- Home
- Columnists
- J. Christian Adams
Rule of Law - Ed Driscoll
EdDriscoll.com - Richard Fernandez
Belmont Club - Stephen Green
Vodkapundit - Victor Davis Hanson
Works and Days - Roger Kimball
Roger’s Rules - Andrew Klavan
Klavan on Culture - Michael Ledeen
Faster, Please! - Andrew McCarthy
Ordered Liberty - Ion Mihai Pacepa
Say No To Socialism - Ron Radosh
Ron Radosh - Claudia Rosett
The Rosett Report - Barry Rubin
Rubin Reports - Roger L. Simon
Roger L. Simon - Dr. Helen Smith
Dr. Helen - Spengler
David P. Goldman - Janine Turner
Janine Turner - Michael Walsh
Unexamined Premises - Zombie
Zombie
- J. Christian Adams
- PJ Tatler
- PJ Lifestyle
- PJTV
- Instapundit
Home | About Us | Media | Advertising | Tips For PJM | Archive | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | FAQ | Contact Us
v1.70 PJMWeb2
I thought this was a bit harsh. If we are attacked again, I don’t want to round up all Muslims and send them to Guantanamo (or the Nevada desert equivalent). I just want them examined, questioned, profiled, fingerprinted, monitored and forced to answer what they are doing to take back their religion and to protect their new country — America.
I think this is way too harsh for me. I understand this person’s sentiments fully, but what the author is saying nearly means meeting calls of genocide with our own calls of genocide. Not exactly “genocide”, but similarlly extreme in nature.
I can only hope it never comes to that.
I don’t know if this helps the cause of freedom, people.
Even though the WOT is beginning to resemble the American Indian wars. We may feel these sentiments, but it’s not so good to sing it aloud so full throatedly. Best to let the dispassionate actions communicate in deed and not so much in words that will be disregarded anyway.
Eastwood is preferable to Yosemite Sam.
It’s not very productive to threaten vigilante justice against Americans when foreign terrorists are the problem. All burning down mosques and lynching muslims will do is turn the entire Muslim community (and the rest of the world) against us. The terrorists would just sit back and laugh.
But if we are attacked again from within (like on 9/11), I say we close the borders and deport every illegal immigrant from every country we can find. Consequences to the food service and strawberry picking industries be darned.
If the goal is to get the average muslim working against the radicals there are other ways besides naked aggression. Although realizing that there are people out there with an itchy trigger finger and a closet full of ammo, that might be a good place to start…
What utter twaddle. It reads like a parody of the isolationist American who shoots first and thinks second… if at all.
I’m suprised, though, that the writer didn’t propose getting all them nasty Muslims wearing green crescents on their arms. Just to make it easier, later….
This is not what Americans do. If we did, we’d be no better than the enemy we fight. Isn’t that the point, that we are better than them?
I wonder if this guy’s job will be in danger because of his obviously strong sentiment, although that part of the country ain’t exactly the West Side.
However, I think that the perception in the rest of the world is that American citizens are weak, lazy, and indifferent, and allow our crazy Cowboy President and out-of-control Armed services do our dirty work for us. In that respect, I confess to feeling pride in seeing an average Joe willing to risk ridicule to say “don’t tread on me.”
What do you mean that this isn’t what Americans do? Have you read of Wounded Knee or The Trail of Tears? Americans are like any other group of people; given certain conditions, they will engage in titanic violence. The difference is that modern Americans have the technical, logistic, and organizational capacity to engage in violence on a scale neve before witnessed. Should Americans make such a choice, they really wouldn’t need to put many soldiers, Marines, airmen, or sailors at risk, or even resort to nukes. If utterly ruthless bloody-mindedness became the prevailing sentiment, as it has in other periods of American history, it wouldn’t be beyond reach to effect a famine in the Persian Gulf that would kill hundreds of millions, and utterly atomize the population for decades.
Americans would never do this? Ha. If Katie, Matt, and Al were to vaporize in mid-grin one morning, along with a million others, tens of millions holding memorial services without remains to bury would likely shortly conclude that they would prefer that many, many, people still alive be dead, and would lustily demand that their government use American technical proficiency to get on with the killing needed to bring that about. Voices of moderation would be like pebbles of sand in front of an approaching hurricane.
It seems clear to me that the only way to avoid this outcome, given the unstoppable spread of destructive technology, is to have the people of the Persian Gulf become self-governing, in the hopes that they will see it in their self-interest to not use their mineral wealth to obtain such technology, and in turn attack the United States with it. Their worst elements certainly intend to do so, and unless the wider population puts a stop to it, the world will eventually witness slaughter on an unprecedented scale.
This is why, whatever the faults of the Bush Administration, the reactionaries in both major parties, who pretend that the old regime of managing relationships with despots, in order to allow oil extraction, was tenable, are so out of touch. There is a locomotive of slaughter coming down the tracks, and unless the rails are switched, and fairly soon, the first half of this century will prove to be every bit as bloody, if not bloodier, than the first half of the last.
Rob,
not really:
Maybe the Jihadis tell this to each other to kep their morale up, but I haven’t heard anyone say that.
Horsefeathers has identified the author by now:
http://doctor-horsefeathers.com/archives2/000299.php#000299
Turns out he is a professor at an university.
This might get him into trouble:
It’s easy to guess how his colleagues are going to react when they hear that he wants (some of)them purged.
TO: Stephen Green
RE: Seems a Bit Edgy
Sort of like…
BEHOLD. I AM THE DESTROYER OF WORLDS AND YOURS IS NEXT.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
A friend of mine recently said “I think the USA is going to have a violent revolution really soon now.”
I said, “When, during the half-time show, or during commercial breaks?”.
Color me cynical.
Is posting it on vodkapundit an endorsement of the author’s stance or is it up here only to spark conversation? It lacked the usual commentary.
JP,
Consider it a dark warning.
I’ve said many times on this site and elsewhere, that if we can’t win this thing conventionally, if we don’t remain proactive, then things are going to get very, very ugly.
And that kind of ugliness isn’t something I endorse – but rather fear.
There are more than a few who feel as the author of the piece does.
At its source, there lies I believe a great disappointment in the lack of any outrage by the domestic Muslim community at the deplorable acts done in the name of their faith.
TO: Dennis
RE: Psyops
“Best to let the dispassionate actions communicate in deed and not so much in words that will be disregarded anyway.” — Dennis
From our perspective, that might be proper. But remember, this is a letter to the other guys. It should be viewed as to how it will impact on them.
To better understand how they might view it, consider their communications to US; videos of heads being cut off, people dancing in the streets on 9-12, etc., etc., etc.
This is the enemy…
Know Thine Enemy
We did not choose to make him such, he chose to be such. He sees life and death from a perspective that finds our life anathema and he is determined to rid the planet of us.
Now, it’s not everyone who calls themselves a Muslim that feels this way, but those that don’t are not going to speak out, because these people, who are our enemy, will do to them what they are doing to us.
It would be very nice if we could bottle them up in their private little corner of the world and let them turn it into their own little hell, but I doubt that is possible.
So, what do we do?
Regards,
Chuck(le)
I feel as though i need guns more to protect me from the professor and his ilk, than from the Arab community.
I fear it too.
The local muslim communities are outraged by 9/11, but you don’t hear alot about it because it doesn’t make good copy, there are a lot of other stories that trump it. And because alot of news organizations tried to steer attention from the local muslim population so they wouldn’t be targeted by incredibly misplaced hatred following 9/11, like that displayed by the guy writing the letter. I don’t think there’s any basis for the comment that there was a lack of outrage from local muslim communities. In fact, alot of right wing pundits like to cite polls or stats that say bush might even win the muslim vote here. So you’re offering a rationalization for that letter’s sentiment.
And Chuck, this is not a letter to the other guys. This is a letter to Americans, full of threats to their person and to their freedom. It reflects to a much greater degree of intensity/insanity the actions and thoughts of the hardcore right, namely pro-violence, anit-dissent, flag waving hypocrisy. Limbaugh embraces letters like this while at the same time calling American protestors treasonous, traitors, etc.
People like this should be feared. Letters like this should nudge everyone on the right just a little further toward the center. The consequences of not doing so are that if/when a democratic candidate takes office, right wing opinion makers will play off of this blind hatred and turn America against itself. People like the author of that letter will be invoked and empowered because the insane faction of the right does not advocate change via the ballot box they advocate change via force. And while that’s fine overseas, when removing threats to America, it is the antithesis of a stable democracy at home.
