Sunnis can’t be in cahoots with Shi’ites, secularists can’t be in cahoots with Islamists. It’s absurd! It would be like Republicans and Democrats setting aside their differences to provide a united front against the country’s professed enemies:ÂÂ
Some bloggers are jumping all over Senator John McCain for his supposed “gaffe” today. According to The Trail, a blog over at the Washington Post, McCain said that Iranian operatives were “taking al-Qaeda into Iran, training them and sending them back.” He elaborated by saying it was “common knowledge and has been reported in the media that al-Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran, that’s well known. And it’s unfortunate.” Senator John Lieberman apparently then whispered something in McCain’s ear, prompting McCain to take it back: “I’m sorry, the Iranians are training extremists, not al-Qaeda.”
So now a bunch of bloggers, and even some of the networks, are pouncing on McCain. They point to the fact that Iran is Shiite and al Qaeda is Sunni, so they could not possibly cooperate. Because Senator McCain doesn’t know this “fact,” he is supposedly ignorant of what is going on in Iraq and in general.
All them Towelheads look the same.
Actually, Wahabists are Sunni on steroids, but I think McHale simply misspoke. Kerfluffle.
I think they are stupid to be highlighting the fact that McCain is with real troops in Iraq while Hillary is trying to end the war in Michigan and Obama is surrendering Pennsylvania.
hmm, do I want McCain to pick up the phone at 3 a.m.?
considering he has completely lost his warmongering mind (due to old age? or was always like that?)and shows great unknowledge of foreign affairs.
Gee, sashal, why don’t you slander him some more? “Lost his mind”? “Unknowledge”? Hell, that second one isn’t even a word.
Why no, Sashal, you want the Democrat’s very own version of Elmer Gantry to pick up that phone. Much safer.
I know, that is not a word.
But on the blog famous with great word craftsmen I may experiment one of my own (English is so good for that)
You’re right, sashal. McCain probably wouldn’t even answer the phone. He’d hear the phone ring, and just press the button.
button for nurse, may be
and I think he definitely crossed THAT threshold
How many times as Obamamessiah been to Iraq ? Does he know what Sunni is ? Does he know what Shiite is ?
Comparing McCain’s foreign policy knowledge/experience to the Messiah’s foreign policy experience is like comparing the Titanic and a rowboat. Even if McCain didn’t know the difference, he’d still have 100X the foreign policy experience that either Obama or Hillary have. So the “gaffe” such as it is, means zippo.
Yea, Matt … but he’s OLD. Man … old people. What are they good for? Logan’s Run had the right idea …
“Logan’s Run had the right idea”
‘Soylent Green’ you mean.…
It was a “gaffe” only in the sense that it doesn’t comport with the bullshit invented narrative of leftwingers that won’t allow someone to be Al Quaeda unless they’ve been photographed getting a nuggie from OBL. Al Quaeda is a loose affiliation of likeminded Islamic whackos that transcends the external artificially imposed divisions of the leftist narrative of radical Islam, when they aren’t denying the threat outright. They conveniently forget that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” which originates in the Middle East.
Iranian Al Quds Shiites were and are training foreign Sunni fighters and Al Quaeda members and supplying them with arms and technology and sending them into Iraq, as well as certain factions of the Mahdi Army under Sadr to kill both Sunnis and Shiites who oppose radical Islam in Iraq. The idea that there is a huge separation of Al Quaeda and other jihadists is refuted by alot of evidence to the contrary that is ignored or simply dismissed by those who’s domestic political desires require their to be no connection in order to discredit Bush and the dread neo-cons. They are clueless at best and most likely liars who stand to gain politically from their Big Lie.
Well, first you pull a Logan’s Run, then the Soylent Green. A synthesis of two rather progressive ideas.
SGT Ted #13.
Let’s put aside that Bush and his neoconservative advisers are complete morons, who view the history as another Bolshevik adventure , as another empty canvass for their fantasy experiment with human lives etc….
You are actually correct here. AQ is an organisation with no rigid structure and plenty of Muslim extremist groups are loosely associated and may even coordinate their action.
Also, being Shia, does not mean you can not support Sunni, being commi(Soviet) did not mean they did not support terrorist, nationalist/ bourgeoisie movements in other countries as long as they were against their enemy-USA.
The opposition to the war with Iraq, at least for me is based on different approach.
