RoR: Forum

Post 20

Monday, July 4, 2005 - 8:59pm

Link

Edit

Okay, let's examine your response.

My children are at the top of my list of higher values. I'm not sending them off to battle unless it's a just war; and they have a good chance of victory. Do we agree on that?

Churchill spoke about how many less lives on both sides would have been lost if the Allies had stood up to Hitler in 1936 or 1937. It's for our children as much as for us that it's so important to deal with the Islamist threat now. Have you seen the population figures per country going to 2050? The Muslim countries are the only places set for big growth, and Europe is losing population, even with their inflow of Muslim immigrants to pay for their pension programs. If we don't fight (with guns and ideas), our children may be forced into a war for their very survival that isn't just, and that they have no good chance of victory.

I would say that since ignorance is the root cause; then it must be fought with the weapons of enlightenment. Education is the battleground; but that's a long process; and USA is a young country and hasn't learned to be patient. What to do?

The Japanese were also 'ignorant' in their Shinto beliefs. We had to defeat them on the battlefield, and then they were willing to learn our ways. I'm not saying that we need to fight the whole Muslim world. But we have taken control of Iraq for now, and we're helping them write a Constitution, which will serve as an example to the rest of that part of the world. It's already paying dividends in Lebanon, Kuwait, etc. Right now Saudi Arabia won't even allow non-Muslims into the country unless they are there for specific business, and missionary work can get you killed. How do you propose to educate them?

With regard to the US being a young country, not learning to be patient, that comes off as unenlightened America-bashing to me. What does it mean to be an "old country"? That the same people's ancestors lived in the same place for a longer period of time? We're one of the oldest democracies in the world. Our system has been based on the Constitution since 1789. France had a king at the time, they went through revolution, Napoleon, 5 Republics, Vichy government, etc. Most of the Arab world was ruled by the Ottoman Empire until after World War I. And we're not patient enough? Would you have us wait until after Iran gets nukes?

To win, one must sink to their level; compromise every previously held standard. Winning means losing.

No Sharon, fighting for our values and those that would destroy them is the only way to be true to our standards and those values we cherish. When you say that winning means losing, I think you reveal more about the Anti-American left than you know. Their hatred for America has made many of them come to the conclusion that they win if America loses, which is we're starting to see Code Pink and ANSWER start to openly donate to Iraqi "insurgents".

Why was USA targetted for special treatment by the terrorists? I believe it was to knock USA off its pedestal.

Well, to the extent that you mean that the terrorists are envious of our success, I agree with you. But again, you touch on a great example of why the Hate-America crowd was on some level happy that we got hit. They also think we're on a pedestal, and they were glad we got knocked off, because they're envious of our success too.

Everyone in the world knew that USA was the greatest country in the world, greatest freedom, greatest wealth, greatest armed forces, greatest entrepreneurs

No arguement here.

Unfortunately the USA is not the home of the wise. When you go around shouting like Muhammed Ali; someone is bound to challenge you to a fight. Being who they are; the Islamic Terrorists picked their time and place on September Eleven. What to do?

Not the home of the wise? That's like Michael Moore who said, "They are possibly the dumbest people on the planet . . . in thrall to conniving, thieving smug dicks". When you say that, you lose all credit for saying we're the greatest country in the world. How did such dummies like us get to be so great?

And to what episode(s) are you referring to when you suggest that we were shouting like Muhammed Ali? Were you aware Bin Laden referred to us pulling out of Somalia after the "Black Hawk Down" incident in his fatwa against us as an example of our weakness? Guys that beat the hell out of their wives don't respect weakness. And that wasn't the only time we showed weakness. Under Clinton, we didn't respond forcefully enough to the first WTC bombing, the Khobar Towers bombing in 1996, the embassy bombings in 1998, and the USS Cole bombing in 2000. 9/11 wasn't the first day they picked.

The first thing to do is to discover the answer to Freud's question about women; WHAT DOES AMERICA WANT?

What does America want? Are you suggesting that answering this question will help us win the war on terror? We want our national security protected, and to live our lives in peace.

