Blogger burnout: it's the end of the beginning
There's an interesting wave of fatigue running through the blogosphere. A lot of people are writing about it: The Anchoress is taking time off from politics, although not from blogging; Shrinkwrapped offers keen insight; Austin Bay opines, and Belmont Club weighs in with his trademark deep reflection.
The consensus is that a frustrating frustration is abroad in the land, related to the fact that the "easier" parts of this struggle have ended or are ending. Not that any of it has been easy, but Afghanistan and al Qaeda, and even to some extent Iraq, were clearer targets and tasks than the ones that lie ahead.
Still, they've been difficult, and are not clearly over yet, and people are tired. Tired of the struggle, tired of the bloodshed, and in some way tired most of all of the endless haranguing and vicious infighting here in the US.
But now we're facing even tougher problems. As Austin Bay says:
Al Qaeda is being defeated– it’s not dead but it’s on its way to defeat. Even Al Qaeda’s latest rants reflect an awareness that their great gambit has failed...There is also a growing awareness that Iraq’s long slog may well result in the emergence of a new, more open political system in the Muslim Middle East. It’s still going to take a couple of years for this to be evident –and the worst defeatists and naysayers will either go to their graves denying it– but all of the indicators are there...Iran’s mullahs are demonstrating once again the limitations of UN multi-lateralism– sharp minds on the left and right recognize this. A lot of people staked their hopes for peace and a better future on UN multilateralism. The Iranian situation also illustrates the limits of US unilateralism — how many times can the world’s superpower go it alone?...
I think Iran is indeed one of the biggest causes of blogger fatigue, combined with our lack of agreement on the seriousness of the problem--if we can't agree on the vicious intent and dangerousness of the Iranian leadership, what can we agree on?
Iran is a topic I've tried to wrap my mind around many times, and still it looms, unresolved and seemingly--perhaps--unresolvable. All approaches seem potentially either catastrophic or ineffectual, or both. So fatigue is an understandable reaction; the mind tends to shut down.
For me, personally, I think I faced something of this way back on 9/11, strangely enough. Not the details, of course; I couldn't possibly have foreseen them. But it came to me that day that we were in something that would be very long and extraordinarily difficult. Here were my thoughts, from my "A mind is a difficult thing to change" series:
[On September 11, 2001], I went to the ocean and sat on the rocks. It was the loveliest day imaginable. I had been alive for over fifty years at the time, and I cannot recall weather and a sky quite like that before. It added to the utter unreality of the day and my feelings. The sky was so blue as to be almost piercing, with a clarity and sharpness that seemed other-worldly. It made it feel as though the heavens themselves were speaking to us; but what were they saying?
All this clarity and purity was enhanced by the fact that there wasn't an airplane in the sky. There were boats of all types on the bluest of oceans, the sun beamed down and made the waves sparkle, and it all seemed to have a preciousness and a beauty that came with something that might soon be irretrievably lost...
Even on that very first day, as I sat on the rocks overlooking the beautiful ocean that I loved so much, I thought we had entered a new era, one which would probably go on for most of my lifetime however much longer I might live. The fight would be long and hard, and there would be many many deaths before it was over. Perhaps it would result in the end of civilization as we knew it--yes, my thoughts went that far on that day. This war would encompass most of the globe. I had no idea how it would work out, but I knew that we were in for the fight of our lives.
The legal actions of the past--the puny trial after the first World Trade Center attack, for example--no longer seemed like an effective response. It seemed, in retrospect, to have been almost laughably naive. The situation didn't even seem amenable to a conventional war. Something new would have to be invented, and fast. And it would have to be global. It would have to have great depth and breadth, and it would probably last for decades or even longer.
It's long, and it's hard. But fatigue is really not an option, although of course we all feel it. In the deceptively simple yet majestically eloquent words of that wily old leader, Winston Churchill, who knew what long hard struggles were all about, and who knew how to describe them:
This is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.
[NOTE: I just wanted to add that the fatigue I'm writing about here is certainly not limited to the blogosphere, nor even to the so-called right. In an earlier (and longer) version of this post, I made that clear, but when I shortened the post it became much less clear.]
posted by neo-neocon @ 2:39 PM
252 comments
252 Comments:
Somewhere, perhaps in the archives of Parameters, the journal of the American War College, there's an article that notes we have never, ever been happy with long wars. Once it gets to be over three years, the public's unhappiness with a state of war increases. And goes up. And with unhappiness comes depression and fatigue and "the mind shuts down."
The same sort of thing happened to Churchill as WWII lengthened with no positive victories for England. It took a win in Africa. A dramatic win. That seemed to re-energize the populace. And that is also the origin of the "End of the beginning" quote.
We have, in truth, no 'Dramatic Victories' since the fall of Baghdad. Just the slow onlslaught with all the slow dying and, frankly, the lack of any startling drama to keep the public engaged .
Bread AND circuses and all that. This is why Iran is so confounding and yet so alluring. We could have a big circus there at any moment. And it won't feature the UN in the center ring.
Discussing Iran with the left is not a rewarding task. Even when one can convince them about Ahmadinejad and his belief in death and all of the 12th Imam stuff, they consistently refuse to put 2 and 2 together and recalcitrantly insist on "giving peace a chance" and "not being a bully."
Folks might be tired of the war, but that doesn't mean they can't get riled up about the really important stuff like erecting a mile high fence along the Mexican border or calling in the gay inquisition to question Mary Cheney's pact with Satan or the profound violation of personal privacy embodied in telephone billings. Now isn't a quiet time, now is a crazy time. The loons are roaming the streets and the internet. I only *wish* everyone would go take a nap.
Of course, terrorists and jihadists are COUNTING on fatigue to help their cause. When the President said it would be a long, generational war, he wasn't kidding, and unfortunately, very few were actually listening at the time. This is the continuation of a long, long, struggle with radical Islam (I'm still not convinced there's any other kind, no matter the protestations of the multiculturalists).
Iran MUST be dealt with...either with tough diplomacy (like true sanctions and ostracizing by the community of nations; not likely) or with military action. Neither option is, as you say, desirable, but better dealt with NOW, than later, when one of America's (or Israel's, or Britain's) cities is a radioactive ruin.
Tired of the struggle, tired of the bloodshed, and in some way tired most of all of the endless haranguing and vicious infighting here in the US.
Personally speaking, I'm a lot calmer and balanced psychologically now than I was during the 2004 elections. I suppose I could sympathize with bloggers when they have to keep churning out material about distressing moments, as a reader it really isn't much of an issue for me.
Now comes the waiting, which is always the hard part. The doing is not easy, but it is rather simple in construction. America waits for Bush, Bush waits for Europe, Europe waits for America, Iran waits for their weapons program to be completed.
The Roman Legion was organized to fight in lines, averaging maybe 6 to 8 men deep. In battle the man at the front would fight for about 8 minutes, then move to the back of the line and the person behind him would take his place at the front. After another interval he too would then move to the back and the person behind him would take the front position. Organized in this way each man fought for about 8 minutes out of every 48 to 64. The enemies of the Romans often succomed to fatigue long before the Legionaires did.
It's ok to get fatigued, and it's ok to take a step back. There is a person behind you who will fill the gap. And when you are refreshed you can rejoin the battle.
Rath
The war against communism took close to fifty years and included two wars that made little sense at the time -- Korea and Viet Nam. We had better take the long view on the war to save Western Civilization.
I've been (mostly) steering clear of political subjects in my blog for awhile now; it seems there are plenty of more active bloggers covering that ground already...
The military bloggers have been doing this for years, and they don't ever appear fatigued or tired, or even direspectful of the Other Side even when the Cindy Sheehans, and the whatshisname in Congress former Marine Democrat poster boy (just remed his name, Murtha), and Kerry and so on and so forth.
Look at Beth Holloway. Look at that guy hosting America's Most Wanted, motivated by the loss of his own son.
Loss, grief, despair, all can be converted to determination and willpower. But it's never automatic and it never works for everyone, simply because everyone will not lose a son except if a terroist attack with WMDs hit a big city.
Immature people will make fun of things like that, but perhaps they just don't get it and never will.
You want fatigue? Try being a military dependent. Most of the people I know are going on their third tour and some are sweating out a fourth, and when they are home the guys I know are putting in sixteen to eighteen hours-sorry Michelle Malkin they don't even now about "The Invasion" they've got other stuff on their plate. But that isn't the tiring part.
It's internet bloggers such as Michelle Malkin and the rest of the bloggers in her pyramid of power structure deciding that the poop in her shorts-which changes color weekly must be addressed immediately!!!
Now we've got Michelle Malkin's Reconquesta as the all important issue. Ya crap Michelle it be a little more believable if you had blogged about this like your last cojole depended on it before or even during the last election. Shoot yourself for derilection of duty on that you little self-hater-Yes you would get caught in your own round up and sent to Cozumel before you could prove your Americanism-go find that ID...
Because you look Mexican which isn't a crime btw-however much you would like it to be one.
NO the fatigue comes from realizing that she is a damn loon with a degree in ENGLISH-nothing else- and hardly ANYONE has the guts to take the little hater on-they'd sooner besmearch the Commander in Chief because by God he can't send them the traffic.
Ya and all Wretchard has for us is a whisper-how brave. Meanwhile the intellectual beard for all this Victor Davis Hanson can't remember what he's been lecturing Liberals about for years now-PRIORITIES. Not when it comes to his cause bete noire-Mexifornia-suddenly he is silent on what the worst case scenario is-and it ain't flippin' Mexicans coming over here to work with the criminal intent of trying to make a better future for themselves. {Yep my Greatgrandmother snuck in from the Canadian border Jewish last name Franck-no relation to Ann but we know what happened to the law abiding Jews now don't we? And ya I'm damn glad she did it and if you wanted to call my relations who sacrificed everything for their families future a CRIMINAL I'd be doing more than marching....Most people know at a certain point to leave "your mama" out of it.}
Illegal immigration has been condoned for decades by many President's but no other President had the all incompassing distraction-ya that's what it has been trivialized to by Michelle's idiocy- of 9/11.
My father is the veteran of WW II's Battle of the Bulge, Korea and Vietnam. He later was a war planner at NORAD one thing I learned from him is you take care of the "worst case scenario" and work your way down. It's a damn good principle and it W-OR-K-S.
But no we have to be disracted by petty hatreds, and MANUFACTURED hysteria.
Michelle Malkin is no friend to the military-she only exploits them to camaflouge her attacks on the Commander in Chief facing- in historical perspective- one of the major threats to the United States ever- 9/11 and our response to that.
Eroding his base of support at a time like this and calling the President a treasoness traitor at Polipundit.com at a time like this is not fatigue it's crazy, and unfortunately these "crazies" are defeating those feeling fatigue because many of the hating loons are "blessed" with OCD.
What we need is a visible political movement to let enter those Leftist who are reconsidering their political beliefs – and a Islamic Reformation that would begin with the publishing of a Quran translated in Asia languages, along with a copy of the New Testament, done by Islamist and Christians. Or something like this --- debate.
From the enemy's perspective, they have been fighting this war for over 1300 years. The President "long ago" shortly after 9-11 warned us this would be a long struggle replete with invisible victories. The West is
its own worst enemy. We can only defeat the enemy through patience and perseverance-commodities that appear to be in shorter supply than either gold or oil. Hence, I remain pessimistic even though we are winning at the moment.
I have the impression that the anti-war moderates are similarly burning out.
The disasters predicted for Iraq keep failing to come to pass. Bush keeps dodging bullet after bullet that was supposed to impeach him. And the continuing Islamic terrorism, the riots over cartoons, the election of Hamas, and now this horrific president of Iran are convincing more and more Americans that, regardless of what they think of Bush or the war, Islam is dangerous.
Overall this is good news but still there is a long way to go and at best we are at the end of the beginning.
The West is its own worst enemy.
True, but that is also a backhand compliment to the power of the West. Its external enemies can annoy and hurt us, but they are a very long way from being able to threaten our survival.
People have been singing of the West's decline since Spengler and no doubt earlier, but until a more dynamic, adaptive society emerges I don't anticipate the end of the West or its suicide.
I don't even count Europe out. They haven't hit bottom yet, but when they do, I think we'll see some remarkable things happen there.
I guess I never thought the immigration debate was a "distraction". It's an important debate, and results from the forgotten 90's era, much like terrorism did. We did little about neither problem, and now we're stuck with 12,000,000 illegal aliens and a bunch of crazy islamofascists out there. Bush is dealing with both, as well he should be. Blame yourself for these problems, you slept through the 90's and cashed the checks, and now you're paying the price, except some are paying the ultimate price.
Yes, indeed, let's think about the soldiers... who know the kind of fatigue most of us will never know. Or let's think about the military families, waiting each day for a precious word from their loved one... and dreading with all their might the arrival of a different word from someone else.
Yes, it's hard to stay focused and devoted over years and years of struggle with an intractable enemy. But folks, we (most of us) don't have to face bullets, or IEDs, or cowardly terrorists with their human shields. We don't have to slog through mud and sand for endless day after day. We don't have to wonder if we, ourselves, will be tomorrow's casualty in this war.
They are the ones at the forefront of this fight... and, paradoxically, their sense of purpose makes it easier for them to carry on than it is for us. (Well, that and the fact that they aren't really given the choice of giving up.)
Yes, fatigue sets in. But we're seeing battle-hardened troops that have returned to the United States -- and many of them are disgusted with our loss of faith. Far be it from me to suggest that our troops, who have served their country well, should step up to the plate at home as well. But I suspect that, as our fatigue sets in, there will be others to invigorate us and keep the good fight going.
And thank God for that. Not since the height of the Cold War have the issues been this clear. We must fight, or our children will live as slaves. Our enemy has told us this explicitly -- and they might not consider an entire world living under sha'aria to be slavery, but we do.
respectfully,
Daniel in Brookline
I've been tired of the Bush-hate noise for a long time.
But also angry.
Conservatives have also been unhappy with Bush allowing (no veto) a Rep Congress to spend billions on pork; tax cuts good, but spending should be cut, too. At least growth of spending.
But too few Bush/ spending questioning conservatives have been pushing alternatives to incumbents in the primaries. Like Jerry Lewis in CA (41), alone on my Rep primary ballot (Arnie has 3 rivals).
It's pretty stupid to be willing to not vote, sort of hoping a Dem would win over an uninspiring/ corrupt/ overspending Rep -- yet not have tried to at least get a fresh faced Rep to challenge the guy in a primary.
I think the anti-war folk are looking pretty silly, calling for "action" to stop genocide in Darfur -- where the UN has said it's not genocide.
Just read Rerum Novarum, from 115 years ago (Pope Leo). Still relevant on Capital and Labor.
The Long War goal -- a World Without Dictators; but also a World Without Poverty (new World Bank phrase).
Anon has problems. And I suggest she talk to a military counsellor, presumably a military priest, about why she feels so much hostility toward Malkin that she would come to Neo-Neocon's blog to post a rant about her and others. It's 50/50, that's she is female, right?
Neo, what I don't get is, a lot of blogs I post comments on have the Name, Email, and Weblink requirement. Blogger just requires you click on a button and input your name, yet.... there's a bunch of Anons who don't use that option.
That doesn't exactly seem logical to me. Almost nobody I've seen on the Name, Email, Link comment blogs post their name as "Anon" (presumably because they would have a hard time spelling anonymous).
Human nature strikes again I suppose.
I don't even count Europe out.
That shows how much difference is between Jack and I. Like I said before, his interpretation and beliefs could be right, but I can't buy into them.
Contrast this position with Anon's comments about Malkin. Could there be a difference?
Name
Your web page
All of these fields are optional.
That's what you see if you click "Other" instead of "anonymous" while commenting.
It's great suggestive hypnotis. ALl of these fields are optional, therefore... None of the Above ; )
That shows how much difference is between Jack and I. Like I said before, his interpretation and beliefs could be right, but I can't buy into them.
Well, I'm happy to agree that my interpretation could be right, but I sure don't know that I am.
If one is honest I think one must grant the current situation is beyond human calculation.
Ymar -- do you count Europe out?
Late in the morning of 9/11 I remember thinking that the bad guys had picked the most beautiful day I could imagine to attack my country. We knew that there would be a swift and terrible response - somebody would die soon and it might even be the guys responsible for this attack.
Just over two years later I shipped out to Iraq (as an activated Army Reservist) to do what needed doing all along. And, there's every chance I'll go again.
That's OK.
Most all of my comrades are of a similar mind. We're here for the long term. Most of us have over twenty years in, and are Field Grade Officers who can't really effectively be dragooned into duty. We're here because we have kids whom we don't want to see bleeding in the dirt. That's the choice - either we do this thing for as long as it takes or we hand the mess over to our children. Long war or short war, we're in.
The simple calculus is that somebody is going to have to pay the bill on this one.
The Cold War, as has been noted, took about fifty years. I got to be looking at it at the age of, say, eighteen, which happened to be in 1963. I was a college frosh that year.
We had to fight overseas, hot, cold, warm or instantly changing, but the worst enemies, the most dangerous were here in the States.
Unfortunately, I don't recall them being as well-organized and numerous as they are today. And the really weird thing is, you could, if you lied really hard, find something nice about communism.
Right now, our internal enemies are working for people who not only have no visible redeeming qualities, they actually oppose all the stuff our lefties supposedly think is vital for a civilized society.
Go figure.
I agree with Anonymous. I am sick to death of people like Malkin and polipundit. They are self serving.
Neomythus or whatever,
More strident BS.
Not all of Europe out, but places like France and Britain are sinking to rock bottom status. The question isn't whether they will bounce back up, that's rather debatable, the question is what happens if they die in the plummet.
I don't count Poland out, but based upon the principles and fortitude and examples shown by France in response to the riots, Britain in response to 7/7, and various other similar incidents, there's not much of a trackrecord for optimism.
