Really?
Anyone with common sense would know that.
So while liberals call for "talks" and "cease fires" the bad guys just do whatever they want.
So once again, liberals force the good guys to follow rules that hurt the effort to WIN (I know you don't understand that concept) while the bad guys just do whatever they want.
Keep the people who hurt this country and aid terrorists out of power.
Saturday, August 19, 2006
Hezbollah regrouping
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
55 comments:
Again, I ask a question you never answered:
What do we WIN, exactly?
when the middle east is not run by radical islamic fascists...so basically, when Iran and Seria have democracy and when groups like Hezbolla can not run countries like Lebannon...
you might not like that answer..
but the liberals definition of winning is running away and "talking"
"What do we WIN, exactly?"
The same thing we won during WWII and the Cold War.
Which was what, Jason?
And we have right to force democracy on other countries, why exactly?
And we'd like Hezbolla not to run Lebanon why, exactly? Are they running the U.S.?
So, again, what are we going to win?
dedanna--
We do have the right to force democracy on other countries. Why? Because we are morally superior. Moral superiority has been much maligned lately, as if it was better to be morally inferior.
The Party of God (the Hezb'Allah) should not be allowed to run Lebanon because they are a fascist organization with global ambitions. Why give them a base of operations? Why move the battlefield from the Middle East to Europe and North America? These people blow up stuff. Like skyscrapers with thousands of people in them.
Or have we forgotten already.
What will we win? Our lives.
1) Morality is not a justification. It is merely something that exists in each person's heart and mind, and the perception of it is different for all.
2) To say that the U.S., of all people, is morally superior to anyone else is not only flat-out racism, arrogant, and treating other human beings like animals, but also invites others to hate the U.S. more; in fact, it makes me not like the U.S. more. It also lends one to believe that the U.S. is out-and-out persecuting others (much like the Bah'ais are persecuted).
3) To say that the U.S., of all people, is morally superior to anyone else is flat-out WRONG. There is more crime in the U.S., there is more hypocrisy in the U.S., there are less intelligent people in the U.S., the educational system is worse in the U.S., and the U.S. has less of a clue of the rest of the world about the rest of the world.
4) You dare to even try to force anything on me, and I'll come after you with more than just guns and terrorism. Those are fighting words, boy, and I'll damn sure cram them up yours.
'nuff said.
5) The U.S. is also a younger nation than anywhere else in the world. It has no right to take its racism and religious persecutory tendencies out on others.
6) Oh yeah, and it's also not being any better than the other guy in this story --
You force your ways, they force theirs. It doesn't work.
Now, you're a hypocrit in being the exact same way they are, doing the same things, all to fight what they're doing??????
Makes about as much sense as giving a baby poison rather than candy --
Jason you sound just like the jhaidists, the people you think should be eliminated...again....and again and again and again.
Game, now we are getting somewhere in this discussion. When do you think we will eliminate all those groups and how do we do it? Can we kill them all? Is a day going to come when we say .."bang, well last one we win!" How do we stop people from wanting to become new recruits for their "cause.
You claim cartoon dem and liberal qualities that do not exist again. We want to stop this as much as you and your people do.We are all americans and I will go to the ends of the earth to protect my children. I love them with all my heart. It is so cold or naive of you to think I or us would like to see america lose or want americans to die. You seem to have only one answer and your answer has, in my eyes, made things worse. I am looking for new ideas. Are you smart enough to come up with some or are you guys stuck on ...
Jason said:
"We do have the right to force democracy on other countries. Why? Because we are morally superior."
H-O-L-Y shit! There's nothing more to say.
Jason,,,more than a few think that you made an ego maniacal statement..don't try to defend yourself by saying everyone that disagrees with you is anti american. As my friend would say..thats bullshit! I can show you almost exactly the words you used to defend your position berated by you..yourself when used by the other side..You have absolutely no perspective and appear to be a very dangerous person..as dangerous as the ones you profess to hate.
Hi folks!
The only thing being forced by our actions thus far, is our disdain for the practices of oppressive scumbags who hack off the heads of bound and helpless captives, sorry that they can't cut yours off, too. It is reprehensible that anyone, particularly anyone from this country, to suggest that we are somehow comparable to the people we fight. We are not forcing democracy on anyone. We are allowing the oppressed people of these countries the opportunity to choose how they wish to live, rather than accept without question a lifestyle that is totally subsevient to a psycopathic few who rule. At the same time, we gain for ourselves, at some point down the sandy road, a country that, even if not a close ally, is a productive and peaceful nation unlikely to cause any further trouble in the region for those who are our allies. It might be one thing to suggest that these nations neither want nor would understand how to utilize a democracy, but it's totally different to suggest that they want what they have when what they have includes severe physical harm for the slightest reason or whim.