I am not a statist; one decent country is as good as another to me.

You've fallen into the trap of moral equivalence. I judge a country based on how much Reason, Individualism, and Capitalism they have, and also in what direction they are moving towards. Are you going to suggest that France or Canada is just as 'decent'? France's unemployment rate is twice ours. They have less freedom of speech, more entrenched burreaucracy, and corruption. The only reason that Europe & Canada have been able to play their socialist games as long as they have is that we subsidize their defense spending and prescription drug costs. I hope you never need an MRI in Canada.

Also, how do you square your quote with saying that America is the greatest country in the world?

I have no interest in barbarians. If the people of the world want to fight and brutalize each other I can't prevent them; but I won't help them.

I used to believe that until 9/11. It's in our national security interests to promote our values. Sadly for some, it's going to take a city getting nuked until they figure it out (which Michael Moore and his ilk are probably hoping for anyway to teach us cowboy dummies another lesson) Just remember, if we go, you won't be far behind.

Post 21

Monday, July 4, 2005 - 9:18pm

Link

Edit

Sarah,

I am no friend of Plato, Strauss, or public officials lying to the public on matters of foreign policy direction. But I found a certain irony in you criticizing Scott and his ideas as being "Kansan." Kansas is known as the Jayhawk State. In the nineteenth century, the Jayhawks were radical Republican abolitionists who were willing to use guns to halt the traffic in Negro slaves.

Prior the Army's entry into Afghanistan and Iraq, Islamist militants were _laughing_ at the high-minded, pacifist ideals of Westerners who would take no action in response to the airline hijackings of the 70s, the Munich Olympic atrocity, the seizure of hostages in the American Embassy in Tehran, the murder of poor old Leon Klinghoffer, the first bombing of the WTC, the Cole, the embassy bombings in Africa, etc,. ad nauseum. This was as the militants were making plans to fit Western women with burqas. They considered these ideals a sign of moral weakness and degeneracy, and an invitation to more violence.

Scott at least has had the basic respect for the Islamists to pay attention to what they say they want and what they have done to achieve it, and to draw the correct conclusion that their goals are incompatible with our own. The members of the PMP Brigades, by contrast, still ignore the words and deeds of the Islamists, making their values and grievances invisible, while blithely assuming that they are just like the folks next door.

There is no way to stop the march of Islamist fanatics throughout the world now without violence. There is only the question of where and on whose terms the violence will be wielded.

-Bill
(Edited by William A. Nevin III
on 7/04, 9:54pm)

Post 22

Monday, July 4, 2005 - 10:28pm

Link

Edit

Scott,

Let's begin with America not being as wise as she should. I make this statement on the basis of "rumours" that USA has done CONSIDERABLE business with both Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein over the years. I consider it to be very imprudent to deal with those I do not honour; those whose values I abhor. Please do not use America bashing with me. If my facts are incorrect, I admit ignorance, and it was my error to take such a stand; and I apologize.

Do you agree that to do business with those two scoundrels was not in America's best interests?

Sharon

Post 23

Monday, July 4, 2005 - 11:36pm

Link

Edit

Let me apologize for using a term of my own devising in post #21 without defining it.

During the long 35+ year history of Islamist and Arab Communist (Soviet front) atrocities committed against Westerners, and in particular against Americans, partially listed above, the United States has typically responded by sitting on its ass. There have been moments when it rose to action, as when Qaddafi claimed suzerainty over the international waters of the Gulf of Sidra and his MiGs attacked US Navy F14 Tomcats there, only to be blown from the sky. Or when he sponsored the bombing of a nightclub in Berlin and the US responded by bombing various terrorist training camps in his country and other targets in his capital city. Both incidents were limited to Libya and both took place under the Reagan administration. But in almost all other cases the US government flacidly sat on its ass. This sitting-on-the-ass strategy was not limited to Democrats or leftist leaders either. Confronted by the annihilation of the Marines in Beirut, where he had sent them, Reagan himself sat on his ass as well.