This is like the situation in the beginning of WWII< if you asked the Brits if they counted out the French. Hrm... if they said yes, then in a few weeks France would not only surrender they would give Germany all their logistics bases in France as well as the entire French navy and army. If they said no, what else could they do except keep trucking along.
So I don't see what it changes things if Europe is out of the fight or if they are not out of the fight. It won't change the Iranian situation for example, or Russia, or Japan, or China, or Indian.
As I see it, the strategy of the enemy is to take over Western Europe (old Europe) and get Britain's and France's nukes. On this basis, do we sit around hoping the Euros will fight it out long enough so we can evacuate the rot from the MidEast like the Brits waiting for the French to capitulate before evacuating at Dunkirk?
I like to count on our allies, but I have to realize that counting on France is a losing proposition. It was in WWII, and it is here now. It was really funny, cause after Hitler invaded Stalin, and Stalin changed the party rhetoric from (Hitler and friends vs Imperialism) to (the friendly Amis and Brits vs the fascistic Hitlerites), which is probably the inspiration for 1984's Oceania war with East Asia switch on switch off, the communists in France suddenly became freedom fighters and guerrilas (after smoothing the way for the Germans into France that is). That has got to be one of the most funny things, if there hadn't been a war going on at the time that is. (sorta like the behavior of the Democrats)
Suffice it to say that Democracies are worthy of existence based upon their people, and Europe has done their best to make their people nothing but a bunch of Dolists.
People on the Dole. Without the patriotism inherent in the US military to die and kill for your country, so your kids will be safer than you in the future, there is no future for democracies or republics.
For me to believe that Europe has a chance, I'd have to see some sacrifice on their parts, or maybe just some common sense. Britain has a chance, a slim one. France has zero. Germany is in some kind of oblivion zone or something.
I think Iran is indeed one of the biggest causes of blogger fatigue, combined with our lack of agreement on the seriousness of the problem--if we can't agree on the vicious intent and dangerousness of the Iranian leadership, what can we agree on?
I don't think anyone disagrees about the viciousness of the Iranian leadership, nor about their potential danger, nor about the desirability of addressing it.
Points upon which there is disagreement - starkly between "left" and "right", but quite noticeably between folks regardless of their political affiliation, who are keeping a steady eye open and those who are prone to panic, also regardless of their political affiliation:
1) the capacity of Iran to do harm - most reasoned assessments are that Iran has very little capacity to make war at the present; and what capacity they have is limited to conventional direct and conventional proxy war-fare. IOW, they have no nuclear arsenal and are not close to one.
2) the homogeny of the Iran regime - while Prez. A. and his inner circle are bellicose big-mouths, the regime consists of a number of elements and interests, many who are quite content to let the government go ballistic in rhetoric, but who threaten its power to endanger the security of Iran by attacking American or Israeli interests directly. Iran is an autocratic regime, but - unlike here (/snark) - sole power does not rest in the executive.
3) Related to 2 - the sense of personal interest within the Iran regime. Regardless of Prez. A's sanity, the .gov of Iran consists of flesh and blood people with flesh and blood loved ones, and it isn't a property of flesh and blood people to wish complete destruction on self, family, and other loved ones, as would surely be the result if Prez. A. were allowed to start a Middle Eastern conflagaration by making a serious attack on Israel or (by proxy) on the U.S.
4) The U.S.' self-castration. This isn't WWII, and if you think that GWB has a 29% approval rating now, wait until he asks us to make the kinds of sacrifices it would take to join another large-scale military engagement. Dark hints of "danger" from Iran will not be enough to convince Americans - including Congress, and perhaps including sane elements in the Pentagon, that we should re-institute the draft, fuel and nylon quotas, take on major *tax hikes*(!!!!!), etc., and start another war. We might as well face it, with our military hog-tied in the fight with Iraqi insurgents, the neocons have blown their wad. We'll need to see an honest-to-god pearl harbor before we will mobilize for a war of what will amount to global proportions.
5) The question of what approach makes sense to deal with the threat. The neocon worldview seens committed to the use of military force as the only legitimate response. When all you have is a hammer, I suppose, every problem looks like a nail. However, there are many young Iraqis (in a nation that is vey young, demographically), who don't want more Sharia, who aren't comfortable with a belligerent government policy toward the outside world, and who mainly desire peace and prosperity. It occurs to some of us that these are the people with the biggest stake in an Iranian regime, and with their hands closest to the machinery of power there. Chances are, these young people will, given time, solve their own problem. If we have managed to avoid making enemies of them with our conduct inside the borders of their neighbors, then their solution will bring about a good solution for us, as well. And, they may even want our help - which we would be morally obligated to provide if possible... meaning, if we have extricated ourself from the money-and-blood-pit which is Iraq, and have already met our other moral obligations alongside the rest of the world where it concerns the Sudan and other areas in much greater crisis.
So, you see... it isn't whether we agree that Iran is "bad" and "needs to go" - it's a matter of whether we see things in the neocon black & white. It's a matter of whether we think "bad" and "needs to go" always necessarily means "must invade now, regardless of cost or likely outcome".
It does get tiring reading the lefties, the Bush deranged and the irrationally angry.
The good news is that as time goes by the Islamists are going to discover that the roots of the West are much deeper than the Koskids or Michael Moore.
And it is starting in Europe. The Dutch, the Danes, even some of the English and a non-LePen fraction of the French, are waking up to the reality that multi-culuralism does not work with jihadis. Nor does conventional police work - pace John Kerry.
What does work? First the gradual accumulation of successes as we are seeing in Afghanistan and Iraq. Second, an end to the so called realist posture of supporting dictatorships and doddering monarchies for the sake of a quiet life and cheap oil. Third,the willingness to engage the Muslim world in a decades long process of reform and renewal. Fourth, the capacity to reward as well as punish the various nations of that world.
Most importantly, the WEst has to recover its own self confidence and say, "Wait a minute. We are not going to put our women in burkas, pull our girl children from school and pull down walls on our gay friends. We are not going to abandon the sole liberal democracy in the Middle East. We are not going to put up with thugs of any religion intimidating our people or our politicians. If you want to live in the 13th century we are down with that - you can go to the village of your choice in Pakistan or Yemen and fill your boots. But you are not doing it in our countries."
For the last fifty years the West has, under the tutorship of leftish intellectuals who hated every value the pre-WWII West had, adopted a post colonial cringe. We accepted that the ills of the world were somehow our fault.
Well, no more.
"Iran is a topic I've tried to wrap my mind around many times, and still it looms, unresolved and seemingly--perhaps--unresolvable. All approaches seem potentially either catastrophic or ineffectual, or both.
neo-neocon - original post.
"So, you see... it isn't whether we agree that Iran is "bad" and "needs to go" - it's a matter of whether we see things in the neocon black & white. It's a matter of whether we think "bad" and "needs to go" always necessarily means "must invade now, regardless of cost or likely outcome". "
smijer, just above.
To which I would like to add -
This is what can be achieved...
The US said yesterday it is to restore full relations with Libya for the first time in more than 25 years, after having once branded its leader, Muammar Gadafy, as one of the world's most dangerous men and a supporter of international terrorism.
Washington also removed Libya from a state department list of states sponsoring terrorism.
Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state, said: "We will soon open an embassy in Tripoli. In addition, the United States intends to remove Libya from the list of designated state sponsors of terrorism. Libya will also be omitted from the annual certification of countries not co-operating fully with United States' anti-terrorism efforts.
So, rather than screaming off in fifteen different directions, bombing the crap out of everything that waves a fist at you, there is a considerable amount that can be done with a strong front and some time...
"So, rather than screaming off in fifteen different directions, bombing the crap out of everything that waves a fist at you, there is a considerable amount that can be done with a strong front and some time..."
You seriously believe that making an example of Saddam had nothing to do with the Colonel's about face?
That is so...sweet!
smijer offers some thoughts:
1) the capacity of Iran to do harm - most reasoned assessments are that Iran has very little capacity to make war at the present; and what capacity they have is limited to conventional direct and conventional proxy war-fare. IOW, they have no nuclear arsenal and are not close to one.
The reasoning of the anti-war folks is always that the US must wait until a belligerent state has the capacity to do harm. That such outdated(after 9/11) foreign policy niceties could cause the loss of an American city or two the next time, instead of merely a couple of tall buildings with a couple of thousand civilians within, doesn’t seem to enter into their thinking. One of the root causes of 9/11 was a 30-year devotion to passivity in the face of terrorism sponsored by Islamic states ruled by Islamic despots; a wait and see what happens type of mentality that led directly to 9/11.
2) the homogeny of the Iran regime - while Prez. A. and his inner circle are bellicose big-mouths, the regime consists of a number of elements and interests, many who are quite content to let the government go ballistic in rhetoric, but who threaten its power to endanger the security of Iran by attacking American or Israeli interests directly. Iran is an autocratic regime, but - unlike here (/snark) - sole power does not rest in the executive.
Iran does not have to attack the US directly to accomplish their goals. Some anti-war people seem to think that we pro-war people are worried about Iran invading the US. Since 1979 Iran has been the main employer of terrorists and they will no doubt continue in that vein. Slipping a nuke to a terrorist is so much easier than “attacking American or Israeli interests directly.” People keep writing about a supposedly silent, young Iranian liberal segment that is supposed to somehow usher in a less distasteful regime in the future. Get it straight: Religion dictates every aspect of Iranian existence. Iran is not a democracy, it is an Islamic state. These mythical liberals have done nothing to prevent their nation from becoming the largest exporter of terrorism in the Middle East. Does the anti-war crowd really believe that a mythical liberal segment of the Iranian population could possibly prevent the mullahs from giving bin Laden a nuke?
3) Related to 2 - the sense of personal interest within the Iran regime. Regardless of Prez. A's sanity, the .gov of Iran consists of flesh and blood people with flesh and blood loved ones, and it isn't a property of flesh and blood people to wish complete destruction on self, family, and other loved ones, as would surely be the result if Prez. A. were allowed to start a Middle Eastern conflagaration by making a serious attack on Israel or (by proxy) on the U.S.
It’s frightening and frustrating how close this type of rhetoric is to the pre-WW2 apologies and wishful thinking about Nazi Germany. What if the Iranians believe they would be protected by anonymity if they gave a nuke to terrorists? What if they believe they are immune from retaliation because determining the perpetrators of such an action would not be amenable to formal, court-of-law investigation and proofs? After all, Iran has been sponsoring terrorism with impunity since 1979, so why should they be worried now?
4) The U.S.' self-castration. This isn't WWII, and if you think that GWB has a 29% approval rating now, wait until he asks us to make the kinds of sacrifices it would take to join another large-scale military engagement. Dark hints of "danger" from Iran will not be enough to convince Americans - including Congress, and perhaps including sane elements in the Pentagon, that we should re-institute the draft, fuel and nylon quotas, take on major *tax hikes*(!!!!!), etc., and start another war. We might as well face it, with our military hog-tied in the fight with Iraqi insurgents, the neocons have blown their wad. We'll need to see an honest-to-god pearl harbor before we will mobilize for a war of what will amount to global proportions.
Here I’m afraid the writer is essentially correct. Oh, this war has already had its Pearl Harbor(it’s called 9/11) but a propaganda battle has been won by the anti-war folks. Sooner or later Iran will have to be faced but it won’t be sooner. It will only be after Iran has succeeded in doing something immense and vile.
5) The question of what approach makes sense to deal with the threat. The neocon worldview seems committed to the use of military force as the only legitimate response. When all you have is a hammer, I suppose, every problem looks like a nail. However, there are many young Iraqis (in a nation that is very young, demographically), who don't want more Sharia, who aren't comfortable with a belligerent government policy toward the outside world, and who mainly desire peace and prosperity. It occurs to some of us that these are the people with the biggest stake in an Iranian regime, and with their hands closest to the machinery of power there. Chances are, these young people will, given time, solve their own problem. If we have managed to avoid making enemies of them with our conduct inside the borders of their neighbors, then their solution will bring about a good solution for us, as well. And, they may even want our help - which we would be morally obligated to provide if possible... meaning, if we have extricated ourself from the money-and-blood-pit which is Iraq, and have already met our other moral obligations alongside the rest of the world where it concerns the Sudan and other areas in much greater crisis. [Note: I suspect the writer meant “young Iranians” in the fourth sentence of the above paragraph and that “young Iraqis” is a typo.]
So, you see... it isn't whether we agree that Iran is "bad" and "needs to go" - it's a matter of whether we see things in the neocon black & white. It's a matter of whether we think "bad" and "needs to go" always necessarily means "must invade now, regardless of cost or likely outcome".
The writer finishes up with the venerable anti-war ‘be nice’ argument. If the US will only ‘be nice’ those nice young Iranian liberals will solve all our problems – but we mustn’t do anything to make these young Iranian liberals angry, like looking out for our own interests, or they won’t solve our problems for us – ignoring the absolute stranglehold religious-based totalitarianism has on all functions in Iran. This is the type of logic that brought on 9/11. When all you have is nails, a hammer is the best solution.
Anonymous put her finger on the problem. There are neocons who understand what the priorities are and there are conservatives whose priorities are other stuff - tax cuts when we cannot pay for a war for our survival and the guys building the swimming pool next door don't speak English. Unfortunately, Bush is part of this crowd. No, he's not a Nativist or legal immigrant Nativist wannabe, but he failed from the start to make it clear that his administration's priority is the war on terror. Bush pushed his tax cuts and an expensive new entitlement. Then he sat idly by while "conservatives" in Congress stuffed "emergency" appropriations bills with pork. There have been victories. Roberts and Alito are victories, but only after neocons shouted "enough" with the Myers nomination. Libya is a victory. Iraq is a victory in slow motion. Historians of the future will look back and say that the Middle East five years after 9/11/01 is a different place. Iran is a major problem. Too big for Israel to handle. Even if the Europeans wanted to help, and they do seem to have changed their attitudes, they have spent their economies on a bloated bureaucracy in Brussels. Unilateral action by the US might get more silent support, but the odds against success are high. Best strategy, the only strategy, is to play for time. It is easier to struggle against one country whose regime is unpopular at home than to fight a war against a remorseless band of stateless terrorists. Election of a Democratic Congress will be good for a lot of people. It will give the Democrats the maturity that comes with responsibility. Bush may suddenly discover the power of the veto. Once out of power maybe the "conservative" porkmeisters will discover maturity.
NEVER NEVER NEVER GIVE UP.
Another strategy is "shame in advance".
Each and every anti-war protester should should be shamed, publicly, for UN inaction in Darfur.
"Global Test" the Left said -- and Sudan has passed the "no genocide" test. No UNSC resolutions against it.
If the "world" can't stop slo-mo genocide in Darfur, already after 2 years and some 200 000 - 400 000 dead, then there's no hope of the world stopping Iran until AFTER they get a nuke and use it.
War or genocide; war now before Iran gets a nuke or war after Iran uses one.
I wonder where neo-con progeny Danny Krauthammer or George P. Bush are regarding WWIV (our new Great War)? Ahhhh, the first is safe and sound at Harvard while the latter stumps for LaRaza. Evidently both are "pursuing other interests" while the commoners fight, sustain injuries, even die so that Danny and Georgie won't have to.
grackle....
The reasoning of the anti-war folks is always that the US must wait until a belligerent state has the capacity to do harm.
First - everyone... at least every sensible person is an "anti-war folk". Ever read Sun Tzu? (The folks at West Point do). War is not something to rejoice in. It's a cause for mourning when it becomes necessary.
More importantly, your statement is critically wrong, and reflective of a black and white - near fundamentalist - mentality. Let me restate it for you:
The reasoning of the anti-war folks is always that the US must wait until a belligerent state has the capacity to do harm, and has demonstrated specific intent to do so, before creating an open military congfrontation.
The guy who sleeps with his gun under his pillow and wakes up shooting at everything that goes "bump" in the night is a menace in his own right. In fact, if he is too driven by a paranoid worldview, he becomes exactly the kind of threat that we see among some radicals in the East now. Point is, this kind of bellicose fundamentalism is the cause of what you guys call "islamofascism", and it isn't one that brings safety and security to a society.
That such outdated(after 9/11) foreign policy niceties could cause the loss of an American city or two the next time, instead of merely a couple of tall buildings with a couple of thousand civilians within, doesn’t seem to enter into their thinking.
That such "outdated (after 9/11) foreign policy niceties could cause" such results enters our thinking just long enough for us to realize that we need to do a lot more thinking about what could cause such results. If the cause of successful terrorist attacks within the U.S. truly is to be found within our foreign policy rather than within a much wider and more complex global situation, then there are other areas of it to blame than in our sometime decision not to agress against every perceived enemy. Yes, our foreign policy does play a role in motivating and arming terrorists, but at the end of the day changing it in favor of a cycle of escalating aggression will only lead to our demise.
Iran does not have to attack the US directly to accomplish their goals. Some anti-war people seem to think that we pro-war people are worried about Iran invading the US. Since 1979 Iran has been the main employer of terrorists and they will no doubt continue in that vein. Slipping a nuke to a terrorist is so much easier than “attacking American or Israeli interests directly.”
Easier? No. Perhaps, after spending billions of dollars and decades getting you hands on "the button" you would find it easy to give up that mega-power, and, shrugging to yourself "why not?", hand it off to your shady pal who promised to use it only against your enemies. And, maybe Ahmadinejad would find that "easy", too. I doubt he is that stupid or crazy, but who knows? As I pointed out, though - he lacks the unilateral power to do so.
People keep writing about a supposedly silent, young Iranian liberal segment that is supposed to somehow usher in a less distasteful regime in the future. Get it straight: Religion dictates every aspect of Iranian existence. Iran is not a democracy, it is an Islamic state. These mythical liberals have done nothing to prevent their nation from becoming the largest exporter of terrorism in the Middle East. Does the anti-war crowd really believe that a mythical liberal segment of the Iranian population could possibly prevent the mullahs from giving bin Laden a nuke?