TO: jp
RE: Paranoid You Are
“…this is not a letter to the other guys. This is a letter to Americans, full of threats to their person and to their freedom. ” — jp
Please cite the passages that are a direct threat to Americans.
RE: Now Fear This! Now Fear This! Or is it That!
“People like this should be feared. Letters like this should nudge everyone on the right just a little further toward the center.” — jp
Please be so kind as to keep your fears (1) to yourself and (2) under control.
What you think things ‘should’ do is hardly what everyone else thinks.
Letters like this only express the deep-felt rumblings of rage that many are just barely keeping under control. Let some Clancy-esque event such as found in Executive Orders, Sum of All Fears or Teeth of the Tiger and it will come forth as an explosion.
If you do not understand that, then you are indeed one of the hapless victims who will either (1) take the oath, (2) accept dhimmitude or (3) die. [Note: By the way, if you aren't a christian or a jew, you don't get option #2.]
RE: Blind Hatred?
“…if/when a democratic candidate takes office, right wing opinion makers will play off of this blind hatred and turn America against itself.” — jp
The only blindness around here is yours, compadre.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. I think it is important that the jihadis and the other, more moderate, elements of Islam understand what is at stake here. And in no uncertain terms.
The jihadis will probably think, “Hey. A guarrantteed ticket to 72 bimbos.” The others will think, “We gotta do something about this idiots or we’re all going to hell.”
P.P.S. The only people I’ve seen turning Americans against themselves, of late, are in the camp of the Left; cheering those who would kill them, given the chance, on.
Talk about ‘blind hatred’…..
Here’s where he sets up his imminent destruction of anyone who disagrees with naked aggression, all of those listed are American:
“We no longer listen to the insane words of Kerry, Harkin, Kennedy, Clark, and others whom we now see as ideologues who would sacrifice our country and our lives on the alter of their vanity and desire for power.
We no longer listen to our secular mullahs, our media fools, preaching hatred of America and sapping our will with their lies and deceptions.”
And here’s where he lays out his plan for attacking anything arab-muslim or pro-liberal that he finds here in the states:
“We will burn your mosques.
We will invade the offices of pro-arab-muslim organizations, destroy them, and drag their officers outside.
We will tell the chancellors of universities either to muzzle or remove anti American professors, whose hatred for their own country we have tolerated only
because we place a higher value on freedom of speech. But we will no longer tolerate treason. We will muzzle and remove them.
We will transport arab-muslims to our deserts, where they can pray to scorpions under the blazing sun.
You have fucked with the wrong people.”
So, if another attack happens, muslims in America are in toruble. College professors are in trouble. Period. I do realize that this is the sentiment bubbling below the surface. I’m not denying that. I’m saying it’s based on false premises and radicalism and it’s a bigger threat to our country than terrorism, in the long run.
People on the left don’t hate America. We’re not turning America against itself. That’s the rhetoric of the brainwashed and the brainwashers, and it’s done to make angry, sad, hopeless people fall in line. Like you, Chuck Pelto. You probably belive that the left hates America because we don’t want to be in Iraq, because we protest, because we criticise the president. But you selectively ignore the part of our rants and protests and letters where we say, “We want war in Afghanistan, where the terrorists actually are,” because it’s a lot easier than actually seeing that a grey area exists. The world is not black and white. And anyone that tries to convince you otherwise is lying to you, manipulating you, or going for your vote. Don’t be a pawn, Chuck.
“People on the left don’t hate America. We’re not turning America against itself.”
So who’s that talking about “two Americas”, jp?
Yeah, like we said…
The teroorists are NOT in Afganistan only..
They are in Indonesia, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Chechnia, Saudi Arabia, Sudan,
and in Orlando, Florida getting flight lessons, and in Detroit, Michigan figuring out how to get the stuff to make ricin.. You see, that’s why we are in Iraq. You don’t kill roaches by killing those just close to the Roach Motel.
Catman
Arab Americans are behaving as if they are Muslims first, Arabs second, and Americans third.
Regarding their responses to atrocities perpetrated on their fellow Americans; airline missles, homocide bombings, civilian beheadings, etc. by members of their ethnic and religious group…………………….the silence is deafening.
Well I’m sorry to say that I will be one of the targeted as I will fight to defend people I know who are Arabs and who are innocent and who love this country and the people in it. And who are here LEGALLY I might add. Sounds like a bunch of crap spouted by the grand wizard of the KKK in backwoods Kentucky if you ask me. Frankly if we punish an entire population or religious group or ethnic group because of the actions of the most extreme members of their group, we are no better than they are. 3,000 innocent Americans died 9/11 because of the hatred a few fanatics felt towards a government that these victims had little to do with. I refuse to play that way. I refuse to believe that every Muslim in the world is set on the destruction of Christianity and Americans. I know too many who don’t feel that way to think its true. And frankly, most Muslims probably kept quiet after 9/11 because they were doing their best not to associate themselves at all with what was happening. That or they were too busy being rounded up and asked questions about their “involvement”. When American doesn’t stand for anything but what this professor is suggesting, I’ll gladly pack my bags and leave.
Anyone who believes that this conflict should be centered on Afghanistan because that is “where the terrorists are”, is too stupid for words. The fulcrum of this conflict lies in the Persian Gulf, and until that region modernizes and liberalizes (in the classic sense of the term) politically, economically, and culturally, this conflict will not be over.
Unfortunately, and perhaps, ulitmately, tragically, there are not decades availiable to have this process slowly evolve. The words linked to by Stephen are the predictable reaction to a conflict in which elements of an economically, politically, and technologically backward culture attempt to wage violent war upon a more advanced culture. Toss in natural resources that the advanced culture wishes to extract from the backward culture’s region, and the increasing ubiquity of destructive technology, technology which the backward culture’s war-like elements can obtain through the extraction of the natural resources, well, the foundation of a titanic abbatoir has been laid.
Thus, when the reactionaries proclaim Iraq to be the wrong war at the wrong time, or declare that efforts should have been centered on Afghanistan, they fail to grasp that the world they are clinging to, of managing relationships with a despotic Persian Gulf in order to facilitate oil extraction, or when they engage in fantasies regarding a world of the near to medium future in which Persian Gulf oil does not play a central role in global economic health, they are embracing a nearly certain guarantor of the world outlined in the piece that Stephan linked to. They are wrapped in a very dangerous cocoon.
I took this letter two ways:
(1) This seems to be unedited emotion. Please appreciate it as such. It is not a call to genocide and it is not a policy argument. It is meant to be reactionary. If this man, or any of us, lost our children to a terrorist attack, this would be the pure, undistilled emotive response. What kind of consideration do we expect in that situation. No, we would want blood. Honesty may be frightening, but there it is.
(2) I agree with Stephen and others. It is also a warning. If we do not end the threat our way, we will eventually have to end it their way. Spare me the hand-wringing. If you truly do not want to see what a man who has lost everything is capable of, then open your damn eyes and help the rest of us stop this horror show. If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.
TO: jp
RE: Oh?
“Here’s where he sets up his imminent destruction of anyone who disagrees with naked aggression, all of those listed are American:
“We no longer listen to the insane words of Kerry, Harkin, Kennedy, Clark, and others whom we now see as ideologues who would sacrifice our country and our lives on the alter of their vanity and desire for power.
We no longer listen to our secular mullahs, our media fools, preaching hatred of America and sapping our will with their lies and deceptions.”" — jp
So you ARE paranoid.
Or can you explain this interesting jump from “We no longer listen” as meaning “we will seek you out, burn your house and kill you as an example to everyone else in this great land?
Personally, over the last few months, I’ve seen the Left talking, and acting, more like that than the Right. E.g., Joseph Marshall’s lament of someone beating up an Iraqi vet home on leave in Columbus, OH. And then there’s the similar, if not nearly identical report from a rock concert in California.
I suspect you are projecting, compadre. And there is police blotter evidence that supports my suspicion. Not about you, per se, but about people I think are your soul-mates.
RE: The Muslims in America
“So, if another attack happens, muslims in America are in toruble.” — jp
Please re-read my thoughts about what will likely happen if something that you used to only read about in Clancy novels occurs here.
They could well be, if the government cannot quickly identify and take swift, effective action against the perps. And most especially if it is found that the Muslim community was aiding and abetting the perps.
If the government were not able to accomplish what I have said, which would you prefer?
Course of Action A: Interment for the protection of all; muslim and others.
Course of Action B: Murder in the streets.
I’m open to other suggestions.
RE: Moi?