The difference between libs and conservs has always been how to achieve the same goals (for the most part). As far as the war on terror, the lib ideas, of which there really are none, get us no where, and enable the enemy. That's just delaying the inevitable. But we will have won this conflict in the same manner that all have been settled: when the loser has lost all desire to receive any more suffering and surrenders unconditionally to the victor. I propose we make sure that we are the victors. When the left stops tying the hands of the admin and military, when they ignore world opinion for the sake of our goals, when they have the courage to do what is right at the risk of world opinion, when they understand that waging war requires sacrifice and accepting it's harsh realities, we will win that much faster. The left needs to understand that there is no such thing as a timetable for winning, there is only winning. If our cause is just, which it is, we fight until it is done. Keep in mind, our enemies have confirmed that this war will be fought. If not now, later, when it will be harder.
marshall, well done sir...wow
Jason, that would not be me.
Marshall art if he was a jhaidist.
Hi lovers of Allah!
The only thing being forced by our actions thus far, is our disdain for the practices of oppressive scumbags who take our lands, resources, and kill our people . They drop their bombs on our innocent women and children. Defy Allah and you should die yourself. To give in to the evil western slime with their perversion and materialism is reprehensible . To suggest that we are somehow should be like the people we fight is an abomination. We the oppressed people of these countries the opportunity to break the chains of their enslavement and stop the great satan from controling your lives. At the same time, we gain for ourselves, at some point down the sandy road, a country that, is free of imperialist domination where you are free to live your life according to the Koran. To suggest that we should take up their western ways with the perversion,crime and desire to dominate the world is unworthy of our kind.
The terrorist great satan will be stopped only when they have lost the desire for suffering and surrenders unconditionally. I propose we make sure that we are the victors. Ignore the opinion of the infidels for the sake of our goals, when they have the courage to do what is right at the risk of world opinion, when they understand that waging war requires sacrifice and accepting it's harsh realities, we will win that much faster. Those that doubt our cause needs to understand that there is no such thing as a timetable for winning, there is only winning. If our cause is just, which it is, we fight until it is done. Keep in mind, our enemies have confirmed that this war will be fought. If not now, later, when it will be harder.
Ron: This is NOT, let me make sure that enters your consciousness, NOT how I feel.I want us to win and love our country at least as much as you. Especially when you profess in front of the world that you wish to see fellow countrymen get their heads chopped off. I am giving you an example of how your words are similar to those of the Jhaidists.
You guys have NO PERSPECTIVE hence your limited ability to find ways to meet this struggle. If you want ideas I have reams of them on my blog. You are most cordially invited. What tells me you really don't care. You would rather just keep saying the liberals have no ideas and hate america.
Game, you are easily impressed aren't you?
ron--
I agree that we need perspective, but this shouldn't involve imposing Leninist ideas of imperialism on real people and events. The Ayatollahs have a clear theological agenda, for example, that has nothing to do with the world workers' revolution.
You can discover the perspective of Islamofascists by listening to what they say, reading what they write, and observing their behavior.
As Abbas Al-Massawi, former leader of the Hezb'Allah (back when 241 American peacekeepers were killed) put it: "We are not fighting so that you will offer us something; we are fighting to eliminate you." You'd think leftists would take a hint after 9-11.
If you agree that liberal democracy is MORALLY SUPERIOR to an Islamic theocracy that hangs homosexuals and stones adulterers, and wants to eradicate the world of kuffar (infidels), then forceful action will be needed for us to retain our lives. (That's what we win, exactly.)
Those who advocate inaction, in their moral paralysis, are giving evil men a monopoly on power. I will never accede to this.
Jason, I don't find them or their ways superior to ours. I much prefer ours and wish to keep it that way. I also know different people may wish to live in different ways. I am not wishing to impose my will on them. I DO wish to stop and even destroy those that wish to destroy me and my way of life. I DO NOT wish to kill people that ment me no harm in the midst of trying to do this.
Moral superiority means higher ideals. Not lowering the bar to their level.
ron--
"I DO wish to stop and even destroy those that wish to destroy me and my way of life."
Excellent. I'm saving this for future reference when we discuss Saddam Hussein, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and so forth.
and that is fine jason..anyone who joins there cause is fair game to me. The ones who have no desire or intention to harm us, and mind you that likely includes(or at least did) many Iraqis and Iranians, are not fair game. Killing them is only aiding the terrorist cause and making the jhaidist rant above sound more like common sense. We, I think, agree it is not and should not be given the opportunity to look like it is.
