Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.
...voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.
| Liberal beliefs--and the Rachel Newmans of the world--deserve to be protected and fought for. A liberalism that abandons its own defense to others does not, something liberals everywhere might usefully dwell on during this season of sad remembrance. |
Confronting evil is ALWAYS productive. It is a universal call of those of integrity and true seekers of Truth.
I see. Apparently it gives you less of an Excedrin headache to respond to something that isn't in my post than to something that is.
What I see from my perspective is that basically they try to structure the issue as an either/or, either you support aggressively prosecuting the "war on terror" or you want to make buddies with the Islamic extremeists. ""
If there is actually an orginisation ouside the USA whose stated purpose and ambition is the destruction of the entire USA, I am against it . What is the middle ground opinion?
If there is actually an orginisation ouside the USA whose stated purpose and ambition is the destruction of the entire USA, I am against it . What is the middle ground opinion?
Careful Plane....you can't seriously believe their ambitions are to kill every living American man, woman, & child now. I mean, that's completely impractical & probably impossible, so the threat really isn't a threat at all. Right? ;)
Careful Plane....you can't seriously believe their ambitions are to kill every living American man, woman, & child now. I mean, that's completely impractical & probably impossible, so the threat really isn't a threat at all. Right? ;)
What I see from my perspective is that basically they try to structure the issue as an either/or, either you support aggressively prosecuting the "war on terror" or you want to make buddies with the Islamic extremeists.
If there is actually an orginisation ouside the USA whose stated purpose and ambition is the destruction of the entire USA, I am against it .
What is the middle ground opinion?
I see. Apparently it gives you less of an Excedrin headache to respond to something that isn't in my post than to something that is.
No, actually it gives me less of migraine when I avoid responding to any of your illogical, and frequently delusional diatribes, you consider "reasoned common sense"
Ok, I participarted for a while, got fed up, returned. -- only to see the domain of illogic and inane comments remains. Gotta go on sabbatical for a while again...sigh....Keep up the faith, Sirs. I salute your persistence and patience!
I notice, though, whenever your disordered brain imagines it has a perfect response to any of my "illogical, and frequently delusional diatribes," you manage to jump right in there with it, headache or no. So I have to consider the possibility that your failure to answer a point I made, based on "headache," is just more of your bullshit.
Ok, I participarted for a while, got fed up, returned. -- only to see the domain of illogic and inane comments remains. Gotta go on sabbatical for a while again...sigh....Keep up the faith, Sirs. I salute your persistence and patience!
Confronting evil is ALWAYS productive. It is a universal call of those of integrity and true seekers of Truth.
And when people of integrity do not agree on what is evil and what is Truth, what then?
Ok, I participarted for a while, got fed up, returned. -- only to see the domain of illogic and inane comments remains. Gotta go on sabbatical for a while again...sigh....Keep up the faith, Sirs. I salute your persistence and patience!
I guess that means you're not going to answer my question. But your post illustrates something that I find a continual frustration. You quoted a couple of the more troubling parts of Mr. Sanders' column, and then you spoke of confronting evil, mentioning integrity and truth in the process. And to top it all off, you label differing opinions "illogic and inane" without so much as a sentence to support your position. You're talking in moral terms as if your position is the only morally justifiable position, and insisting contrary positions are stupid. If the domain of illogic and inane comments remains, you have no one to blame but yourself.
I am beginning to wonder why some people here bother posting at all, because they seem completely uninterested in any sort of discussion at all. They just want to declare some sort of victory and move on to the next banal rehashing of "No, I know you're wrong because I'm right." Sure, everyone believes he or she is right, but can't we discuss ideas anyway? If all you're going to do is call everyone else's ideas stupid, at the very least you should try to be verbose like Domer or romantic like Crane so that your replies have some mild entertainment value.
What I see from my perspective is that basically they try to structure the issue as an either/or, either you support aggressively prosecuting the "war on terror" or you want to make buddies with the Islamic extremists.
If there is actually an organization outside the USA whose stated purpose and ambition is the destruction of the entire USA, I am against it .
What is the middle ground opinion?
An alternative to either aggressively prosecuting the "war on terror" or making buddies with the Islamic extremists is to do neither. I realize for those who believe in the either/or argument, this is an impossible stance because to not do the one is to do the other. The rhetoric is such that any attempt to suggest an alternative idea to aggressive pursuance of the "war on terror" is called appeasement.