“People on the left don’t hate America. We’re not turning America against itself. That’s the rhetoric of the brainwashed and the brainwashers, and it’s done to make angry, sad, hopeless people fall in line. Like you, Chuck Pelto.” — jp
Brainwashed? Angry? Sad? Hopeless?
You are projecting again, compadre. None of those labels apply to me. Too mature, energetic and well off to be any of those.
RE: Terrorists Are Where Like Gold….
“You probably belive that the left hates America because we don’t want to be in Iraq, because we protest, because we criticise the president. But you selectively ignore the part of our rants and protests and letters where we say, “We want war in Afghanistan, where the terrorists actually are…”" — jp
…and gold is where you find it.
And, my ‘blind hatred’ companion, you seem to not be able to see the terrorists in Iraq, neh? Kidnappings. Beheadings. Bombings. So blinded by hatred you won’t see that eh?
By the way, we do have forces in Afghanistan. I think it’s either the 10th Mountain Division, or the 101st Air Assault Division or the 82d Airborne Division (my old unit). [Note: Last heard, my other old unit 4th Infantry Division (Mechanized) was in Iraq.] Or it could be elements of all any of the three.
You seem to think we can only do one thing at a time? We’re a bit more multi-functional than that.
RE: A World View
“…because it’s a lot easier than actually seeing that a grey area exists. The world is not black and white. And anyone that tries to convince you otherwise is lying to you, manipulating you, or going for your vote. Don’t be a pawn, Chuck.”" — jp
Uuuuhhh…compadre. There is ‘wrong’ and there is ‘right’. We may have faulty understanding or recognition of such, but that is hardly a function of someone trying to ‘get my vote’. Rather, it’s a personal problem. Have confidence. I’m dealing with it. How about you?
Regards,
Chuck(le)
always a good lead in to strong, reasoned foreign policy analysis: the other half of ideologues are ‘too stupid for words…’
(btw- the liberals are not the ones that want to manage persian gulf relationships with despots in order to aquire oil, nor do we think a world without oil dependency is enough to stabilize our relationship with the arabs)
Making Afghanistan the focal point of the war as opposed to Iraq- including the modernization of its schools, police forces, intelligence, government and a crackdown on the drug and weapons trade that now threatens to cripple that area for decades to come would have been more productive and protective of the united states and its interests. The exact same money effort and time spent in Iraq would leave us with a stabilized region where we own one puppet government whose greatest threat from within is druglords, as opposed to an impossibly and forever divided Iraq whose threats include warlords, terrorists, and three very distinct sects or religious fanatacism that can not be brought together because they will never allow for a state to exist above religion.
To argue that the reactionary response is ‘go to afghanistan’ is like arguing that only the neocons have smart foreign policy based on research and evaluation. Which I expect from Iraq-validation hawks, but that doesn’t make it correct.
Also, wrapped in layers and layers of big words was very little actual explanation for why Iraq was the right war at the right time. From what I can gather, you think that crazy despots will use oil money to buy big weapons and blow up America? Is that right?
mike m- two americas speech tries to separate between the top 2% and the rest of the middle class. It’s class warfare which attempts to reach out to all middle class people, not democratic ones. It’s a tremendously different division than saying ‘either you’re for the war or against the troops,’ which in several different variations, is how the right attempts to destroy anyone on the left who preaches progressive ideas or practices free speech.
it’s a nuance, and i know you guys don’t do nuance, you like to bomb shit and kill people that question your moral authority (ironic, huh?) and either you’re fer us or against us and blah blah blah, but you should do nuance once in a while.
TO: Britton
RE: Good On You
“I refuse to believe that every Muslim in the world is set on the destruction of Christianity and Americans. I know too many who don’t feel that way to think its true.” — Britton
Could you please get them to start ‘policing their own’? Getting them to speak out, verbally and very loud would be a good start. That would go far in preventing or at least mitigating any bloodbath that is anticiapted.
In the meantime, their apparent silence is not doing them much good.
And, by the by, I agree with Mike M that vigilantiism would play into the hands of the terrorists. And I think they are planning on that. Indeed, banking on it.
But also, as Mike M says, a man who has lost everything is going to be hard to deal with himself.
So in this situation, an ounce of pervention is worth a kiloton of cure. Or cure of a kiloton. Something like that.
And being fully aware of the risk is a step in the right direction. The message, as Cauthon points out is pure, unadulterated emotion. And that is what we’ll be dealing with if we do not act with resolution to eliminate the threat as soon as possible.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
“Also, wrapped in layers and layers of big words was very little actual explanation for why Iraq was the right war at the right time. From what I can gather, you think that crazy despots will use oil money to buy big weapons and blow up America? Is that right?”
you are kidding right? Big words?
TO: jp
RE: Money Spending
“The exact same money effort and time spent in Iraq would leave us with a stabilized region…” — jp
Yes. It would expedite matters in Afghanistan, but it would not provide us a good base of operations for the next two campaigns in the War on Terror; Syria and/or Iran.
With Afghanistan on one side, Iraq on another, Pakistan on a third and Russia on a fourth, Iran is surrounded.
However, the recent realizations that all those WMDs missing from Iraq are probably in the hands of Saddam’s kissing cousin Baathists in Syria, we may need to deal with Syria first. [Note: Unless you missed it, it seems that the Syrians are testing ways to employ the chemical munitions using the unhappy people of Darfur as their test subjects.]
Regards,
Chuck(le)
TO: jp
RE: Ooooh…the Irony
“it’s a nuance, and i know you guys don’t do nuance, you like to bomb shit and kill people that question your moral authority (ironic, huh?)” — jp
Actually, it’s projection. On your part.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. Kerry is giving “nuance” a bad name.
jp.-get off of your knees….you sound like such a pussy.
“…and three very distinct sects or religious fanatacism that can not be brought together because they will never allow for a state to exist above religion.”
Yeah, because those Muslim people are just too backward too change, right?
This particular aspect of modern liberalism is every bit as despicable as any Klansman preaching white power.
Only difference is, the Klansman is more honest about his racism.
TO: jp
RE: Free Speech!
“…how the right attempts to destroy anyone on the left who preaches progressive ideas or practices free speech.” — jp
Am I suppressing you because I disagree with you?
Have you been banned on this site for expressing your opinions in this fashion?
Just so you know…I’ve been banned on Daily Kos, Armed Liberal, Oliver Willis and a number of other so-called ‘liberal’ sites for doing nothing more and not one jot less than what I am doing here; disagreeing with you and doing so without use of foul language.
Who is the ‘liberal’? Who supports ‘freedom of speech”?
Regards,
Chuck(le)
JP: You said:
—btw- the liberals are not the ones that want to manage persian gulf relationships with despots in order to aquire oil, —
Really? So how do you explain Bush toppling a despot in Iraq? Would have been a lot easier to kiss and make up and get the oil really flowing eh? As we know Saddam had no connection to terrorism and was at odds with it so wouldn’t he have made a great ally?
This reminds me of a discussion (IIRC, right here at this blog) that suggested that the reason that the significant discontent with GWB’s Iraq policies hadn’t helped Kerry more was that a substantial number of Americans think that GWB hasn’t been aggressive *enough* in the WOT, and would have been just thrilled to see the measures mentioned in the letter above used. Definitely something to keep in mind.
Rich said it all for me.
But this type of sentiment needs to be taken seriously lest we find that the enemy is us.
jp, as long as sufficient forces are devoted to Afghanistan to prevent Al Queda-like entities to run training camps with impunity, the situation is manageable. That has been accomplished. If drug smuggling is a destabilizing force, well, that is an excellent argument to end the black market in opiates. To think that running a drug war in Afghanistan is better policy than running one in South America is yet more silliness.
No, Persian Gulf despots aren’t likely to openly attack the U.S., although it can’t be entirely discounted. However, as long as the Persian Gulf remains despotic, the worst elements there will have some access to oil revenues, because even despots need some source of internal support.
If Osama Bin Laden had been born in a culture without oil reserves, you and I would never had heard of him. Highly motivated people with access to sufficient wealth inevitably obtain technology they desire, since technology is never completely successfully bottled up. The worst elements of Persian Gulf will obtain the destructive technology they desire because the oil revenues will provide them the required wealth, and they are extraordinarily motivated to do so. The only way to avoid this outcome is to have the people of the Persian Gulf control their natural resources, in the hope that they will see it in their best interest to avoid conflict with the United States.