Here we have dedanna, who thinks that to claim a nation like Britain was morally superior to Germany during the Second World War is tantamount to "racism."
Jason, this shows an ignorance of history. While the British may indeed have felt "morally superior" to the Germans, it was, in fact, Hitler and his crowd--as opposed to Churchill, Roosevelt, or Stalin--who used the "morally superior" line as a way to rally their own people to support their cause. Britain, the US, and the USSR didn't need "morally superior" propaganda to develop home support for war--they were all attacked! The allied countries in WWII fought the Axis to defend themselves against a hsotile nation, not out of a sense moral superiority or obligation to spread democracy (Hitler had been popularly elected several times).
When you and your side make the WWII comparison to the current situation, you equate what we're doing in Iraq with that war. If I were a WWII, I'd be furious over that comparison; indeed, my grandfather, a life-long Republican and WWII Navy vet, is.
Yes, we were attacked on 9/11/01, and the president and his supporters didn't need any "morally superior" bullshit to rally the people to the cause of war. In Afghanistan. Against al Qaeda. And their Taliban enablers. I supported that, even, and I'm obviously a card-carrying member of the wackadoo wing of the Democratic Party.
But for the conflict in Iraq--a country that did not attack us, did not harbor and aid those who did attack us, and a did not pose a threat to us--there was no popular support. (The polls before the war were mixed at best; once hostilities started, the public initially rallied.) Hence the appeals to "moral superiority" and the plausibility-stretching comparisons of Hussein to Hitler.
It saddens me that our president and his supporters have to resort to claiming "moral superiority" as a basis for our actions. As Gertrude said, seeing perhaps a bit too much of herself in the Player Queen, the lady protests too much.
Jay, it is great to read the words of someone so thoughtful and obviously informed.
Keep it up!
jay--
Churchill not only argued to defend civilization from Nazism, but Islam.
Iraq *did* threaten us, Iraq *did* support terrorism, and Iraq *did* have and was developing more weapons of mass destruction. You guys act like Saddam never tried to assassinate Bush I, Saddam never trained terrorists, Saddam never fired upon British and American planes in the nofly zones, Saddam never had a WMD program, and Saddam never used WMDs against Iran nor his own people.
This is insane, though the leftwing media promotes insanity. But don't take my word for it.
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, September 23, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock. His missile delivery capability, his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists including Al-Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002
"If Saddam rejects peace, and we have to use force, our purpose is clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." -- Bill Clinton, February 17, 1998
""Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons and has made it clear that he has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and secrecy, to continue to do so. That is a threat to the stability of the Middle East. It is a threat with respect to the potential of terrorist activities on a global basis. It is a threat even to regions near but not exactly in the Middle East." -- John Kerry, February 23, 1998
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002
With regard to Iraq, I agree Iraq presents a genuine threat, especially in the form of weapons of mass destruction: chemical, biological and potentially nuclear weapons. I agree that Saddam Hussein is exceptionally dangerous and brutal, if not uniquely so, as the president argues." -- Russ Feingold, October 9, 2002
I can go on.
First Jason Saddam was attacked during Clintons term. Look up Desert Fox. We now can assume that those strikes took out his WMD since the Presidents own inspectors said there wasn't much or any activity since 1998. We did something about it ..much as it turns out and didn't kill thousands of Americans in the process. Thank you for bringing up competence vs. our current failure. He was contained with flyover zones and he was being watched like a hawk. NOT doing nothing! Doing something substantal and not killing thousands of Americans to accomplish our goal.
As to the rest of the words you note. They had to assume this because they made the mistake of trusting the President and his intelligence which obviously was suspect at best.
Jason I know you weren't addressing me but you are really in a losing arguement and should get off your Moral superiority kick. I see all my typing bored nothing into your rock hard head. And you wonder why we revert to scarcasm and snark occasionally.
Jason:Good has the right to resist and defeat evil.
THIS IS NEARLY WORD FOR WORD WHAT OSAMA SAYS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! GET IT.
Moral superiority means having higher ideals not lowering the bar to the level of those you are(were) superior too.
Jason: Thinking the worst of America in this unfounded manner indicates hatred of it. There's no way to sugarcoat this.
No one is thinking the worst of America. We also believe America is superior. We keep it contained in our hearts and don't go on a mass destruction rampage to prove it.
Jason: That's the dilemma you're in. Admit moral superiority, then you have to do the right thing, or claim anything goes, which means you're guilty of hating your own.
