Stop pretending

More than just another war

We need to stop kidding ourselves.

We need to wake up and pull together. We need to stop screwing around and pretending this thing is something it isn’t.

Stop the petty, partisan debating of the pros and cons of what we’re euphemistically calling the "War on Terror", and face one basic fact, a fact that is standing there in the corner, like the proverbial elephant in the room.
We need to stop pretending that this war in which are now engaged, be it in Afghanistan or Iraq, is just another American war, a simple matter of us against them, to be fought or abandoned, won or lost. It isn’t.
Some see the Afghan and Iraq operations as separate and unrelated, but they’re not, really.
The military forces, US and otherwise, now engaged in combat operations in both of those nations, aren’t merely defending or assisting the US and its interests; there’s so much more to it. So much more is at stake.

I think it's time; we all finally need to come to the realization that those troops, in reality, are out there on the frontlines, fighting in the opening battles of a war in defense of Western Civilization itself.

9/11; we all saw it coming (or perhaps something like it; who could have expected that?) for what, 30 years?
Islamic Extremism started upping its ante in the early 1970s and continued through the 80s and 90s. Just a few examples:
Munich Olympics, in 1972; the Iran hostage crisis of 1979-80; the Marine barracks in Lebanon, 1983, the Achille Lauro incident (remember Leon Klinghoffer? Age 69, wheelchair-bound American Jew, shot dead and tossed overboard, chair and all, simply to make a point. President Reagan put a price on the head of the attack’s leader, Abu Abbas, and we finally found him where? Iraq). 1985; Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland; WTC attack in 1993; US embassies in Africa; the USS Cole…..how many lesser incidents didn’t come right to mind? How many suicide bombings, car bombs, attacks, hijackings, assassinations, myriad violent demonstrations, murders. How many?
We just happened to have a president in office in 2001 who understood and acknowledged the greater implications of those particular attacks---though it wasn’t, and isn’t, politically expedient (or correct) to call a spade a spade---and he chose to move pro- actively.

We’ve all heard Radical Islam, and especially the Fundamentalist zealots, time and again, warn the West that it should convert to Islam or die. Do we really think they’re kidding us, or that they’re simply threatening? Those people don’t make idle threats; they make promises. Promises they intend to keep, one way or another.

We’ve spent decades watching the angry demonstrations on the news; an unruly mob…."Death to America" is chanted….a US flag is torched.
Some say that if we would only stop supporting Israel, this would all just go away. They’re fooling themselves.
Islamic extremism hates Western culture as a whole, which it sees as hedonistic, decadent, sinful and perverted (though I have to giggle a little at the hypocrisy of the 9/11 hijackers. They spent the last days leading up to their noble deaths in the holy name of Allah by maxing out their credit cards, living the high life in strip clubs, bars, casinos, fancy restaurants and upscale stores. Not only does this make them hedonistic, decadent and perverted just like us, it also makes them thieves as well, since none of it was ever really paid for).


We’ve allowed ourselves, at least since the glory days of the "Greatest Generation", to become fat and lazy.
Like a championship boxer who has successfully defended his title against several challengers, we’ve become complacent and taken our status for granted. This opens us up to leaner, hungrier challengers.

If we continue to pussyfoot around, allowing the appeasers and dupes to undermine our efforts and sublimate our resolve, Islamic barbarism will rule the day.
It is coming to that, if nothing serious is done to prevent it; deny it and explain it away and apologize for them all you want. They want to dance on the grave of Western Civilization. It’s coming. It may take some time, but it will happen.
They don’t mind waiting; they’re lots more patient than us spoiled, decadent Westerners who expect results NOW, and will not wait.

We’re idiots; believing ourselves to be generous and beneficent to a fault, we freely allow mushy-headed traitors and anti-American ideologues within and without to spit their poison and venom into our ears and minds, causing us to be uncertain of our senses, reason and ideals. To waver.
We allow them to question our morals and values, and to manipulate our views. To use slanted logic to accuse us of being the aggressors, rightly struck down and injured. Soft-headed, fuzzy logic and thinking twist our perspective.

When our civilization was threatened before, by the cruel, dehumanizing brutality of Fascist aggression and tyranny, we united, putting aside political and social differences, and followed our moral compass to ultimate victory. We did what needed done to assure the survival of our ways and ideals.
In recent decades that "compass" has become so skewed as to be virtually unusable. Moral relativity is the order of the day. There is no good or evil, anymore; it’s all in the perception.

Even if we abandoned Iraq today, right now, and left Israel to whatever the four winds blew its way, the war would still continue to escalate, just as it has for decades.
The world over, from Europe to Indonesia, Islam is causing problems, unrest and violence.