You know, this is probably also what the Mullahs are telling their people about America's mythical liberal segment, to stir up their paranoia, too. Have you visited Iran? Do you know whether kids there are more attached to their night clubs or to their fundamentalist preachers? I haven't visited, but it is my experience that young people have a lot in common no matter where they come from. Will those kids positively influence the government there as their generation matures? I don't know. Do they have the greater understanding of the situation and initiative to do something about it? Yes, they do.
It’s frightening and frustrating how close this type of rhetoric is to the pre-WW2 apologies and wishful thinking about Nazi Germany.
Difference being that this was still going on after the Panzers crossed into Poland.
What if the Iranians believe they would be protected by anonymity if they gave a nuke to terrorists? What if they believe they are immune from retaliation...
Hopefully, they would be wrong. And if wrong, then hopefully, they can be educated to the contrary. Back-channel, of course - there is no need to grandstand. I don't believe that they are that stupid, but it wouldn't hurt for there to be diplomatic reminders given them that there is no protection of anonymity when it goes large-scale.
The writer finishes up with the venerable anti-war ‘be nice’ argument. If the US will only ‘be nice’ those nice young Iranian liberals will solve all our problems
Let me make a correction... if the U.S. behaves responsibly (and justly), then those "nice young Iranian liberals" may have the initiative to begin solving all their problems. We have our own beefs with the Iranian government, and we should be working on them with intelligence and every resource at our disposal. But it would be unwise, immoral, and self-destructive for us to wage war on that country except in self-defense and in light of a clear and present danger.
but we mustn’t do anything to make these young Iranian liberals angry, like looking out for our own interests,
If we were looking out for our own interests then we would not be thought of as the "Great Satan" by the Iranians. It seems to me that meddling in Iranian politics - namely helping Britain to depose a popular leader there and install a puppet regime - was what earned us that nickname to begin with.
Looking out for our own interests will not make enemies of the Iranian people, or the youth that may bring change there. Bombing them, or their neighbors, "pre-emptively", will.
One huge, glaring fact that neocons ("neocons" because I don't like using "pro-" or "anti-" war as broad brush pejoratives, no matter how much they may apply in individual cases) overlook is that the quickest way to eliminate an enemy is to make him your friend. Now, I know that you're busting at the seams to ridicule the notion that we should just be friends with the evil mullahs, but if you let yourself get distracted that way, you will also miss the point.
The global political situation is very difficulat and very complex, and very full of undesirable characters. But in every nation - in every government - in every religion, and in every culture - there are people who want peace and prosperity. To reach out to them and to make common cause with them is to cement new friendships. I know that the majority of Americans want peace and prosperity. I'm not sure about the guy we, in our anxieties about foreign threats, made our president. But we can ask those in our government who share our goals to reach out to those in other governments and in other populations who are also with us. If we can convince one another that we are willing to refrain frmo killing one another and burning one another's churches and mosques, then we can actually work together to create *real* security. And real security brings real peace.
When the neocons learn this lesson, or go out of power, then we have a chance to move forward. Then, maybe we will hear no more hyping of warfare against Iran.
You will have to forgive me, but until the evidence shows otherwise, I am going with the observation that tax cuts appear to increase revenue. Worked for Kennedy, worked for Reagan, worked for W.
The real issue is the Trent Lotts of the world who are attempting to hijack Katrina relief for his buddies in the casinos. You know, pork. The Republicans are not going to stay in power in a nationalized election by selling out the nation as a whole to buy support from earstwhile Democrats.
"But in every nation - in every government - in every religion, and in every culture - there are people who want peace and prosperity."
This is so beside the point as to be utterly risable. I am sure that in Baathis Iraq there were people who wanted peace and prosperity. I am also sure that if they had opened their mouth against the regime, that they would have been dealt with rather harshly. There is actual evidence of that.
Your 'analysis' is so devoid of any anchor in the real world as to be less than useless.
Good post. Revisiting the wisdom of Churchill, Thatcher, Reagan, Kirkpatrick will help steel our resolve & refresh our spirits.
Smijer,
Oh yeah, Hitler and Stalin were also famously interested in listening to the peaceniks in their populations.
Orwell demonstrated that pacificists were objectively pro totalitarian, since they weakened the nation in which they resided, and were only tolerated in liberal democracies. I don't see anything in your post to show otherwise. Why you guys continue to root for the wrong side of history, I will never know.
Stalin, Pol Pot (I am refering to Chomsky there), Mao, Saddam, Ortega, Castro, Che (who enjoyed a personal summary execution of a dissenter as much as any of the rest of the above)
One more thing, killing a lot of people and violently removing poisonous regimes has turned Germany and Japan into world leaders in voluntary pacifism. Kind of ironic.
Don't tell me that Europe isn't the middle east either. I would put up Europe's history of bloody war, brutal exterminations, and ruthless suppression of dissent against anything you can show me for the middle east.
In 1940, where was the indication that Europe could ever be peaceful? Since at least the Seven Years war, through the Napoleonic Wars, some wars I don't even remember what they were called in the 1870s, the Great War... etc. What indication was there that intervening was anything other than hopeless? That Europe was ready for peace?
Don't tell me that Europe isn't the middle east either. I would put up Europe's history of bloody war, brutal exterminations, and ruthless suppression of dissent against anything you can show me for the middle east.
Europe has a capacity for pacifism because its people are grounded in the pacifism of the doctrine of Jesus Christ. On the other hand, the Middle East has Islam -- which is a religion that is fundamentally based in making war. Many Muslims can ignore this fact and worship blindly and many others adhere to the core belief of that faith. The Information Revolution and the united fist of free societies is eroding the trance of Islam from Africa to Asia. Thus, the implosive response of suicidal desperation, which is the most dangerous time – we need all the hand of the world pushing down the lid on this dieing pressure cooker.
"The Information Revolution and the united fist of free societies is eroding the trance of Islam from Africa to Asia."
This is so true. Smijer's course of empowering the doomed minority by legitimizing them, for example the 20% Sunni part of Iraq that had ruthlessly enslaved the 80%, well, I just use the South Afric analogue.
Smijer, a question for you. Did you support the overthrow of the black South African govt to molify a few violent white dead enders or did you think that in the long run, having the country run by the overwhelming majority was better?
http://neo-neocon.blogspot.com/2006/05/blogger-burnout-its-end-of-beginning.html#c114773563470901711
The Roman Legion was organized to fight in lines, averaging maybe 6 to 8 men deep. In battle the man at the front would fight for about 8 minutes, then move to the back of the line and the person behind him would take his place at the front. After another interval he too would then move to the back and the person behind him would take the front position. Organized in this way each man fought for about 8 minutes out of every 48 to 64. The enemies of the Romans often succomed to fatigue long before the Legionaires did.
This is a unique perspective on the tactics of the Roman Legion. I would respectfully request a link to some authoritative source for this description.
Thanks.
"You will have to forgive me, but until the evidence shows otherwise, I am going with the observation that tax cuts appear to increase revenue. Worked for Kennedy, worked for Reagan, worked for W."
But the evidence does show otherwise...
As Austin Bay says:
Al Qaeda is being defeated– it’s not dead but it’s on its way to defeat.
Al-Qaida has metastatized into 30-40 other groups. Bay the Bogus can't be trusted to tell us the truth.
This is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.
To this I would like to add, "Thank you, Patrick Fitzgerald."
smijer: The neocon worldview seens committed to the use of military force as the only legitimate response.
This, of course, is the "neocon" as mythical monster of the fevered and frightened left-lib worldview. In fact, anyone who's actually been labeled a neocon, whether or not they accept the label, understand all too well that, as Neo herself has said: "Those who advocate a military solution do so because they tend to consider it the least bad of a host of possible bad solutions, and risky ones at that."
But what's ironic to the point of being funny is the extent to which the current liberal-left actually counts upon just such a monster for their own short-term sense of safety -- time and again they assure themselves that Iran would never actually use a nuclear weapon against anyone for fear of being destroyed itself; as smijer says, there's no reason to worry about a nuclear-armed Iran because "...it isn't a property of flesh and blood people to wish complete destruction on self, family, and other loved ones, as would surely be the result if Prez. A. were allowed to start a Middle Eastern conflagaration by making a serious attack on Israel or (by proxy) on the U.S." Before 9/11, of course, it wasn't considered to be a property of flesh and blood people to wish complete destruction on self, period, but leave that aside -- the weak link here, especially coming from a left-lib, is that word "surely", a weakness that Prez. A and cohorts are very well aware of.
To see this, let's imagine, just as a thought-experiment, that sometime before 2009 a nuclear device is detonated in an American city, its origin is traced to Iran, and Iranian officials issue the usual bland denials, "condolences", and threats against retaliation (not displaying any particular worries about the dreadful "neocons" themselves). Let us count the ways in which, judging by all post-Vietnam experience, the left-lib camp rushes in to apologize, forestall, confuse, and generally kick up dust enough to prevent that very destruction:
1) "Think of all the innocent women and children killed by a retaliatory reponse! And the leaders would just get away!"
2) "Sanctions! Let's use sanctions instead of bombs! (Of course, let's be sure to allow enough exceptions that no innocent women or children, or other people, might be harmed.)
3) "We must bring it to the UN! The World Court! NATO! Interpol!"
4) "What about the root causes?! Isn't it obvious that this has happened because the Iranians don't like our foreign policy? Wouldn't it be simpler just to change our foreign policy? (Why don't we just ask the Iranians what they would like?)
5) "How do we know the Iranians did it?! After all, Prez. A himself says they didn't do it! Why should we believe our own Administration? This is probably just another Bush lie!!"
6) "Retaliation will just make more terrorists! It'll destabelize the Middle East! It'll inflame the mulim world! You can't kill everyone! We have to get them to like us, instead!"
7) "Violence never solved anything - war is bad for children and other living things - no blood for oil - impeach Bush - ..."
Etc., etc.
This, of course, is the "neocon" as mythical monster of the fevered and frightened left-lib worldview.
Mr. Fukuyama predicts that "one of the consequences of a perceived failure in Iraq will be the discrediting of the entire neoconservative agenda and a restoration of the authority of foreign policy realists." He writes that "neoconservatism, as both a political symbol and a body of thought, has evolved into something that I can no longer support."
Supporter's Voice Now Turns On Bush
New York Times, The (NY)
March 14, 2006
Author: MICHIKO KAKUTANI
America at the Crossroads
Democracy, Power and the Neoconservative Legacy
By Francis Fukuyama
Let us count the ways in which, judging by all post-Vietnam experience,...
Start with these numbers:
KIA 2445
WMD 0
Mr. Fukuyama predicts that....
Ah, Fukuyama. Isn't he the guy that predicted history was at an end?
Roberts and Alito are victories, but only after neocons shouted "enough" with the Myers nomination.
The fact that Robert and Alito are cited as "victories" in a thread about the War on Terror should give pause to many, many posters here. Perhaps it will help you see why many Americans don't recognize, like you do, that disagreeing with Bush on domestic issues is tantamount to siding with the Islamofasicts Jihadis against America.
Unfortunately, there will come a time when the patriots who seek to defend American against Islamic terrorism will look at how effective Bush has been in that fight--and recognize you have been mugged by reality. It will be a painful process for you, but a necessary one.
It seems at least meaningless, but more likely dangerous, to insist that another party accept our reality. And when that reality seems to be in our favor, or supports a point the speaker is making, I get concerned.
It is better, it seems to me, to try to figure out what the other party thinks. What is their reality?
If we use sweet reason and objective thinking, then Germany should not have--perhaps they didn't--start either of two world wars, North Korea shouldn't have attacked South Korea, and Argentina shouldn't have attacked the Falklands. For starters. But they did.
How could they possibly have been so wrong?
Not to rehearse a bunch of boring details, but in all those cases, the deck was stacked against them in objective terms. So what were they thinking?
Beats me. But they went ahead.
How could they?
Does it matter?
They did; millions upon millions died of German judgment. Faulty judgment. To an extent, the dead could be laid at the feet of those who presumed their reality was also Germany's reality. Reasonable. Rational.
Is Sally correct in her prediction of what the left would do if we were nuked? I think so. More importantly, what do the mullahs think our left would do, and if they foresee the same thing Sally does, do they think it will be effective?
Remember, Hitler, Moltke, and the Argentinian junta all guessed wrong, apparently fooling themselves by wishful thinking. They didn't think the objecticve correlation of forces into their favor. That's hard. Numbers and so forth. They thought their enemies into passivity. That's easy. Nordic warrior spirit. Samurai. Effete British can't take casualties (effete British don't take casualties, they give casualties. )
Seems to me history is replete with catastrophes started by people who were making errors, errors, moreover, which were obvious even at the time.
We stand to make errors, that being the way of things, but one we should not make is to presume a bunch of certifiable wackjobs brought up in an insular culture whose impact on their personality we either don't know or refuse on pc grounds to acknowledge will think the same way we do and for the same ends.
If anyone just wants to forget their troubles by blogging about beer, I'm always looking for some good stories over at bloggerale.com.
And as an added benefit, I don't have any obviously insane liberal trolls barking their damn fool heads off.
Woo-hoo: LucianneLanche!
Your Tuesday BlogTruth: A soothing voice....
cuts through the anger and fatique in the Blogosphere. Take heed.
You soothe, girl. :)
You really think that your blogs are involved in a war?
Does it somehow assuage your guilt that young men and women are actually dying while you're writing a blog to think that you're somehow making a contribution to the war on terror?
Such lack of self-awareness is staggering.
And does venting your inner rage help your cause in the least, Papa R? I'm afraid it just makes you look like a histrionic gatecrasher. - I could say something worse, but I won't have any part in lowering the tone of these comments... rest assured, however, that I still have the Seven Dirty Words at my beck and call.
What a whinefest! How much self-righteousness have you guys been storing up? I laugh at your pathetic "burnout."
I was ON a plane on 9-11. The only thing that changed that day is that we became a nation of 'fraidey-cats. You guys are the worst!
What a whinefest! How much self-righteousness have you guys been storing up? I laugh at your pathetic "burnout."
--SIGH--
As has been observed countless times, many people simply refuse to get it.
There are none so blind as those who will not see. I fear that many people will read your post and still refuse to see the truth that lies behind it.
Thank you for your service, and let us hope that the rest of the readers here "catch up" soon.
What a whinefest! How much self-righteousness have you guys been storing up? I laugh at your pathetic "burnout."
--SIGH--
As has been observed countless times, many people simply refuse to get it.
There are none so blind as those who will not see. I fear that many people will read your post and still refuse to see the truth that lies behind it.
Thank you for your service, and let us hope that the rest of the readers here "catch up" soon.
Hastati: Excuse me, Centurion, I'm tired. May I have my break now?
Centurion: Thwack!
Vietnam proved that even the most powerful army in the world can be defeated, if the civilians supporting that army are deceived by propaganda into attacking their own soldiers.
The propaganda war is as real as the shooting war. It may be a war waged with words, but it is a war that means the difference between our troops coming home as heroes, or coming home only to find themselves spat upon, jailed, or even institutionalized.
We bloggers are fighting to protect our troops on the home front, against a media empire that has declared war on the very concept of military action, in order to defend the more romantic and sensational concept of terrorism.
We're not very good at it; after all, blogging is a whole new form of citizen journalism, and while we can draw lessons from the citizen journalists of the past, most of their knowledge does not apply to the internet.
It's uncharted territory, but it's preferable to the territory the mainstream media has already staked out and now rules like careless, inbred aristocrats.
Get your helmets on, bayonet fixed -- in coming!
It's usually people ignoring the problem that results in a war without cost considerations.
There seems this belief that the black and white methodology applies to neo-cons but not to the accusors that believe neo-cons see things in black and white. But the most unsubtle and reckless belief is found in this quote.
You really think that your blogs are involved in a war?
Does it somehow assuage your guilt that young men and women are actually dying while you're writing a blog to think that you're somehow making a contribution to the war on terror?
Such lack of self-awareness is staggering.
Those who don't understand this war nor how to win it, will never understand the propaganda aspects. Simply because to understand is to allow internal revolt among their basic principles of belief. That can never be allowed for those who think in the absolute context of yes and no, dogmatic or false.
Another ignore Iran quote is this one.
1) the capacity of Iran to do harm - most reasoned assessments are that Iran has very little capacity to make war at the present
You could perhaps argue all day long whether Iran's ability to do harm is this or that, but if you broaden your horizons, this is an example of people ignoring the threat of Iran. As I mentioned before, those who ignore threats have been and will be the ones inciting a warfare without consideration of the costs.
There's doubt about the conventional aspect of proxy-warfare.
4) The U.S.' self-castration. This isn't WWII, and if you think that GWB has a 29% approval rating now, wait until he asks us to make the kinds of sacrifices it would take to join another large-scale military engagement.
Here people don't understand morale in war. Morale doesn't go down with sacrifice, it goes up. Perhaps that is unintuitive to the metropolitan commuters that more traffic equals faster communte, but there's a lot of things in the real world that are paradoxes in actuality and concept.
So, you see... it isn't whether we agree that Iran is "bad" and "needs to go"
For some reason, people saying Iran has no ability to inflict harm except in annoyances such as proxy-warfare and then saying it isn't about areeing that Iran is bad, seems rather deceptive.
So, rather than screaming off in fifteen different directions, bombing the crap out of everything that waves a fist at you, there is a considerable amount that can be done with a strong front and some time...
Most people can't untangle the logic trap that people like probligo creates almost intuitively. But that's okay.
There's two logic strains here, overlaid upon each other, so it is rather hard to unravel. Three would perhaps be impossible to unravel, but two is okay. The underlying premise is that probligo's beliefs will work. The other underlying premise is that Bush Admin's beliefs will not work. Seems simple right? So why exactly is probligo using an example of the Bush Admin's success to justify why probligo is right and the Bush admin is wrong? We comparing Iran to Libya, probligo to Bush, or something like apples to oranges here?
