Bring It On!

By Bob on Aug 27, 2006 | Reply

Mr. Grandlund,

I think that your analysis missed a key, and overriding, comparison:  both the Israeli and US governments (not just their respective Presidents) have failed to maintain the will and vision it takes to win a messy war.  Politically, it’s more comfortable (and more re-electable) to not make serious, long-term demands of the electorate.  Unfortunately, wars are not won in this way.

Cheers.

By Jankai Joy Green on Aug 27, 2006 | Reply

Bob - You wrote in your comment <<..failed to maintain the will and vision it takes to win a messy war.  Politically, it’s more comfortable (and more re-electable) to not make serious, long-term demands of the electorate.  Unfortunately, wars are not won in this way.>> [emphasis mine]

Unfotunately, Bob, WAR is never the ANSWER. Ask yourself “why”. Ask yourself “For what reason” would this, or any war, have. Actually, Bob, why are you living? What is your purpose. Where are you going? To what END is the MEANS of your life?

People don’t ask these kinds of questions. They continue their myopic view of this sequential exisitence and never ask the bigger questions. War is caveman activity and will never provide security and PEACE.  When you lose your life in a war, then Bob, then it will be messy. Before then, you are just mouthing words and ideas from under your lampshade.

Sacrifice need not be. War need not be. The harder road is the unthinkable and lately, unspeakable and that is a higher vision. We will either seek it now or be forced to seek it later because it’s the only WAY that truly works. Love.

Namaste.

By icoman on Aug 27, 2006 | Reply

Ken, it’s possible that some of the assumptions you make in this first paragraph, while correlating with the feed we’re getting from the MSM in the U.S., may not necessarily be in agreement with the world view on these issues.

“As the Bush Administration continues to ’stay the path’ in the Middle East,”

Yes, this is true, Bush continues regardless of the consequences and it’s becoming more and more apparent that this path of continuing to wreak havoc and chaos will be the method of choice for the Neo-cons as long as it serves their goal of creating an environment of confusion where the predation, particularly of the oil, becomes “cost affective”.  Their days of plundering and pillaging were very costly, especially in Latin America where their corporate sponsors had to prop up puppet governments that were more corporate friendly.  Today, the Neo-con corporate machine has become a predator and particularly after a disaster, Katrina is a perfect example.  Let wars and disasters take their toll and then swoop in and capitalize on the chaos.   

“it’s goal of ’spreading democracy’ is proving itself to be ‘hard work,’ just like the president always says it is.”

The far Right has never supported the notion of a Democracy.  The Birchers have always pushed for a return to the good ol’ days of the Monarchy, while some prefer a “benign dictator” and currently, as we see in the Middle East, the installment of Theocracies is obviously Bush’s goal.  The wealthy Right Wing Ruling Class in the U.S. never supported the notion of allowing every citizen the equal right to vote.  After all, these people are convinced that they are somehow different than the average citizen.

“And even if Iraq isn’t taking hold of the concept as quickly as predicted, at least in Israel, government officials are trying their best to emulate the esteemed leaders of America.”

No, not even close.  Israel does not emulate the U.S. and they never have.  Maybe that’s why they are a Socialist Democracy, like most of the responsible nations in the world today, and that’s why they think they can push back whenever they want.  The major battle in the Israeli region today is over water rights, plane and simple.  The Ruling powers, like the Ruling powers for centuries, use Religion to rouse the “peasants” to war in order to capture resources.  However, around the world today this is beginning to backfire big time.  Religions, particularly the Abrahamic religions (Jews, Muslims and Christians) are basically out of control.  There is little evidence to support their ancient myths filled with gods and other metaphysical spirits.  They all distain the Scientific Methods of verification and they continue in the tradition of the tribal ingroup/outgroup structures that they evolved from.  This validates their insistence that it is wrong to kill your neighbor, ingroup, but it is OK to kill an outgroup pagan, infidel, jew, gentile, or anyone else that doesn’t believe like you do.  Yes, Religious persecution, execution and terror continues to be the leading cause of violence and death among innocent people in the world and the Right Wing Ruling classes continue to exploit Religions to do their dirty work.

By H Evers on Aug 27, 2006 | Reply

Dear Mr. Icoman,

Gosh but you are smart.  Tell me that Bircher and right wing ruling class thing again it brings back old memories.  Ah the 60s the “dialectic of the proletariat” fraternity, pledging eternal enmity to the class traitors.  Yes tell us more of your fantasy.  Please no reality that would be so… real.  Oh and when do we start exterminating the God believers?  Might as well not just stop with the Jews this time… Heh old buddy.   Just watch out for the “Black Helos” they are everywhere.
All the best

By Paul Watson The Cranky Brit on Aug 28, 2006 | Reply

Mr Evers,

The Black Helicopters were from the antin-internationalist right wing nutcases, like the famous American terrorist who happened to be a Republican, Timothy McVeigh. Unless you’re saying he was some kind of left-wing lunatic who voted Red out of confusion? 