Sorry, but to think the geo-political point around which this conflict revolves lies in Afghanistan, is, yes, too stupid for words, as is ignoring the centrality of Persian Gulf oil to this conflict. You mistakenly think that managing relationships with Persian Gulf despots, in order to allow oil extraction, was a tenable prospect, or you think (even more mistakenly) that Persian Gulf oil will become less central to the global economy in the near to medium future. You are wrong, and if your view prevails, the reuslts will make today’s bloodshed look like a minor scrape.
TO: M. Scott Eiland
RE: Those Wild and Crazy Jacksonians
“… a substantial number of Americans think that GWB hasn’t been aggressive *enough* in the WOT…” — M. Scott Eiland
Ever read that essay on The Jacksonian Tradition.
It pretty much explains the foibles and failings of what we are talking about here. Including a good bit of history.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
The enemy may be us, but at least we will still be breathing when it’s over.
JP, to follow upon Eskimo’s post, the oil of the Persian Gulf will be extracted, whatever fantasies you may have to the contrary. It will either be done through despots that control the region, or through goverments that operate with consent of the populations. There is no other way.
If you do not support means that allow it to be done through governments that operate through consent of the populations, then you necessarily support it being done through despots. Either position can be argued for.
Reactionaries like Buchanon put forth the latter argument, but they ignore how that position inevitably puts us in conflict with the populations of the region, and strengthens the appeal of the worst elements of the region. This is what has happened in Saudi Arabia, with tragic results. It would be more intellectually honest if you simply embraced Buchanon’s position, and dropped the moral onanism involved in pretending that the world’s most important natural resource will somehow become available by some third way.
Oooh, this one has hotted up since I last visited!
Hey JP, isn’t “the world is not black and white” a black and white statement? Gotcha there.
But the point he’s trying to make, however clumsy his logic, is valid. There are times when nuance is useful. Right now ain’t one of them. In this particular case, he’d rather throw stones at his own crib than the house of horrors down the street. In the WOT, or whatever you want to call it, there is quite simply one right answer. W knows this. Kerry keeps saying “Can you repeat the question?”
Let me break it down for you: it’s us or them. It’s fine to criticize how we go about it, but most of you folks leaning left just don’t believe that America is capable of being on the right side of a conflict. There is no us and them, to you.
And as for this:
“The local muslim communities are outraged by 9/11, but you don’t hear alot about it because it doesn’t make good copy”
is just utter horse shit. It’s taken muslim leaders in the middle east three freakin’ years to start criticizing their own religion’s extreme factions. I suppose if these Children of God start beheading all the women they kidnap, we can expect a strong condemnation from the leaders of Islam, which would be echoed by President Kerry and the UN.
Guys, you might google for Martin Kolzoff’s website and get a sample of his other writings (and think-ings) before you react to hastily to his latest rant.
Martin, like our host here, Stephen, makes mock of himself and his fondness for distilled beverages. Martin is well versed in classical literature and history, and alludes often to events such as the Rape of the Sabines, the Fall of Rome, the Trojan Women, etc. Tragedy and savagery are as familiar to him as baseball statistics …
Martin has fought decades of academic battles in favor of phonics, English immersion, and rigorous testing; opposing much of the muzzy-minded pap education educators attempt to “teach” those given custody of our kids. He’s exhausted more patience in such battles than most of us could exercise in three lifetimes. So it’s not surprising he has so little patience left for ACTUAL battle.
I’m fond of him. And come to it, if I were hiring a guy to stand with a shotgun at MY back when the hordes approach; he’d be one on my short list; and I’d skip the interview.
Mind, I wouldn’t pay him more than he’s worth. A dollar a day, plus whatever expenses on drink and ammo…
beware the American street… we are called the great Satan, but we rarely act like it (aside from the views of the wacko left and neo-communists).. however another attack of 9-11 porportions could very well unleash a fury from our country. This kind of sentiment is so often used by the Arab world whne speaking about their enemies, I would be curious to their reaction if we turned it back on them….
rob- we were talking about the purported silence of muslim communities here in america, which the author of the letter threatened to destroy, not muslim leaders abroad.
your statement about black and white is a rhetorical one and it holds no water. that’s like saying that people who punish racists are actually discriminators themselves. It’s idiocy.
Will allen- you didn’t read my post, which isn’t surprising, just disappointing. As I said in the post- the left does not argue for only managing despotic relationships or only ending oil dependency. Leaning on either one exclusively would crush us, and it’s not feasable. Just like the left would not sit on its hands after 9/11 like so many people on this post suggest. We wanted war, we wanted punishment, we wanted revenge. Which is why Iraq is an impossible sell to us. We need more explanation than Bush’s assertion that there’s a link b/w Saddam and UBL. Even you, with a marginally educated view of how to inhibit despot-supported terrorism, still fail t make a link or a case for Iraq. Do you make a case for war? Yes. For Iraq specifically? No.
Also, I did not make any argument for or against the drug war in south america. Afghanistan’s drug trade fuels and finances terror organizations, including UBL’s Al Queda. It has nothing to do with South America. They’re totally unrelated. Do your homework and stop putting words in my mouth.
You still have made no argument for attacking Iraq in response to the terrorism of 9/11 or even as a strategic pre-emptive target vs the other countries with more money, technology, and desire to harm us, like Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Iran for starters.
But you can’t make the argument for Iraq, unless you say: those other countries would cause higher fatalities, so we attack Iraq to keep the body count low. Which means you admit that Iraq is not the gravest threat. Which means this war is on its face a half-assed attempt at ridding of us the threat you describe- despotic oil-rich mongers selling technology to our enemies. But it’s silly to argue that ridding Iraq of Saddam is a step toward reducing the most immediate threats to our country.
to the guy who called me a pussy. there’s a job in bush’s cabinet for you. And an opening at foxnews you should apply for. You’re deft foreign policy analysis is short supply these days. You fuckin tool.
garrett- even bush’s inner circle knows you can’t unite the three major factions in Iraq. If i’m not mistaken alot of people have posted to this very web page about the advantages and challenges of dividing Iraq into three states. And the question of “how?” was borne of the knowledge, by visitors to this very site, that the divisions are massive and will take generations and generations of democratic living to overcome. It’s not racist, you dumb shit, it’s reality. As recognized by most people not *completely* subservient to their foxnews masters. This game is above your head, garrett. Stick to foxnews.com.
“two americas speech tries to separate between the top 2% and the rest of the middle class.”
So what, we should all despise the wealthy because they’re wealthy? It’s ok to divide and discriminate as long as you’re targeting a small enough minority?
And you managed to botch the quote. It’s “you’re either with us or against us” in the war on terror. Are you implying that Kerry and the Democrats are in fact on the side of the terrorists? Because that’s the only way that Bush makes that division. He didn’t say “if you debate, you’re against us”.
Oh, and the justification for going into Iraq? Here’s one for you to chew on…
North Korea.
Think about that for a while.
We may feel these sentiments, but it’s not so good to sing it aloud so full throatedly.
How else can we make the ‘moderate’ muslims understand what is going to happen to them if they do not restrain their fellow muslims?
The US is the country with the largest economy, strongest military, and most advanced technology- by a wide margin in all three cases. It has repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to use force to advance it’s goals, and is also the only country on this planet to have used nuclear weapons in anger.
Any rational observer will conclude that the US is not a nation to be provoked lightly.
But that is exactly what the islamic militants are doing. And they aren’t just provoking the US, but provoking the US via truly vile atrocities, again and again.
Objectively, people in the middle east should be far more afraid of the US than of the islamic militants, but they’re not.
I do not understand why that is- but if speaking plainly about what will happen if the US is pushed far enough will scare some sense into them, and avert the deaths of millions and millions of people… let’s scare them.
I’d rather scare them than kill them… but I would rather kill them than endure atrocity after atrocity targeting my country, it’s allies, and those I care for.
Let us speak plainly- our enemies do not know us well enough to appreciate our restraint, or to understand our discretion. Instead they mistake these qualities for weakness, and they could not be more wrong.
jp, deposing Iraq as the first step in altering the Persian Gulf status quo was sensible, and all your obsfuscations aside, you did advocate ignoring the Persian Gulf, in order to concentrate forces on Afghanistan. So quit avoiding the issue, or pretending you haven’t advocated what you have advocated; do you support toppling the Persian Gulf despotisms, or do you oppose it, so as to concentrate on Afghanistan? If you support an invasion of Saudi Arabia, won’t that distract from Afghnistan as well? And if you oppose managing relationships with despots in order to effect oil extraction, by what means do you support changing the Persian Gulf status quo, and how will that affect your desire to concentrate on Afghnistan, which you seem to think is the geo-political center of this conflict?