It's a variation on the rope a dope, or maybe it's just a simple grapple. Regardless, the Democrats are quite flexible in their ability to rationalize certain aspects of their philosophy. This has to do with quantum mechanics and history. Probligo believes you can just do a surgery on Bush's policies toward Libya and then somehow transplant it to Iran. This runs into one problem, infection and rejection. Another problem is that how do you know that the reason it worked in Libya was because Bush was the surgeon, and now you're replacing Bush by the probligo surgeon?
It goes on and on, in a tangled skein.
One more thing, killing a lot of people and violently removing poisonous regimes has turned Germany and Japan into world leaders in voluntary pacifism. Kind of ironic.
Perhaps, but it was also intentional. MacArthur and the US pledged that never shall our former enemies become our future enemies. Whether that means total annihilation or infecting them with the disease of democratic pacifism, history has already decided for us. Both were infected with the disease of democratic pacifism and Japan barely escaped total annihilation.
Ah, Fukuyama. Isn't he the guy that predicted history was at an end?
Sally, yes he was. He wrote a book about it, the End of History. David Hanson refers to it very often.
Seems to me history is replete with catastrophes started by people who were making errors, errors, moreover, which were obvious even at the time.
I'd like to call attention to a point that informative and curious people would benefit from. Which is the realization that this is a mirror dance. People like SM believe Neo-cons are war mongers and want to rush in and smash by grabbing money, loot, and nuking places for cash. SM states that the world is more complex and other solutions exist than the smash and grab model. However, then you have Richard's analysis of the catastrophes started by people make errors, and people who see those errors and make more errors, and so on and so forth. How complex do you think a spy pattern is after it has been redoubled 10X? Anyone know logarithmic math? It's a big pattern.
So the reality is that the Left believes they understand the complexity, and the Right (people like Richard not the religious factions) believe that they understand the complexity. In both cases, the interpretation is different, but the facts they use are similar in content. I favor Richard's interpretation, because his interpretation is actually correct, but Richard's point to Know Thy Enemy (which SM seemed to have forgotten when reading SUn Tzu) is perhaps the most important piece in telling truth from lies. It doesn't matter what I believe is right or not, it only matters if you actually truly know the enemy. If you know the enemy, then you will know yourself, if you know yourself, then you will also know your enemy. One is your control, the other is the experiment. But the question is, is your enemy the control or the experiment?
Anon does a duty to defend blogging as a civic virtue in the above post. However, I could never dirty my hands by defending the obvious to a bunch of oblivious and dishonorable men and women.
For those who don't like the military or who don't like neo-cons, honor is perhaps not exactly something a non Jacksonian understands.
We bloggers are fighting to protect our troops on the home front, against a media empire that has declared war on the very concept of military action, in order to defend the more romantic and sensational concept of terrorism.
We're not very good at it;
No, you're not. And your inflated sense of self-importance is growing by the hour.
Unless you get off your fat butt and go "over there," I have two words of advice: SHUT UP! You're only making a bigger fool of yourself than anyone thought possible. You're NOT fighting anything, you're just giving your opinion, which no one but you really cares about.
Boo hoo. I'm sorry "talking" about iran and war is long and hard. I wonder how it feels to be in the middle of your 3rd term in Iraq? Yeah, blogging is a real bummer when the world just won't match your expectations.
I have two friends who hate Bush, hate what he has done to our country, and hate this sham "war." Their son just returned last month from Iraq, where he was sent while in the Marines.
All you woosses here, try a stint in the Marines, get sent over to be shot at, and then come back to whine. You might be forgiven for your fatigue at that point.
No, you're not. And your inflated sense of self-importance is growing by the hour.
Unless you get off your fat butt and go "over there," I have two words of advice: SHUT UP! You're only making a bigger fool of yourself than anyone thought possible. You're NOT fighting anything, you're just giving your opinion, which no one but you really cares about.
People like Anon here are just bullies. Why? Because.
Go take a hike, Michael, preferably ending in death in the Iranian mountains
Who's the desk warrior now?
Only retarded idiots in the enlisted ranks blog, it says so here!
Who knew the Marines could be such idiots?
Bloggers have no strategy!
Being in the military doesn't protect you from Democrat internet harassment, if you're a guurrl
Here comes the SF haters!!
As you can see. It don't matter to the Left if you're in the military, it just makes you a bigger target. They're bullies. They'll take on women in the military, people on blog sites here, and so on and so forth.
What you gonna do about it? I'll tell you what you're going to do about it, you're going to avoid these people and shut up, because to say or do anything else would be to dishonor yourself.
Unless you're going to kill the bullies or do violence onto them, you should let them go their ways. Anything else is just meaningless.
Ask yourself, what makes you different from those motherpockers ridiculing people who disagree with them because their shitty little self-esteem circuits got blown out?
What makes you different is honesty, discipline, self-respect, and a little bit of the virtues called duty and loyalty. Don't discard them against such meaningless provocation.
N-NC, it must be truly exhausting to have your specious ideas be completely discredited by the reality on the ground.
Almost as exhausting as it is to witness this great country squander it's standing in the world, hundreds of billions of dollars, and thousands of American lives on the dreadful war the neocons chose to blindly walk into.
Someone has to check my figures, but what's the actual death toll in Iraq as opposed to Iraq and Afghanistan both combined? I think it is under 2,000.
Here is what most people miss
The ability to fight and win wars is based not upon intelligence or wisdom or technology, but upon battle hardened experience. As pure and as simple as that.
The Democrats would fight wars in the model of WWII. Basically, have a bunch of green recruits go into the meat curdler and then say afterwards "oops my bad, we didn't know a war was going to happen" when you ask them why they weren't prepared for it.
The neo-cons, the Jacksonians, the so called war mongers like MacArthur and Patton. These are the people who understand that if you want to win wars future or current, you need wars to train your troops in. The combat experience level of the United States military is now greater than that of the REST of the world COMBINED.
Back when it was just the technology that gave the US an edge over everyone, people were still talking about how the US would collapse in Somalia, urban warfare, guerrila warfare, etc.
Now they understand the difference between a bunch of terroists jihadists in Fallujah and the US Marines in Fallujah.
What does this mean? It means less people will die when the Democrats gain power and send the United States military to fight on 10 fronts at once against threats that have metastized due to Democrat incompetence.
Almost as exhausting as it is to witness this great country squander it's standing in the world, hundreds of billions of dollars, and thousands of American lives on the dreadful war the neocons chose to blindly walk into.
Same facts, different interpretation. Glass half full, glass half empty.
Ymarsakar: Someone has to check my figures, but what's the actual death toll in Iraq as opposed to Iraq and Afghanistan both combined? I think it is under 2,000.
You are wrong. Maybe know a fact or two before wasting everyone's time with your crap.
Here is Iraq alone.
http://icasualties.org/oif/
Here is Iraq and below it afghanistan.
http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/
Grackle said earlier: The reasoning of the anti-war folks is always that the US must wait until a belligerent state has the capacity to do harm.
Smijer replies: First - everyone... at least every sensible person is an "anti-war folk". Ever read Sun Tzu? (The folks at West Point do). War is not something to rejoice in. It's a cause for mourning when it becomes necessary. More importantly, your statement is critically wrong, and reflective of a black and white - near fundamentalist - mentality. Let me restate it for you: The reasoning of the anti-war folks is always that the US must wait until a belligerent state has the capacity to do harm, and has demonstrated specific intent to do so, before creating an open military confrontation.
Such criteria as “the US must wait until a belligerent state has the capacity to do harm, and has demonstrated specific intent to do so, before creating an open military confrontation” was fine pre/9-11, when the enemy’s “specific intent” might result in the loss of a building or two or two or three thousand civilians. Such a loss can be withstood, as the US has demonstrated. But when a terror-sponsoring state becomes ‘nuked up’ the stakes become very much higher and the old foreign policy passivity that led to 9/11 will only lead to unbelievable carnage. We shouldn’t wait until American cities are vaporized until we act but smijer and the rest of the anti-war crowd have done their job well and it looks like nothing will be done until an American city is nuked – and even then I’m not sure but that the anti-war folks wouldn’t want to capitulate.
smijer goes on: The guy who sleeps with his gun under his pillow and wakes up shooting at everything that goes "bump" in the night is a menace in his own right.
Who is the “guy” menacing but some intruder that needs to be shot? All the intruder needs to do in order not to be shot is to not attack – is that asking too much? By smijer’s reasoning the “guy” should make nice with the intruder in the hopes that the intruder doesn’t murder him. Extrapolate smijer’s hypothetical with the present situation and we get the perfect representation of the anti-war crowd’s unrealistic stance.
Grackle said earlier: That such outdated(after 9/11) foreign policy niceties could cause the loss of an American city or two the next time, instead of merely a couple of tall buildings with a couple of thousand civilians within, doesn’t seem to enter into their thinking.
smijer replies: That such "outdated (after 9/11) foreign policy niceties could cause" such results enters our thinking just long enough for us to realize that we need to do a lot more thinking about what could cause such results. If the cause of successful terrorist attacks within the U.S. truly is to be found within our foreign policy rather than within a much wider and more complex global situation, then there are other areas of it to blame than in our sometime decision not to aggress against every perceived enemy. Yes, our foreign policy does play a role in motivating and arming terrorists, but at the end of the day changing it in favor of a cycle of escalating aggression will only lead to our demise.
Here we go again with the America-Caused-9/11 meme. The anti-war crowd believes that the US caused 9/11. Why? Because “the cause of successful terrorist attacks within the U.S.[read 9/11] truly is to be found within our foreign policy,” meaning the US had ‘upset’ the terrorists with a too aggressive US foreign policy for smijer’s taste. I read a lot of such reasoning right after 9/11 on the Huffington blog. This feeds into more than one anti-war meme: That the US is always the bad guy and the opponent is always the good guy. That the US causes terrorism by fighting terrorism. That trying to do anything about terrorism before it happens again in the US is hopeless. That if another attack occurs it will be seen as somehow the fault of the US.
Grackle earlier said: Iran does not have to attack the US directly to accomplish their goals. Some anti-war people seem to think that we pro-war people are worried about Iran invading the US. Since 1979 Iran has been the main employer of terrorists and they will no doubt continue in that vein. Slipping a nuke to a terrorist is so much easier than “attacking American or Israeli interests directly.”
smijer’s reply: Easier? No. Perhaps, after spending billions of dollars and decades getting you hands on "the button" you would find it easy to give up that mega-power, and, shrugging to yourself "why not?", hand it off to your shady pal who promised to use it only against your enemies. And, maybe Ahmadinejad would find that "easy", too. I doubt he is that stupid or crazy, but who knows? As I pointed out, though - he lacks the unilateral power to do so.
The anti-war crowd always claim that despots would never “give up that mega-power,” meaning a nuke out of their arsenals to terrorists. Why does the anti-war crowd think this? Because the assumption by the anti-war crowd seems to be that a despot would have to give over his entire nuclear weapons system to terrorists and be left with nary a nuke. No smijer, just one little nuke, or maybe two, that Iran wouldn’t miss at all. And smijer, Iran wouldn’t be handing a nuke to a “shady pal” so much as Iran would be giving an employee a tool for a job.
grackle earlier said: People keep writing about a supposedly silent, young Iranian liberal segment that is supposed to somehow usher in a less distasteful regime in the future. Get it straight: Religion dictates every aspect of Iranian existence. Iran is not a democracy, it is an Islamic state. These mythical liberals have done nothing to prevent their nation from becoming the largest exporter of terrorism in the Middle East. Does the anti-war crowd really believe that a mythical liberal segment of the Iranian population could possibly prevent the mullahs from giving bin Laden a nuke?
smijer replies: You know, this is probably also what the Mullahs are telling their people about America's mythical liberal segment, to stir up their paranoia, too. Have you visited Iran? Do you know whether kids there are more attached to their night clubs or to their fundamentalist preachers? I haven't visited, but it is my experience that young people have a lot in common no matter where they come from. Will those kids positively influence the government there as their generation matures? I don't know. Do they have the greater understanding of the situation and initiative to do something about it? Yes, they do.
smijer, THE RELIGION CONTROLS EVERYTHING. The “kids” have no say in the government or anything else. They don’t have an open society in Iran; it’s not a democracy, it’s an Islamic state tightly controlled by the mullahs. Readers, I hope, as smijer apparently does, that Iran will become less belligerent in the future but I wouldn’t bet any money on it. They’ve had 30 years to calm down but there has been no lessening of the hatred during that entire period. Meanwhile, smijer wants the US to passively wait hoping that Iran will not get really mad at us or liberalize themselves from inside or something - I don’t know what . . . .
grackle earlier said: It’s frightening and frustrating how close this type of rhetoric is to the pre-WW2 apologies and wishful thinking about Nazi Germany.
Smijer’s reply: Difference being that this was still going on after the Panzers crossed into Poland.
And how is that a significant difference? Hitler was being apologized for and was the subject of wishful thinking long before he attempted aggression outside Germany, before the Panzers went into Poland. That’s the time period I was referring to, not when it was too late to prevent the disastrous carnage after the Panzers had started rolling over the European landscape. My point is that the US can’t afford to wait until threats from nuclear Islamic states come to fruition and the Panzers(or nukes in this case) start rolling because then it would be too late for millions of Americans.
grackle said earlier: What if the Iranians believe they would be protected by anonymity if they gave a nuke to terrorists? What if they believe they are immune from retaliation...
smijer replies: Hopefully, they would be wrong. And if wrong, then hopefully, they can be educated to the contrary. Back-channel, of course - there is no need to grandstand. I don't believe that they are that stupid, but it wouldn't hurt for there to be diplomatic reminders given them that there is no protection of anonymity when it goes large-scale.
Hopefully, hopefully, hopefully, all I see is hopefully. Smijer, the US cannot base its foreign policy on hopes. And isn’t Bush trying to give reminders – which Iran just ignores and continues with their nukes and their terror sponsorship? Any diplomacy would have to be “back-channel,” as smijer puts it, since in 1979 Iran took over the US embassy and held the employees hostage for well over a year. You can’t very well be diplomatic without an embassy, now can you? I would respectively submit that if a country is at all interested in diplomacy they would not perform such an act – which is really an act of war.
grackle earlier said: The writer finishes up with the venerable anti-war ‘be nice’ argument. If the US will only ‘be nice’ those nice young Iranian liberals will solve all our problems
smijer replies: Let me make a correction... if the U.S. behaves responsibly (and justly), then those "nice young Iranian liberals" may have the initiative to begin solving all their problems. We have our own beefs with the Iranian government, and we should be working on them with intelligence and every resource at our disposal. But it would be unwise, immoral, and self-destructive for us to wage war on that country except in self-defense and in light of a clear and present danger.
smijer, the US shouldn’t wait for “clear and present danger,” at least not as you seem to define it – because that would be to wait until Iran has perform some immense act of murder against the US.
grackle said earlier: but we mustn’t do anything to make these young Iranian liberals angry, like looking out for our own interests,
smijer replies: If we were looking out for our own interests then we would not be thought of as the "Great Satan" by the Iranians. It seems to me that meddling in Iranian politics - namely helping Britain to depose a popular leader there and install a puppet regime - was what earned us that nickname to begin with.
I have no idea what smijer means by his reference to “a popular leader.” In WW2 Britain deposed the Shah’s father because the Shah’s father was a Nazi sympathizer - quite understandable considering there was WW2 going on. BTW, the US had absolutely nothing to do with deposing the Shah’s father. However, smijer’s underlying meme continues to be that the US caused the Iranian situation.
smijer goes on: Looking out for our own interests will not make enemies of the Iranian people, or the youth that may bring change there. Bombing them, or their neighbors, "preemptively", will.
One huge, glaring fact that neocons ("neocons" because I don't like using "pro-" or "anti-" war as broad brush pejoratives, no matter how much they may apply in individual cases) overlook is that the quickest way to eliminate an enemy is to make him your friend. Now, I know that you're busting at the seams to ridicule the notion that we should just be friends with the evil mullahs, but if you let yourself get distracted that way, you will also miss the point.
The global political situation is very difficult and very complex, and very full of undesirable characters. But in every nation - in every government - in every religion, and in every culture - there are people who want peace and prosperity. To reach out to them and to make common cause with them is to cement new friendships. I know that the majority of Americans want peace and prosperity. I'm not sure about the guy we, in our anxieties about foreign threats, made our president. But we can ask those in our government who share our goals to reach out to those in other governments and in other populations who are also with us. If we can convince one another that we are willing to refrain frmo killing one another and burning one another's churches and mosques, then we can actually work together to create *real* security. And real security brings real peace. When the neocons learn this lesson, or go out of power, then we have a chance to move forward. Then, maybe we will hear no more hyping of warfare against Iran.
It’s the same old song for the anti-war crowd. If the US will only “reach out.” The enemy just wants “peace and prosperity,” the enemy means no harm to the US, the enemy would be nice if the US was nicer. If the US would only stop burning mosques the enemy would “work together” with the US “to create real security.” It’s the same old ‘be nice,’ passive foreign policy that led to 9/11 but the anti-war crowd is adamant that more passivity would fix everything. It was a failed foreign policy before 9/11 and it will continue to beg for the same if it prevails in the post-9/11 era.
It's not the WOT that's fatiguing - it's the endless pissing and moaning about it, as exemplified by these comments. We're generating our own misery, and frankly I think we deserve it.
This is not how Americans treat each other.
The ‘blind assumption’ is reason #247 why I no longer, or at this time, support the Left.
All you woosses here, try a stint in the Marines....
Bomb throwing statements like this give you notice, but nullify any consideration for your point of view. You might as well be farting Norse code out of a pigs ass.
I did serve ... beside as Americans, which most of us here are, we have privilege to speak freely here. This is neo-neocon property; she has the RIGHT to speak freely here. And I’m sure will be acting freely soon.
The world doesn't need a superpower; only the superpower thinks the world needs a superpower.
LOL. Yea, the world doesn't need law and order; only the innocent think the world needs law and order.