BLAH BLAH BLAH. Don't give me that shit. If you think one is only noble and true to your self described precepts if one lives them to the enth degree you'd pick up a gun and go overseas and shoot "terrorists" being true to the words you wrote above. You are more than ready to send somebody elses dad or son to uphold your "values". BLAH BLAH BLAH.Phony Patriot.
Ron,
But I am not a jihadist. Therefor, my words are based on beliefs and values all rational and reasonable people can easily see. Can you say that bin Laden's ideals reflect what rational people would agree with? Both of us can use the exact same words, but the actions tell the tale. Ours are not actions of oppression despite what some on the left and their friends involved with jihad would say. They are of liberation and thousands of Iraqis and Afhans will attest to it. Also, despite what anyone would suggest about their religion, they way they manifest their beliefs are abhorent when they include the heinous acts they commit and videotape for broadcast. We don't murder bound captives, we don't encourage our young to blow themselves up amongst civilians living their lives, we don't hide behind civilians to launch attacks against civilian populations, etc. etc. etc.
So, in light of the above, two sides who may use similar language means little to the innocents being slaughtered. Now we can talk moral superiority and be honest and factual at the same time. They cannot by virtue of their tactics and their oppression of their own people. Their own people, their own civilians die as a result of their actions, not ours or Israel's. If they don't have the might to competitively war against us or Israel, that doesn't make their tactics just, honorable or in any way acceptable to peace loving nations and people. Whatever complaints they have against us or Israel are beneath consideration if they insist on acting like the scum they are. How about this? How about they lay down their arms like they mean it, and then come to the negotiating table and spell out their complaints? They won't because they don't view us as worthy of such consideration. If this were not true, there wouldn't be this conflict. It has been said, and shown to be true as far as I can tell, that if they truly want peace, they'd lay down their arms and peace will come. If Israel, and by extension, us as well, lay down arms, destruction will come.
I would also add, that what little Clinton did during his time adds to the argument for what we do now. Treating terrorism as a civil matter, like drug dealing, didn't work and didn't deter anything whatsoever. Actions taken by him against Sadam only slowed his progress, but it didn't end it. George saw to that.
marshall, you need your own show...you are good.
Marshall, I am getting the hint that you not nearly as informed as you pretend. Either that or as originally postulated you are lacking perception.
Bin Laden is supported in the middle east because he, at least says, he wants to give the lands and resources to the people of the region and drive the dictators(he says installed by the "west") out and drive America out. The people of the region find that rational and easy to percieve. Bin Ladens "jhiad" started when he was spurned by Saudi as protector during the first Gulf War. Instead the "infidels" were allowed to bring their war machine on Saudi territory. Most muslim people would rather live in an muslim region over a christian one just as we would rather live in a christian one over a one controlled by muslims.Even non violent ones. Many in the area feel that are actions are not liberation but occupation. You can't force them to believe differently with wars and death. This just strengthens their view. I understand that you strongly believe you are supporting a good and right thing but again I say please use perspective. This is why you will ultimately lose this arguement among the American people. More and more are realizing that you can't force democracy on people.
Marshall:We don't murder bound captives, we don't encourage our young to blow themselves up amongst civilians living their lives, we don't hide behind civilians to launch attacks against civilian populations, etc. etc. etc.
This is true and why I prefer our side but I would bet you the people you are trying to save could care less about all this stuff. It is only important to Americans. They, like you, think anything and everything should be done for victory over the "infidels".
Marshall said: I would also add, that what little Clinton did during his time adds to the argument for what we do now. Treating terrorism as a civil matter, like drug dealing, didn't work and didn't deter anything whatsoever. Actions taken by him against Sadam only slowed his progress, but it didn't end it.
Sorry bud but you are again in the laughable zone. Clinton contained terrorism. Now it is greatly expanded as a global movement and their is unrest throughout the globe. This is not a winnable war any more than stopping all crime or drugs. It is a containing and minumizing issue.I have another question for you which I will address in another post.
Marshall : Let us look at the world today. The vast majority of the middle east has governments and people you think should be eliminated. Much of Africa is warlords and muslims killing christians etc. Lots of the old soviet empire is controlled by dictators or people that are not necessarily looking like people that have our democratic ideals at heart. We have the Chechin rebels and Russia moving farther away instead of closer to Democracy. The South American continent is electing more and more "leftists". Cuba and China are communist and N. Korea is part of the axis of evil. You think you got a plan? Think you are going to solve it by eternal war? How do we eliminate all those that would threaten Democracy? It is obvious that you have only looked at a small part of the story. It is all about perspective and widening your options.
Game I have had a show and know broadcasting inside out. Marshall couldn't cut it unless you carefully screened his calls to only the syncophants. Of course you think Sean Hannity is a great debater too so I guess that tells much.