Plenty regimes in the world support various terrorist and shady groups with various agenda , which could serve the interest of said authocratic regimes or dictatorship.
We do not go in all this countries, throw them to the wall , fuck their countries up, loose our soldiers and directly/indirectly are the reason to countless local collateral damages( in other words freed them from their dictators for the eternity).
The armies are not to be used in combating terrorism. They are not made for this.
The terrorism is combatted the way the Mossad does it, the way CIA does it in Pakistan, the way German did to that caught cell, and British to theirs, etc, etc,
After all if we do not like the dictator, we can arrange a coup, support the opposition in multitude of ways, organize boycotts and sanctions and so on…
We do not go and fuck the country and her people who did not do any harm to us and were not threat to us and did not attack or support the attack on us…
Sashal, your moonbattery will not fly here. THe minute you said “neo-con” your entire opinion became invalid. Return to the moveon.com from wence you came.
McCain most likely stated a fact, then retracted it probably because of some diplomatic factor or reality occurring behind the scenes, imo.
Otoh, those who think named categories of people, within Islam itself no less, must necessarily determine what they actually do or might do in reality – especially when it serves their mutual interest – suffer the same thinking which “proved” the disjunction between mind and body – otherwise known as mind-body Dualism, which isn’t much different from Solopsism nor even from the Narcissism which seems to help describe Progressivism so well.
Iow, noble Progs, you are simply incapable of thinking within the real world – as SGT Ted just beat me to and said better, anyway.
Comment by Semanticleo on 3/19 @ 10:14 am #
Do you speak English?
“Let’s put aside that Bush and his neoconservative advisers are complete morons,…”
Ha. I just love how that “moron” keeps kicking reactionary leftist ass, time after time after time.
BTW, sashal, can you fly an F-102 fighter jet?
Curious minds want to know.
I can do space shuttle, and I bet $100, you are more reactionary and to the left of me…
The armies are not to be used in combating terrorism. They are not made for this.
Another example of what I just said – this time imposing derealized word-platitudes upon reality. Thanks, sashal.
“Comment by sashal on 3/19 @ 10:54 am #
I can do space shuttle, and I bet $100, you are more reactionary and to the left of me…”
Sure you can.
Now run along. The adults are talking.
I don’t think even Obama would summarily pull out of Iraq, as the Progs hope – given that our invasion and involvement there is an integral part of a policy which has had a perfect record, so far, compared to the previous policy in preventing further 9-11-like attacks on the U.S., and also given what Obama just said about radical Islam being the real cause of the Israeli/Palestinian situation – unless his “Uncle” told him too, that is.
Again, sashal’s just not using the words correctly. What are your definitions of “neocon”, and “bolshevism”? I’ve asked before, but you tried to fob off your… confusion?… as ignorance on my part.
The terrorism is combatted the way the Mossad does it, the way CIA does it in Pakistan, the way German did to that caught cell, and British to theirs, etc, etc,
Unless of course it involves domestic intelligence gathering.
After all if we do not like the dictator, we can arrange a coup, support the opposition in multitude of ways, organize boycotts and sanctions and so on…
Just make sure we have reinforced concrete coops for when the chickens come home, I suppose.
ROb, let this guy explain
or this
and this.
And there are plenty more, who will do it better with the superior language.
or better borders, B Moe.
Funny , you almost sound like Wright, with that chicken thingy, lol
Oh, God. Lew Rockwell? Anti-war.com?
You’re one of those?
OK, now it’s all clear.
hey, good catch! you’ll get this english language thing down yet.
It would be good if McCain got some breifing on the sunni/shi’is divide.
One reason Iran meddles in Iraq is that Karbala, the holiest city of the shi’ia “twelvers” is in Iraq.
Qom, in Iran, is not as holy.
The Ayatollahs fear greatly the loss of their claim to authority, if their citizens can make pilgrimage to Karbala instead of Qom.
Yeesh, I’m stunned. That is actually a penetrating and illuminating comment, nishi. Let’s not forget that Iran also sees itself benefiting from a disorderly Iraq. They are playing at both geopolitics and Sh’ia religion.
Other than getting a little peeved when he(?) pisses all over the threads, I tend to give sashal a lot of slack on this subject. Growing up in the USSR, listening to the Soviet imperialists making all kinds of fatuous excuses, would give anybody a strong tendency to see the present situation as depressingly familiar.