By Bob on Aug 28, 2006 | Reply

Joy,

While your idealistic hope for world peace through love is a highly admirable aim, it hardly works in a world where people aim to kill each other.  No matter how you and I answer personal questions about where we are going and to what ends our lives move towards (though I don’t think there are any real “ends” to life…it’s a daily thing), there is always the possibility that war will be brought to us.  To fight or not to fight is a choice.

And, Joy, please don’t assume that I’ve never had the displeasure of knowing that my duites in a combat zone cost lives.  Funny how a few people who comment here assume that there might be some who have served writing…  Just wondering, have you served?

Cheers.

By Jankai Joy Green on Aug 28, 2006 | Reply

Bob ~ I usally go over what I write, several times, to make certain that the words truly reflect what I want to say. When I wrote my comments to you, I hadn’t done that enough and those words don’t confey what I wanted to say. I apologize. I will have to respond another time, but I will. Thanks for your comments.  ~Joie  p.s. I would never serve in the military and neither would my husband.

By H. Evers on Aug 28, 2006 | Reply

For Joy

“Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man/woman accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.” Heinlein

“This we defend” Motto of the United States Army

So true so true

By Janaki Joy Green on Aug 28, 2006 | Reply

I don’t believe that I am reaping the benefits of my ’social group’ and not paying for them. I live in a country which use to embrace diversity, which meant embracing those who don’t believe in killing. The birth of this country was predicated on FREEDOM from persecution. As you and I know, this country has done monstrous things in our name. It has committed atrocities not condoned by all of its citizens. What is one to do but continue to voice concern and work toward change. I do not believe in killing. I believe humans can rise above war. And I believe I have a right to this belief. Our policies have alienated most of the people on this planet. These policies have recruited more terrorists than Osama could ever have dreamed of recruiting. Hate begets hate. Buddha taught - In this world, hate never dispels hate. Only love dispels hate. You and I are here not because of wars that have been, but in spite of them.  I’m not here to debate pacifism. It’s been dated for centuries. I am here to be a voice for a road less traveled. Thank you for listening.

By chris on Aug 28, 2006 | Reply

Bob, 

   Why is Joy’s desire to live in peace unattainable?

You wrote:  <<While your idealistic hope for world peace through love is a highly admirable aim, it hardly works in a world where people aim to kill each other.>>  

   Did we ask these people? Are you sure that this world only wants to kill? Judging by some of the accounts that we see coming from Europe w/o the US news filter I get the sense that a lot of the people we are killing would disagree with you. Many of the dead and dying, thousands of the dead and dying have never lifting even a finger in anger towards the US or Isreal.  How can you apply your logic to this war?  How does that logic apply to children? Is killing innocent civilians part of your definition of “messy”? Can you look into your childrens eyes and “commit” them to your principles?

   BTW where are the lessons learned from Vietnam? Has this country developed STML?

Thanks for the chance to debate.   

By H. Evers on Aug 28, 2006 | Reply

Dear Ms. Joy,

It is hard to pick which mistaken belief I should address first.  Well let us start with our role in inspiring terrorism.  You said: “These policies have recruited more terrorists than Osama could ever have dreamed of recruiting”. Factually speaking terrorists operations against the United States started long before we went into Afghanistan or Iraq (either the first or subsequent times).  The source of the Islamic Fascists motivation is a desire to create a universalistic Islamic state (please understand that the concept of a universal state is like the Ottoman Empire).  The first wave of these fascists were lead/inspired by a fellow named Haj Amin Husseini Mufti of Jerusalem, and produced a couple of fellows named Anwar Sadat (PLO) and Abdul Nasser (Egypt).  Husseini worked for Hitler during WWII and was a really bad guy.  Please feel free to Google these guys’ names.  I think you might find it educational.

Syria had its own fascist group Michael Aflaq and Salah al-Din Bitar who idolized Hiller and started the Baathist movement.  Are you with me so far?  Ok, by the time the 70s roll around the Fascist beliefs of Arab leaders had taken on a Terrorist face.  Beaten in several conventional wars the Fascists adapted.

While all this is going on another force was working in the region.  A religious revival called Wahhabism after its founder Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1792).  This cult has a very extreme interpretation of Koran and an aggressive spirit of propagation.  The movement joined forces with the Royal house of Saud during WWI to take over control of Saudi Arabia.  The Saudis have financed the cult ever since setting up Wahhabist schools all over the world. 

During the late 1970s and early 1980s these two forces came together into the Islamic Fascist movement.  Since that time this political movement has sought to destroy Israel, exterminate all Jews and destroy western civilization.  This Sunni movement has influenced a revival in the Shia Muslim sect.  So that today the west is confronted with an Islamic Fascist movement that crosses religious lines.  These Fascists do not represent all Muslims.  The adherents tend to be the well educated and the well off who are attracted to this religious fascism.      

