, that the religion itself is behind this terrorism. Do you actually know anything about that religion? You can easily string together passages from the Christian Bible and make the case that Christianity is all about violence, death and destruction, bash the heads of your enemies’ babies against the wall kind of thing. Christianity, Death Bringer to all Infidels! And, sure enough, you can do the same thing with the Koran. Outside of the neo-con’s perspective, however, a rational perspective indicates that neither Christianity nor Islam are oriented towards destruction and violent conversions of the infidels. You can rant away on this one, but the facts are not on your side. Also, why do you insist on placing this in terms of a 1,400 year struggle? Describe, please, the unbroken string of Islamic attacks against the West over this time frame? Your insistence on placing this in a kind of Biblical epochal struggle would be comical, if the impact on your thinking were not so distorting.
Your country respects and values your courageous love for violence, carried out by others while you bravely stay on guard in your recliner, keyboard ever ready for another salvo. Of course, you must be right, that the only course of action involves the deaths of perhaps millions of people. When has diplomacy ever worked, anywhere? We should disband the State Dept (and the UN, that goes without saying) and just beef up the army. Talk about Empire. We can create our own new Pax Obesius Americanus, where the palisimians (love that rascism oozing up to the surface!) and other scum can be incinerated appropriately.
Your mind set is completely driven by what’s the next good thing to do. If it feels right to bomb Lebanon back to the stone age, then let’s do it! If it feels right to invade Iraq with no plan on what happens after victory is declared, let’s do it! Like nasty little kids with short attention spans and no thought for tomorrow, you want to run around and kick down everyone’s sand castles. But what happens next? What happens when an entire country is reduced to rubble?
By the way, remind me why we care so passionately about Israel and don’t care that much about, oh say, Somalia? Or North Korea? Or China? Or anywhere else in the world suffering from oppressive regimes, violence, etc.? Just wondering. And please don’t start with the anti-semitic thing.
I agree, by the way, that you can’t buy the love of your enemies. And yes, negotiating from a position of overwhelming strength is where you want to be. Unfortunately, our country’s actions over the last several years have reduced our stock, our mightiness level, significantly. We’ve been exposed as incompetent and weak – unable to secure either Afghanistan or Iraq, unable to capture our worst enemy, unable to forestall the spread of nuclear weapons, unable to deal with catastrophes at home. Heck, we’re even unable to rebuild the WTC area! This puts us in a terrible position for interactions with the bad guys. Our threats seem kind of hollow. We’re seen as incapable, incompetent and inconsistent.
But finally, let’s see if we can clarify what you consider the best policy for us to follow. Does this begin to capture the best course of action for the long-term security of the US:
- start systematically killing every Palestinian
- carpet bomb Iran and Syria
- repeat until peace is achieved
Or, what? You’ve rejected diplomacy, economic support, etc. So what is your plan?
[Sorry for length of post - I don’t typically have as much time as some of you obviously do to sit on a blog and rap out responses throughout the day. BTW, I see this on the pinko terrorist-loving liberal blogs that I sometimes frequent as well - folks that seem to live their ENTIRE lives on the blog. Back to real life. I’ll try to check in over lunch if anyone bothers to respond.]
August 1st, 2006 at 8:09 amNeighseighr, could I trouble you to share your definition of “neo-con”? Just for my own innate curiosity, please.
You seem to use the word a lot, as do several other left leaning commentators, here and elsewhere (and, for that matter, so does Pat Buchannon). A lot of people seem to use that as a decsription of anyone who strongly supports Israel.
Just askin’. Ya see, I’ve been a conservative all my life (worked for the Goldwater campaign when I was nine), so there ain’t much “neo” about me, and I have supported the state of Israel all this time, as well.
Are we using the same definition?
August 1st, 2006 at 8:54 amThe actual definition of Neo-con is a socialist who is Hawkish on the military. It’s a term coined by Socialist doves and done so for the purpose of conjuring up a heuristic similarity to “Neo-Nazi.” Not entirely inappropriate when referring to Socialists, as the Nazis were Socialists, but entirely off the mark when used in reference to limited government conservatives and libertarians.