Again, until someone out-and-out answers my questions as to what we win, and someone apologizes (now more than one person) for their racist remarks, I'm considering this thread dead, and I'm no longer responding to it. You people keep saying the same things, but when questioned, you don't answer. Good job, you're all model Repuglicans, as they have no wish to be direct or honest enough to answer anything.
One more, and that's it --
Ron said...
When do you think we will eliminate all those groups and how do we do it? Can we kill them all? Is a day going to come when we say .."bang, well last one we win!"
I still don't buy it, Ron. This is called genocide.
jason said...
but this shouldn't involve imposing Leninist ideas of imperialism on real people and events.
WTF DO YOU THINK YOU'RE DOING, ANYWAY, YOU RACIST IMPERIALISTIC SONOFABITCH???
Gee....
I'm wondering what would happen if I copied & pasted the link to this thread into an email... and sent it out to a few "people" overseas... tell them to particularly note what game, marshall art, and jason say in this, and tell them that game is the owner of the blog that it's posted at?
Hhmmm....
Think I will.
I would also add, that what little Clinton did during his time adds to the argument for what we do now. Treating terrorism as a civil matter, like drug dealing, didn't work and didn't deter anything whatsoever.
There were two terror attacks on US soil during Clinton's terms in office, the first WTC bombing, and the OKC bombing. In both instances, the perpetrators were identified, caught, tried, punished. None of them will be committing further acts of terror against us.
There were two terror attacks on US soil (so far) during GW Bush's terms in office, the 9/11 attacks and the anthrax bioterror plot. In both instances, the perpetrators are still out there, free to plot and commit additional acts of terrorism as they see fit.
dedanna--
There is no reason to get personal because you lost the argument. I am unequivocally not a racist.
marshall--
It is always nice to see intelligent life around here. Keep up the good work.
Dedanna said: One more, and that's it --
Ron said...
When do you think we will eliminate all those groups and how do we do it? Can we kill them all? Is a day going to come when we say .."bang, well last one we win!"
I still don't buy it, Ron. This is called genocide.
Ron: If it was done with only the terrorists in mind no it is not. If it is done the way they are doing and proposing doing it on this blog yes it absolutely is. The idea the we will EVER kill them all is the ridiculous part to me. The rightests think they can kill their way to victory.
Thanks jay..pretty much stole my post. That is fine though because my forte is speaking not writing. You and jim both write far better than I do. It is hard to figure that the 6 clinton years or last 50 years of American leadership and respect was a failure and the "wrong" way and the last 6 of increasing global tension and screw ups can be percieved as the way to go.
No one has lost an argument here but you guys, jason. You are the ones who can't satisfactorily answer questions. Keep on, you'll make Republican premium someday (as opposed to regular unleaded).
Oh, you claim not to be racist also jason? Well, let's just see the reaction when this thread is read by a few select people.
Nope, he's not racist. Just think he's better than everyone else.
That's not racist... oh no. *smirk*
ron--
My policy is the same as advocated by FDR, Truman, Kennedy, and 90s Clinton. Unfortunately, Democrats have moved so far to the left that fighting for freedom is now a racist notion.
Truman:
"It must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or outside pressures."
Kennedy:
"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we will pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of liberty."
Roosevelt:
"We have learned that we cannot live alone, at peace; that our well-being is dependent on the well-being of other nations, far away."
Great quotes Jason. The JFK quote in particular was one I've used elsewhere and had plans for here. I, too, believe in the spirit of that one.
Jay,
Not quite right. First, the Oklahoma City bombing was an aberration by a autonomous group of assholes. Though a terrorist action, they are separate from the people we now fight. I must admit I'd forgotten all about the anthrax deal. As far as I can recall, nothign tied it to Islam. I could be wrong.
As to 9/11 the perps are ash, can't arrest them. But those who trained and supported them are the same ones in league with the first attackers and had simply attacked the towers again on a grander scale. So even though the perps from the first attack are imprisoned, it's like capturing a few Nazi soldiers while Adolph is still in the Eagle's Nest. Big freakin deal.
dedanna,
You can send these comments to anyone you choose. But as to the threat of sending them easward, and the implications of physical harm it carries, I suggest you get yourself a pair of testicles and find me yourself. In the meantime, hardass, I believe I've answered your question somewhere on this blogsite. Perhaps not to your satisfaction. If you can keep it in your pants, why don't you resubmit your question in a more specific manner, and I'll do my best to use small words for ya. Or would you rather just bail like you expect our troops to do?