Ok now to correct a few of your misconceptions about America.  This country has never been about diversity.  Tolerance of others beliefs was the American virtue and tolerance is not the same as the diversity movement.  The focus of our education system, until the politically correct took over, was to forge all the diversity around into an American identity.  The idea of diversity is to divide the American community into powerless groups so worried about their own privileges and politically correct thought that they ignore the duties of citizenship.  Oh and one more point.  The birth of this country was predicated on “our lives our fortunes and our sacred honor” that pay as you go philosophy paid for your freedom in blood.  Have we made mistakes?  Sure we have; but, I will match our record against any other country in the history of the world.  You pick and I will do the research. 

I too do not believe in killing.  I do believe in America and its Constitutionally based way of life.  I also know, what you choose to ignore, that in the real world there are some people who do not believe as I do and who will not reason out our differences.  Who choose to rob and rape, kill and war.  Some people who set themselves outside all law and must be met with force such as the Islamic Fascists.  Soldiers are those man and women who choose to place themselves between their fellow countrymen and this evil.  They sacrifice themselves for the good of the Commonweal.  This is a noble act to be honored by all.  All citizens have a moral obligation, as citizens, to serve when needed as soldiers and to always support those who serve.

This does not mean that you cannot disagree with the course that this country is taking; but, it does mean that you cannot offer aid and comfort to those who would destroy the Commonweal.  Your posts display a level of ignorance about the realities of this country and the world that I have come to expect from those who believe as you do.  Those beliefs, wrong though they be, are your right as a citizen and even if you are unwilling to live up to the duties of citizenship the soldiers of the United States Army are willing.  They will protect your rights regardless of what you think of them.

If I can assist you further in understanding historical fact and the principals of America please do not hesitate to write.

All the best    

By H. Evers on Aug 28, 2006 | Reply

Dear Mr. Chris,

Just what thousands of people is the United States supposed to have killed?  Oh, I guess you mean the thousands killed by the Islamic Fascists by IEDs, assassination and suicide bombers.  Are those the ones you are talking about?  You should be clearer when you write you would not want to deceive people now would you?

All the best    

By Craig R. Harmon on Aug 28, 2006 | Reply

H. Evers,

Perhaps he’s referring to the “collateral damage” resulting from our invasion…the old “shock and awe”. Whether one thinks that we had good reason to invade Iraq or not, it does no good to pretend that the only ones killing non-combatants in Iraq are the Iraqi insurgents or non-Iraqi jihadists. Did we target them? Aside from the incidents where civilians/non-combatants have been alleged to have been targeted by US/coalition forces and where there appears to be some evidence to support the allegations, no we didn’t target them but they are no less dead for not having been targeted. How many does that amount to? I don’t know and there’s probably no way of knowing for sure but I bet they are in the thousands.

By chris on Aug 28, 2006 | Reply

Craig,

     Yes you are correct, I was referring to the “collateral damage”.  The innocent lives lost in Afghanistan and Iraq by the hands of the US soldiers.  BTW you really didn’t need to point that out
to Mr. Evers he knew what I was talking about.  It’s just a way to avoid the discusion by launching a personal attack. Our current administration is excellent at this technique.  He answered none of my questions and sadly it was exactly what I expected. 
     You were also correct in pointing out that dead is dead.  IED, suicide bomber or US soldier with an M-16, dead is dead and terrorism is terrorism.     
                
     Thanks for the chance to debate.   

By Craig R. Harmon on Aug 28, 2006 | Reply

Whoa nellie!

 ”…terrorism is terrorism.”

No, thank you very much, Chris, but calling our troops terrorists is way, way, way beyond the point of being beyond the pale. Unless you were specifically speaking of those soldiers/marines under suspicion of deliberately targeting non-combatants in Iraq and Afghanistan, our troops are no terrorists and neither is, Cindy Sheehan notwithstanding, our President for sending them into Iraq and Afghanistan or for keeping them there.

However, to the rest of that, amen.

By chris on Aug 29, 2006 | Reply

Craig, 

     OK. I’ll take six out of seven.  Terrorism is in the eye of the beholder.  I’ll be
OOT for the next two days. Take care.    

 Thanks for the chance to debate. 

By Craig R. Harmon on Aug 29, 2006 | Reply

You’re welcome, Chris.

By H. Evers on Aug 29, 2006 | Reply

Dear Mr. Chris,

Were Iraqis killed in the invasion? Yes there were; however, far fewer than any like operation in history.  Have US and Coalition forces inflicted inadvertent casualties during operations against the terrorists? Yes there have been.  There have also been criminal actions by some US and Coalition forces which have resulted in civilian deaths.  Those who engaged in these actions are universally despised by our soldiers and have been aggressively prosecuted.  

That said the vast majority of casualties that have occurred in Iraq have been caused by the Islamic Fascists not by US or coalition forces.  These terrorists have from the first engaged in a daily campaign of assassination, IED attacks and suicide bombings against the Iraqi people.  Where US forces risk their lives adhering to restrictive rules of engagement (ROE) in order to reduce Iraqi casualties the Terrorists try to exact the greatest toll possible.  I recommend that you review this website (not in support of the war) and gauge for yourself who is causing what casualties.

All the best    

http://www.icasualties.org/oif/