Sashal, what you need to know is this: “imperialism” and “capitalism” are not two ways of looking at the same thing, no matter what your grade-school teacher told you. George Bush is a capitalist, for values of “capitalist” rather different from the concepts you learned. He is not an imperialist of any type, stripe, or variation, and interpreting his actions in terms of comparisons with those of Soviet leaders will always give you wrong results.
Western capitalists learned a hard lesson in the last century: imperialism doesn’t pay, it costs. Wealth derived from the operations of a modern, industrial-capitalist society can’t be seized, and must be smashed in order to overcome resistance; commodities and raw materials can be had much cheaper if there are multiple suppliers competing to make the sale; and administration of conquered territories is always more expensive than even the worst cartels. Raw materials and agricultural commodities — yes, even oil — are such a small part of the cost of making things nowadays that there’s no way in Hell to make money off possessing or controlling them.
What a modern capitalist needs is not captive suppliers; it is customers, and the richer customers are the better. George Bush really does want an Iraq full of people with money to spend and a stable enough social environment (including Government) that they don’t mind spending it — and, moreover, for Iraq to be independent enough to bid against Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc. as an oil supplier. Oil ends up cheaper, Iraqis can buy American (and European) goods, there’s no need to pay for satraps and their establishments, and neither soccer moms nor their spouses have any great interest in blowing stuff up.
Regards,
Ric
Rick, thanks again for comprehensive reply.
I do not consider the Iraq war as “imperialist” adventure. And I had never said that.
I do consider the certain philosophical strain here as an intellectual heir to Bolshevism.
I have absolutely no problems with this:
What a modern capitalist needs is not captive suppliers; it is customers, and the richer customers are the better. George Bush really does want an Iraq full of people with money to spend and a stable enough social environment (including Government) that they don’t mind spending it  and, moreover, for Iraq to be independent enough to bid against Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc. as an oil supplier. ~Rick
And I am the first to support that.
I on another hand do not except the METHODS in achieving that goal.
It is really that simple, Rick…
Heck, Al Qaeda is Sunni and the Kurds are Sunni so they must be friends, right? And the Sunnis were in power under Saddam so that was nice for the Kurds to, you know, be with the side in power. Cushy times under Saddam.
And the Marsh Arabs are Arab and Saddam was Arab so of course, being a Marsh Arab when Saddam was in power was cake.
Not only are the Iranians Shia instead of Sunni… they’re Persian. They don’t even speak the same language. They speak FARSI. Wow… no way would they ever ever support Al Qaida. How could anyone be so stooopid.
Democracy cannot be forced, but it is highly contagious.
The last thing the Ayatollahs want is their citizens coming back from hajj with a democracy infection.
snyova…..mccain was badly informed.
there are subtleties within subtleties in the sunni/shi’ia divide.
btw….mccain has said some stupid things.
he needs better handlers.
Of course, you don’t need to know anything about what’s going on in Iraq if you are just going to pull the troops out:
” So when I am Commander-in-Chief, I will set a new goal on Day One: I will end this war. Not because politics compels it. Not because our troops cannot bear the burden– as heavy as it is. But because it is the right thing to do for our national security, and it will ultimately make us safer.
In order to end this war responsibly, I will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. We can responsibly remove 1 to 2 combat brigades each month. If we start with the number of brigades we have in Iraq today, we can remove all of them 16 months. After this redeployment, we will leave enough troops in Iraq to guard our embassy and diplomats, and a counter-terrorism force to strike al Qaeda if it forms a base that the Iraqis cannot destroy.”
I’m going to be paying close attention to nishi on this one. I mean, she does speak for the citizenry Middle East North Africa.
Sashal,
Saddam was not just another Arab leader like, say, Syria’s, or Lebanon’s. Iraq had actually conquered another Sovereign country, one we had close ties and common best interest with, so we had already kicked their asses before, 1991. Iraq surrendered unconditionally, and there were conditions put on them.
Saddam survived, much to everyones surprise I’m sure, and by summer 2001 had defied 14 UN resolutions, shot at our airplanes, constantly fucked with the inspectors, and convinced every intelligence organization on the planet he was hiding chemical weapons.
But no one would do anything about him because there was too much Oil-For-Food money going around.
After 9/11 everything changed, and it was decided Iraq (Saddam) was not sufficiently upholding the conditions of the 1991 cease-fire, so hostilities were resumed. Besides, it was strategically necessary for a successful campaign in Afghanistan, and creating a more favorable battlefield for the “flypaper” strategy.