Faced with such an awesome display of us sitting on our asses for such an extended period of time (and in such varied and humiliating circumstances for us,) the terrorists were frightened into redoubling their efforts to destroy us. The level of violence against us arising in their quarters increased in both magnitude and frequency. The toll rose from a handful of kidnappings and deaths of Americans who were traveling in the Middle East, to dozens of deaths, to the WTC being bombed with partial success, and finally to the WTC being completely destroyed with thousands of deaths right in the heart of our largest city.

Prior to the 9/11 atrocities, in the immediate aftermath of those atrocities, and continuing through to the present day there have been those who are members of I have dubbed the PMP Brigades. These are a veteran corps of theorists, including laymen as well as career professionals and the odd freelancer, who have studied this sorrowful history and drawn a single conclusion from it. Namely, that the problem with the West sitting on its ass in response to acts of unprovoked Islamist terrorism is that we are not yet good enough at it.

The remedy to this sordid spectacle is equally obvious to these intellectuals. With their characteristic penetrating wit, they have discerned that the cure for our inability to stop Islamist violence is to remain in the seated position until we have thoroughly honed our proficiency at ass-sitting. "PMP" thus stands for "practice makes perfect." At some indeterminate future date, we will have sat on our asses for so long, and our ass-sitting skills will thereby have become so exquisitely refined, that the terrorists will themselves be terrorized.

Quaking in their boots, they will renounce violence against Jews and infidels. They will renounce the targeted murder of children. They will come to abhor the waste of teaching their own children to strap on suicide bombs. They will realize that the United States government, Wall Street, and the Hollywood movie industry are not in fact controlled by a handful of Zionist conspirators. They will give up the oppression of women. They will hold burqa-burning parties to celebrate the new Islamic feminist liberation. They will ask Alan Alda to provide them with a coaching moment. Then, in one final burst of empathy, their own stony visages will melt and run with tears. And, in a glorious vision (somewhat reminiscent of the next-to-last-scene in _How the Grinch Stole Christmas_, right before Grinch pulls the sleigh full of toys back from the precipice of Mt. Crumpet) their hearts will grow three sizes that day. All that will remain then will be for them formally to surrender, not by raising a white flag, but rather by tossing garlands of white flowers around our necks. And for one and all, Moslem, Christian, Jew, libertarian, Objectivist, murderer, fireman, soldier, surviving relative, to gather round in a circle, hold hands, and sing a rousing chorus of 'Kumbaya.'

Anyway, I was asked privately what the PMP Brigades are and, strange as it may seem, that's what they are.

-Bill
(Edited by William A. Nevin III on 7/05, 9:43am)

(Edited by William A. Nevin III on 7/05, 9:46am)

Post 24

Tuesday, July 5, 2005 - 6:04am

Link

Edit

Bill, as anti-Straussian as I am -- I still cannot fail to appreciate your penetrating wit and wisdom here.

Scott, I also appreciate your arguments as reasoned and value-seeking (though you had come out with both guns drawn -- so I had stepped back into the shadows to assess).

I think that what is agreed upon -- by both sides in this pseudo-debate -- is that the main evil on planet Earth today is Islamic Fundamentalism. Identifying evil is a great first step (and mis-identifying evil is disastrous). It provides an end to aim at -- and end among other ends.

After identification of an evil though (as an end to aim at), we have to assess things and reason our way to a productive solution. A little bit of war seems to be a relatively good option here (for reasons that Scott and Bill bring up). Does a lot of war (ie. perpetual, global war) seem to be a relatively good option, though?

What about a little war and a lot of economic growth -- could that option, just possibly, arm us better in this fight? Few folks seem to be suggesting that we "fight" primarily by using what we are best at (trade and growth). Is it plausible that we could spend too much on war, and too little on growth, thereby defeating ourselves?

The reason I ask is because I know where value comes from -- and because I've read the story about the Goose that laid the Golden Eggs (particularly its ending).