Regarding your dimwittery about drug smuggling, South America and Afghanistan are related in that it is the black market (i.e., the War on Drugs) which helps to destabilize the regions politically. Scotland is pretty nice place, despite the considerable trade in the intoxicant exported from there, and Milwaukee and St. Louis seem to be governable despite the drugs exported in huge quantities from those cities. Stop pretending that fighting a drug war in Afghanistan is a wise use of American military power.
saudi arabia is a better target than iraq for myriad reasons. I support that particular toppling of despotism. Like many on the left.
I’m not arguing ignoring the persian gulf, again, read my posts. I’m arguing that there is no strong case for IRAQ as opposed to syria, saudi arabia, or iran. READ MY POSTS ASSHOLE.
South america doesn’t use the drug money to pay for terrorism against america. Afghanistan does.
dimwittery is not a word. Tool. You are late for your young republicans meeting back on campus. please run along.
mike you gotta be more specific. Cause i know north korea has WMD that they’ve threatened us with. And I know their evil dictator has an estimated 2 million in internment camps and another estimated million in mass graves. so it seems like you’re making the case FOR war against north korea. Is that correct or are we still rationalizing Iraq?
jp:
my muslim friends (who aren’t very observant) are extremely sympathetic to very unsavoury people. i have run into very many other people who would return home to fight the US and who support Hamas, etc against “the Jews”.
of the major arab-muslim groups that I’m aware of, every single one has been equivocal in condemning terrorist activity (especially against israel), raises money for, or is run by those who do, terrorist front groups, and is only really enervated about the use of “terrorist” to describe the people setting off bombs and cutting heads in israel, iraq, afghanistan, saudi, indonesia, phillipines, etc.
but apparently your mileage is different
in this, arab/muslim groups are no different from irish catholics: those that are involved in organisations support the evil people back home, and most peopel revert to tribal loyalties. we have not policed tribally based terrorism effectively nor appropriately (helping IRA/Sinn Fein in anyway should lead to the electric chair) but we are starting to do this now.
the best strategy in the war on terror would be to look at all irish catholic organisations (and other euro ethnic terror front groups) and seriously clean house… but the kennedys won;t let us… Ted should be up on charges for murdering hundred of brits (felony murder rule…)
TO: jp
RE: Would You Like to Play a Game?
“saudi arabia is a better target than iraq for myriad reasons.” — jp
How about a nice game of…
….Name Those Reasons.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
sure chuck
see will allen’s comments above and every time see the word ‘iraq’ substitute ‘saudi arabia’
TO: jp
RE: And Why Not?
“dimwittery is not a word.” — jp
Sounds rather clever. In a few years, we could well see it in Websters.
RE: Naming of Names
“Tool. You are late for your young republicans meeting back on campus. please run along.” — jp
As for the allusion to some fascist youth organization, I think it is rather interesting that you’re the only one who keeps doing that sort of thing. You must have something going on in your psyche about that. Wishful thinking, perhaps?
Calling some people ‘brainwashed’, ‘sad’, ‘hopeless’, others ‘tool’. Why don’t you refrain from calling people names. Or are they hitting too close to the ‘mark’?
Regards,
Chuck(le)
and this ties to saudi arabia, iraq or anything else of substance how?
try to focus on the substance, chuck. you keep getting lost in cute little sideshows. come back to the conversation.
TO: jp
RE: That’s Some Kinda List of Reasons
“see will allen’s comments above and every time see the word ‘iraq’ substitute ‘saudi arabia’” — jp
Will uses the word “Iraq” only twice, compadre.
“when the reactionaries proclaim Iraq to be the wrong war at the wrong time, or declare that efforts should have been centered on Afghanistan, they fail to grasp that the world they are clinging to, of managing relationships with a despotic Persian Gulf in order to facilitate oil extraction, or when they engage in fantasies regarding a world of the near to medium future in which Persian Gulf oil does not play a central role in global economic health, they are embracing a nearly certain guarantor of the world outlined in the piece that Stephan linked to. They are wrapped in a very dangerous cocoon.” — WA at 1225 hrs.
” deposing Iraq as the first step in altering the Persian Gulf status quo was sensible, and all your obsfuscations aside, you did advocate ignoring the Persian Gulf, in order to concentrate forces on Afghanistan.” — WA at 1458 hrs.
These are your ‘reasons’? How very ‘odd’.
Either state your reasons or you have no reasons for justifying your statement that there are myriad reasons to have invaded Saudi Arabia instead of Iraq. If that is the case, then you are not behaving in an honest fashion and are not worthy of being addressed as honest. [Note: But I've had my suspicions of such for some time now.]
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[The field of rhetoric is oft mined with equivocation.]
TO: jp
RE: Just Like Kerry
“try to focus on the substance, chuck. you keep getting lost in cute little sideshows. ” — jp
You are not a sideshow, here, compadre. You ARE the show. And like Kerry your credibility was just “hit and hit hard”.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. I’m trying to focus on the ‘substance’ but you are so ethereal it is ‘difficult’.
P.P.S. Just for YOUR clarification, the topic of this thread is NOT whether we should have hit Saudi Arabia first. Nor is it that we should only focus on Afghanistan.
In short, you are projecting again, with that ‘out of focus’ business.
bender-
i thought my repudiation of big words would be endearing and charming and might also help me lower expectations of me and my intelligence ultimately creating a vaccum for culpability, accountability, and intellectual discourse in the highest matters of our nation’s well-being in my bid for the presidency someday. no? I guess i had you guys pegged all wrong.
stick to the substance.
JP…don’t like being called a pussy, huh? I love it when you leftist whiners talk tough..sorta like John “Fuckin’” Kerry. (all blow-no go)
You better keep practicing because it sure looks like it’s going to be four more years for you anti-American types-rotflmao!
try to focus on the substance, chuck.
Take your own advice, jp.
IN MUCH THE SAME WAY will allen argues we needed to attack iraq, I argue Saudi Arabia was a better choice:
1. to put our troops in the geo-political center of the conflict
2. to retaliate against someone with ties to 9/11,
3. to remove a brutally oppressive regime,
4. to bring us closer to ensuring that nations with despots don’t sell technology to terrorists, by taking over one of those nations and installing a regime that we can manage, or of equal benefit, a regime that can manage its citizens.
Each one of these are stated reasons for attacking Iraq, however, each reason makes Sauid Arabia a better choice. The fourth reason, actually, makes Saudi Arabia a MUCH better choice because its citizens are slightly wealtheir and more educated and have been vying for regime change for a while now, much like Iran’s young population.
Here they are, stated simply and clearly and boiled down to their most basic straightforward elements.
Without any other comments for you to focus on in this particular post, all I’m giving you is the most basic content of my argument. Please try to respond strictly to the meat of the post, please, just this one time.
rosignol, gawdamman,
you’ll like my last post. It advocates war (which makes me less of a pussy right?) and it sticks to the substance (which I advocate).
I’m sure you’ll find a way to take issue with it anyway, which I invite, of course.
gawdamman I’m still a pussy in your eyes, which means all I have left to do is to challenge you to a fight. So fuck you. let’s fight.
Or you can tell me what defines who is a pussy versus who is not. If you could clarify it would be helpful. If not. Fuck you. I don’t care.
JP,
Some points you missed regarding going after SA instead of Iraq:
1: We were already at war with Iraq based on their 12 years of non-compliance with the ODS ceace-fire.
2: Mecca & Medina aren’t located in Iraq. As much as you claim to know about Islam & the Mid East, I shouldn’t have to explane to you the import of that.
3: Try looking at an actual map of the area & tell me who has more useful borders for our needs, Iraq or SA?
JP, given that invading Saudi Arabia would have been an act utterly devoid of any cooperation from other countries, including Kuwait, Qatar, to say nothing of Europe, it would have been vastly more complicated, and likely would have included a complete disruption of Middle East oil supplies. In contrast, if Iraq can achieve some semblence of self-government and reach anything close to full potential in oil extraction, the leveage on the House of Saud increases enormously, which was one resaon it opposed toppling Saddam.
This is obvious to anyone with an ounce of intellectual honesty, as it is obvious that the “left”, into which you lump yourself, would have had a conniption beyond compare if Saudi Arabia had been invaded, in complete defiance of the U.N. Security Council, and the “international community”, which is held is such esteem by “the left”.
Finally, I’ll simply note that you did not begin this thread by objecting that Iraq was invaded instead of Saudi Arabia, but rather that invading Iraq caused Afghanistan to be ignored. You only raised invading Saudi Arabia when the stupidity of positing Afghanistan as being the center of this conflict (“Making Afghanistan the focal point of the war…”) was pointed out. You are a fake, unwilling or unable to put forth a coherent view fo the world.
jp, you need to accept something: you are not telepathic.