Anyway, you anti-war faggots can kid yourselves, and cover your monitors with spittle in a vain attempt to achieve moral superiority, but it won’t change the way the world works. If you got your way, all that would change is we would be weaker, and then war would come to our shores.
Very well, sashal.
Let us read the method you would have proposed.
And, just to keep me from bursting out in raucous laughter, that proposed method must meet one simple criterion: At some time in the past, that method or a plausible variant has to have worked for somebody.
Regards,
Ric
. We can responsibly remove 1 to 2 combat brigades each month. If we start with the number of brigades we have in Iraq today, we can remove all of them 16 months.
I’d hate to be in the last 4 brigades!
wow “anti-war faggot”, lee
was I straight when I supported intervention in Afghanistan? And turned gay in March of 2003?
Besides, it was strategically necessary for a successful campaign in Afghanistan
No, it wasn’t , lee. If Rumsfeld or Bush told you so, does not mean it is correct or true..
It’s one thing to ask if McCain knows the difference between the Sunnis and the Shiites, but it is another to assume there is no way they would ever join forces. That is both ignorant and dangerous.
The Sunnis and the Shiites a lot like Protestants and Catholics. Both can go off the deep end with their craziness, taking it out on each other when there’s no one else around, but in the end they all claim to be Muslims, and a significant number of each truly hate America. They will happily merge in order to fight the Great Satan, and once that’s over with they’ll happily return to slaughtering each other with abandon.
Rick,my friend, laughter is good for the health of the body, it calms nerves.
Anyway, here is how I am going to humor you.
Non-military methods worked with USSR, Bulgaria, Poland, Hungary, Romania, DDR, Ukraine, so far they are slowly but surely working with China, N.Korea…
That’s just few examples…
Sashal: In your list above, how many of those countries are either Muslim based dictatorships or Islamic Theocracies? Hm?
It is, I think, a dangerous game to assume that one method works in all circumstances regardless of conditions both geoplitical and social.
Just sayin’…
“Comment by nishizonoshinji on 3/19 @ 1:59 pm #
Democracy cannot be forced”
Except for that Japan thing.
Oh, and Germany. Don’t forget Germany.
Oo oo oo ….Iraq, I forgot about Iraq. Not perfect, but they’re learning.
that’s true BJTex.
none of them are Muslims, that’s why the other listed by me countries had easier path to democracy.
See, that’s what I am trying to imply to you all here.
Bush administration and his neoconservative advisers in their Utopian rush to change the world in our image completely disregarded that part, that other cultures and other historical developments may have a completely different view on those lofty ideas…
“Non-military methods worked with USSR”
Yeah, The Korean War, thje Viet Nam War, American support in Afghanistan, The Cuban Missile Crisis.
Thank ghod our Army is run by pacifists.
Oh yeah, nukes.
Thousands and thousands of nukes pointed at the Rodina.
I forgot about them.
actually O’Brain, the Korean and Viet Nam war made communist bloc stronger military.
But when USSR decided to engage itself in changing regimes in Muslim country-Afghanistan by invading it, that was a last straw, after that the downfall of communist regime was almost inevitable.
again O’Brian, #49.
The containment policy worked.
I do not recall direct military confrontation between USA and USSR.
“Comment by sashal on 3/19 @ 3:33 pm #
again O’Brian, #49.
The containment policy worked.
I do not recall direct military confrontation between USA and USSR.”
You missed that whole “Cold War” thing, then?
WW III?
Ring a bell?
Sashal: I don’t think that “completely disregarded… other cultures and other historical developments…” is completely fair.
The original “clean” fight in Afghanistan presented a clear task (one BTW, a number of people thought was impossible based upon the Soviet experience) to render the country unsuitable for terrorist training and sanctuary. Despite the failure to capture OBL and others it was a stunning success. Now that country is being given an opportunity to not only embrace democratic style government but also to finally put its traditional warlord fiefdoms to rest and live in peace. That is a long term project but it is working and we continue to kill and capture jihadists at an alarming rate.
Saddam was feeling his oats and most of the world’s intelligence agencies thought he had and was trying to develop WMD’s. What happened? There are three possibilities: 1) We haven’t found them yet in Iraq somewhere (possible, but unlikely.) 2) He never had them and was bluffing (possible but for what purpose? Iran?) 3) He managed to move what he had to some other country, probably Syria (possible and there have been some unsubstantiated rumors to that effect.)