One's acceptance of alternative ideas depends on whether or not and to what degree one believes American foreign policy should be focused on the goal of an American hegemony. Personally, I don't believe we need it. I think we should stop trying to tell other countries what to do and bring all overseas troops home. If someone attacks us or moves to attack us, then we defend ourselves. In the case of Al-Qaeda, we hunt them down and either kill them or, preferably, capture them and put them on trial. And please notice I said we defend ourselves, not we attack them before they attack us. And also notice I did not say that we try to make friends with the terrorists.
I know that what I just said is going to be rejected outright by some because for those who believe in the either/or argument, what I just said is equal to appeasing the terrorists. And someone is likely to object that my proposal also amounts to us sitting around and waiting to be attacked before we do anything. Both objections are completely wrong. I did not say we do nothing until attacked. Not initiating violent action does not mean leaving oneself defenseless. I did not say we should stop having a C.I.A. or an F.B.I. or police or a military.
BTW, are you sure those pills you've been taking are Excedrin?
What I see from my perspective is that basically they try to structure the issue as an either/or, either you support aggressively prosecuting the "war on terror" or you want to make buddies with the Islamic extremists.
If there is actually an organization outside the USA whose stated purpose and ambition is the destruction of the entire USA, I am against it .
What is the middle ground opinion?
An alternative to either aggressively prosecuting the "war on terror" or making buddies with the Islamic extremists is to do neither. I realize for those who believe in the either/or argument, this is an impossible stance because to not do the one is to do the other. The rhetoric is such that any attempt to suggest an alternative idea to aggressive pursuance of the "war on terror" is called appeasement.
One's acceptance of alternative ideas depends on whether or not and to what degree one believes American foreign policy should be focused on the goal of an American hegemony.
I have several problems with the argument as Bret Stephens, and others of similar thinking, try to frame it. What I see from my perspective is that basically they try to structure the issue as an either/or, either you support aggressively prosecuting the "war on terror" or you want to make buddies with the Islamic extremeists. As you may have noted, there is no room there for a different perspective on the "war on terror" or not agreeing with either end of the argument, or really for any disagreement at all. Not supporting aggressively prosecuting the "war on terror" equals appeasing the terrorists to make them friendly. As someone who does not agree with aggressively prosecuting the "war on terror" or appeasing the terrorists, I find myself (to put it mildly) a bit annoyed with the argument.
Did that answer your question, UP?
One's acceptance of alternative ideas depends on whether or not and to what degree one believes American foreign policy should be focused on the goal of an American hegemony.
No it doesn't.
The Al Quieda wanted a fight with the USA , the stored a lot of wepons in Afganistan in preperation for this fight , trained a lot f fighters for it and probly chose Afganistan for this purpose because they thought to have advantages in it.
Then they sent assassins to shoot US citizens on the street in frount of the CIA building , this didn't start the fight they wanted.
Then they tried to blow up ten airliners at once, probly killing three or four thousand people , this idn't come off becaue they were interrupted by an acident that reveied their plot to the Pillipine police.
Then they killed a dozen Americans in their barraks in Saudi , this didn't get them the fight they wanted.
Then they blew up two of our embassys on the same day , this didn't get them the fight they wanted.
This is an abbriviated list , I don't want to get boring , but it seems to me that if they didn't et the epic batle they wnted with the 9-11 attack they would have returned to the drawing board and tryed to come up with something even more irritating.
What would be he the benefit of ignoreing them?
How would police work have been enough? The first twin tower omber was arrested and the CIA shooter was arrested , but there were plenty more where they came from. No amount of police work would be suffecient to prevent an eventual success if they continued to send their Kamakazi attackers .
Nothing depends on an American Hegimon in any of this , if we loose one ally or six or all , Al Queda would celebrate the event and exploit it, to whatever degree they could.
Iraq was a pre-existing problem, when you are carrying out the trash why keep some garbage around? If we had not ousted Saddam , what would we have done with him?
Did that answer your question, UP?
No, but it gave me another one. If you believe what you say, why are you cheerleading for Sirs, who apparently believes something more in line with the column from Mr. Stephens?