Ed

Post 25

Tuesday, July 5, 2005 - 10:03am

Link

Edit

Ed, thanks for your comments. I'm a real sweetheart once I don't suspect that you want my country's resolve to be weaker. We all want as little war as necessary, and as much economic growth as possible. We are already trading with them, though they have nothing we want but oil. How does one determine the proper amount of war? Some have called for us to go into Syria and/or Iran, which the President doesn't seem inclined to do right now. I hope that he has privately said to the leaders of both countries that if America is attacked again, we're coming in. And now that he has some credibility on the issue, they're probably inclined to believe him. Also, what do you think will happen to the economy if NYC gets nuked?

Sharon, I can understand where you're coming from with your question, but you can go through our entire history and second guess our decisions. If we hadn't helped the Soviets against the Nazis, we may not have had to deal with the Cold War, and the effects we still face today (but how many more lives might we have lost at the time?) If we had annexed Canada after the Civil War, perhaps Muhammed Atta would've had a tougher time sneaking into Boston via Canada the morning of 9/11.

We were still reeling from the hostage crisis in the early 80's, and Iran via Hezbollah blew up our embassy in Beirut. How much more developed would Iran's terrorist infrastructure have become were it not for the Iraq war? Helping the Muhajadeen defeat the Soviets in Afghanistan was key to winning the Cold War. If we hadn't helped them at the time, Bin Laden may have used our indifference to their suffering as a pretext to start attacking us in the 80's while we still had the Soviets to deal with as well.

I'm by no means saying that I'm glad we dealt with Bin Laden or Saddam, but I've heard that argument several times from the Left who want to blame our foreign policy for 9/11. That's assuming that the terrorists are making rational decisions, which you, yourself, have admitted isn't the case. They hate us for being infidels, not for any particular foreign policy positions, their latest rationalization notwithstanding. I'm sure the next attack will be blamed on Abu Gharib and Gitmo treatment, but that's just a way to make self-hating Westerners think that we deserve it.

(Edited by Scott Schiff on 7/05, 10:03am)

Post 26

Tuesday, July 5, 2005 - 11:36am

Link

Edit

Scott,

The US did try to annex Canada; it was called the War of 1812.

If you are taking the position that US has never acted unwisely; and has never made errors; then I am unprepared to spend my life searching for any common ground between us.

This is the precise argument that I am trying to make regarding the Islamic Terrorists. Are we looking for agreement; or are you determined to defeat me at all costs.

If that is your intention; YOU WIN.

There are worst things in life than wearing a chador. I am a natural subversive. I may appear defeated; but I carry my highest value between my ears. The enemy will never control my thoughts; and I can make lemonade with almost anything. I am a patient woman, Scott.

What say you?
Sharon

Post 27

Tuesday, July 5, 2005 - 12:11pm

Link

Edit

Wow, I'm truly blown away. I'm going to hope that I misunderstood you. There are worse things in life than wearing a chador? Are you saying that you're okay with things getting from where we are today, to the point where you or your children are forced to wear a chador to avoid persecution from Muslim extremists, who would presumably be making the laws in your country at that point? And then, that's when you'll become subversive?

Also, let's be clear on the issue of America's wisdom. I'm not suggesting for a moment that America hasn't made mistakes, although you and I may disagree about which were the mistakes, and how to have better handled any given scenario. However, your earlier comment was that America is not the home of the wise, which implies that being unwise isn't just something that we've been a few times, but that it's how you see our identity. America is much wiser than the countries that didn't become as capitalistic, and therefore as successful, our mistakes notwithstanding.

You say the enemy doesn't control your thoughts. I guess that depends on who you see as the enemy.

(Edited by Scott Schiff on 7/05, 12:12pm)

Post 28

Tuesday, July 5, 2005 - 1:21pm

Link

Edit

Scott,

I'm trying to get you to see the value of holding a more moderate line; until push comes to shove.

From where I stand, I see America taking such hard lines about so many things that no room for manoeuver is left. Junior Bush taking you to war was an extreme position; taken when there were many opportunities for other action. George Bush and his crew had another agenda; and I think that Shadia Drury put her finger on it. THE COVERT RULE OF THE WISE.