Regardless, the military campaign was, again, (and again against the pious bleatings of the Wesley Clark crowd) a stunning success. The three things that have contributed to the problems since then (separating the sunni/shia thing for a moment) were no one having any idea that Saddam had set up an insurgency through the fedaykeen (you have to give the murderous thug his due; he was a cunning bastard,) no one expected the entire infrastructure of the coutry to come to a complete collapse and the tactics first used to try and control the insurgency were timid and ineffective.
So mistakes were made and calculations were flawed but to suggest a complete disconnect is overstating the problem.
Sashal, naturally I have no idea if you are gay/straight, don’t care. Either way you’re a girly-man if you believe war is never the answer. I might change my mind if you said it to my Uncle, 13 bombing missions(carpet!) in WWII before being shot down over Germany.
actually O’Brain, the Korean and Viet Nam war made communist bloc stronger military.
Yeah, not like if the US didn’t fight in Korea and Vietnam.
I agree, BJTex on Afghanistan, with one remark, if our efforts were not diverted and diluted by Iraq our success against AQ and Taliban would have been even more impressive and sooner .
I also agree, that as far as the war in Iraq was conducted mistakes has been made. Even the staunches supporters of the war admit it now ( and I will go even further in admitting, there was no war in history of the mankind which was conducted without any mistakes-see ).
My main thing- is the main mistake. The idea of the war with Iraq itself, especially when the main enemy of the USA and his henchmen are still free somewhere not in Iraq…
“The idea of the war with Iraq itself, especially when the main enemy of the USA and his henchmen are still free somewhere not in Iraq…”
I’m fine with the bastards sitting in caves in Pakistan, helplessly muttering curses into their beards.
Sashal: Saddam was our enemy and had been plotting to do things to us for many years. In addition, the recently translated tapes show that Saddam was trying to find some way to get “operationally” involved with Al Qaeda and was looking forward to the lifting of sanctions so that he could resume his WMD research.
Also, I must note that your original argument was not about Iraq in particular but a more generalized remark about the bolshevist folly of invasion/revolution. Your assessment of the Iraq adventure does not necessarilly justify your general comments and linkages.
Lastly I wouldn’t too loudly proclaim the idea that we took our eye off of Afghanistan when we invaded Iraq. Both RTO and Major John (who is currently in Iraq) ran two tours in Afghanistan and will take great umbrage at your conclusion.
lee at # 54
Either way you’re a girly-man if you believe war is never the answer
Wrong war, lee, wrong war is never an answer, don’t put the peacenik’s BS in my mouth…
“Both RTO and Major John (who is currently in Iraq) ran two tours in Afghanistan and will take great umbrage at your conclusion.”
With all due respect for the aforementioned, that they served tours in Afghanistan is hardly a reason to be silent the facts.
And WE didn’t take our eyes off Af. Bush and his ‘Yes’ Men took their
eyes off the target, then wasted no time justifying their ineptitude, which you parrot, endlessly.
Semi-conscious- don’t even bother to lie about having any respect for either RTO or Major John. We know better.
So if I’m parroting Bush (while still mentioning the mistakes) then you can go on bleating the sound loop of KOS and Huffpo while Cindy Sheehan shines your shoes and your shipment of “Surrender Monkey” T shirts are delivered.
Tool!
O’K’
BJTex.
I hear your arguments. They are legitimate.
I am going to tell you something you guys may think I am lying, but when Bush became president, I knew right there, that we most likely will have the war with Iraq, I swear..
Hitchens recently used similar argument, sorta Saddam was our enemy and sooner or later we needed to take him out.
I disagree.
See, BJTex, this is a two-pronged thing for me.
First, is this general philosophical approach to changing the world in our image with military force.
Second, what any particular Ahmed or Zuleikha did to US to deserve to be killed as the collateral damage when our grief is with Saddam?
We know that Afghanistan was harboring our mortal enemies, who attacked us on 9/11, and they got the war they deserved unfortunately.
Iraq was not in the same category, and they did not deserve that war, IMHO.
I heard story once about Dalai Lama, when asked if he would approve of actions against China to help to free Tibet, he answered, if even one innocent child will die as the result of these actions, our freedom is not worth it.