But the important thing to Neighseighr is that it is reminicient to “Neo-Nazi”
August 1st, 2006 at 9:08 amWell, I don’t think that I could be called a Socialist under any possible stretch of the imagination. Certainly a hawk, though.
August 1st, 2006 at 9:30 amNeo-conservative is a term used broadly to distinguish its adherents from “traditional” conservatism. The term, admittedly, is deprecated by neo-cons themselves. As with most labels, it probably is too broad or vague to define with any precision the world view and ethos of a whole clump of people. It is suggestive typically of the following:
- rejection of isolationist/protectionist stances associated with typical conservatism in the US
- enthusiastic support for interventionist action on the world stage
- strong desire to project power in support of national aims (contrasted with containment, or the dreaded “appeasement”)
- less emphasis on domestic/fiscal issues compared with traditional conservatism
- strong belief in the ability to create democratic states immediately following regime-changing war
Support or lack of support for Israel is not an identifying characteristic of neo-conservatism which I believe is also associated with traditional (Goldwater/Buchanan/what-have-you) conservatism. Any nay-sayers on that?
If FIAR sees some resemblance to neo-nazi, so be it. I’m amused by the appearance of yet another self-professed mind-reader. I use the term because it’s a convenient short-hand. What term would you suggest?
No comments on the substance of my post? Darn - all those words for nothing.
August 1st, 2006 at 10:37 amOkay Neighseigher, now you’re just being a fucking douche-bag. Is my logic just too unnuanced for you? I imagine someone here could give us a rough estimate of how many nukes we have, and I imagine it’s more than enough to completely annihilate Lebanon, Syria, Iran, Egypt, The UAE, Saudi-Arabia, etc. etc. etc. How many Japanese people have hijacked planes, and flown them into buildings since WWII? And we only leveled two of their cities. If there is nobody alive, there is nobody to fight. Pretty simple really. Do you not think we have that capability? You libtards seem to be convinced we can destroy the enitre world. I don’t think we kill the entire world, but I imagine we could decimate a large portion of it. Buit again, that’s not my position, I just think your assertion that you can’t kill all the terrorists is stupid. So is your assertion that that’s what is being attempted now.
As far as this stupid analogy of yours goes, if the person beating the person on the ground with his fists, dropped the bat in favor of his fists, yes, he is showing restraint. It further shows that he made some sort of assessment of the situation and decided using the bat would be excessive, and used his fists instead. Are you starting to grasp the theory of proportionate response in war now?
August 1st, 2006 at 10:45 amOh, I’m just not in the mood to argue with you today. I was just wondering which definition you were using.
I summed up my attitude on the problem in the first two posts.
August 1st, 2006 at 11:06 amThere IS no substance, Neigh, only mischaracterization, ignorance of history, ignorance of Islam and stubborn insistence that failed methodologies will somehow work if only we repeat them often enough.
Oh, and with the usual, tired, debunked, ancient “chickenhawk” meme thrown in about 50 times for effect, which only proves that even you are aware that you don’t have an argument.
Goodbye now.
August 1st, 2006 at 11:11 amfmragtops - umm, I guess your logic is too unnuanced for me. I completely agree that we have the technical ability to lay waste to the middle east. No argument from me on that, no siree. So what are we arguing about exactly? My assertion is that once we start down a path of killing some of the terrorists, if that’s the lynchpin of our strategy, we have to go whole hog and kill ALL the terrorists. Killing some and letting the rest live, absent any other intervention (economic support, etc. all the things that this blog’s Emperor has rejected) guarantees a steady supply of terrorists. True, or not? So, if our strategy is based on the killing of terrorists, the logical conclusion is that we have to kill all of them. Which we’ve agreed we have the power to do.
However, if you think more than 2 seconds about this strategy, it is untenable. Does it make sense to reduce the middle east to a smoking, bombed-out nuclear wasteland? I’d suggest that it doesn’t make sense. Not that we couldn’t do it though (remember, we agreed on that part). So the question is how proportionate can a “kill all the terrorists” strategy be? What’s your plan?