WE have some Islamic Individuals that want to make Islamic Family Law part of Canadian Civil Law. We are not going ballistic about it. We are not accusing them of being traitors. We are letting them have their say. Sooner of later they will see the light; but don't think that for one minute that we will permit women to lose any of their newly-won rights.

We in Canada do not have the luxury of singlemindedness that seems to be an important feature of US. Everything that we do has to consider the Quebecois position. Whenever we Upper Canadians in Ontario get out of line they pull our chain a bit and we have to step back and reconsider. We are used to compromise; we do not fear it. We are stuck with big government; it will take centuries, or a revolution to reduce its influence. In the meantime, we are raising the next generation and trying to figure out how anyone would benefit by attacking Canada. I never feared the Russians; and I don't fear the Muslims. There are many decent individuals among them; who are working towards greater freedom and moderation.

Do you know of the Muslim Refusenik, Irshad Manji? www.muslim-refusenik.com

We cannot beat the fundamentalists of ANY FAITH by means of war. They will bleed us dry. Become subversive; adopt some cynical humour; look for some common ground; look for some good. In the meantime let Iraq and Iran have their oil. Bite the bullet and SHUN THEM; use your armed forces to build a wall around the Middle East; excuse them from the human race until they come begging for help; that's when to lower the boom. Be patient, it may take the rest of your lifetime; but your grandchildren may be able to sleep more peacefully. It's miles better than the brutality of war; but not so exciting.

If Junior Bush had listened to all of us who were marching and writing letters begging him not to take his young to war; I wouldn't be so worried about your country today. I see Vietnam all over again; and it makes me sick! My mother's ancestors fled US for similar reasons 212 years ago. If that is despicable to you. I won't argue; neither will I feel shamed.

THIS IS SOLO Scott. Look for the good; it's energizing. And that's a good thing.

Post 29

Tuesday, July 5, 2005 - 1:45pm

Link

Edit

Scott,

How does one determine the proper amount of war?

Talk about a loaded question (though I had it coming, I guess)! Working out the Big 3 is definitely advantageous: cost, benefit, and risk. Careful analysis of all that these 3 words can mean pretty much covers it. Well there it is, Scott -- simple on paper, hard in the real world ...

Also, what do you think will happen to the economy if NYC gets nuked?

Okay, perhaps I had that one coming, too -- but this one gets less traction with folks like me. You see, I come at the question of safety from a totally different perspective. I'd argue that the inherent inefficiencies of statism are what it is that left us unprotected in the first place (which helps explain why a dozen bozos -- who couldn't even learn to fly without our help -- were able to pull off such an outrageous abomination against the greatest country in the world).

So, keeping this "inherent ineffeciency" aspect in mind then, an argument for more "wartime" statism -- to protect us better -- doesn't gain ground with folks of my mindset. There may still be a way to reach me (Bissell almost turned me into a Straussian), but you'll need more details than the simple summarizing statement: 'If we don't act now, and in the manner which I prescribe, then we'll likely get nuked.'

Ed

Post 30

Tuesday, July 5, 2005 - 1:49pm

Link

Edit

Bill writes:
>....the United States has typically responded by sitting on its ass

Hi Bill

I agree with much of what you are saying here. I'm a bit short of time, this will have to be broad brush, and I am no real expert anyway.

But here's how I see it.

US and Europe have been thru various stages of passivity for various reasons over history. The passivity of the recent past is indeed partly ideological, and I think strives for *too much* consensus. Clinton was absolutely right, if terribly tardy, to use air force against the ethnic cleansing in Bosnia. *It worked*.

My suspicion is that this preference for the seated position is,however, *also* a habit formed during the Cold War that one does not shake off straightaway when it finishes. The threat of toe-to-toe nuclear annihilation created an expectation of impasse from the start that has lingered on. Everything must be negotiated, and negotiated with extreme care. Nothing could ever be addressed directly; all battles had to be fought over the boardroom table, or at the terrible expense to innocent ethnic populations in remote places, the price of which we are all now paying today.