I am not Dalai Lama and I am not gay-pacifist, but something in his words makes you think twice before approving any particular war, do you agree?
Well, sashal, agree to disagree agreeably, meet in restaurant, Stoli, tell me about USSR.
What else can we do?
@ #37
btw….mccain has said some stupid things.
he needs better handlers.
u2x2
Google map Afghanistan. Notice none of its borders contact the sea. It has no ports, anything going there has to be flown in. Troops, equipment, expendable supplies, etc. Iraq has ports, you can resupply it much more efficiently from the sea. It also is more open, easier for ground troops to get air support, and easier to move troops and supplies around once they are there. If we had not taken out Saddam, nearly all the considerable foreign resistance we encountered in Iraq would have instead gone to Afghanistan. They would have been much, much harder to fight there, both because of the terrain and the difficulties in getting more troops and supplies in there. My attacking Iraq, a much more strategically important position, we were able to draw the enemy into a position much more advantageous to us. It is not unreasonable to assume things would have turned out much worse if we hadn’t invaded Iraq. Of course, that requires a modicum of intelligence and intellectual honesty.
BJTex, that was pleasure to have a civilized discourse.
Also big thank you to the owners of this blog, to Dan and Karl, for the opportunity to exchange thoughts with other nice people.
Not many political blogs out there(left and right) who support dissent on their pages, and PW is very nice exception.
P.S.
meet in restaurant, Stoli, tell me about USSR.
BJTex, when you will be in CT, Eastern part, that will be my honor and pleasure.
I also visit NY, once in a while for shows or opera(girly man, I know).
Will keep in touch
…when Bush became president, I knew right there, that we most likely will have the war with Iraq, I swear..
Not particularly telling, sashal, since we had been at war with him all through the Clinton era also.
– The Euro mindfuck model that has swum to our shores through the fantasies of various agents, including the cabal of poly-sci profs infesting many of our universities, is a manifest result of the cowing of the continental spirit that was never recovered post WWII.
– As an example of how poorly that model achieves a calm citizenry, consider the present excellent cluster-fucks in France and the Netherlands, as well as Denmark.
– The one-world utopia meme seeks to avoid the responsibility of society through open border assimilation, a particularly incideous form of capitulation. How is that working out for them resident Proggs?
– If you hate a Republican representative Democracy, then why in the world do you reside in one? Is self-abuse yet another charm of the Secular Progressive personal characteristics, along with idiotic self loathing and cowardice?
Not many political blogs out there(left and right) who support dissent on their pages, and PW is very nice exception.
Thank you, also. And I apologize if I sometimes seem brusque, life long flaw.
1.B Moe, your answer has logic in it..
2.I am not sure right now, does Afghanistan have common border with Iraq?
3.My friend( retired form air force), who supported the war with Iraq, once told me, after back and forth arguing (and a few shots of vodka) about the necessity of that war:
“After all we needed the piece of real estate in the ME, from where we can control other participants of that geographical location”
At least that was an honest answer, and it the ultimate truth for our war there, not that BS for mass consumption about freedoms and democracy . (His words, not mine )
I heard story once about Dalai Lama, when asked if he would approve of actions against China to help to free Tibet, he answered, if even one innocent child will die as the result of these actions, our freedom is not worth it.
I am not Dalai Lama and I am not gay-pacifist, but something in his words makes you think twice before approving any particular war, do you agree?
I do agree, but the Dalai Lama was able to rationalize away any results of his inaction as not his doing. So in his eyes hundreds of children dying at the hands of an oppressor were better than one dying as a result of his direct action. That is unacceptable to most Westerners, whichever action results in the least death is the best option. Saddam was a butcher, killing him will ultimately save lives.
Yeah sashal. It’s not like that freedom and democracy crap worked with Germany and Japan. What did you think we were going to do, turn into an Estonia under the last regime? Freedom and democracy is how we roll.
– “….Saddam was a butcher, killing him will ultimately save lives.
– And that right there is the failing of the pacifistic viewpoint Moe. Namely, their inability, or unwillingness to deal with the future. Procrastination is always the easiest resort when you lack the backbone and resolve to deal with the real world conditions. Rationalization is the efite intellectuals retreat into his own cacoon of fear, codified by endless “reasonable sounding reasons” that are really just excuses to forestall action.
– That mentality of cowardice at any cost is a sickness that pervades mens souls when they have seen too much dying, or just imagine it in their minds.