You have *no* special insight on what is going on inside my skull, what factors I consider significant, or what actions I think might be appropriate in any particular situation. All you know about me is the content of my comments, on this site and elsewhere.
But you feel that your speculation about what’s going on in my head, Chuck’s head, or anyone else’s head is topical and appropriate for discussion here.
It isn’t. The point of the discussion is not to engage in armchair psychoanalysis of the participants.
I don’t care in the slightest if you’re a pussy or not- it is not relevant to the discussion. All I care about is if you make intelligent contributions to the discussion.
As far as your last post is concerned, I suggest you go investigate just how much of the world’s annual oil supply is produced in Saudi Arabia, and consider what the effect on oil production of a war in Saudi Arabia might be, and the effect that would have on the economy of every industrialized nation on the planet.
Then tell me why you think Saudi Arabia would have been a better choice than Iraq.
Our enemy can cleanse specific populations, hack off the heads of the innocent and kill hundreds of school children, but some people are disturbed by the author of this letter’s warning?
When the Muslim population fights to stop the slaugther in the Darfur region of Sudan, fights to stop beheadings, fights to stop killing of school children, etc, ect, etc then I would consider this author’s words hideous.
Until then….take heed this dark warning!
my position on saudi arabia is assuming afghanistan is still being fought. I can not envision a war after 9/11 in which we did not attack afghanistan, either to the extent we fight there now, or to the extent I and most on the left would prefer which is much greater than now, because of the tremendous threats an unsecure afghanistan poses. IF we had made that our focal point, the war would have met unparalleled cooperation from world powers. Assuming that it’s not going to be the focal point, saudi arabia is the next best option. Iraq has no relation to 9/11- never has never will. I stand behidnd my assertion that afghanistan should be the focal point. It is not stupid.
I started this post responding to completely different people and different arguments. I asked stephen if he was endorsing the insanity of the original letter or simply sparking conversation. when he said he was scared by this letter I agreed, then responded to people’s posts in support of the letter.
somewhere along the line, I invoked afghanistan, and my stance on afghanistan is simple: we are half-assing it and that is going to be a huge problem. We should have committed to afghanistan first and foremost with every financial and military weapon we had. once the decision was made to make afghanistan the second-tier priority, Iraq was the wrong choice for our first tier priority. Saudi Arabia was the correct choice. Syria was a better choice. Iran was a better choice. Those nations, using the same four arguments as above, were better choices than Iraq.
I invoked saudia arabia because so many other people on this post, like yourself, argue for iraq. So i say, give me your reasoning. And you do. Then i use your reasoning to prove why there are other places that better suit your reasoning, like saudi arabia. I use YOUR arguments to prove that they may be justifications for war, they are not justifications for war in Iraq.
there is no argument you can make for iraq that doesn’t also work for Saudi Arabia. Whereas the converse is not true.
i’m not telepathic. I’ll concede, rosignol. Congrats for that one.
More useful borders is not a justification for war.
Will- since when do you care about cooperation from other nations. right now we don’t have cooperation from syria or saudi arabia.
Also, when you guys wanted iraq invaded you had a selling point of disrupting oil was not going to be a problem so I’m sure we could have found a way around it in saudi arabia.
your entire second paragraph is incorrect- many on the left argued for saudi arabia’s downfall b/c 15 of 19 terrorists were from there and we felt they were unfairly shielded from examination and investigation b/c of bush’s family ties. We would have thrown fucking parties if bush declared war on saudi arabia.
please read my posts. afghanistan has the closest ties to 9/11. the left would’ve jumped on that first. that would’ve been the strongest place to make the focal point and because it’s not, we’re in trouble. Moving onto iraq, there is ZERO justification for it. My point in arguing for war in saudi arabia over iraq is to higlight how inherently weak your argument is for fighting there by using your logic to find a better war. I STILL ARGUE THAT AFGHANISTAN SHOULD BE THE FOCAL POINT.
please go back and read my posts. please. you keep arguing with shit i didn’t say, which is an easy way to win an argument, i’ll grant you that, but it doesn’t mean anything.
mike you gotta be more specific. Cause i know north korea has WMD that they’ve threatened us with. “And I know their evil dictator has an estimated 2 million in internment camps and another estimated million in mass graves. so it seems like you’re making the case FOR war against north korea. Is that correct or are we still rationalizing Iraq?”
You’re so close, jp.
We can’t go to war against North Korea because it’s too late now. At least not at a time of our choosing. We’ve lost the initiative because they now have nuclear weapons and can slaughter 25 million people including an entire US division at the push of a button.
We know Iraq was researching nuclear weapons…in fact their most robust WMD program. Would it have been more prudent to let Iraq become another North Korea? A nuclear armed nightmare state than can obliterate any troops moving against it in a nuclear fireball?
We went to war with Iraq to eliminate *any* WMD threat. Saddam had proven that he was willing to use WMD, and he was willing to invade his neighbors. Waiting until he had nuclear weapons (when it would have been too late to stop him) would have been highly irresponsible and a huge threat to the entire region, if not the world.
So yes, the current situation in North Korea makes an excellent case for the war in Iraq.
You have been drinking for sure. I don’t agree with a single statement you made. You are a fool.
my position on saudi arabia is assuming afghanistan is still being fought.
You are mistaken. The war in Afghanistan is essentially over, the current phase is merely providing security so that an elected government can be established, and patrolling the border for the dregs of the Taliban, who took refuge in the tribal areas of Pakistan.
I can not envision a war after 9/11 in which we did not attack afghanistan, either to the extent we fight there now, or to the extent I and most on the left would prefer which is much greater than now, because of the tremendous threats an unsecure afghanistan poses.
The goal of current operations in afghanistan is to establish a government with popular support (i.e., elected) that will be capable of preventing terrorists from using Afghanistan as a sanctuary in the future. IMO, the current forces are adequate to the task.
IF we had made that our focal point, the war would have met unparalleled cooperation from world powers.
…and we would have failed, because Afghanistan is not where the bulk of the islamic militants’ support originates.
There are two ways to wage war. One is to defeat the enemy on the battlefield, the other is to attack the enemy’s capacity to wage war.
Assuming that it’s not going to be the focal point, saudi arabia is the next best option.
…if you ignore the consequences to ourselves, yes. Unfortunately, Saudi Arabia, unlike Afghanistan, is where a tremendous amount of the energy industrialized economies require comes from.
Almost all of the industrialized economies on this planet are our allies.
Invading Saudi Arabia and disrupting the supply of energy would be a disaster for ourselves and our allies. Because of this, it is strategically unsound to invade Saudi Arabia until alternate supplies of energy are avaliable.
Iraq has no relation to 9/11- never has never will.
So?
You can disagree with my opinion that the establishment of a democracy in Iraq will greatly weaken the islamic militants- from there we can discuss why. But to say ‘Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11′ is to imply that I have said that it did, and I haven’t.
The only relation between 9/11 and Iraq is that 9/11 made it clear that Islamic militancy must be opposed. Other factors caused the Bush administration to decide that Iraq was a good place to do it.
You can agree or disagree with their decision, but there is no point in trying to refute assertions the other side has not made.
I stand behidnd my assertion that afghanistan should be the focal point. It is not stupid.
Perhaps, but it is just an assertion. You have yet to provide reasoning to support it.
[...]
somewhere along the line, I invoked afghanistan, and my stance on afghanistan is simple: we are half-assing it and that is going to be a huge problem. We should have committed to afghanistan first and foremost with every financial and military weapon we had. once the decision was made to make afghanistan the second-tier priority, Iraq was the wrong choice for our first tier priority.
Why was Iraq the wrong choice?
Saudi Arabia was the correct choice.
Incorrect, see above for why.
Syria was a better choice.
Assad was wise enough not to give the US grounds to claim Syria was in violation of UNSC resolutions, and Syria is already surrounded by governments friendly to the US, except Iraq. Invading Iraq would complete the encirclement, and allow us to deal with Syria at a time of our choosing, and possibly even to resolve our disputes with Syria via diplomatic means.
Iran was a better choice.
Iran, too, was wise enough not to be in violation of UNSC resolutions, and does not share a land border with a friendly nation that we can dock ships in to transport supplies. Iraq does.
Those nations, using the same four arguments as above, were better choices than Iraq.
I am making a different argument.