Further, the Soviet Union were far more aggressive in the Cold War than the US. Marxism had, by the 50s, delivered nothing on its promises. His predictions from the withering of the State to the liberation of the proletariat from terrible toil and give them the lives of hunting in the morning and fishing in the afternoon that they had seen their feudal masters enjoy, had come to nothing. There remained only one idea in the ideological armory left to try: *destroy Capitalism*. Maybe *that* would do the trick. To this end, they set Sakharov to design the most massive nuclear weapons yet - large to the point of absurdism, as with typical Soviet mega projects.

Thus the political atmosphere from the '60s on for Western Europe and America was something like being locked in the room with a psychopath for 30 years. Sure, you were armed too, but you had your family in there with you, and the psychopath had nothing left to lose. So you did everything very...very...slowly...and...all...together...The few points of direct confrontation, like the Cuban Missile Crisis, came within a hairsbreadth of annihilating all humanity. Literally *everything* was at stake.

When that atmosphere changed suddenly at the end of the 80s (the Soviet Union's actual bankruptcy finally catching up to its ideological one) the old habits did not. Stalling, delaying, secretive and subversive maneuvring were still the order of the day (and I suppose we must not criticise these tactics too harshly. Nuclear annihilation was - and may still be - the most dangerous threat mankind faces, and we are all still here so far). So ass sitting has remained our first, second, third, fourth etc response. And it clearly no longer should be. I am actually hopeful that *true* ideological restraints to realising this are far less powerful than simple psychological habit - and bad habits are relatively simple to overcome, and perhaps need more attention than ideological differences.

But here's what I'm seriously worried about. What happens when, after decades of said ass sitting, the giant in question takes its first *active* step (as opposed to a response to attack) and puts it straight into a meat grinder? What if it finds itself unable to extract its foot, or to turn the meat grinder off? If "PMP", has lack of P made this initiative very *imperfect*? What if its first step turns out to be a serious strategic blunder long term, as it is currently looking like? Then, like the Bay of Pigs fiasco, whatever its *intentions* were become entirely beside the point.

Perhaps Iraq is not as bad as people are making out. I hear there is a panel of conservatives who are going to go over there to demonstrate how safe it actually is. Hopefully they will go about their business buying fruit in markets etc and not spend the entire time in an armored cage in the Green Zone...;-) But I was talking to a senior war correspondent (and her bodyguard) a couple of months back, and she said in 20 years Iraq was the most insanely dangerous place she'd ever covered. "There are no rules there" she told me. "Even in Bosnia there were rules".

- Daniel

(Edited by Daniel Barnes
on 7/05, 1:51pm)

(Edited by Daniel Barnes
on 7/05, 1:53pm)

Post 31

Tuesday, July 5, 2005 - 4:32am

Link

Edit

If we should try to find some common ground; I guess we all agree that the invasion of Iraq wasn't based on WMDs as nothing have indicated that they should exist, the reason wasn't 9/11 as the terrorists were from Saudi Arabia and had no connection to Iraq. We should know that Saddam Hussein wasn't the reason, after all he remained americas best friend even when they knew he was gassing the Kurds, and as cruel dictators come we can find better places to start.

We dont have any official body counts from either side, but if we take a matching pair on the conservative side Amnesty International estimates that Saddam Hussein killed 17,000 Iraqi civilians in his 23-year reign, and iraqbodycount.org has counted some 24,300 deaths of innocent Iraqi civilians caused by coalition forces in their two-year occupation. (you can find numbers that Saddam Hussein killed more, just as the Lancet estimates that coalition forces have killed in excess of 100,000 innocent iraqi men, women and children, in what they call a conservative estimate).

What we do know from sources like the Downing Street Memo and the PNAC letter to Clinton in January 1998 is that Iraq was made a suitable target early on, whatever the reason.

PNAC (the Project for the New American Century) founded by Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, does seem to hold some possible answers. It is populated by many of the key members of Citizen Bush's family and administration - Wikipedia has a collection of a few of the high ranking PNAC members, found to have signed open PNAC letters.