– “I will not strike a blow for freedom if I have to kill another human being, and I will be the better person, elevated in my humanity over those of my brothers willing to pursue war against their fellow men.”
– A beautiful concept that resides in the minds of people that cannot deal with the harsh realities of life.
– Islamofacism rejects co-existence. It sees itself as the only acceptable societal construct. Deifies murder and genocide as justifiable against all non-Muslim humanity. You cannot negotiate your own right to exist. Down that path lies death.
– Men of character and principle know that, recognize the impossible conflict and terrible threat that sort of totalitarian mindset represents.
– Other men, unwilling to defend anything of worth, either for themselves or their decendents, will wallow in self serving platitudes, avoiding any personal sacrifice.
– Thus it has always been.
You mistake me.
I understand absolutely why Gulf II, better than any of you.
We had no choice.
We were following protocol and law in the interest of executing on The Prime Directive.
That is what we call it at work.
You all know it as “…to provide for the common defense..”
But I understand sashal too.
like in the Brothers Karamazov…
He singles out the suffering of children as prime evidence of the world’s indifferent cruelty. Children have had no time to sin, but they suffer. Why? Certainly not because of sin, supposedly the cause of suffering. He then recites several horrible examples of atrocities inflicted upon children by other human beings. Because such injustice is allowed to happen, Ivan simply cannot accept the mythical “harmony of God†or accept a universe in which one who is tortured embraces his torturer. Such “harmony,†says Ivan, “is not worth the tears of one tortured child.†He concludes that if truth must be bought at the price of the suffering of children, then such truth is not worth the price. He tells Alyosha: “It’s not God that I don’t accept, Alyosha, only I most respectfully return Him the ticket.â€Â
Alyosha is horrified and tells Ivan that these thoughts constitute rebellion. Ivan offers Alyosha a further example: suppose, he says, one could create a perfect world for man but it could survive only by torturing to death “one tiny creature.†Would Alyosha be the architect of such a world?
Do you remember what Alyosha says, sashal?
He says, “no, I could not.”
– Men achieve the ultimate arrogance when they think of themselves as architects of existence, or when they condescend to assign motive to “G-d”.
– “G-d” may well be only a creator of existence, having no part in mans fate, other than breathing life into his soul. How easy it is to paint our own failings upon our perception of “G-d”. To reject the responsibility of our own actions and fate.
– As Brutus lovingly corrected Mark Anthony…..“….The fault lies not in our stars dear brother, but within ourselves….”
…because we’re all a bunch of nitwits who can’t even type in lolbonics like a mature, intelligent, well-educated adult.
No mistake you.
Nothing, sashal?
Thought not.
@ #58. #
Comment by sashal on 3/19 @ 4:50 pm #
lee at # 54
Either way you’re a girly-man if you believe war is never the answer
Wrong war, lee, wrong war is never an answer, don’t put the peacenik’s BS in my mouth…
Mr. Chamberlain, Your table is ready!
“Do you remember what Alyosha says, sashal?
He says, “no, I could not.—
Then Alyosha is a moral zero, an ally of the torturers.
Neville Chamberlain was another girly-man.
“The majority of pacifists either belong to obscure religious sects or are simply humanitarians who object to taking life and prefer not to follow their thoughts beyond that point. But there is a minority … whose real though unadmitted motive appears to be hatred of western democracy and admiration for totalitarianism. Pacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other, but if one looks closely at the writing … they do not as a rule condemn violence as such, but only violence used in defence of the western countries.”
-George Orwell
“Anyone who clings to the historically untrue–and thoroughly immoral– doctrine that ‘violence never solves anything’ I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The Ghost of Hitler could referee, and the jury might well be the Dodo, the Great Auk, and the Passenger Pigeon. Violence, naked force, has settled more disputes in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and freedoms.”
-Robert Heinlein
– You can generally isolate the true pacifists from any gathering by simply holding up a pad of lifetime deferment forms.
– Those that insist on totally rejecting the truth of human nature, both man-kinds glorious achievements, and his ugly brutalities, are destined to live short exciting lives.
– Yes. Its a sore subject with me. I don’t suffer cowardice easily. After serving my country twice, assuring the futures for coming generations, some of whom now wish to convince me it was foolish, the mistakes of a sucker, I find it a bit self serving, before even joining the debate of the right or wrong of defending something you believe in. Hardly surprising I would think, that.