Now as for YOU, Ron. Don't sell yourself short. Your responses are more than fine and I'm thoroughly enjoying the back and forth. You're presenting a challenge and I intend to meet it. Unfortunately, I just realized how freakin' late it is, and I lose track of time far too often. But stay tuned. I'm gonna overlook that little jab about having a show. You haven't seen me dance.
who knows what dedanna is saying?
Marshall, you could be successful in a conservative sense. Just like sean is. It takes a lot more to be successful overall. As you have probably noted my views run toward the liberal side but I was able to be effective in an area that is over 70% republican..real republican. Cowboy conservative. It takes a lot of thought and anticipation to do that.It has a lot to do with "style" too. Something that doesn't come across in the written word as well as the spoken word. Most people that didn't like my views still respected or even liked me as what I presented as a person. It is a whole lot more work with far more involved than the layperson thinks. I wouldn't suggest it. Radio in general is an extremely tough business. Everybody wants to do it so you are up against literally hundreds of people for every open job. I have survived in it for over 30 years but the older you get the harder it gets. That is one reason I have started working toward the talk direction...not as age sensitive.
Ron,
In pretty much all seriousness, I have no illusions about radio. I could never do what talk hosts do day in and day out. Frankly, I don't even have a blog and have respect for those who spend their time doing that every day. I'm more of a counter puncher anyway, and simply respond to what others have started. But to come up with interesting topics even once a week would gray me out. Besides, do we really need any more?
On to the challenge, which BTW I started when I stopped home for lunch and then proceeded to unintentionally delete it. (Me start a blog? Yeah, right.)
I am as informed as one can be by watching the news, reading the news, watching and listening to opinion and talk shows, web surfing, books and magazines when not living my life. I drive a lot in my work so I can hear a lot of talk radio. Though I visit lib sites, I have a hard time listening to Air America for longer than 10 minutes at a time. It's really stupid. I feel I'm pretty independent minded in the sense that I don't dig every Bush policy (borders for one), I don't dig every right wing talkie (Savage needs meds). But I am conservative and probably as far right as one can be without being Pat Buchanan. (We're talking degrees here---hard to measure) This boring background stuff is only to indicate that I think for myself based on what I'm able to glean from all the above options when life allows me to do so. I feel my perspective is pretty objective since there's no profit in pretending to believe or support any particular perspective just because it's considered right wing.
Regarding the people who follow the likes of a bin Laden, they supposedly constitute around 10% of all Muslims (still a huge number) and how many of them are sincere is hard to gauge unless they blow themselves up. Others may change their minds when asked to blow themselves up, or if they transgress any of the Sharia laws that are punishable by maiming or death. Until such a time, they might talk the talk, but... Still, there are enough who do so and at this stage of the game, we're smart to take their word for it. And it is these people that we on the right are keen on eliminating. Their goals are not limited to kicking westerners out of Arab/Muslim lands. Their goals are more global. bin Laden has, for example, spoken of retaking Spain, and how long ago was Spain under Muslim control? So, they want a Muslim world and don't be one of those who refuse them. As a contrast, Christians want a Christian world, but death threats and force aren't among the strategies. So from my perspective, how can I say that they aren't a threat? When out of their own mouths they threaten us or Israel, and by their actions, they prove they are willing to murder and maim (by doing so), where's the problem with my perspective? If they weren't assholes, we wouldn't be anywhere near there. We don't want to be there anymore than they want us there, but if they're attacking our allies (Israel), and butchering their own, and in the process, making trade and tourism hellish, they do no one any good. And though "many" agree with the head assholes there and wish us gone, there are "many" non-assholes who wish us to stay until the assholes are dealt with, or they have the ability to deal on their own. And by helping to take care of the assholes, we aren't "forcing" democracy upon them, we're giving them (the non-assholes) the opportunity to choose what form of government they want as opposed to submitting to the assholes. They may choose another asshole, but they also may choose to become the type of nation with whom we could ally ourselves or simply have peaceful relations. That would also help stabalize the region and the non-assholes could flourish. I would add, that I'm not at all concerned with changing their beliefs as much as I'm concerned with making them stop trying to kill us. And that's paramount. All the other stuff regarding perspective, beliefs, whatever, means nothing compared to them wanting to kill us.
Can anyone tell me if there is a word limit when posting comments?
"Clinton contained terrorism." Not really. (You'd have a better time using the containment angle with Hussein, though I could argue that as well) Attacks have been perpetrated since the Carter admin at least, and there's no way they started planning a job like 9/11 once Bush took office. If they were truly contained, they couldn't plan anything. Of course there were several attacks on US interests during Bubba's reign.