Note my avoidance of name-calling. Now there’s an example of restraint for you.
August 1st, 2006 at 11:27 amYOu still have yet to offer on single suggestion of your own. Until you are willing to do so, go away.
August 1st, 2006 at 11:32 amFIAR - read #’s 46 (mine), 56 (Emperor’s detailed response) and 57 (mine again).
I offered suggestions, so how’s about you offer some of your own?
Here’s a somewhat relevant to topic quote from mahablog.com:
IMO Neoconservative foreign policy seems rooted in two basic childish conceits. The first conceit is that every foreign policy problem can be resolved, once and for all, and if problems continue to fester after years, or decades, of diplomacy, then diplomacy failed. The second conceit is that we’re better than them, and deep down they know it, and once we knock some sense into them they’ll try harder to be like us.
Regarding the “failure” of diplomacy — when you’re dealing with matters like nationalistic, ethnic, and religious identities, and clashing cultural values, it may in fact take generations for people to stop fearing and hating each other. This is especially true when people have already been locked in a cycle of mutual retribution for many years. It may be that the best anyone can do is prevent war long enough for people to chill out and develop a little tolerance. This can take a long time, as witnessed by the history of racial animosity in America. But sometimes, I believe, there are no shortcuts.
Basic rule: Anything you feed will grow. If you feed hate and war, you get more hate and war. If you feed tolerance and peace, you get more tolerance and peace. It may take a lot of feeding for a warring people to develop tolerance and peace, but that’s the only way peace can get big enough to prevail.
Neocons, on the other hand, think America can force the simple native people to be nice, and that’ll be that. They think they can apply war and get an absolute result, which Carl von Clausewitz said ain’t the way it works. Instead, I believe, the neocon approach just grows hate and war, and it’s going to come back and bite us eventually. Possibly hard.
August 1st, 2006 at 11:46 amAnd, prithee, which Foreign Policy genius said that, Hmmmmm? Howard Dean, John Kerry or Michael Moore?
The objective fact is that every problem CAN be resolved. The question is “are we willing to do what is necessary to solve the problem?”, and is never “is it solvable?” The solution may well be to pile up bodies until there aren’t any more, but the solution exists.
As to the second conceit, we are better than them. If not, tell me why so many of them END UP HERE.
….
Damn. And I really didn’t want to get sucked into this argument. It’s just TOO NICE A DAY for this shit!
August 1st, 2006 at 12:10 pmI’m going to ignore the parroting of the catchy name-calling in the moonbat playbook, and address the few points you brought up. (Though you’d save yourself a lot more time if you’d just spare us the memes)
So are the ones we’re fighting — that’s what you haven’t grasped. In fact, they’re still stuck back in the Crusades. (I need to find that denBeste post on the Arab-Islamic militant mind…a very educating read)
Now, here’s a fellow that knows all about asymmetrical warfare: http://www.mythercaria.com/partingshot/. You should read up on it a bit. Nothing beats first-hand information from a Marine who has been in Iraq for two separate tous of duty and just happens to be a war historian.
Failure? By whose standard? Yours? I’d call successful proto-democracies a pretty good sign of success. Did you expect insurgents and thuggish individuals to suddenly disappear overnight? They don’t with fighting them…but they stick around a hell of a lot longer when you grab your ankles and ask, “Please, sir, may I have another?” And while we may see nuances between complete annihilation and complete appeasement (though I do wish you’d be nuanced enough to understand the difference between a surgical strike and complete annihilation) the fact of the matter is that our enemies don’t.
The problem with your type is that you are projecting your values and your morals on people who do not share them. This isn’t the IRA we’re talking about, and I think a lot of you are hung up on them and similar independence groups. This is a set of people who are out to convert or kill. (And their emphasis would appear to be on “kill”) There is no middle ground for them.