Beside chaos is fun, or at least sounds fun -- I mean we can all eat all the ice cream we want until the freezers get to warm. Gah
What can we do to cheer everyone up. Would a "Cheetoes for Warbloggers" drive help?
Hmmmm human freedom as oppose to the opposite of that? That would do more than cheer me up – I might get to spend some of the money I earn on my children and fulfil soem of their dreams, as opposed to paying for Kofi Annan's salary, World defense, ummm what else? And host of 10,000 other liabilities. Let human freedom march.
Ah, Fukuyama. Isn't he the guy that predicted history was at an end?
So, you couldn't get past the title?
Seems to me history is replete with catastrophes started by people who were making errors, errors, moreover, which were obvious even at the time.
Yup:
We have no idea what kind of ethnic strife might appear in the future, although as I have noted, it has not been the history of Iraq's past.
PAUL WOLFOWITZ, FEBRUARY 27, 2003*
*At that time, Wolfowitz was the Deputy Secretary of Defense
http://tinyurl.com/exk73
LOL
I knew this would come up sooner or later and I don't care. The Apple is free for all to use :)
Those who do not want to imitate anything, produce nothing. Salvador Dali
As Yippie leader Jerry Rubin once put it, "We're gonna be adolescents forever!"
That summarizes the Howard Dean wing of the left nicely. All I even hear from them is WMDs! Bush lied, people died! Fascist America! YEEEAGH!
They don't consider the proposition that there has been a growing fascist movement in the Islamic world over the last few decades, nor do they consider that we're in serious trouble if nothing is done about this state of affairs.
Nope, thye maintain if we get rid of Bush and the Republikkkans, the world will be a nice place, rivers will flow with chocolate, and everyone will hold hands is peace. THIS attitude is frustrating to deal with, and that's why people are getting blogger fatigue.
"I don't get it. Why are you Amurkans tired of war? I mean, you've been at it for over a century, you should be used to it."
Uh, we have been cleaning up after the Treaty of Verseilles, "the peace to end all peace" for that time.
I think that you can pretty much trace every war that the US has been in during the past century to that document. A document which we as a nation opposed, and which we were talked into by our European 'betters' who were trying to hold on to their doomed empires.
We did the end of WWII our way, with much better results. Don't give me this crap about the US and war. At least when we win a war, war is over in that area. The UN divided up Korea, the UN left Saddam in power to slaughter the kurds, shia and march arabs. Give me a break please.
"Ah, Fukuyama. Isn't he the guy that predicted history was at an end?"
So, you couldn't get past the title?
Which is a non sequiter, but what else is new?
On a separate point, though -- isn't it fascinating to see all the left-wing spittle flying about here? There isn't much real content (beyond a Dean-type primal scream), but you do see incoherent but repeated attempts to portray themselves as "patriots", most likely owing to some residual sense of shame and a need to cover themselves. It's worth noting that, for all the crocodile tears for the "poor troops", these are the same kind of people that jeered and spat at troops coming home from a war.
Neo - time to restrict comments again?
It's funny - one post complaining about feeling burned out by the WOT and you get flooded with mockery from people who have done nothing but whine for the last six years.
Only a fool fights in a burning house...
Chaos is a party for the Left. Everything is gratuitous -- believe me I remember.
BAY THE BOGUS:There is also a growing awareness that Iraq’s long slog may well result in the emergence of a new, more open political system in the Muslim Middle East.
There's also growing awareness that this will empower the Islamic radicals:
WATCHING HAMAS
The New Yorker
Issue of 2006-02-06
Posted 2006-01-30
Shalom Harari is a former Israeli Military Intelligence officer who has been following the rise of Hamas—the Islamic Resistance Movement—for almost a quarter century.
Harari had tuned in to a seemingly tedious military ceremony on Egyptian state television. “Look at the wives of the generals,” he said. “Many of them are wearing traditional head scarves. This was not so ten years ago. And this tells you where we are heading. When the women of Egypt’s pro-Western military élite are dressed like that, you know that the Hamas victory is not about Palestine. It’s about the entire Middle East.”
Harari said that he first took note of the Palestinian Islamists in the early nineteen-eighties, shortly after the Iranian revolution, when Islamists won student elections in the prestigious universities of the West Bank. A decade later, Islamists won elections in chambers of commerce in the occupied territories and, more recently, started to win in municipal elections. Now Hamas has taken control of the parliament, he said, and is sure to challenge Abbas for the Presidency.
But look around, Harari said: “In Jordan, too, wherever there are free elections––trade unions, student unions, professional guilds––the Islamists have the upper hand. If the Hashemite kings”––Hussein and Abdullah––“had not played all kinds of tricks, the Islamists would have had a large representation in parliament as well. And when Egypt held its American-inspired parliamentary elections recently, the number of seats won by the Muslim Brotherhood rose fivefold. Throughout the Middle East, the Muslim Brotherhood is the main power with grassroots support. The Islamists are less corrupt. They are the ones with integrity and compassion. They are of the people and they speak for the people. Today in the Arab world, the choice is clear between democratically elected Islamists and Western-leaning dictators.”
Steve --
What course of action are you recommending, and why? Are you suggesting that we install western-friendly dictators? Or do you think the Islamist movement, which has been steadily growing over the last thirty years, will dissipate if America disengages from the region?
I'd argue from a strategic perspective that unfriendly democracies are better than friendly dictators. The reason why places like Saudi Arabia and Egypt are so messed up resides in the fact that we've propped up dictators who push hatred of the west to retain power. We've failed to see how a country's internal affairs can have an effect on our external affairs.
Steve J: WAH WAH WAH!!!!!
Put a lid on it, bitch. YOU LOST.
See what I mean? I've no idea what I lost, but Stevie here has clearly lost most of his remaining marbles.
SALLY:I've no idea what I lost
I believe that.
My point was that Bay the Bogus is a half-wit.
I repeat, being in the military does not make you immune to the belittling little shats that are on the Left from ridiculing you.
The “kids” have no say in the government or anything else.
Like the kids at Tianaman square, they have a say. It just tends to be easy to crush afterwards.
This is not how Americans treat each other.
Sb, remember the civil war? Remember when the KKK was terrorizing the South to elect Democrats? Remember when Grant sent the national guard to crush the KKK in Reconstruction South?
This ain't nothing compared to how Americans can treat each other.
If you show weakness or fatigue to the Left, the enemy. They will swarm around you as sharks around a dead whale carcass. You ever seen a shark swarm devour a whale carcass? It's really fast.
We have no idea what kind of ethnic strife might appear in the future, although as I have noted, it has not been the history of Iraq's past.
Steve has no idea because steve is incompetent. The rest of the us competents do know what is going to happen in the future.
It's funny - one post complaining about feeling burned out by the WOT and you get flooded with mockery from people who have done nothing but whine for the last six years.
It's not strange if you understand predator and bully behavior. Bullies feed on weakness. What they aren't very good at is combat analysis and combat gestalt. People who focus on propaganda, are obviously going to have other skills weaken and atrophy. This is true of Democrats, this is true of the immature commenters bombarding neocons, and it is true of the terroists.
You ever see one of those anti-war protests beat up on Protest Warriors that dare to show up with different signs? They're a mob, any disciplined force would obliterate them.
You gotta love steve taking on the bitches, cause that's like the manly manly thing to do, eh?
Stab a dagger in your eye, you're done steve j.
If a Democrat ever says again that they don't know what is the problem with "emboldening the enemy" because of Democrat propaganda or if they say that no Democrat propaganda ever emboldens the enemy, remind them of how they act when they see weakness in their enemies.
Neo, time to restrict posting again, I think.
And Neo, don't burn out! Keep up the good work here!
And Ymarsakar, you are right; the Left is made up of bullies---we need no further proof than the droppings left by them on this post.
They are also growing increasingly incoherent, as again, witness their recent droppings; "YA OUGHTA ENLIST! AMURKANS LOVE WAR! HA, HA, I WIN! MICHELLE MALKIN SUX! I CAN'T SPELL, IT'S BUSHITLER'S FAULT!" This is supposed to convince us of. . . . what, exactly?
(Aside from convincing us said posters suffer severe mental and emotional disabilities, of course.)
Just to be clear, in case anyone is still in the dark about this, but the reason why they keep goading you to enlist is because they want to see your head blown up by an IED. This gives them a sorta of visceral thrill. I suggest you avoid giving that to them.
It's debatable if there are any more despicable men and women, than the ones that desire to do violence, but refuse to speak about it to themselves or to their intended victims.
They are so afraid of dirtying their hands, yet their hearts are full of fury and psychopathical urges.
Are they dangerous? If there are 50 of them and they surround you, then ya, they are dangerous. As with rabid dogs, you either put them down, or you leave them alone. You don't play with them, you don't reason with them, but if you do, beware of the bite and the bark.
There are underlying intellectual reasons why the far left likes to ask members of the right to enlist.
It all stems from ideas unconsciously transmitted by Heidegger, Sartre, Nietzsche, and other thinkers adopted by thoughtful people on the left. By enlisting in the military, you demonstrate will to power for your perspective. You show that you are authentic, committed, and engaged.After all, evil in their eyes is not murder, or rape, or property destruction, but the inauthenticity caused by our social institutions.
"Man is born free, but everywhere he is in chains." This is a tradition going back to Rousseau, and we can still see it in movies like American Beauty. The heros include the man who drops his responsibilities for narcissist pleasures, the authentic gay couple, and the criminal drug dealer making crappy videos for his nihilist girlfriend. Everything else supposedly deadens the soul --the wife represents the superficiality, corruption, and inauthenticity of business. The military, represented by the neighbor, represents sadism and sexual repression.
That's how the left understands evil, if anyone is wondering. Getting your head blown off would show that you're authentic, you have intellectual honesty, committed, blah blah blah.
That's the disconnect. We try to show the *truth* of our propositions, while they want to see authentic personalities. They're too cool and trendy to support someone like George Bush.
It all stems from ideas unconsciously transmitted by Heidegger, Sartre, Nietzsche, and other thinkers adopted by thoughtful people on the left.
Interesting, but there's a simpler explanation for the lefty lock-step on this particular meme -- it provides an automatic anti-war majority. This is because, according to them, only soldiers actively engaged in a war should be allowed to be supportive of the war, but anyone is allowed to be hostile to it. Somehow they're under the impression that this is just the smartest, easiest, and most unanswerable objection to any war, and that no one is able to see through its ridiculous bias. But then, as we've seen, these are simple, impressionable people, not the brightest bulbs....
Y - I understand what you mean. Unfortunately, not our finest moments. Neither is this. Disgusting, in fact. And we don't seem to be ashamed of ourselves. Wonder why. Any theories?
Theories about being ashamed, of what though? And also by whom? SB.
But then, as we've seen, these are simple, impressionable people, not the brightest bulbs....
Cannon fodder. We all know what happens to cannon fodder.
Al Qaeda and the Taliban seems to be running out of cannon fodder. I'm sure in a few years, more idiots will be born to the cause, but still.
Btw. There's a 80% chance supertroll is Spank.
dick cheney
50/50 he's spank too. 75% dick is same as supertroll.
johnny spammer said...
hey crapple how come your memes are alway sso long and tedious?
Another 70% johnny is spank, and 90% johnny is same as supertroll.
Good point Sally
This is because, according to them, only soldiers actively engaged in a war should be allowed to be supportive of the war, but anyone is allowed to be hostile to it.
Sally--
You have to admit, though, they don't have the numbers when it comes to supporting Cindy Sheehan, Hugo Chavez, or Palestinian terror. What do all of these goons have in common? They're willful. They struggle. They're authentic -- Sheehan had a son die; Hugo is an oppressed brown person. A martyr is proud of three sons who blew themselves up on Jews.
Ideas work their way through society in strange ways. I encountered a creationist online a few months ago who justified his beliefs by claiming Intelligent Design represented a "paradigm shift." That is relativist, Kuhnian nonsense taught in Academia, but somehow the ideas were transmitted to the crudest of knuckleheads.
YMAR :We have no idea what kind of ethnic strife might appear in the future, although as I have noted, it has not been the history of Iraq's past.
Steve has no idea because steve is incompetent. The rest of the us competents do know what is going to happen in the future.
Dear Stupid & Ignorant,
I was QUOTING Wolfowitz.
The reason you people are suffering from "burnout" is because you are slowly coming around to the idea that you are wrong, and have been wrong all along.
The Bushite war in Iraq is a disaster for America. But, it is very, very good for the House of Saud and Big Oil. War in Iraq = Record oil prices. This is very good for those people.
Did you see Bush Jr. holding hands with and even kissing the Saudi prince last year? Charming.
And, it is now more obvious than ever that Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism against the USA.
Yeah, your fatigue is just reality setting in.
Yeah, Bush is bad for America and you helped him.
You were wrong. Get over it.
"it is now more obvious than ever that Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism against the USA."
It is? OK why did the Iraqi secret police meet with Attah in Prague then? If you are going to say he didn't, please provide better reasoning than, "you know he didn't because there was no immigration record of him entering Prague, and why would he have hidden his identity since he wasn't a criminal yet"
The above reasoning is the basis for the 911 commissions conclusion, look it up. Despite the fact that he was seen in Prague by the Czec secret police, that he was seen on an ATM surveillance camera days before he was seen in Prague taking thousands of dollars in cash out of the bank, and that he did not turn up again on surveillance in the US til after the sighting took place.
Also, Atta was KNOWN to be in Prague the previous year, and met with Iraqi officials, there is no doubt about that meeting whatsoever.
And what about this report:
"Iraqis offered to hand over fugitive terrorist Abdul Rahman Yasin – indicted for his role in the 1993 World Trade Center attacks – to US in February in return for military concessions"
http://schumer.senate.gov/SchumerWebsite/pressroom/press_releases/PR01627.html
That's right, the guy behind the '93 trade center bombing, who had an Iraqi passport, BTW.
Abu Nidal, who killed Americans, was found there.
You guys just keep repeating the mantra that Saddam "had nothing to do with terrorism" as if it were a fact. Go ahead, if your claim is so obvious, I am sure you can find answers for all of my points.
You don't have them.
And the war is going quite well too. I know that is hard for you to swallow, since you want the US to suffer a defeat, and Iraq to fail an become another post-Soviet Afghanistan, just to assuage your BDS. But please.
Oh, and here is a story I never saw before, from the NYT:
"THE REACH OF WAR: THE INTELLIGENCE; Iraqis, Seeking Foes of Saudis, Contacted bin Laden, File Says"
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F60714FA345D0C768EDDAF0894DC404482
I can just hear the Leftie response: "Layyeess! All LIES!", but of course no evidence will be presented.
Lefties on the terrorism issue with Iraq are like creationists. When you back them into a logical corner, they start thumping the Bible of their faith.
lefties are like creationists? this is your idea of arguing? and you are winning the war in Iraq? you don't even know what the war in Iraq is, or where it is going to end......looks more like a very bloody civil war than your liberation in the cause of anti-terrorism.
and as for comparing yourselves with churchill getting tired of fighting the nazi's.......well you will never get that because you can't even begin to consider you may be wrong.
Bush is a God when it's convenient for the Left; omniscient and all knowing – it’s really weird. It’s so desperate -- you can't understand me! That means you're stupid and I'm not! Whatever, druidbros.
Correction Elvis:
...looks more like a very bloody civil war than your liberation in the cause of anti-terrorism.
...in the cause of "human freedom". We liberated blacks from slavery, are Arabs not capable, not worthy of freedom?
you lifted the blacks from slavery!!!!!! are you serious....it was clowns like you who built a country whose wealth was in part based on slavery.
i really wonder.....what would ever make you think that you might be wrong about this imperial adventurism?
Sally:
"Interesting, but there's a simpler explanation for the lefty lock-step on this particular meme -- it provides an automatic anti-war majority. This is because, according to them, only soldiers actively engaged in a war should be allowed to be supportive of the war, but anyone is allowed to be hostile to it."
Oh, but if the soldiers support the war, their views become irrelevant as well. And it doesnt stop the left from marginalizing the sacrifices of soldiers. Last years Memorial Day service at the local National Guard Armory was characterized as "glorifiyng war" by the anti-war types.
The unit had just returned from an 18 month deployment to Iraq.
Gah this is too easy. First of all “I” was not alive during slavery. Second, America did not start slavery – America ENDED slavery, remember reading about the Civil War?
I remember reading about the Civil War. It said that the Republikkans created the KKK and oppressed the slaves, and stopped the Democrats from coming to an agreement with the South that would end slavery without war and cruelty.
You can't convince people unless you're willing to destabilize their identity matrixes.
Harry said....
Last years Memorial Day service at the local National Guard Armory was characterized as "glorifiyng war" by the anti-war types. The unit had just returned from an 18 month deployment to Iraq.
It's all about the communion, goofy guys beget goofy gals and so the snowball rolls -- this is how Anti-War demonstrations metastasize into huge groups of people. What they scream is meaningless, and long as there’s a party afterwards.
Yep, spanks is back. My preference is that neo turn off anonymous posting again.
I've been on the progressive anti-war side since voting for McGovern, but as a broad-minded liberal I found the neocon arguments more persuasive this time around. Anti-war folks like spanks reinforce that decision.
I see some comments have been deleted. The Chickenhawk meme, the accusation that there is a lack of feeling for the human sacrifice of war is the unkindest cut of all. My heart goes out to all who have suffered from war. Of course our military should never be expended casually. The cost of war is dear. A poem by Housman says it best:
Here dead lie we because we did not choose
To live and shame the land from which we sprung.
Life, to be sure, is nothing much to lose;
But young men think it is, and we were young.
War should be carefully considered before engaged in and war is indeed terrible but today the alternative is even more terrible.
Most likely Iran will be allowed to continue on the road to nukedom. No doubt other Islamic despots will obtain nukes; the anti-war crowd has won the domestic propaganda war and made it politically unfeasible to prevent Iran and the rest from getting their hearts’ desire. I think pro-war bloggers may be weary because they realize deep down that the terrorists have won a victory with the Iran situation. So give a cheer, anti-war crowd, you’re triumphed over Bush! When New York goes up in smoke be glad, because at least Bush got his comeuppance.