In PNACs own words: The Project for the New American Century is a non-profit educational organization dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; and that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle.

Manipulating public opinion is no little task, and it takes more than just being in power. The Heritage Foundation is a politically influential �think tank� that was founded, and is run by, current PNAC members. The Balkan Action Committee, which surfaced in 1999 to promote the invasion of Yugoslavia, was almost exclusively made up of PNAC members, as was the Committee on the Present Danger. Freedom House, an organization allegedly promoting equal rights and justice, and the Council on Foreign Relations, are directed by, and well populated with, those connected to the PNAC.

When World domination by military force is the openly declared goal of the people in charge of american national security, military and foreign policy. When pre-emptive warfare is the tool of choice to neutralize allies that dare compete economically. When very few civil rights are left under the Patriot Act. When innocent people of any nationality are jailed for years without trial. When we no longer have a separation of powers... we are left with neo-conservative fascist Imperialism, so yes Scott

Churchill spoke about how many less lives on both sides would have been lost if the Allies had stood up to Hitler in 1936 or 1937.

the sooner America is stopped, the more lives can be saved - also American lives.

In 1998, PNAC published a eventy-six page white paper in which Dick Cheney bemoaned that without a significant event like the bombing of Pearl Habor, achieving World domination would be a lenghty process. September 11th changed that, Semptember 11th created the excuse to attack Iraq without facts getting in the way, September 11th was the excuse needed to make America fundamentally fascist. The public accepted an increase in what the Bush administration called security of freedom - blissfully ignorant of the fact that security and freedom exclude eachother. You may have lost freedom of religion, freedom of press and freedom of speech, but I say it is time you lose freedom from responsibility.

Post 32

Tuesday, July 5, 2005 - 2:49pm

Link

Edit

Why beat around the 'Bush' Soren? At least have the guts to openly admit that you think Bush & Cheney were behind 9/11. Back to the primacy of consciousness conspiracy theories.

the sooner America is stopped, the more lives can be saved

Witness honest anti-Americanism! Pathetic.

Post 33

Tuesday, July 5, 2005 - 3:02pm

Link

Edit

Ed,

I appreciate your take on the issue, and can tell that you're honestly looking for what's right.

You mention, the simple summarizing statement: 'If we don't act now, and in the manner which I prescribe, then we'll likely get nuked.'

Notice that several times on this thread I have asked to hear ideas from others on how they would fight the War on Terrorism, and never did I get a straight answer. If anyone has an alternate plan, I'll be glad to hear it. I'm quick to go to that argument when dealing with lefties because it always works.

In fact, Kerry spent the whole first debate speaking about how he had a plan. Did we ever find out what that plan is? The left can't be honest about their plan, because they don't have one, other than ignoring the threat and pushing their socialist agenda. I'm not saying do what I say or we'll get nuked, but the other side sure loves to co-opt the terrorists for their own agenda. If only you will (sign Kyoto, join Int'l Criminal Court, sell out Israel, let Iran get Nukes, etc.) then you won't be so hated.

When I read about World War II as a boy, I thought that no one would ever fall into the appeasement trap again. I stand corrected.

Also, with regard to it being statist war, was it wrong to fight the Cold War because we were already statist by then? How about World War II?

(Edited by Scott Schiff on 7/05, 3:05pm)

Post 34

Tuesday, July 5, 2005 - 3:15pm

Link

Edit

Soren:
>blissfully ignorant of the fact that security and freedom exclude each other.

Hi Soren,

I think this is the mistake here. The way I see it, peace is the primary objective. Without peace, there can be no freedom. No freedom, then not much of anything else.

So, in order to guarantee our freedom we require security to first guarantee our peace (and I use this word "guarantee" as much as *anything* may be guaranteed in this world) This security must inevitably be purchased at *some* cost to our freedom. We must not pretend that it can be otherwise, or have utopian expectations that it might.