Anyway, the question I asked previously was back in reply #4. I repeated it in Reply #26. You said, "Confronting evil is ALWAYS productive. It is a universal call of those of integrity and true seekers of Truth." Which prompted me to ask "And when people of integrity do not agree on what is evil and what is Truth, what then?"
To me, the intention seems to be to force the argument into a black and white issue. You either agree with the War on Terror, or you are appeasing the terrorists. You agree or you are a coward. You agree or you are a moral relativist.
In that sense, it is no different than what Hermann Göring pointed out (cool, there's that umlaut).
I do believe that you should always confront evil, though. Of course ,there are many methods available to accomplish this such as force, diplomacy, intermediaries and so on. Do you disagree?
I don't think it has anything to do with the government, but more to do with a very sharply partisan, us versus them philosophy.
One's acceptance of alternative ideas depends on whether or not and to what degree one believes American foreign policy should be focused on the goal of an American hegemony.
No it doesn't.
Who said anything at all about ignoring them? You want to make a case for going after Al-Qaeda? I'm not going to stop you. I agree, hunt them down and capture or kill them. You've got my support. That would be, however, a hunt for Al-Qaeda, not a "war on terror".
[][][][][][]
This sems to be a distinction without a diffrence , could you expand on why a war against Al Queda is diffrent from a war on terror?
The historical precident seems to me to be the multi national war on Piracy that nearly ended the practice by the midde 1800's.
As long as the seprate nations had use for them Pirates had nutral waters and safe harbors to retreat to , when the fight against them became the concern of many nations in co-operation Piracy became too hard to do.
I really think that our present "terrorists" are very much like Pirates if you go looking for simularitys you can find plenty.
How would police work have been enough? The first twin tower omber was arrested and the CIA shooter was arrested , but there were plenty more where they came from. No amount of police work would be suffecient to prevent an eventual success if they continued to send their Kamakazi attackers .
I keep being told that our government's various law enforcement and intelligence agencies have repeatedly stopped plot after plot against this country. Granted, that's after passage of legislation with which I do not agree, but still, apparently some amount of police work seems effective against terrorist success, or is the government lying to us? But you're correct, no amount of police work can keep us 100% safe. But then, that had always been true. It was true before September 11, 2001, after that day, and now. Nothing about the "war on terror" has changed that.
One of our choices is to armor up ourselves at home and keep up with everything so well that ousiders cnnot get in and attack us , this is knwn as a "police state" if terrorism is not adressed at its sorce, will we improve our police protection enough to keep up with its growth?
Nothing depends on an American Hegimon in any of this , if we loose one ally or six or all , Al Queda would celebrate the event and exploit it, to whatever degree they could.
To the degree that you're talking about hunting down Al-Qaeda, you're correct. To the degree that you're talking about the larger "war on terror", you're not correct. This is not a war on Al-Qaeda. This is a "war on terror". Iraq, we are told is a vital part in the "war on terror". Why? Because we had to stop Saddam Hussein. Okay, we did that. And Iraq is still a vital part of this "war on terror". Why? Because we have to establish democracy and an ally in the Middle East that will influence the region in our favor. The goal of the "war on terror", for America, is the same goal our foreign policy has had for at least 50 years, an American hegemony.
Saddam Hussein was a finaceir of terrorism , enough said of him.
Is France American Hegimon, or all of the nations of Nato includeing Poland , Spain , Iceland and Norway?
I am not sure what you mean by "Hegimon" I guess but it sounds like we order them all around which we just plainly do not.
A democracy in the Middle east might choose to be our ally but probly only to the degree that it feels threatened , from that point of view the terrorists are working to the benefit of Hegimon by produceing the threat that makes the nation dependant .
Hegimon may thereby happen even if we don't desire it.
Iraq was a pre-existing problem, when you are carrying out the trash why keep some garbage around? If we had not ousted Saddam , what would we have done with him?
Left him alone? And I submit that referring to killing a whole lot of people as "carrying out the trash" is really callous. How was Iraq any more of a pre-existing problem than Iran or North Korea? Why have we left other "garbage" lying around? Why did we not finish in Afghanistan before turning to Iraq? I suggest what the administration attempted to accomplish is to increase American hegemony, and this is the primary reason why American troops remain in Iraq. If the troops are removed, the result will likely not be increased American influence in the Middle East. And so the troops remain.