Like I already wrote, drop the passive aggressive invective, especially since it only exists in your head. can’t make that connection…not if you’ve studied all three. And I have studied them quite in-depth. (History degrees, post!)
Let’s take Deuteronomy 20:14, for example. “As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies.”
The first thing to note about this passage is that it is about aggressive enemies: it is not about conquest of other nations, it is not about spreading Judaism throught the sword, and it is not about ‘judgment’ on infidel nations. It is about self-defence.
The second thing to note is that conquest of land (and the implicit ‘conversion’ of that land to the worship of Yahweh) was NOT a general thrust in the Hebrew Bible. Israel was specifically forbidden to try to conquer the land of Esau (for example), and, had the kings of Bashan and the Amorites let Israel pass through the land without incident, Israel would not have been allowed to annex Transjordan. But these kings were aggressively oppressive, and so the Lord (not Israel) judged them with conquest. Israel was told to travel through these lands–not to convert them.
Thirdly, the only conquest in the Hebrew Bible is about the land of Canaan, which was an expulsion and NOT a ‘conversion to YAHWEH’. There was nothing ‘evangelistic’ about it; it was a judgment by God on the Canaanites and their practices. God evicted them, and gave the land to new tenants.
Fourth, the Abrahamic covenant was set up by God, with a specific judgment clause: “I will bless them that bless thee, and curse them that curse thee”. Any nation that attacked Israel (when Israel was relatively righteous–unlike the Exile) would be attacked by God (not by a land-hungry Israel). By the same token, God would have blessed Israel’s neighbors had they been good neighbors to Israel (without ANY annexation of land!). That is, no requirement to convert to Israel’s worship of Yahweh existed in the Hebrew Bible. Related to this is that Israel was NOT supposed to conquer/convert the nations, but rather to be a ‘kingdom of Priests’–to intercede for, to teach, to heal, to nuture the foreigners. God would draw to Himself those Gentiles who wanted a closer relationship with Him.
Lastly, we should note that the enemy was always offered peace first, even if they had been the aggressor. Israel was not allowed to take their land if they accepted peace. They became servant-states, under tribute, but their land was their own. No conquest or blood-lust at all here either. (And before you start on with “But they should have just left them alone!” whine that I’ve seen so often, all other nations simply took the land and subjugated the people without so much as an offer of peace. What is it with 21st century nitwits holding past cultures to their trendy standards?)
This warfare rule for ‘when you are attacked by neighbors’ is nothing like some general ethic that allows one to hide and ambush caravans for their goods, without ANY provocation or without ANY hostile intent. And is very distant from using conquest to ‘convert’ a nation to some religion.
We care plenty about Somalia, North Korea, China, etc.. This post is not about them, however. Focus!
We’re seen as incapable, incompetent and inconsistent (by some) not because of what we’re doing now or because we’ve “failed”: we’re seen that way because we can’t seem to make up our minds on foreign policy. Sometimes we have the conviction to defend ourselves, sometimes we whine nonstop about how “violence never solves anything”. Sometimes we have the guts to help a fledgling democracy get on its feet after decades of oppression, sometimes we decide to pull the rug out from under them when a few whiners want to pat themselves on the back for a false sense of “compassion”.
Also, we apologise. To Arabic men, this is a sign of weakness. To think otherwise is, again, to project your ideals and morals onto people who do not share them.
Well, it’s more like Palestine has rejected diplomacy, economic support, etc.. We’d love to use it…unfortunately, it doesn’t work. As we have learned wishing for it to happen really hard and clicking our heels three times is only effective in giving you warm fuzzies. In fact, the only thing they seem to respect is power. Another part of liberal short-sightedness in this regard is misinterpretation of Palestinian protest of the use of Israeli and American military might. They are not whining about the use of power: they are whining that it’s infidels (Israelis and Americans – as in, not Muslim nations) wielding it.
But you first. What’s your plan?
Huzzah for being self-employed! Master of my own fate, that I can come here (occasionally) and post.