"Let's look at the world today." I do often. And though there is lots I would change if I were King of the World, for now, I'm satisfied with dealing with those who are attacking us NOW, while keeping an eye on the rest. That's what Reagan was trying to do. He didn't give the Islamists as much attention at the time, because rightly or wrongly, communism was perceived as a more certain threat. Unfortunately, for all the good his actions did in that direction, Islamofascism began to mestasticize and fester. But as far as this war with them, and the ongoing war against democracy that is a fact in the world, I liken to a game that I think is called, "Whack a mole" wherein everytine the mole pops out the hole, you hit him with a mallet.
Here's what I think is the only perpective that works for everyone: Evil exists and manifests itself in countless ways. Vigilence and preparedness are mandatory. When it rears it's ugly head, hit it with a mallet. Do so with extreme predjudice but also be ready to show your compassionate side. Extol the virtues of our way of life (specifically the Judeo-Christian way of life from which sprang our form of democratic republic) while accepting they may still prefer theirs. There will always be assholes in the world, we can't be the global example of shutting out the cries of the mugging victim.
I think I'm rambling... I'll stop now.
Yep, and you rambled way too much bullshit.
I'm wondering on the sending the comments to anywhere, just how proud jason is of sounding so racist, and if he's so proud of it, then why not show them to a muslim or two? It should be no problem for you guys.
Wonder how they'd react?
Gee, wonder if it's those kinds of statements you people made here, that's the reason the muslims are so pissed at the USA?
And, no, I don't need any smaller words. I need bigger and more well-chosen ones to explain why we should be like this to other human beings in any instance.
Wonder what the government would think of your above comments, for that matter, marshall and jason both?
Marshall..you are really reaching buddy! :-)
"Clinton contained terrorism." Not really. (You'd have a better time using the containment angle with Hussein, though I could argue that as well) Attacks have been perpetrated since the Carter admin at least, and there's no way they started planning a job like 9/11 once Bush took office. "
Not getting far with that one.
I'm satisfied with dealing with those who are attacking us NOW,
(Grin)
That stuff has been publicly discussed to death so I won't even bother with the rant. Let's just say you might need a little fresh air.
"Here's what I think is the only perpective that works for everyone: Evil exists and manifests itself in countless ways. Vigilence and preparedness are mandatory. When it rears it's ugly head, hit it with a mallet. Do so with extreme predjudice but also be ready to show your compassionate side. "
Right except you have it backwards. You should START with the compassionate side. That you lead with "wack" is telling and not what I learned as your Judeo christian values.
When people realize that the the only ones that die are ones that harm us we will start getting converts to our side. As long as we do this so sloppyly we are aiding the terrorist...yep you Marshall:-).
Ron,
But we DO start with the compassionate side. However, I was referring to what we do NOW with those who are trying to blow us up. We can't just sit back and wait for them to spike the ball over our side of the net. So while we are THERE kickin' ass, so that we don't have to do it here, we ARE also giving aid to the people who live there and want to do so in peace without some despotic asshole threatening them on a daily basis. If you look around at other places where there aren't people trying to blow us up, we are give aid to some of them as needed, so we ARE compassionate first. Look how long we'd been compassionate to the Palestinians before cutting it off due their election choices. Look at how much some people here complain about our role in the rebuilding going on in Iraq. Compassion from our end has never been a question. Don't join the hord of lefty wackos whose only perspective of their country is a negative one of greed, arrogance and imperialism, because THAT'S the real bullshit.
It's probably best you do sidestep the containment issue. Containment is bad policy, at least as it had been practiced since it did nothing to eliminate the problem. As long as the threat exists, the potential for harm to peaceful people is real, and as opposed to, say, Castro, these Middle Eastern scumbags have designs on our destruction ASAP. To perceive THAT truth only requires opening the eyes and paying attention.
dedanna,
I must be off to the grindstone, but I'll be responding to you afterwards. In the meantime, if you get the chance, lay out your question or I'll just have to make assumptions about what you're asking.
Dedanna,
First off, I disagree with your assertion that saying we're morally superior is in anyway racist. It's fine to debate the notion, but one thing that might actually make us morally superior is our openess toward people of other races, which we have. Though one could also argue about morality being a matter of perspective, that does not preclude our right to assert that what passes for morality for another group of people, say, Islamofascists, is crap. If people suffer as a result of talibanic perspective, shouldn't we lend a hand? (Wanting to do so also adds to our moral superiority)
To assume or perceive that we are morally superior, doesn't necessarily imply that we view everyone else as inferior in the sense that they are miles below us. The difference between us and, say, England, may be insignificant or even non-existent. Personally, I've never thought in terms of the US being morally superior, at least not in all aspects, since there are some areas in which we project a decidedly immoral image. But I don't have a problem with others saying so, and I don't have a problem with saying we're superior in other specific areas. In not one of these areas does racism even get implied.