The notion that we need to aggressively prosecute the "war on terror" is based on the idea that American hegemony is going to protect us. If we do not promote and pursue American influence in the world, then the dictators and tyrants are going to gain dominance in the world and they will come after us. You might say no this is not true. But we are told all the time how the Islamic extremists want to control the world. We even call them Islamofascists to drive home this point. The cartoon Sirs posted makes the direct comparison of the "Islamo-fascism" to the Nazis. It's us or them. It is the peril of the Communists all over again only worse. We went to Vietnam to stop the spread of Communism. Now we fight to stop the spread of "Islamo-fascism". Do you disagree with that? If so, why?
You know, plane, when you say that al Qaeda wanted a fight with the U.S., I wouldn't argue with you. But I think you've got to follow their thinking a little bit further than just the first step. Why did they want a fight with the U.S.? What did they think would happen in such a fight? Did they expect to bring the U.S.A. to its knees in a slug-fest?
This sems to be a distinction without a diffrence , could you expand on why a war against Al Queda is diffrent from a war on terror?
The historical precident seems to me to be the multi national war on Piracy that nearly ended the practice by the midde 1800's.
As long as the seprate nations had use for them Pirates had nutral waters and safe harbors to retreat to , when the fight against them became the concern of many nations in co-operation Piracy became too hard to do.
I really think that our present "terrorists" are very much like Pirates if you go looking for simularitys you can find plenty.
One of our choices is to armor up ourselves at home and keep up with everything so well that ousiders cnnot get in and attack us , this is knwn as a "police state" if terrorism is not adressed at its sorce, will we improve our police protection enough to keep up with its growth?
Is France American Hegimon, or all of the nations of Nato includeing Poland , Spain , Iceland and Norway?
I am not sure what you mean by "Hegimon" I guess but it sounds like we order them all around which we just plainly do not.
Don't get stuck on the Hegimon idea, it is not the only possibility.
I tink of it as the least likely one too, do you recall President Bush being asked for the name of the president of Packistan by a quizzing reporter?
He didn't even know!
Do you know how poorly the FBI and CIA and the Armed Forces are fixed with translators?
I doubt that events as we have seen them are a grand neo-con plan unfldin just as they hoped , the real focus of Americans is America and it always has been , we look like we intend hegimon to some because they are projecting their own thinking onto our actions.
Addressing the roots of terrorism would mean strikeing fear into the tyrants that foster them.
I don't think that Saddam is the same as North Korea or any other problem we had then, because we were already hands on with him
can you review the choices availible to us and show why we had a better choice than "regime change".
No, I don't think he is a stooge for the government (I haven't researched the author at all). I think he is working to force a specific philosophy and that philosophy may include a political philosophy as well (again, I don't know the guy). Yet, as you say, the intention of the article is clearly meant to frame the argument into strictly manichean - good versus evil terms.
I don't think it has anything to do with the government, but more to do with a very sharply partisan, us versus them philosophy.
<<Yes [al Qaeda thought it could bring the U.S. to its knees in a slug-fest.>>
That's patently absurd.
I claim that this was their plan , I am not claiming that this was a smart plan.
I saw nothing in the quote which could even be remotely interpreted as predicting the defeat of the U.S.A. in any capacity other than an invading force similar to the U.S.S.R.
I am convinced that all the armaments and weapons of al Qaeda in Afghanistan or indeed in the world are trivial compared to the total armaments and weapons of the U.S.A. When all you can tell me about the quantity of al Qaeda weaponry is that it is "huge," that tells me next to nothing. Would you not also describe the arsenal of the U.S.A. as "huge?" Of the two "huges" which would you really think is the larger, and by what factor? a factor of one or two, or a factor of 100 or 200? or 1,000 to 2,000?
Given the relative resources of al Qaeda and the U.S.A. it would be foolish in the extreme to think the factor could be anything less than several hundred to one.
But Plane, you're not getting it. Just because they say it's their goal, just because they'll do anything, including blow themselves up to kill as many women and children as possible, just because this is a religious vision that decrees even in death they are doing Allah's will, doesn't mean they can defeat the U.S.A. And since they can't, then they never really intended to destroy us and our way of living, and doesn't require us to do anything to prevent such, since ......they can't. Right? ;)