So the issue is not *either* security *or* freedom. This is a mistake. They are not exclusive, one is dependent upon the other. The governing principle should be:"How can we purchase the *maximum* security at *minimum* cost to our freedom?" (In other words, just like any other sensible transaction: lowest cost, greatest benefit) Once we've got that standard clear, we can start to critique something like the Patriot Act clearly. How much freedom does it cost us, in return for how much protection? - knowing full well *nothing* can ever make us *perfectly safe* or *perfectly free*. And then as with our domestic policy of freedom, so with our international one.

That's how it seems to me.

- Daniel

(Edited by Daniel Barnes
on 7/05, 3:17pm)

Post 35

Tuesday, July 5, 2005 - 3:17pm

Link

Edit

Ed writes:
>Working out the Big 3 is definitely advantageous: cost, benefit, and risk. Careful analysis of all that these 3 words can mean pretty much covers it. Well there it is, Scott -- simple on paper, hard in the real world ...

Even better Soren...what Ed said here.

- Daniel

Post 36

Tuesday, July 5, 2005 - 5:08pm

Link

Edit

Scott,

I am telling you to have serious, meaningful, ingenuous, conversations with the Middle Eastern Leaders! Conversations such as we are having here today. Do you think that when Reagan and Clinton were sitting on their asses that they were having meaningful conversation? I think not. There is no real dialogue among leaders; posturing only, false smiles, superficiality, and artiface.

As regards the wearing of the burka. To me it is a small issue demonstrating that the west has gone too far, highlighted by the way women flaunt their sexuality in public. It is an abomination to Islam, and to other puritanical types. Would it be so against our civil rights to be mindful of their sensitivities? Instead, we thumb our noses at them and show more skin. How will we know when we have gone too far? Will gynaecological examinations to music be available soon on your local TV? Will people be fornicating in restaurants when they go out for dinner? Extreme debauchery was a precursor to the fall of the Roman Empire. We have as yet, no means of putting on the brakes; we will not be stifled. Hey! Maybe this is what this is all about? We have just about hit the point of no return; and it's time to rein in our impulses.

How boring; it's almost like diplomacy; well, think on the past. Those who do not learn from history are compelled to repeat it. Scott, is it possible that you have lived a charmed life without strife? Do you have a hankering to go to the Middle East and see for yourself? Be sure to check out another can of worms in Iran.

I hope that when we are all exhausted from thrashing this idea to death; that you will write a little plan describing what exactly you will do when we elect you our president. How can we expect you to get the world out of this mess? We could do worse; at least I'd know that you had honourable advisors; with the highest respect for the individual's right to live life to the fullest..

I have to go and lie down; even war at the kitchen table is hell. Sharon

Post 37

Tuesday, July 5, 2005 - 5:26pm

Link

Edit

Sharon, while we're at it, why don't we all face Mecca in prayer every day too. After all, we don't want to offend the Muslim world, do we?

Post 38

Tuesday, July 5, 2005 - 5:42pm

Link

Edit

Sharon writes:
>I am telling you to have serious, meaningful, ingenuous, conversations with the Middle Eastern Leaders!

Well, this is an important point too. You have to say what you mean, and mean what you say. Violence is always the last resort, not the first. As Karl Popper says, so long as we are still talking, we are not using our fists. But in the end, when the genocidists in the Balkans kept killing, someone had to step in on behalf of their victims. The time for talking had passed.

So, the two dangers: one, excessive passivity that will only encourage evil actions, and also the snapback from this - excessive volatility that will only add to the sum of evil actions, not to mention the risk of massive, implusive error. Either attitude is highly dangerous to long term stability.

- Daniel

Post 39

Tuesday, July 5, 2005 - 6:41pm

Link

Edit

Sharon,

I appreciate knowing that I'd have your vote for President, but I can't get past the Burka issue. You said earlier that it's a fight to the death for them, by all means, at all costs. How is wearing Burkas going to do anything else but encourage more demands from the extremists? You're still trying to superimpose a western-values-template onto their actions. Hamas only considered a cease fire with Israel after Israel kept killing the Hamas leaders. Bin Laden called us a paper tiger when we fled Somalia.

Please take a few minutes to reflect upon the value of wearing burkas to avoid future attacks.