August 1st, 2006 at 1:07 pmNanashi - you seem to have missed the context of several of my points, having entered the discussion mid-stream. If I get the time, I’ll follow up. If not, I wish you joy for your self-employment, I on the other hand must shuffle off with the rest of the chain gang to the most recent “crisis”.
August 1st, 2006 at 1:39 pmSo what is your point about asymmetric warfare? The terrorists are stuck back in the Crusades - what does that mean? Certainly their tactics are different, and their weapons, so what is your point?
You reject my comments characterizing our adventures in Afghanistan and Iraq as failures. You’re calling Iraq, a “proto-democracy”, a success – by whose standard? Yours? Do you want to live in Bagdad? We have yet to bring most basic services back up to the miserable level they were at under Hussein. Murders, kidnappings, criminal activities of all kinds are rampant and everyone that has the resources to leave has either left or is planning to leave. And guess what, dude – we’ve been fighting the insurgents non-stop for several years and they seem to be still sticking around. Now, should we characterize that as more closely resembling success or failure? Really.
Again with the mind-reading! Amazing that you are able to detect that I’m projecting values, etc. Let me try some of my own mind-reading. You are convinced that terrorists are like mad dogs, EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM, and they will never stop killing until the whole world has been converted to Islam. Now there’s a nice nuanced view! With that perspective, why bother to distinguish between surgical strikes and complete annihilation? Obviously, the latter is the only way to deal with these deranged criminals.
Where’s the “passive aggressive invective” that only exists in my head? Which “all three” are you talking about? More importantly, I have no interest in your exegesis of the Bible. If your basic point is that Islam is all about aggression and killing and Christianity is all about love and kisses, then I guess we have to kill all the Muslims first before they kill us… or something. I begin to recognize the fundamental Christian charity and peace-mongering in the following (I take my text from Psalm 136): Blessed shall he be who shall seize and dash thine infants against the rock. Your thoughts?
You indicate that our apparent incompetence is due to an inconsistent foreign policy. First we do one thing, then we do another, and we even apologize, etc. So, the response to Katrina (widely reported around the world) did not come off as incompetent? The fact that our adventure in Iraq is perceived by virtually the entire world as a series of bumbling mistakes – might that have an impact on the appearance of incompetence? Whether or not you feel Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. represent the pinnacle of achievement or not, we’re talking about the world’s perception of us. When our president is LAUGHED AT by Putin – does that give us any idea of the state of our country’s reputation? Of course we don’t care what anyone else thinks, right up to when we need them to listen to us and take us seriously.
See my earlier post #67 (quote from another blog) re giving up on diplomacy. You ask what my plan is – please refer to another earlier post, #47.
August 1st, 2006 at 3:24 pmDamn dude, now you’re making shit up. Great. You’ve been pwned, and there is nothing else I can add to this discussion. Oh except that I am glad you see things my way and realize that anihilating everything in the middel east, except Israel is a good idea.
Let he who has ears hear.
August 1st, 2006 at 4:14 pmfmragtops - what did I make up? Are you knowingly being obtuse or have you lost your ability to reason? Kind of hard to tell the difference. You must be one of those who feels if you yell loudly enough you must be winning the argument.
August 1st, 2006 at 4:18 pmNeighseighr:
After a careful review of your comments here, I have a question (or 6…):
Have you ever been a Soldier (Sailor / Marine / Airman / Coastie / Merchant Marine - Don’t wanna fergit anyone)? There are quite a few who hang around here, you know.
NO ONE wants peace more than the professional Warrior. We know who is on the sharp end / shitty end of the war. We know whose blood will be spilled, who will be harmed. But, By GOD, there comes a point when you have to scream “ENOUGH”, or you won’t be able to look at yourself in a mirror to shave in the morning. So, do you REALLY know what you are talking about?
Have you ever worn the uniform?
Have you ever looked through the sights of a rifle, knowing thet another three pounds of pressure will take the life of a living, breathing human being? Have you ever had to live with the decision you make?
Have you ever held a friend on your lap as he died?