When the women of Egypt’s pro-Western military élite are dressed like that, you know that the Hamas victory is not about Palestine. It’s about the entire Middle East.
A decade later, Islamists won elections in chambers of commerce in the occupied territories and, more recently, started to win in municipal elections.
In Jordan, too, wherever there are free elections––trade unions, student unions, professional guilds––the Islamists have the upper hand.
Throughout the Middle East, the Muslim Brotherhood is the main power with grassroots support.
It’s nice when one of the anti-war crowd makes my case for me. Yes, Steve, support and approval of terrorism is rife throughout the Islamic territories. This support has been in existence for many years and elections simply underscore the situation. I agree with you that the terrorists would probably be rendered relatively harmless if they didn’t have the overwhelming support of Muslims everywhere.
In debate the anti-war crowd alternates between claiming terrorism has little support in the Muslim world and insisting that the majority of Muslims support terrorism. But why does the Muslim world support terrorism? Because the US(the Great Satan) causes them to support terrorism, naturally. According to the anti-war crowd there is no bad thing happening in the world that the US is not guilty of causing – you name it, war, starvation, genocide, birth defects, riots in Europe, airplanes flying into buildings, subways being blown up in London - for the dedicated anti-war person the US is always the cause. Malefactors never have minds and wills of their own; they are always led down the path of terror and caused to perform murder as if they were hypnotized by the Great Satan/Pied Piper America and its puppetmasters, the Jews.
There is a war, world-wide, that has been going on since at least 1979 and it has the overwhelming support of the Muslim world. It is a religious war. Real progress cannot be made against Islamic fascism until the religious nature of Islamic fascism is finally realized by Western leaders.
"lefties are like creationists? this is your idea of arguing?"
Yeah, exactly, because you answer none of my points, but instead declare your faith in your own beliefs more loudly.
"looks more like a very bloody civil war than your liberation in the cause of anti-terrorism."
Really? Where are the refugees then? You know, the kind you see in a bloody civil war? The UN had camps in Syria waiting for them.
You want to see a "very bloody" civil war, so you do. I don't. I see a shrinking murderous cult, capable of delivering car bombs, but not capable of threatening for control of Iraq.
Oh my god... everything changed on 9/11!!! (yeah, like half the country got lobotomies apparently)
say it with me, the response to terrorism is: intelligence, law enforcement and diplomacy. it is NOT throwing bombs blindly at the world and hoping you actually kill a few terrorists (all the while creating even more).
i've said this since the morning of 9/11 and i'll say it the rest of my life until you people start to understand.
"well you will never get that because you can't even begin to consider you may be wrong."
So Elvis, Have you ever considered that you may be wrong? Anybody who doesn't, almost certainly is.
you can call me wrong when Iraq ceases to be a bloody shambles. I look forward to being wrong....but i fear it is going to be a long wait.....and i don't relish the idea of a civil war.
so when will you say you are wrong?
"intelligence, law enforcement and diplomacy. "
The problem with law enforcement is that one cannot excercise prior restraint. You are not a criminal until you violate the law.
We have seen the issues with "intelligence"
Diplomacy is needed, but look at the corruption that the UN dragged into it, which deeply involved Germany, France and Russia in perverting the sanctions.
I have already shown above evidence of Saddam's involvement with terrorism. You have no response, because Saddam was involved with terrorism, so don't talk about throwing around bombs blindly.
If anything is being thrown around blindly, it is unsupported assertions by the anti-war crowd.
"how do you respond to retarded points like these? "
Actually, I made multiple declaritive statements of facts above.
You could respond by showing me I am wrong on the facts. But argument by name-calling seems to be the limit of your intellectual abilities, but maybe somebody else could.
anonymous you linked to one article about supposed AQ-Saddam connections which has been thoroughly debunked by later reporting. you've proven zilch. there is NO Iraq-AQ connection, and you've proven none
does that mean you are calling me names now - - sigh - - go on then under what conditions would you admit youa re wrong about the whole iraq thing?
And Elvis, I asked if you had ever considered the possibility that you were wrong.
I guess your answer is no. Fits right in with your low IQ tactics of name-calling.
"anonymous you linked to one article about supposed AQ-Saddam connections which has been thoroughly debunked by later reporting."
No, I made several points, and linked to more than one article. If they have be "thouroughly debunked", I am sure you can provide me with a link.
After all, it is only fair to allow me to judge for myself whether the article in question, I am sure you are referring to the NYT article, has been debunked.
Or am I simply to accept your declaration of faith that it must have been?
Also, Atta's visits to Prague, and the Iraqi secret police are not even in question, excepting the dubious and unsupported claim by the 911 commision that the April 2001 meeting did not take place.
The commision simply ignores the other meetings, that nobody disputes.
Elvis, you said this at 10:18
"well you will never get that because you can't even begin to consider you may be wrong. "
I asked you whether you had ever considered the possiblity that you were wrong.
Apparently the answer is no, so I can't take seriously your belief that you have actually considered the issues at hand in any depth.
At 11:34 AM, May 17, 2006, elvis the bewitching said...
you can call me wrong when Iraq ceases to be a bloody shambles. I look forward to being wrong....but i fear it is going to be a long wait.....and i don't relish the idea of a civil war.
so when will you say you are wrong?
oh and i am not much interested whether you take me seriously or not
Right, by your arguments, it is quite apparent that you are not much interested in anything outside of your faith based world view.
Iraq had contacts with Al Quaeda, this has never been 'debunked'. You certainly have not demonstrated even rudimentary knowledge of the issues.
LOL, I was just talking with a colleague about doing a poster session at ALA in New Orleans this summer. The working title, "De-Mything Librarian Concerns About The USA Patriot Act” – It would be cool but it’s such a PC taboo that we agreed not to discuss it any further. It was a bold idea nonetheless and thought I’d share.
OK why did the Iraqi secret police meet with Attah in Prague then?
They didn't. That was just another lie by Cheney.
This statement is misleading because it describes a Czech government report of a meeting between Mohammed Atta and Iraq intelligence official Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani in April 2001 and states that there hasn’t been more information on that, despite the fact that Czech intelligence officials were skeptical about the report; U.S. intelligence had contradictory evidence regarding this report, such as records indicating Atta was in Virginia at the time of the meeting; and the C.I.A. and F.B.I. had concluded the meeting probably didn’t occur.
the vanishing commentoround....free speech huh
At 11:31 AM, May 17, 2006, Anonymous said...
"well you will never etc
At 12:58 PM, May 17, 2006, neoneoconned said...
woah all these vanishing comments.....anon has had a real discussion with himself....
elvis lives!
neo cons are full of it
don't fall for the control freakery....its only words
According to the anti-war crowd there is no bad thing happening in the world that the US is not guilty of causing – you name it, war, starvation, genocide, birth defects, riots in Europe, airplanes flying into buildings, subways being blown up in London
You are stupid and ignorant.
Really? Where are the refugees then?
They are in Iran and Jordan, among other places. The professional classes of Iraq has been decimated by migration to safer areas.
You want to see a "very bloody" civil war, so you do. I don't.
That's because you are stupid and ignorant. If America had the murder rate of Baghdad, we would have 720,000 murders a year.
Anybody who doesn't think ideas matter should take a close look at Al Gore, who literally quotes Neibuhr, Merleau-Ponty, and Husserl in regular conversation. Gore claims to be some sort of "holist" who seeks to restore the split between mind and body caused by Cartesian logic -- it dovetails with his environmentalism nicely.
note -- my last post should read 'martyr mom', not 'martyr'. It reads pretty strange without it.
Steve J--
Thanks for showing us how committed, willful, and unique you are. I'd like to see more evidence and logic from your corner, however. As I write, the "reality-based" community is out there denying Flight 77 hit the Pentagon again.
woah the amateur philosopher is back....go on then how does the flight 77 nonsense work? how does that undermine steve where is your logic?
This is a mega-comment . The quotes are only in the beginning, the rest is what I really think. Take that as you may. Addressed to those who still have an ounce of reasoning in their heads. I'm sure Spank will read it, and tell the rest of us where I went wrong, but for the rest, perhaps this might satisfy what I presume are people who want to feel a sense of victory over these other commenters. It is quite a bit more optimistic than the usual comments you may have seen in this thread.
say it with me, the response to terrorism is: intelligence, law enforcement and diplomacy. it is NOT throwing bombs blindly at the world and hoping you actually kill a few terrorists (all the while creating even more).
I'd really have to ask honestly and truthfully, who actually is naive enough to stake their lives and the lives of their daughters and sons upon people like Planet B's ability with diplomacy, law enforcement, and intelligence? I'm not talking about the principle of whether law enforcement should or should not be applied to terrorism, I'm asking if you trust incompetent people like Planet B to save your family when push comes to shove. I personally think he'll turn tail and run, leaving the mess to be cleaned up by someone else cause he'll just save his own skin.
elvis the bewitching said...
you can call me wrong when Iraq ceases to be a bloody shambles.
Since Afghanistan was a bloody shambles and when it became a success, it disappeared, there is an interesting solution Elvis uses to get out of his lies. That solution is to simply find a loophole and say "it doesn't apply". He will never admit to being wrong because he will never admit that Iraq has ceased to be a bloody shamble.
Does anyone else find it funny that anons are facing off against anons like some sort of multiple-personality thing going on? Who knew that insanity would be funny...
said...
According to the anti-war crowd there is no bad thing happening in the world that the US is not guilty of causing – you name it, war, starvation, genocide, birth defects, riots in Europe, airplanes flying into buildings, subways being blown up in London
You are stupid and ignorant.
1:31 PM, May 17, 2006
This comment by steve j is... um rather hilarious. Yes, hilarious.
A lot of Leftists like the internet, because they can call you names and dirty your honor and reputation, and they know they're safe from actually standing up to it physically. Most Leftists, of the brand we see here, not SB or Jack Trainor, are physical cowards or just plain panic like when faced with physical danger.
Given appropriate death and assassination squads from the Bush Admin, I could make these people bend like cardboard and paper to whatever construct I put up. It would be even easier with the media because they've already been trained by the Cartoon Jihad.
Like the boy calling his victim chicken to get the boy to bend to his will, the bully is taking advantage of the lack of self-confidence in you to take up his dare. In most cases, it is just simple manipulation to get people to do things that are dangerous to them, like diving into a river that is near frozen (or enlisting in order to get killed). The bully, the taunter, will never himself do the things he dares other people to do. He doesn't lead by example. His whole purpose is to ridicule, to harass, and to taunt as a way to salve his own lack of courage and self-esteem. It is obvious that misery likes company. It is obvious that those with personal flaws are never as tolerable about other people's flaws, as more content people are. People preaching hellfire and brimstone are themselves drawing you into their own personal hell and fears. People at peace with themselves and their actions have no need to bully others, to make them afraid, to acquire sustenance from fear and misery.
I'm impressed by the lack of angry retaliations to the taunting and ridiculing. Most people, namely the younger generation, tend to have hot heads and will say things out of anger they will latter regret. Perhaps Neo is so out of the "pop culture" that her readers are either not cut from the 21 age generation and therefore can control themselves through age and experience, or perhaps Neo's style of essay writing draws in the more thoughtful and calm persons in the blogosphere. Regardless of the facet, this is the difference you see. America has domestic enemies as well as foreign ones.
You are restricted from murdering or getting rid of people on the Left in America, because you'd go to jail and that is rather not worth it. The Left talks about it not being worth it to stoop to the terroist's level by torturing or killing them through execution, but I'm actually not going to get my hands dirty killing some Leftist. That's just not a good idea. *If you analyse it closely, you'd see a distinct difference in philosophy between this and fake liberalism*
The Left acts like they are crusading against Bush's fascistic policies and police state infrastructure. The fake liberals may or may not know what a police state infrastructure is, but I'm pretty sure the fake liberal's allies in Venezuela, Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Saudi Arabia do know what a Soviet styled police state is and how to build one from the ground up. For better or for worse, we have to deal with our foreign enemies before dealing with the domestic ones. And yet, here is the Catch 22, how do you deal with foreign enemies effectively with domestic enemies hamstringing you from behind?
The answer is obvious. You need allies. True allies, comrades in arms, who will be faithful and loyal to you throughout all of your days. People you can count on, in thick or thin. People you will die and kill for, and people who will die and kill for you. Where will you find these people? We obviously find them in the US Air Force, the US Navy, the US Army, and the US Marines not to mention the exclusive and perpetually loyal and improving Special Forces community. They will deal with the back biters and the hamstringers who will cut you down in the moment of your triumph. But you need more allies if the military is fighting the foreign enemies, where will they come from?
Do you now see a glimmer of why Iraq is important? Can you catch a glimpse of the future in which the Left has suborned the US military and uses it to enforce Political Correctness, confiscation of guns, and destructive welfare against those who disagree through peaceful protests? Our advantages are legion. The Republicans and Independents and true liberals still have the 2nd Ammendment, we still have our guns. We don't have to fight the military with them, because the military is on our side and will NEVER obey an illegal order from a Democrat President to "disperse" a peaceful protest so long as current loyalists in the military are volunteers and not forced draft or political appointees. We need have no fear of that in the short and mid terms. However, our disadvantages are also legion. The rule of lawyers, the rule of judges, the installment of an atheist state that bans all other religious practices.
I ask you to consider this. Do you think Ted Kennedy, Madame Clinton, John Kerry, and the Kos Kidz can treat the allies of America with the respect and honor that such blood brothers deserve? Do you think aristocrats that cut in line because they believe in their narcissistic self-importance and immunity from prosecution for murder will treat little itty bitty countries like Poland and Iraq as our equals? And how do you think our allies will act when we denigrate them and their sacrifices, treating them as slave labor as much of Hollywood treats Fly Over Country?
Do you hold grudges for people or policemen that have allowed your family to come to harm because of laziness or corruption? Even if you don't, ask yourself, would you kill and die for such people that allowed your family to come to harm because they had more important things to worry about?
No, you wouldn't. I wouldn't either.
The fake liberals on the Left, they are scared. What are they scared of? They are scared of the liberated majority of this world realizing that they have been lied to by the fake liberals ever since two centuries ago.
Socialism came from aristocracy, you know. Aristocrats had patronage. You work for them, and you'll be taken care of. Free market, fair market wages? Didn't exist. You work and be loyal to the state, the ruler, and you will be fed and clothed. nothing more. Sound familiar? It should, it's called welfare. And who better than the fake liberal Democrats in Hollywood to administer it.
Think about it. What is the one thing that aristocrats and greedy merchants fear above all else? They fear fairness, because they know in their heart of hearts their comeuppance. Like bullies, they know what will happen if they were ever to lose the power over the ones they have tormented for a life time. Like dictators, petty tyrants, they know in their heart of hearts, but they will never admit such a weakness.
So now you perhaps have a glimmering of why they are scared of Iraqis fighting back to back with American loyalists and patriots. Now you know why the thought of America dieing and killing for Iraqis, and Iraqis dieing and killing for Americans, and Americans dieing and killing for the sake of Afghanistani rural tribes means so much to the freedom loving people of this world and why it scares the shit out of fake liberals in the Democrat party.
The National Guard. Remember, tie it in. Why do they fear it on the border? Because they fear the NG helping the immigrants from the slave raiders that would torture, rape, and kill the immigrants for profit and greed. The NG is not loyal to the rich fake liberal Foundations, the NG is not loyal to the oil tycoons or rich merchants or Hollywood millionares. The National Guard swore an oath to protect the Constitution and the American people. The domestic enemies of America has no power over the NG, especially once the draft was removed, and political patronage of generals and officers wore down (Kerry). What they do not have power over, they will destroy. Any petty dictator is required to do that, to maintain his power and hold.
If the aristocracy in America was truly afraid of the NG raping and exploiting immigrants on the border, then ask yourself why they support the UN peacekeeping so much. They may be rapists, but at least they're our rapists, is that the logic of people like Dean (a doctor), Kerry (a lawyer), or Chomsky (rich propagandist)?
Do you truly want to associate yourself with the scum of the earth, the scumbags with their soiled condoms overseeing the exploitation and torture of a great majority of the Earth's people? Or do you want to associate with the paladins of legend, Americans who will stop people from abusing the locals, Americans who have bought sex slaves from Thailand because their conscience dictated that this was the right thing to do?
But even paladins can die, even heroes are mortal, as we see so often in Iraq. On Flight 93, we didn't see a happy ending, what we saw was citizens doing their duty, and dieing in the fiery flames of their accomplishment. But guess what? The fake liberals and aristocrats in the Democrat party are also mortal. It's an interesting fact you should keep in your mind, for the future. For while the terroists are our immediate enemy, they would never have come out except for the endless support from the manipulating aristocrats in America, Canada, and Europe. They are the puppet masters, not the Jews. They are the secret cabal behind all the conspiracies, even the fabricated ones.
It is amusing, like that joke with the devil. The best trick the devil played on the world was to convince us he didn't exist. The best trick the money grubbing rich blokes and tyrannical aristocrats did, was to make the world believe it was America that was the source of all evil, not the "tolerant liberals" living in America.
My personal views is that of an insider looking out. The Democrat party betrayed me. They taught me kindness, compassion, to look for the downtrodden. What did I see during 2003 to 2006 Iraq? I saw the Democrat party spit upon the raped, the tortured, the victims of terror and hate. I saw the betrayal, and I will never forget. And neither will many other Americans, neither will many Iraqis or Afghanistans.
fantastic....where to start? fave yrmdwnkr quotes
the winner!
Given appropriate death and assassination squads from the Bush Admin, I could make these people bend like cardboard and paper to whatever construct I put up.
second place
You are restricted from murdering or getting rid of people on the Left in America, because you'd go to jail and that is rather not worth it.
and honourable mention
we still have our guns. We don't have to fight the military with them, because the military is on our side and will NEVER obey an illegal order from a Democrat President to "disperse" a peaceful protest so long as current loyalists in the military are volunteers and not forced draft or political appointees.