OK, next. I want to be clear that if you're going to state that muslims are pissed at us, I respond by saying, not all, and most of those who do are among those causing so much trouble. Others look at us in the same myopic way most libs do, so they are equally full of shit. As a rule, if I think that we are acting with good intentions, the opinions of others are not important. If we're not acting out of good intentions, world opinion still doesn't matter because I'll be voicing MY opinion to my reps to get on the stick. In short, I don't care about world opinion and world opinion has no value anyway.
What do we win, exactly. If you mean Iraq, we win a stabilizing presence in an unstable part of the world, one less enemy for our other allies in the region, and a partner in the arena of free market economy, someone with whom we can safely do business. And of course, we also win one less source of assholes who wanna blow us up.
If you're referring to terrorism in general, all of the above, with more emphasis on the last part. All of this was more tangible on 9/11. It was easy to understand that this crap needed to be put down. Five years later, though some still have their eyes open and their ears to the ground, some have started to relax and that's when the next 9/11 becomes more likely.
Your very last point confuses me. "...why we should be like this to other human beings..." Please elaborate. What, in your opinion, are we "being like" to other people and to whom?
Finally, I'll ask YOU a question. What do you see us winning if we DON'T finish the job? If we pull out?
One more point for anyone:
If we as a rich nation are obliged to give to those without weapons, why is it wrong for a militarily strong nation to give to those without weapons, or poor in military resources to fend off true oppressors?
Damn fingers!
That's supposed to read:
If we as a rich nation are obliged to give to those with no money...
What do you see us winning if we DON'T finish the job? If we pull out?
Not a damned thing. I don't want a damned thing from Iraq or anyone else in the world. Iraq doesn't have a damned thing that I want, or that anyone else I've ever talked to wants. What I do want, is I want the U.S. to get up off its own ass and make itself better, within its own borders, without relying on anyone else. :-p~~~~ And you are complaining about welfare roles. You're making the U.S. dependent.
The fact that we are there fighting someone else's war that I don't care about, and are spending billions upon billions of my and the other people of the U.S.' money pisses me off, and makes the war moot in my eyes -- don't shoot to win, don't shoot to not win. I could care less. You still have not stated how this will make the U.S.'s borders any more damned secure, or how it will keep terrorists out of the U.S. itself, or how it will benefit me. You still have not stated satisfactorily why we should do a damned thing for any other country when we clearly (budget-speaking) can't afford it.
You say it's to help others? Out of compassion? OMG, are U a LIBERAL???? Then f* u for saying u r not. My suggestion is to find the party you want to go with, and stay there.
Let them blow their damned selves up if they want -- I care why????? When the U.S., supposedly my own country is in the shit it's in????? Can't even secure a fucking border, get crime rates down, get cops on the streets, etc. -- it's a piece of shit.
Period. 'nuff said.
dedanna,
So you're just worried about yourself it seems? I stated what we, that is the US of A wins by finishing the job, but it isn't tangible enough for YOUR personal life? No. Fuck YOU! If you can't see the threat from the people we're fighting, you're blind. This isn't THEIR war. It's been assholes warring with us since the Carter admin. It's not our war by choice, but by the fact of THEIR designs. Open your eyes and see what's happening in the world. As Ron likes to speak of perspective, it seems yours is one of complete selfishness. What exactly are YOU doing to attain the goals you've stated? Do you send money to the campaigns of those candidates in favor of putting border security above amnesty? Are you engaged in your local neighborhood watch group? Do you support referenda that requests more taxes for cops in your town, or better yet, are you involved in local politics so you can more effeciently use tax money to be able to afford more cops? You seem more concerned about your little corner of the world. The smaller the area, the more you can make a difference. In the meantime, the ramifications of the WOT are realized and being dealt with by people with the vision to do so.
It's not just my life -- it's everyone's in the U.S., so take that notion out of your mine. The people of the U.S. is what the U.S. is supposed to be about, and if the U.S. can't take care of its own people, then it has no business trying to run anyone else's. Period.
You want to stop terrorists here? You do it here. That's where the tax $$$s should be going to. I don't care if we have to get the doggone whole military out on the streets of the U.S., we can stop the terrorists right here, without having to go anywhere. We can stop them from entering the U.S. to get their strategy going, we can clean them out of the U.S., we can blow them the hell up right here if we have to. Just like with the illegals. If you don't believe that, then you are the one that's blind.
Post a Comment