Iraq was the correct choice, because of 1) geographic location, 2) the existence of prior disputes recognized by the UNSC that might have resulted in UN authorization of an invasion, 3) the potential effects on other unfriendly middle eastern governments of a friendly democratic government in Iraq, 4) ease of logistics, 5) the effects of the sanctions on Iraq’s military made them among the weakest in the region, making a swift victory more likely, 6) Iraqi oil production may offset losses in production in other countries, and 7) even if it goes to hell, Iraq is a good place from which to stage invasions of Syria, Iran, and if necessary, Saudi Arabia.
I invoked saudia arabia because so many other people on this post, like yourself, argue for iraq. So i say, give me your reasoning. And you do. Then i use your reasoning to prove why there are other places that better suit your reasoning, like saudi arabia. I use YOUR arguments to prove that they may be justifications for war, they are not justifications for war in Iraq.
there is no argument you can make for iraq that doesn’t also work for Saudi Arabia. Whereas the converse is not true.
…which is provably false.
You continue to ignore the effects of disrupting the energy supply coming from Saudi Arabia.
You imply that people on this side of the issue are ignoring inconvenient facts, while you ignore far more significant (and inconvenient) facts.
How amusing.
Will- since when do you care about cooperation from other nations. right now we don’t have cooperation from syria or saudi arabia.
…and this is just ignorant. Did you not know that Syrian military forces are being re-deployed out of Lebanon? Have you not heard about the periodic shootouts between Saudi security forces and islamic militants?
Both countries need to do far more than they are currently doing, to be sure… but what they are doing today is more than they have been doing in the past.
Interesting letter, interesting sentiments. Just a hint of how america might react to another massive terror attack. It won’t be pretty.
Muslims, if you love your children and want them and their children to enjoy their lives and religion within a harmonious and modern world–rein in your lunatics. Stop the muslim clerics who teach your children to be human bombs. Stop the abominations who claim to be religious leaders, who lead your children into death and murder.
The alternative to your right action will be more regrettable than anything you can imagine. Very sad to think about, but vital to face it while there may be time.
TO: Marvin Thulenberg
RE: Frankly….
“Muslims, if you love your children and want them and their children to enjoy their lives and religion within a harmonious and modern world–rein in your lunatics. Stop the muslim clerics who teach your children to be human bombs. Stop the abominations who claim to be religious leaders, who lead your children into death and murder.” — Mavin Thulenberg
…I don’t think it will happen.
Why? Because the killers will use their skills against those within Islam who would stand against them. And, being much more ruthless, will have their way.
So….as some wag said in the Old Book, “Gird up your loins.” The NEA has been cranking out people who think like pj for the last 30 years now. At least since I graduated.
It’s going to take sterner stock that pj to weather this particular storm.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
chuck
it’s jp, and my stock is stern. the notion that because i am against your war means i am against war or somehow weak on terrorism is absurd. true to form you haven’t read my posts. go back and read them, then tell me how weak on terrorism i am.
I noticed you haven’t offered a single argument for Iraq, you’ve stuck to almost entirely attempting to deconstruct in the simplest terms my stances without offering a hint of individual thought. for instance, you tried to discredit my notion of the war by pointing out that terrorsits are in fact in Iraq because there are bombings kidnappings and beheadings there. Well guess what, companion compadre amigo, there are kidnappings and beheadings and bombings in several other countries, all of which proved a greater more immediate threat to USA. Your arguments on here have been defined very specifically by standard party line responses. Frankly, they’re vacuous and empty. Like the limbaugh-esque notion that I’m a product of the america-hatin’ NEA who is too weak to protect america from terrorism. Again, read my posts and tell me how weak i am on terrorism. Your war is not the only violent way to defend america. I have pretty good, violent ideas for defending america as well, and don’t worry, they involve plenty of bloodshed and merciless destruction of terror networks and terror funding all over afghanistan and saudi arabia.
Will/Rosignol- the SA energy supply can be stabalized the same way it’s been stabalized (as promised) in Iraq. With a strong coalition of allies, billions of dollars, and very direct attention to that specific need. Don’t insult our men and women in uniform by assuming they’re incapable of protecting the SA energy stream. that’s an incredible slap in the face and i for one can’t support your disrespect. I believe in our troops and I know they can secure anything they need to. If you don’t agree, maybe you should put a french flag on your car.
rosignol-
syria is also, according to all the foreign policy experts on this very page (all of whom have surprisingly declined to correct you for some reason) holding iraq’s WMDs. So they’re not exactly helping, are they! And by the way, saudi arabia’s help is nominal, especially their one month get out of jail free card to terrorists. that’s a real crackdown. If that happened here in the states you’d hang the leaders by their manicured feet.
my reasoning for afhganistan is in two posts above. please read my posts. i’ve noticed this theme of you guys gettin’ so gosh darn mad and writing you rlittle huffy repsonses without actually reading my posts. go back to the beginning and read my posts before you tell me what i did and did not say.
also, your reasons for iraq- 1,3,4,5,6,7- are all validations. They’re not justified reasons for going in, they’re military advantages. There’s a difference. Reason #2 is the only thing that remotely comes close to reason for declaring preemptive war.
mike at least we agree that iraq was not a real threat, because if it was we would not have invaded. How orwellian.
Hey jp and Chuck P., Get a room!
TO: jp
RE: Stern Stuff?
“it’s jp, and my stock is stern.” — jp
I’m not talking about Howard Stern stuff, compadre.
Call me back when you’ve got a ranger tab and a set of jump wings with a star of some sort on them.
RE: Iraq
“I noticed you haven’t offered a single argument for Iraq…” — jp
Well, either you’re a liar or you are demonstrating the wonderful reading-comprehension skills the NEA gave you.
Please re-read my post of 01:16 PM, this date.
But all that is beside the point, since it is not the topic of this thread. [Note: Still having trouble with your 'focus'?]
Why don’t you wait for that topic to come up, instead of trying to side-track/hijack the discussion.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[God is alive....and airborne-ranger qualified.]
“mike at least we agree that iraq was not a real threat, because if it was we would not have invaded. How orwellian.”
Hello McJP??? Are you really that dense?
When did I say Iraq wasn’t a threat? I said we needed to invade Iraq NOW…*before* it became a nuclear power. If we let it develop nukes like North Korea, it becomes a danger to the entire world, and we don’t have the option of a tidy little ground invasion.
Pay attention to what I’m saying or shut up. You really didn’t need to try very hard to convince everyone reading this site that you’re totally oblivious to fact and reason.
1. If you’re going to question whether people like me can weather this storm at least read my posts about destroying terrorists.
2.
1:16 pm:
iraq: a base of operations against the real threats.
well stated chuck. well stated. WE AGREE. Iraq was not a real threat. And no, god is not alive, nor is he a part of our military- rangers or anyone else. And a set of wings doesn’t qualify you for shit in regards to foreign policy discussions. Don’t wave the medals around here, it doesn’t validate your arguments.
3. and again, you failed to answer the simplest of complaints- you haven’t read a single thing I’ve posted, so your complaint that I’m somehow weak on terror is baseless.
4. I’ve spent the day responding, I didn’t hijack anything. you should know that. you’re the first person who jumped on me for saying letters like that and there authors are a bigger threat to america than terrists. the shitstorm that unleashed kept me busy. I know you’d rather everyone on here just bop along patting eachother on the back and agreeing but that’s not what a democracy is all about is it? Dissent and argument is what makes this country so strong and someone with so many wings and stars and whatever other bullshit you want to wave around should know that. Or are you one of those O’Reilly flag-wavers who considers free speech and press a socialist initiative to undermine republican values? you guys love to wrap yourself in the flag until people actually speak their mind and act all… American.
I understand the reasons for not attacking north korea or iran even. they have big strong weapons that could inflict mass casualties. That doesn’t make iraq the right war. It has done nothing to stop or slow terrorism. You and alot of other people are confusing the methods for reducing casualties with the methods for crippling terrorism.
I see your logic. I get it. But it’s leading us down the wrong path, with very little benefit at a great expense. the tragedy is that if another catastrophic accident occurs with bush in office you will somehow find a way to blame liberals. which is why this blog, this nest of like-minded individuals all slapping eachother on the ass and saying yes, oh yes, absolutely yes, definitely so wise we all are, is a big fucking problem. Probably beyond help, but i like to try.
Or how about this:
NO MIKE, YOU’RE OBLIVIOUS TO FACT AND REASON. YOU ARE. YOU ARE YOU ARE. AND I CAN PROVE IT- I KNOW OF A BUNCH OF BLOGS WHERE EVERYBODY AGREES WITH ME SO I CAN’T BE WRONG. AND YOU CAN’T BE REASONABLE AND ACCEPT FACTS.