Have you ever led Soldiers in battle, knowing that YOUR decisions will affect how many come home?
Ever wondered if the 18 year old you are training will be alive at the end of his enlistment? Wondered if, maybe, just maybe, you have given hime enough tools to come home?
Have you ever had to write a letter to the Mother / Wife / Husband / Fiancee of one of your Soldiers?
Have you ever lain awake in the middle of the night, unable to sleep because you are afraid that you made a mistake that cost the life of a friend? Knowing that you didn’t do anything wrong, you did all you could, but STILL can’t sleep?
You come around here, spouting liberal bullshit, trying to force your crap down out throats. It’s not like you can ever, like, oh, I don’t know, CHANGE OUR MINDS or something.
You just want to brag to your little librul friends how you “spoke truth to power” over at that EEEEEEEVIL Rott Site.
If the answer to the above questions is no, as I so strongly suspect -
F U C K Y O U.
Go home. You are not worth the sweat off of a real man’s balls. Go back to Kos, or Movethehellonalready, and don’t bother us.
In case you haven’t noticed, you have managed to piss me off, and ruin a perfectly fine day. Fuck You for that, too.
…
And I REALLY was trying to AVOID this argument! I’m gonna go have a beer.
August 1st, 2006 at 5:04 pmLC Wil:
Hey there good buddy! Kind of all riled up now, aren’t cha? Well who gives a shit. If serving in the military is the criteria for having a valid opinion on anything remotely connected to foreign policy, Israel vs Palestinians etc., then I guess we have to throw out the entire administration. Come to think of it, that might not be so bad. The fact that you grunted your way through military service (if that’s even true) gives you exactly zero credibility more than someone who did not serve. Unless the discussion is about MREs or how to clean a gun or what have you. Your delusional belief that any of the heart-rending soul-searing situations you describe give you some kind of special insight into how we should handle the problems in the Middle East – hoo boy, I guess the world revolves around you, tough guy.
I recognize I can never change your mind – you’ve sunk so thoroughly into your fetid sewer of rage. I just kind of enjoy (only somewhat) dropping a few mind bombs on you self-righteous types. Speak truth to power? Don’t make me laugh – there’s no power here, none whatsoever. Just a bunch of misguided, paranoid guys, so seriously scared of what’s going on that their only recourse is to indulge in fantasies of violence and power. Don’t talk to me about a real man’s balls. Yours have obviously been shriveled away ever since 9/11 – talking big and using those big scary curse words doesn’t mean anything. What argument were you trying to avoid? Your post is devoid of anything but the most hackneyed sentimental drivel, probably derived from an overdose of Saving Private Ryan.
August 1st, 2006 at 7:28 pmGo have that beer. You deserve it.
Why, yes we do.
You obviously don’t, given your apples-and-oranges attempt to compare the contents of the Quran to that of the Bible.
August 2nd, 2006 at 1:32 amI am not a Biblical scholar, but isn’t the Old Testament a historical record of G-d’s laws laid down in a timeline as they dealt with each generation. These were a progression of tempering the people to survive and accept His way.
It was a progression that led to the New Testament with Jesus’s teaching of peace and acceptance.
The Koran, on the other hand, starts out with the law of if someone has something you need take it and subjucate your enemy. And doesn’t change it’s tone from that point on, just laying down rule for how to keep “humble” those who don’t want to be muslim
August 2nd, 2006 at 1:47 amSoCalOilMan-
No Biblical scholar here either. I’ll grant that there’s a progression from Old to New Testament. But doesn’t Christianity, at least the more fundamentalist strains, believe as strongly in the Old as the New Testament? In other words, the New Testament doesn’t supercede the old, does it? Both Testaments together comprise the Christian faith, not so?
I’ll do some more research regarding Islam and the Koran with regard to the fundamental instruction regarding conversion and interactions with non-Muslims.
Agent Orange- the site you reference is so obviously biased that it adds nothing to the discussion. You need to come up with something from a scholar of comparative religion, a scholar without an axe to grind.
August 2nd, 2006 at 7:11 am