Do you truly want to associate yourself with the scum of the earth, the scumbags with their soiled condoms overseeing the exploitation and torture of a great majority of the Earth's people? Or do you want to associate with the paladins of legend,
oh and there is more
mad, bad and dangerous to know ...stop neo con lunacy now
sorry tagged an extra one at the end.....too much choice....so much madness
Ymarsakar, well done.
Much of the left isn't impervious to thought; they know what it is and are openly hostile to it.
These two passages from von Mises's Socialism are illuminating:
"Marxism protects itself against all unwelcome criticism. The enemy is not refuted: it is enough to unmask him as a bourgeois. Marxism criticizes the achievements of all those who think otherwise by representing them as the venal servants of the bourgeoisie. Marx and Engels never tried to refute their opponents with argument. They insulted, ridiculed, derided, slandered, and traduced them, and in the use of these methods their followers are not less expert. Their polemic is directed never against the argument of the opponent, but always against his person.
.......
Marxism is thus the most radical of all reactions against the reign of scientific thought over life and action, established by Rationalism. It is against Logic, against Science and against the activity of thought itself—its outstanding principle is the prohibition of thought and inquiry, especially as applied to the institutions and workings of a socialist economy. It is characteristic that it should adopt the name "Scientific Socialism" and thus gain the prestige acquired by Science, through the indisputable success of its rule over life and action, for use in its own battle against any scientific contribution to the construction of the socialist economy. The Bolshevists persistently tell us that religion is opium for the people. Marxism is indeed opium for those who might take to thinking and must therefore be weaned from it."
jason baby tell me you are not serious!,,,,,,,,i mean.....the guy is bonkers...have you read it....come on i know i mocked you and the rest......but this guy wants to kill people for having different opnions...read what he writes
it makes no sense
it is beyond mockery
my god two lunatics
ah.... i get it "Marxism is indeed opium for those who might take to thinking and must therefore be weaned from it."
you want to force people to change their opinions...by force i presume.....you in there with the wargaming warriors then....
oh god that is ludwig von m you are quoting.....serious right wing loony. didn't much hold with free speech but mad on the free market red in tooth and claw
chalk up two loonies. i suspect jasonbaby is a tad more together than yrmdwnkr
Y, unless I misunderstood your reference to SB, it appears you have mistaken me for a leftist. Sorry if I've given that impression. (Maybe my interactions with Spanky - trying to entice him into a civil discussion as opposed to his usual behavior - gave you that idea. Not a sterling success, that effort - but at least I gave it a shot.)
Anyway, thanks for excluding me from the physical-coward-left. In fact, I'm not sure whether I'm a physical coward or not. Never been tested in that way. As for joining the military - I volunteered in 1981 and received a medical discharge for my troubles. Now I'm too old and my health is even worse. So as far as Iraq goes, cowardice doesn't enter into it in my case. As to the trolls - well, we all say things on the Net that we would dare say to each other's faces. Wouldn't take them so seriously.
About the shameful behavior - If you have to ask whose standards we use to determine when it shame is approprite, then I might suggest that you weren't raised right!
I know - that's not really fair. Everybody's raised differently and one person's shame might be another person's pride. So maybe you can judge how I was raised when I say that I believe that our behavior as a nation since 9/11 has been shameful. We are attacked from outside, and our answer by and large has been to turn on each other. As an American, I am ashamed of that. Yes, I am also ashamed that the Iraq war didn't turn out to be a flag-waving extravaganza of unalloyed success - as anyone is whose plans turn out to be flawed. But I am more dismayed at my fellow citizens' treatment of each other as enemies or worse at a time when we should be working together to solve our problems as a nation. We should be exhibiting resolve, wisdom, patience, and cooperation. Instead, we're acting like two troops of chimpanzees throwing turds at each other.
It's a disgrace.
sb to him everybody is a leftie and he wants to hurt them. a seriously disturbed young man
No, I am not suggesting Jack or you, SB, are leftists. But it was a distinction that I felt had to be made. Regardless of your political positions or belief, I believe it is wise to exclude unintended targets from any overt incendiary statements.
When you (I) choose selective attacks, you must also selectively choose your targets with as much care. In all honesty, I don't have any solid beliefs about whether SB or Jack Trainor are Leftists, but I did know that what I was refering to did not include you all. I believe as Bruce Lee did, that forms and patterns are as much a hinderance as it is an aid to organization and learning.
I have no problem with you, SB, talking to Spank. If people want to argue and debate, I can only suggest, giving a command you know won't be followed is something you learn not to do when studying military history.
About shame, I was just asking because I didn't know what you were really asking. When people ask me questions, I feel it is important to know their reasoning and their beliefs that power their questions, since knowing why they ask helps knowing what to answer with.
Like with liberal societies, I function best on maximum amount of information. A lack of such information, can cause problems for me. Not least of which is misunderstanding or jumping to the wrong conclusions.
About the disgrace part. My sense of America is perhaps contextual. Meaning, I know there are people with this kind of honor code. They keep their word, even to those criminals who violate their word all the time. Meaning, in negotiating with hostages, Honor Type A person would keep his word even when he knows the terroists do not. Perhaps you are of that persuasion.
Me, I operate with slightly different rules of conduct. It's still an honor code of course, but it is contextual. Meaning, it is like the virtue of honesty. You are honest with your friends, but I see no problems lying to our enemies. As they say, the Bill of Rights is not a suicide pack.
How this applies to this situation is rather simple. I don't see it as disgraceful because I don't expect dishonorable people to fit into my expectations of behavior. I expect people of honor to act with honor, and if they do not, then that is a disgrace. People who never have had any honor or loyalty in the beginning? They're outside the social group, the statistical curve, so to speak.
It's a tribal behavioral pattern. Not high ideals. The French really made a big deal about high ideals being the core of honor, the Age of Chivalry. But what I'm talking about really is more like a Wild West kind of behavior. If Indians attack women and children, and mutilate the dead, well I probably wouldn't give them Geneva Conventions protection. And the Wild Westerners did not, as you can imagine. Blood vendettas, remember.
Do you see, most of the institutions we have in the 21st century, are conditional honor types. Not Absolute hardline honor types.
The Honor A types featured by Honor Harrington by david weber is very rare. You've see it in the Belisarious series as well.
The world would be a better place if everyone behaved according to the Type A behavioral pattersn, but everyone doesn't do that. Not even most.
I got nothing wrong with high expectations for America, SB. Perhaps it is because I did not grow up in your generation, my values were taught and derived from a different school of thought.
I think my position can be summarized by the Marine Corps saying. No better friend, no worse enemy. It's a moral recognition that some people deserve better treatment and some don't. Others disagree, they believe human rights are eternal and apply to everyone. There's room for disagreement of course. But this Long War or WoT or whatever you want to call it, has indeed lifted up the rock to expose the bugs and roaches hiding in the darkness of the human soul.
it makes no sense
it is beyond mockery
my god two lunatics
5:26 PM, May 17, 2006
See what I mean? Tell them the truth, from the heart, without ridicule, and you will realize the quality of difference between you and them. For people who are confident of their beliefs, their cause, and their country what need we have for lying to our enemies and opponents when they can't even get their propaganda straight? Even if you tell the truth, they'll never believe you. They can't. It would terminate their identity matrix. You ever tried to terminate your identity matrix? You would get as much success as trying to choke yourself by holding your breath. Doesn't work, based upon one principle, self-survival instinct.
The lies and the propaganda spewed by the jihadists are necessary, because nobody would freely choose to live under them as opposed to live in the US of A. If you can't win the argument fairly, then you bring out the baseball bats and the crow bars. Time to break a few knees and hands. The jihadists believe if you rape a few women, then hang them when they talk to the police, everything will be peachy. They got another thing coming.
By the way. Speaking about loonies. The only loons are those who are so paranoid they will either fabricate a blogger profile link to make people think they are really registered or people who simply hide their blogger profiles out of paranoia (higher chance for this one since it is consistent).
Here you go, nnnnnnn's profile link.
Nothing to see here, move along. Stage magicians might be impressive, but that doesn't mean they can kill you with magic.
By the way, the Left's reaction to what I say and have said, is like their reaction to Amanie. THey tend to think it's some kind of propaganda trick like they would do, pure rhetoric and for show like they would do.
Unfortunately for them, they don't really have the multicultural understanding to comprehend true believers. Which is what Hitler, patriots, Von Stauffenberg, Amanie, Massoud in Afghanistan, and Komeini are. We are all true believers, the only difference is in what we believe in.
It's is incredibly amusing to hear the Left talk about religious fanaticism and how many wars were started about religions, and then you see how they walk the walk in Real Life.
FWIW, I consider myself an ex-leftist and no small part of that change was discovering how irrational and unpleasant my leftist comrades were in the face of disagreement.
I still say I'm a liberal in the classic and dictionary senses of the word.
I remain a registered Democrat because I can't quite give that up yet.
I’m coming from the same angle Jack. Although I have shaken the Democrat tag, I still can't refer to myself as a Re ree rrrrrre ...publican, Republican [i did it!] I'm comfortable as an Independent -- straight ticket Pro-American Conservative. And personally I very liberal, I’m an artist, I work in academia – I mean gah that’s Liberal. All of our freedoms are simply best secured under a greater Conservative society. The Left talks tolerance, but they sure as hell don’t walk tolerance.
France walks the walk of tolerance. But you tend to get jihad and riots. Britain walks tolerance, but then you tend to get home grown suicide bombers.
Don't think most Americans would trade their lives in for fake tolerance. It's not even real tolerance, it's actually fake. Most French hate the immigrants and don't see them as French cause of whatever reasons.
It was really funny remembering the promises of communism, in which they said "isn't it worth to fight against oppression to get bread"? Well, in the end, the communists really didn't get any bread now did they?
nyomythus: I'm an independent, too. I don't think I'll ever join a political party again. I consider myself liberal in many ways, but I no longer wish to align myself with what the movement has become. Of course, liberals now consider me the far right. Go figure.
I dont care that anybody's viewpoints are to the left of mine, just be sane. Christ, thats all Im asking.
With some of the comments here, I can see how anybody could get burnt out. Its like talking to the wall.
I think it has something to do with your name Neo, that they think you're far right.
In their minds, neo-cons stand for if not fascism, then at least totalitarianism. Just look at the comments talking about deleting comments.
Ymarsakar: I agree that there's something about the word "neocon" that's like waving a red flag in front of a bull. The comments about deleting comments are about on the level of playground taunting, rather than anything substantive about left or right. I'm on the far right when it suits them, and on the left when it suits them. Of course, the truth is I'm neither.
Marxism is thus the most radical of all reactions against the reign of scientific thought over life and action, established by Rationalism.
Young Earth Creationism. Intelligent Design.
One of the reasons why I don't worry about the school yard taunting is because it's an indication that they really don't know who they are talking to.
The dangerous people are those who see into your soul and seek out the weak points in your psyche and technique.
You can kill a true believer, but you can't make him stop short of killing him. What you can do, is to destroy his internal beliefs. Once you do that, his identity matrix shatters, and then it's all over for him.
Senseless and random violence like what the terroists use or what mobs use, are unprofessional. They are crude, rude, implements of bludgeoning. No Art, to the Art of War. Not a big fan of art, but there's beauty in lots of things still.
You really have to feel sorry for people like steve j. They're reduced to one word phrases. Look at the above recently written comment if you don't believe me. Stupid and ignorant seems to make up stevej's use of wording by at least 25% total. These are the people that's going to come and assassinate my belief structure? These are the people who are going to taunt me into getting mad and showing them I'm a coward? Who are they kidding.
*shakes head*
It's not even propaganda. I could respect propaganda, a good propaganda project designed to persuade people like Al Qaeda talking about the strong horse vs the weak horse. But it doesn't even rise to the "persuasion" level.
There's no wall. A wall you can hit. This isn't even an obstacle. It's a bunch of bees that you can't get rid of. Annoying perhaps, even fatal if you are allergic as the West is allergic to pride and patriotism in Western values.
As Bush said, Bring it On. Bush's polls would be a lot higher if he had kept repeating it every year and every month.
Steve J--
I agree with you 100% that socialism has all of the properties of religion. Consider the beliefs that socialism entails: self-sacrifice, personal redemption, anointed saints, the Garden of Eden (the noble savage), the original sin (private property), worship of the poor and the ignorant, sacred texts, prophecies of the always imminent capitalist apocalypse, and promises a socialist heaven on earth. Comte de Saint-Simon's last work in favor of socialism is not surprisingly called The Last Christianity.
Note that Intelligent Design was shot down in Pennsylvania by a Bush appointed judge. Also note that the fanatics trying to save Terri Schiavo had their case dismissed by -- a Republican judge, a southern Baptist nonetheless!
I'm sorry. I'm disrupting your fragile worldview with *facts*. Carry on sloganeering if it makes you feel good -- anything but *thinking*.
By their friends shall ye know them
And neo your friends are a smug, nasty, violent little collection. To see you cosily agreeing with yrmdwnkr, an unpleasant individual endlessly advocating violence;
Even the meanest and baddest man around will die screaming in agony if you shove a 1 foot wooden stake up his ass. nice guy huh?
and while we are at it yrmdwnkr the weaknesses in your psyche hang all over this blog. One badly messed up childhood. Over authoritarian parents and bullying at a guess. Talk to neo she is the therapist and can probably explain how you became such a f**k up.
and you get trolls because it is what you deserve. You don't debate you ponitificate and all critical visitors to this site are immediately attacked as stupid, trolls, spammers etboringcetera.
So when you sit smugly in new england sticking up for all the right wing policies of an oil driven right wing president yet claiming not to be right wing, just think about all the people you agree with....cos they all are. And so are you, it is a natural part of the aging process so don't worry.
Elvis Lives
Long Live the Trolls!
.....and they are going to
neoneoconned--
My preference is to delete morons whether I deserve them or not, but hey, this isn't my blog, and I don't make the rules here.
Post on my blog again, neoneoconned, and you'll witness the same predictable result. ZOT! Consider yourself OWNED!
;)
say it with me, the response to terrorism is: intelligence, law enforcement and diplomacy. it is NOT throwing bombs blindly at the world and hoping you actually kill a few terrorists (all the while creating even more).
I could say it with you, but not without breaking out laughing. Particularly the second part, "it is NOT throwing bombs blindly at the world".
Oops. A case of premature post-ulation. :)
Anyway, to take up where I left off, I can only laugh at the aburdity of the phrase "NOT throwing bombs blindly at the world". Because I don't remember any bombs landing blindly in Sweden, or Uruguay, or the Dominican Republic, or Thailand or Burkina Faso, or the Maldives, or even France. Perhaps there will be a cruise missile strike tomorrow on Zambia, but somehow I doubt it. I'll keep my eyes open, though, because I have it on good authority (or at least self-proclaimed authority) that it's happening...
Oh, but if the soldiers support the war, their views become irrelevant as well. And it doesnt stop the left from marginalizing the sacrifices of soldiers.
And it doesn't stop the Left from patronizing soldiers, either. Or infantilizing them. To paraphrase: they're just dumb kids who couldn't get a job anywhere else and don't know any better.
Richard Belzer
This despite the fact that many are college graduates, many are much older than teenagers, and every last one is a volunteer.
So to sum up: You can only support the war if you are a soldier. And once you are a soldier you're just some dumb slob who doesn't know any better, or is forced to toe the party line, or is a baby killer - so your views can be safely ignored.
Wow! How convenient is that!
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
In their minds, neo-cons stand for if not fascism, then at least totalitarianism. Just look at the comments talking about deleting comments. -- these are the things that I loathe and can not tolerate at all and why I can not stand politically with liberals. I reference to myself sometimes in “neo-conservatism” terms because we don't support nor enable these things.
[I think neo-neoconservatism might be distinct from the earlier use of “neoconservatism” and how this title or description may evolve is still avant garde]
Jason H. Bowden: My policy is a bit different. I delete at times and allow to stand at other times. I let some of it stand to illustrate the mindset of this particular form of "opposition." I think it can be quite instructive.
Also, of course, I've never deleted real arguments, couched in a respectable and thoughtful approach, from the opposition. Anyone who reads this blog for any length of time knows I welcome that sort of commentary.
kcom: see this post of mine for the Left's, and some liberals', view of the military.
Y - Glad you're able to make sense of this behavior! Maybe you sleep better at night.
I was raised by a classic jarhead; maybe that explains my dismay at Americans' current behavior. I expect 'gung ho' in a crisis - what I see is a bunch of civilians doing what civilians do best: scampering around in all directions, gobbling like frightened turkeys. Even after more than twenty years living outside the fortress, I still have to remind myself that this is how things are really supposed to be. Democracy works, but it looks like a clusterf**k.
On the other hand, I'm not wired tightly enough to be an Honor A type. I enjoy peace and quiet and would like to live a long and comfortable life with minimal interference from the government, religious fanatics, and fellow-citizens who think they're better than I am and are therefore entitled to tell me how I should live. Content to work at my trade, not looking for trouble, but ready if trouble comes looking for me or my loved ones. The word "yeoman" comes to mind. Seems to express a balance between career soldier and completely hopeless chickenshit civilian. Of course, I'll never know for sure until I'm tested - which I pray I'll never be since in my case it would involve fighting other Americans.
I think, though, that the real reason I feel anger and shame rather than pity for my fellow citizens is that I'm afraid their self-indulgent antics will one day lead to exactly that kind of test. Maybe not for me, but for a lot of young people who don't deserve to pay the price for our foolishness. And the assholes who do most of the screaming just can't see it coming.
As usual...
To see you cosily agreeing with yrmdwnkr
If Neo openly stated her disagreements whenever her beliefs came into conflict with me own, I suspect that Neo would have zero time for her own blog. This is, of course, just dealing with one person.