In 1997, John Kerry stated to the effect that Saddam was a threat the world could not ignore.
Is Kerry a liar?
IMO, the difference between the threat posed by Iraq and the threat posed by North Korea is that Iraq is located in the center of Islamic Jihadism while North Korea is located right next to China.
From what I understand, Islamic Jihadists have been actively attacking American interests for a couple of decades, why would we conscentrate on North Korea?
Also, why attack Iran when the revolution from within is in the process of overthrowing the Mullah theocracy?
“garrett- even bush’s inner circle knows you can’t unite the three major factions in Iraq.”
Evidence? As per form, you make declaratory statements without providing any objective proof.
“If i’m not mistaken alot of people have posted to this very web page about the advantages and challenges of dividing Iraq into three states. And the question of “how?” was borne of the knowledge, by visitors to this very site, that the divisions are massive and will take generations and generations of democratic living to overcome.”
Opinions differ on what it will take for Iraq to become a modern, democratic member of the ‘international community’.
However, most folks don’t discount out of hand the possibility that the Iraqi people can come to some sort of compromise government.
We also don’t discount the possibility that the best solution might be the formation of more than one state.
Whatever the optimal solution turns out to be, I think we can all agree that one or more democratic states in place of the despotic, genocidal machine that used to be there is preferable, no?
“It’s not racist, you dumb shit,…”
Ahh, more ad hominem attacks. You don’t fail to disappoint.
“…it’s reality. As recognized by most people not *completely* subservient to their foxnews masters.”
I get my news from quite a few different sources. Your continued personal attacks and broad generalizations regarding the folks who post here diminish any credibility you may once have held.
“This game is above your head, garrett. Stick to foxnews.com.”
A semi-personal note: Hey Steve, this remind you at all of a certain Fido-Net level of debate?
Larking About
Ah, Michigan drivers never change.
How can a company do this and claim their mission statement is “Don’t be evil”? (†Nicholas Provenzo)
Speaking of Mr. Provenzo, here’s his essay “The Fake is Never Accurate.”
The cats o…
Um, “jp”, if I could make a polite suggestion?
Learn how to capitalize. Proper nouns like “North Korea” and “Iraq” should be capitalized. The first words in sentences should be capitalized.
From what I can tell, you only capitalize the personal pronoun and for emphasis. It makes you look, well, semi-literate.
Nothing personal, it’s just harder to read ee cummings wanna-be crap.
Did jp happen to mention that he would like everyone to read his posts?
Yes, it’s confirmed: jp would like everyone here to read his posts. I just went back and read his posts, many of which consisted entirely of “read my posts!”
In the next post, jp urge everyone to read his posts.
In the post after that, he (could be a she; writes an awful lot like that weird Goth chick I had a crush on in high school) he will lament the fact that no one is reading his posts.
Entertaining debate, but back to the topic:
Reading the letter Stephen linked to, I was reminded of my own recent experience with near-disaster anticipating the approach of Hurricane Ivan. Fearing my house might be damaged or destroyed, I faced a quandry: evacuate and leave it not only to the whim of nature, but also to the whim of looters (well documented in Florida; I don’t doubt they would come out in New Orleans), or stay and risk injury or death so as to protect my property?
Believe me, when it’s your home at risk, and I mean really, really at risk, and the fight-or-flight debate points toward “fight”, you find out what you’re capable of doing, or at least pondering.
So I understand the sentiment. And it’s not a healthy one. I visited that state of paranoia, disliked it, and don’t want to return.
Thing is, I have a hard time imagining that the terrorists won’t pull off Something Big very soon. “Border Security” remains an oxymoron. Visa enforcement is still a joke. Transportation infrastructure is still fundamentally vulnerable.
This is a bi-partisan failing on a massive scale. No party will be able to blame the other. Bush has served political correctness on this issue as much as Kerry. On Homeland Security issues, my response to any pollsters who might call will be: “Fuck em both. They haven’t done nearly enough.”
I give an edge to Bush in terms of my preference this year – at least I’m confident that he understands that the best defense is a good offense. Maybe Saudi Arabia, Iran, or Syria would have been a better target than Iraq. Whatever. I haven’t heard Kerry argue for invading any of them anyway. Or maybe he has and I missed it, or he did before he didn’t.
Either way, no matter how good your offense is, it can’t make up for a defence that doesn’t even take the field.
So:
1. A lot of people are going to feel like the author of the letter when the Big One comes.
2. We’re doing pathetically little to avoid the Big One.
3. Both candidates have demonstrated an unwillingness to seriously take on the PC and bureaucratic forces that stand in the way of actual security.
When it happens, I won’t be out burning Mosques or beating Muslim activists in the streets.
But I will be calling for some leadership that can set aside PC bullshit and start winning this war.
Weaklings like pj will never make it through the trials ahead. Most Europeans are just like the weakling pj. But at least there are still a few of the old Viking stock, berserkers ready to lop off a few islamist heads to even the score.
Democracy! Whiskey! Sexy!
Hmmm, looks like the American Right is getting a tad impatient with insufficiently cowed Muslims:We will burn your mosques. We will invade the offices of pro-arab-muslim organizations, destroy them, and drag their officers outside. We will tell the cha…
Bjorn, I think you are onto something. How about we nab an Al Queda type and execute him live on pay-per-view, after Lynndie gets a chance to point at his hilariously small package? Halftime at the Superbowl would be a nice illustration of our decadent society/values and our willingness to take the gloves off.
Too bad there’s one set of rules for us civilized folk and another for the misunderstood, brave, insurgent decapitators that Michael Moore favors.
TO: Rob
RE: Reading jp’s Posts
Well…if they were on-topic, I’d probably do as much. But considering how much they stray OT, I’m not.
If jp would like to talk about matters relating to ‘should we have invaded Iraq’, I’ll set up a thread on the blog I discuss such matters and he/she can come to my commune to do so.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Jesus was an airborne-ranger; You'll be one too, oh Lordy. -- Special Forces 'spiritual']
TO: Owen
RE: The PC Lobby
“Both candidates have demonstrated an unwillingness to seriously take on the PC and bureaucratic forces that stand in the way of actual security.” — Owen
We know, for a fact, that Kerry is PC at the very heart of his being.
On the other hand, Bush is not. Rather, he feels hamstrung by the press to be PC.
Unfortunately, it will probably require a disaster of major proportion in order for him to gain the necessary leverage in the population to act with the resolve of a Jacksonian. Something from a Clancy novel would probably do it; ebola epidemic, tactical nuke at a football game, slaughter in several shopping malls.
We know what Bush would do. He’d have the backing of the populace. We also know what Kerry would do, unfortunately for him.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
TO: Rob
RE: The Rules of the Game
“Too bad there’s one set of rules for us civilized folk and another for the misunderstood, brave, insurgent decapitators that Michael Moore favors.” — Rob
Actually, we don’t need to play by their rules in order to win. It’s frustrating, I know. But still and all, the enemy, without an act of God (or that other guy), cannot defeat us. Hurt us, yes. Defeat us, no. As Grant would say, “They ain’t got army enough.”
So, what can we do to expedite victory? Well…
…I keep mentioning the Pershing technique. But nobody seems to care for it.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
“This is why, whatever the faults of the Bush Administration, the reactionaries in both major parties, who pretend that the old regime of managing relationships with despots, in order to allow oil extraction, was tenable, are so out of touch. There is a locomotive of slaughter coming down the tracks, and unless the rails are switched, and fairly soon, the first half of this century will prove to be every bit as bloody, if not bloodier, than the first half of the last.”
Dead on, Will.
again, everyone on here seems to enjoy questioning my strength or whether I’m a wimp or weak on terrorism. If you read my posts, you will see, over and over over again, how I advocate brutal destruction of terrorists, terrorism, etc., via war. bloody, merciless war. Which is why I don’t think you read my posts. I think you just like to antagonize me. And you like to keep alive the illusion that the dems are wimps and you guys are the real ass-kickers against terrorism. Just know it is, and will always be, and illusion.
semi-related, more proof that afghanistan should be the focal point in the hunt for al-queda:
front page magazine:
Al-Qaeda works closely with these Afghan drug smugglers to secure safe routes for their shipments through neighboring Pakistan and Iran. But Al-Qaeda
TO: All
RE: And Then We Have…
San Diego Schools ‘Targeted’?
TO: All
RE: Hmmmmm
Seems like jp has had a Monty Python moment…..”Run away!”
Regards,
Chuck(le)