One badly messed up childhood.
my childhood is not particularly different than any other liberal indoctrinated school child of the public education system. Amanie, I believe, had a far worse childhood given that he grew up in revolutionary times and transitions of governments. You should have sympathy for people like Amanie with bad childhoods, otherwise you're just mean.
Talk to neo she is the therapist and can probably explain how you became such a f**k up.
Neo learned psychology to heal people. I learned psychology to destroy them. I don't think Neo would like comparing notes, personally. We could always switch roles, but neither of us would be comfortable with the other's native interest.
I'm just saying, a 12 inch wooden stake is a mercy. You should try it with a short stake. I'm just being sensitive to the Left's disdain of torture. And given that it is not a Western execution method, like the firing squad, crucifix, and water boying I was almost sure that the Left would appreciate multicultural diversity here given their disdain of Western brutality. But it seems my efforts are futile.
I'm not really so civilized that I feel shame for wanting to do violent and barbaric acts against my enemies. Every man, and yes woman, has a dark side. We are not judged upon what we think, we are judged upon what we do unto others, those weaker and stronger than us. I'm pretty sure terroists aren't weaker than the women and children they kill, but I could be wrong. Sure, our civilization frowns upon vigilantism and violence, but like any compulsion it can be overwritten. The military themselves could not exist if they could not train civilians to shoot and kill on orders. The compulsions people have when they grow up in a civilized and peaceful society can indeed be overwritten and bypassed. The problem is the opposite. How do you get crazy and violent people like the rapists in Iran to stop the violence? If violence and vigilantism is always wrong, and always frowned upon, and could never be overwritten then Flight 93 wouldn't have crashed in Pens.
and you get trolls because it is what you deserve.
I'll remember that, when I see the teenaged girl hanging from the execution stand in Iran, executed for being raped. I'll just remark to her spirit that Americans believe she got what she deserved and so did the neocons who might have saved her like we saved Raj in Afghanistan. "We don't want to get our hands dirty executing an innocent man like Tookie". *shakes head*
So when you sit smugly in new england sticking up for all the
I'm in the Bible Belt. Not with Neo in New England.
What defines a movement like neoconservatism and marxism is who makes up the movement from the ground up to the leadership. Sure, some movements attrack rapists and people who like to have multiple wives like polygamists and Islamic fundamentalism. But even the worst philosophy can act for good ends if the people in it are good.
It is after all not ideas and philosophies that are evil or good, but the people who live and breath and act in real life that produce good or evil. On this score, if neo-cons have enemies like nnconned, then that's a good thing.
When Jimmy Carter is on your side, that might not be so such a good thing though. I think Bush lost the port deal the moment Jimmy Carter supported it, personally. To many, that was just too much.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
neo-neocon at 11:53
...reminded me of a graphic I fashioned together some short time back, ineffectual garbage I know -- but having fun with Photoshop nonetheless:
IMAGE
Y - Glad you're able to make sense of this behavior! Maybe you sleep better at night.
I sleep better at night because if I get into a rage, my pain tolerance thresholds increase about 5 to 10X, and things that would cripple me in normal life simply shunts so much endorphines into me I feel like I'm flying amongst the dream of ages. The Left has nothing on me in terms of temper, rage, or righteous anger. They don't know what berzerker rage really is. It truly is an insanity that eats away at your soul, and unless you break something or hurt someone, it just keeps eating and eating. I don't have the luxury of the Left, being enraged at every political opponent that crosses my computer LCD screen. It is a loss of control and although it gives a sense of power that is truly intoxicating, the loss of control really bugged me until I learned to control it. One of the reasons people are scared of angry people is this. When people get angry, their civilizational inhibitions like Do Not Murder, Do Not Do Violence, Do Not Violate the Law, tend to disappear. That's what makes people scared, the idea that you are a fanatic and unpredictable and going to do things that the other person is limited from doing by law and reason. (Iran vs US, sound familiar) I truly do not understand why the Left favors holding their anger in, and using it to power their beliefs, tolerating the loss of control. That makes little sense to me. Is the intoxication of rage and anger so addictive that they are unable to let it go? Perhaps in embracing their darker side when they become enraged, fullfills some need of theirs. I've always been scared of that side of mine, before I learned to deal with it. It's surprising for a liberal indoctrinated kid to learn that he finds violence against bad people fun and thinks their physical blows are just a way to get more anger, endorphines, and adrenaline into the system. Any fake liberal that finds that in him, I guarantee you will have freaked long ago. When that LT. General of the Marines in Afghanistan said that it is a HOOT to shoot muj that slaps their wives around, I was like "that's my kind of guy". Nothing the fake liberals taught me, told me how to deal with righteous anger, namely because the people I was angry at in 2004 were the people the fake liberals were praising as freedom fighters fighting the oppression of america. That didn't seem exactly right, based upon the principles of kindness, compassion, and justice that the Left taught me. There is a difference between me, who gets quite angry at injustices perpetrated upon the weak and the helpless, and people like nnconned who gets angry at Americans. As I said before, I can't afford to let anger control my actions because it tends up never letting go. For people who have a far less volcanic level of rage when they get angry, perhaps they can maintain it for years on end. That's the difference. Some people are angry at everyone, all the time, everytime. I focus my anger on those who deserve it, and not try and bully the weak and helpless or those who don't deserve my wrath. Because once I let the controls go, it's going to be hard to stop. Perhaps you see that in some of the Left as well.
I respect that you worry about future generations. I respect and appreciate my ancestors who have fought to provide me the opportunities that I have today. However, you have to let the children go eventually. You can't always protect them, for the simple reason that they will live longer than you. It is best to prepare them for it now, than try to hide the pain of war from them. The WWII generation tried to do that, as I think all generations born and raised in war try to do, but we all know what really happens. People become spoiled if they are protected all the time. We know that in the vaccine world, and we know that in war and peace. I don't think any one person can do much about it, personally. It is the paradox of the human condition.
The more you provide for and protect a person like a child, the less that child is able to appreciate your sacrifices and the less the child will be able to support him or herself independently in the future. If the world really was a Socialist paradise of peace and kindness, this would not be such a problem. But we all know there are monsters and barbarians in the world, waiting to raid our village when it is defenseless.
I can't recall if Neo ever wrote anything about the sheer intoxication of berzerker rage, how it can fill you up with a surety of purpose and strength of will. I'm not sure if this is because it doesn't matter to psychology what anger feels like, so long as therapists can help people control that anger. Or whether Neo never experienced anger as I do, but regardless, rage is very addictive, speaking from personal experience.
Another reason to feel sorry for the Leftists, SB.
say it with me, the response to terrorism is: intelligence, law enforcement and diplomacy. it is NOT throwing bombs blindly at the world and hoping you actually kill a few terrorists (all the while creating even more).
What makes the above a Terrorism-Is-Caused-By-Fighting-Terrorism meme is the “all the while creating even more” phrase. The reasoning goes like this: If you confront a bully you will anger the bully’s supporters, thereby causing them to become bullies as well. So it’s best to find out the bully’s schedule in order to avoid him(intelligence), call the cops who don’t have the resources to find the bully(law enforcement) and more diplomacy, the same old look-the-other-way-and-hope-for-the-best diplomacy that was tried for 30 years before 9/11.
I would also submit that 2 deposals of terror-sponsoring regimes could hardly be accurately described as “throwing bombs blindly at the world,” but we all know about the anti-war crowd and their love of hyperbole.
As for intelligence, the anti-war crowd, if you pin them down, concedes that it’s necessary but then will turn around and do their very best to sabotage intelligence efforts, gleefully revealing secret programs so the enemy will know exactly what the US is doing intelligence-wise. That this schizophrenic behavior could ultimately result in far more deaths than all of the US actions in Iraq put together is apparently shoved back in the recesses of their confused minds where it cannot bother them.
Steve, would you mind explaining the significance of the Wolfowitz quote? Stupid and ignorant old me isn’t certain of your point. Are you claiming that Wolfowitz is wrong about Iraq’s past history? To refresh your memory, here’s the quote:
“We have no idea what kind of ethnic strife might appear in the future, although as I have noted, it has not been the history of Iraq's past.”
BTW, here’s another link about Saddam’s terrorist connections if you’re interested: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2730253.stm
There’s lots more; all you have to do is Google “Ansar al-Islam” and you come up with a boatload of results. Have fun.
Also, Steve, while violence among Iraqis has recently risen(as opposed to US casualties, which have never been very high) it hasn’t yet risen to the level of civil war. It may or it may not, time will tell. Be patient and you may get your wish; I’m sure the Iranians, as well as the Syrians, are diligently working to foment a civil war, and they just might succeed. While there is certainly ethnic components(read Kurds) and political components(read domestic Baathists, Syrian and Iranian enabled outsiders) to the current flare-up in violence among the Iraqis, the violence is mostly religious in nature, as would be expected in the midst of a religion-driven World War3. It mustn’t be forgotten that the labels of Sunni and Shiite refer to members of opposing religious factions, not ethnic groups.
I want to make it clear that I don’t believe Islam as a religion is particularly or intrinsically violent any more than other religions. Religion itself cannot be violent. But fanatics use religion for their own base purposes, although they themselves may remain blissfully unaware when doing so. Most people do what they want to do(and believe what they want to believe) and find reasons later, which is another way of saying that the human capacity for rationalization has no boundaries. Most of the leaders of terrorist organizations are religious fanatics, from bin Laden on down. It’s a religious world war, Steve, and the sooner this fact is comprehended the better it can be defended against.
Most people see polygamy and see the Savior raping little girls and boys, and then see Islam doing the same thing... it is rather hard to tell them that religious beliefs about polygamy play little part in violence.
The exposure of Islam is all about polygamy, sexual repression. This is its images, regardless of anything else. When you say religion, or islamic religion, it means different things to different people based upon their interpretation.
But one thing that isn't open to interpretatin, is polygamy. Polygamy defacto causes societal destabilization and warfare, internal or external. Islam would be okay if they got rid of polygamy, but that's not going to happen without a religous war you know.
Btw, the Savior I am refering to is the "American" polygamist in charge of a doomsday cult.
I'm not sure if Islam can get WORSE PR than that.
Y - Not sure who I'd call the children and who the grownups in the current situation. Given that our leaders and thinkers are acting like those kids from 'Lord of the Flies,' I think my confusion is understandable.
Somebody else's blog posted the famous quotation from 'Catch-22:' The enemy is anybody who's going to get you killed, no matter which side he's on.
That pretty much sums up my relationship with my fellow Americans right now.
Did someone say Tookie? This is bad….
IMAGE
Spelled his name wrong, and it’s a pitiful rendering, but if I remember correctly I just wanted to crank this out real quickly that day. Why people defend evil is amazing.
To deny that the relationship between India and the United States has been transformed from the cold war suspicion to strategic partnership where the two have deepening mutual interests, as the Marxists do, may be in line with their ideology. But a little analysis would throw up the fact that for the Marxists to retain their power base in West Bengal, the vote bank politics with Muslim fundamentalism has become important. So much so the CPM bosses have turned against their own Chief Minister when Buddhadeb Bhattacharya criticized the madrasas and expressed concern at infiltration from Bangladesh especially in the border districts of his state. Sometime back, he was even forced to eat his own words on the need to reform the syllabus in the madrasas and on their proliferation and funding.
The Left has been successful in creating an environment in this country for several decades now in which anyone who exposes their double talk or finds some virtue in American policies is dubbed a “reactionary” or a “CIA agent” or worse. This hypocrisy prompted the late Piloo Modi, the Swatantra party leader, to come to Parliament wearing a badge that “I am a CIA agent” needling the Left and some Congressmen with their own barbs. But those were days when the Left would refuse to believe that the people in the Soviet Union were resenting an oppressive regime. The overthrow of Communist regimes throughout Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union through popular uprising ought to have given the Left a lesson. But even now they refuse to read the writing on the Berlin Wall as people clawed into it and brought it down.
The Left would have you believe that America's beef should be localized on Osama only, not a War on Global Terror, not a war on any global scale. This shows you the lie of the Left, it is global, precisely because Marxism, Socialism, and the Left are global. transnational as den beste termed it. It transcends nations, just as jihadism transcends nations.
I suggest you read it all, SB and others.
India eviscerates the Left
It was funny though, I actually came across this in my research on "Indian execution techniques" but I couldn't find anything on google about staking. But I did on crucifixion, ain't that funny. All the things it showed up was about American Indians, or Native Indians, or whatever. India doesn't seem to be very um... popular to the anglo-saxon world.
Not a very good resume for the Left's "diplomatic, international, UN based" initiatives, now is it.
Go see this, it is funny
This one too
Y - The only thing I ever read about Indian execution techniques was in Sharpe's Tiger by Bernard Cornwell - a work of fiction, narrated from an English point of view obviously. In it, the Tippoo Sultan had strongmen who specialized in: a) suffocating victims by squeezing them, b) breaking their necks by twisting their heads backward, and c) driving iron spikes into their heads with bare hands. Very creative...
Interesting reading, your links. Interesting that somebody in India thinks more of the Administration than most Americans do. Context helps.
I always believed that it wasn't very multicultural to ignore the brown and midget people in the rest of the world, myself. Especially when people like Iraq the Model, Indians, Japanese, and Chinese are working so hard to learn English so they can "chat" on the internet.
I think we - Americans - left and right - tend to idealize the little brown people to the extent that we no longer feel it's necessary to find out what they actually think. The leftists think they want what the left wants, the rightists think they want what the right wants. The truth is often surprising - and dismaying to those who already have their minds made up.
I would be very interested in reading what some Chinese bloggers have to say - assuming they haven't all been arrested already. China is presumably the only nation that can challenge American power in the future. If the Chinese themselves feel that way, I think it would be refreshing to hear their opinions. That is, I'd like to hear from someone - friend or enemy - who has the confidence not to believe that the whole world world revolves around Washington DC.
China is very patriotic and nationalistic. Their civil rights is on par with Russia's. China's last war was WWII, which they count as a victory. Russia's demoralized cause their last war was with us and they lost, and their current one in Chechnya is an ongoing disaster.
China isn't a direct threat to the US, but China is a direct threat to Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, India, and Pakistan.
Americans don't reflexively want to waste lives retaking Cuba cause there is no one defending it, but Chinese people will, cause it is a matter of pride and nationalism.
oh hell either
1. I am as stupid as you all on here keep telling me....
or 2. yrmdwnkr is a violent little retard
The Left has nothing on me in terms of temper, rage, or righteous anger. They don't know what berzerker rage really is. It truly is an insanity that eats away at your soul, and unless you break something or hurt someone, it just keeps eating and eating.
that will be me again huh?
neo....nice friends out their in the right wing. Do you ever condemn this stuff or just save all that passionless dry ire for democrats?
so neo con let the comment stand as a bit of instruction....i say you associate with violent retards and are tainted by this....i say you pontificate never debate,,,,and you say?
YMAR - I learned psychology to destroy them.
You destroyed yourself.
JASON - the original sin (private property),
Where do you get this crap?
Here's a different segment of the Left.
Canadians, combination of Britons and French without the economic immigrant problems
Neoconned, your posts may not be as 'violent' as Ymars are, but they certainly arent any more enlightened or tollerant.
China's espionage efforts
Just to clarify something to SB about what I mean when I say that China is not a threat to the US. I mean China is not interested nor do they have the means, to destroy the US homeland territory or cause political/culture instability in the US.
It does not mean I don't think China's espionage of American technolgoy or anything else, won't kill Americans. But there is always a difference between those who die in the front lines and the safety of the country itself.
There's a lot higher chance for war when people have matching technologies and weaponry, but there would be if one side was outclassed by the other. But any war that would occur, would focus and disrupt China's surrounding terrain. China does not have the logistics to reach their hand across the globe to the US, unlike the US that is.
YMAR - China does not have the logistics to reach their hand across the globe to the US
You are just a never ending source of fiction.
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/china/icbm/index.html
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Steve J.
"Logistics" is not the same as "Mutually Assured Destruction". Sorry, I'm not jumping in the middle of this discussion -- but that seemed a bit obvious.
Let's not manufacture fatigue.
Psychological Projection
Steve J: Where do you get this crap?
Excreted from the mouths of lefties.
I think we - Americans - left and right - tend to idealize the little brown people to the extent that we no longer feel it's necessary to find out what they actually think. The leftists think they want what the left wants, the rightists think they want what the right wants. The truth is often surprising - and dismaying to those who already have their minds made up.
Ahem...I would say that's what the elections are for. The problem in Iraq is that no one has asked the people what they wanted for the last 50 years. Saddam certainly didn't. He told them what they wanted. For the left or the right or anyone else to say they know what the Iraqi people want is crap.
The difference between East Germany and West Germany after World War II is that we implemented a system in West Germany where the German people got to have a say in what kind of country they lived in and the Soviet Union implemented a system in East Germany where they did not. What we did was morally right, practical, and highly effective and any comparison between West Germany and East Germany made that crystal clear. It was the difference between NATO (a voluntary organization of likeminded people) and the Warsaw Pact (a forced collective created by duress).
Well, what I want to see is a system where the people in Iraq have a say. I want them to let us know what they think. I don't want some leftist American or European telling me what is good for them or what they believe. I want to hear it from them. Dennis Prager often says he prefers clarity to agreement. That's the way I see the situation in Iraq. After 50 years of Baathism, I would like some clarity. I want to know what the people of Iraq really, really think - whether it agrees with what I think or not, because then we'll know where we stand, they'll know where they stand, and the world will know where they stand.
But to find any of that out there has to be a way to gauge the will and the priorities of the Iraqi people. And that's what the last three years has been about. It's been about setting up a system where they get to say what they think. None of us in favor of giving them that opportunity ever thought they would be in 100% agreement with us. That's not the point. The point is, they get to speak for themselves for the first time in 50 years. And those of us who supported their right and their opportunity to do so owe an apology to no one. The ones who should apologize are the ones who would deny them that opportunity while practicing the very same right in their own countries every day.
Post a Comment
<< Home