The Arabs once ruled an empire that eventually stretched from Persia, westward across the Middle East and North Africa, northward across the Mediterranean, to Spain and parts of Southern France.
Imagine that empire encompassing all of Europe and crossing the Atlantic to the Americas, perhaps even extending into Asia and the Pacific.
That’s the idea. That’s the agenda. A worldwide Caliphate. The planet subjugated and serving under Islamic tradition and law. Imposed and enforced worship of the Islamic deity.
Is it possible? For a single people to rule the whole world? It’s been tried before, to no real avail. Portions of the world, yes, whole swaths, even, but never the whole of the planet.
But then, we’re not talking a single nation of a few million or more people. We’re talking about a religion. An imperial religion of what, a billion or more, perhaps, with more born into the faith every day. Isn’t that the plan in Europe, after all? To remake Europe into "Eurabia" by overwhelming the native populations with children of Arab ancestry? Even now, Spain is on the verge of becoming the largest Muslim nation in the world.
I think it could happen; it seems entirely possible. There sure seems to be no shortage of hired help in Iraq and Afghanistan.


As an American, I wonder what will become of the apologists, the appeasers and traitors, the Peace at any Pricers, when the US Constitution is negated by the collapse of the nation, taking with it their right to free speech? Their perceived right to oppose and undermine the very system that willingly permits their treason?

How would Rosie O’Donnell, for example, that champion of liberal and feminist causes, who before millions equates Christian fundamentalism with its Islamic counterpart, feel then, I wonder? How would she feel?
To be treated as cattle….her gender considered nothing so much as property, under Islamic law? Forced by that law to wed and to surrender her entire being and will to a man? And to wear a burkha? Would she finally see the light? The error of her sadly misguided ways?

That is what awaits us if we fail to properly resist now. Our entire way of life is at stake, from our religious and individual rights and freedoms, and even on down to the foods we consume. Say goodbye to ham, pork chops and ribs. Hello goat’s milk.

We really have to stop kidding ourselves and wake up.
To take real action, before it’s too late. And hope that it’s not already.


"If you want peace, prepare for war."----Roman proverb
12,576 views 29 replies
Reply #2 Top
Don't worry, if the Dems win the White House in 2008, all of the sudden "unity" will be their watchword and "quit being divisive, we are in a war for our lives" will be their creed.

Til then, they won't lift a finger to do anything but be divisive and deny this war means anything anyway.
Reply #3 Top
Is this supposed to be ironic?


Unfortunately, no. Why would you think that? I honestly believe it, and it really kind of scares me that more people don't. I'm also afraid that bin-Laden probably agrees with me.

Don't worry, if the Dems win the White House in 2008, all of the sudden "unity" will be their watchword and "quit being divisive, we are in a war for our lives" will be their creed.
---PT2K

You're probably right. Still, I really do hope that we, as a people, start taking this whole thing a lot more seriously than we seem to be. Start looking beyond the simple, surface politics of it all.


Thanks for the posts, folks. have a good one.
Reply #4 Top

Rosie O'Donnel is just an ignorant Cow, who moos to her mind numbed fans "do as I say, not as I do".

I honestly dont know if the democrats are just ignorant, or they truly believe their own rhetoric.  But they do scare me with their head in the sand approach to this threat.  Your warning is very appropriate, but I do not have a lot of faith that half the people will heed it until they are wearing turbans and burkas, and by then it will be too late.

Reply #5 Top
Some of us out here know this is real.
I'm not interested in bringing the bastards to justice. I'm interested in killing the enemy.

About 20 years ago my Mom was watching something on the news - some babbling about how America stinks.
It really hacked her off. She stood up & said, "Do you know what your generation needs? It needs to be attached! Then maybe you would stop all of this crap. Half of you would be to damn stupid to defend yourselves!"

I think about what she said now. It's another thing she was correct about.

Reply #6 Top
The problem is we live in comfort, and constantly seek more wealth and power. From inside the US we don't feel like we can be touched, even in the wake of 9/11. So, when there's an issue like this, we don't react to it with the idea of addressing it, we react so as to make the response, or more appropriately the most VISIBLE response, advantageous to us.

I don't think you have to tell anyone about the stuff above. I think they know. I think the most blind, anti-war, bleeding heart waste of skin understands those things intimately. They don't care. They define themselves by their stance, and promote themselves through their stance, and the worst of them benefits politically or monetarily from such obstruction.

That leaves us basically doomed. We've become the Casablanca of the world where every ideal or value is negotiable, whether the people across the table are nazis or terrorists or any other kind of monster. The first question has become how tragedy and threat will effect our power, or our standing in the polls, or our profits.

It's too late RW. Welcome to Rome in its decline.
Reply #7 Top
It's too late RW. Welcome to Rome in its decline. - bakerstreet

Rome entered it's decline after it practiced imperialism.
Reply #8 Top
"Rome entered it's decline after it practiced imperialism."


Yes, and Elvis died after he wore a jumpsuit, did the jumpsuit kill him? What a moronic argument. Rome's imperialism had far more to do with their rise than their downfall.

What destroyed Rome is what WILL destroy the US. It isn't about imperialism, it is about thinking of everything in a detached, figurative way. It is about seeing death and destruction and threat and wondering how we can spin it to make a dollar or win a vote.

The people of Rome didn't lose their society because they focused too far ashore, they lost it because they had no fear. They became a people who debated ceaselessly while their doom loomed within view. They lost it because the most frightening prospect became a play, a joke, or a talking point to use against one's political foe.

When people are weak, opportunistic, and indecisive, people who aren't step in and take what they have from them. America is exactly that right now, and there are billions around the world who are ready, willing, and able to profit by our fall. It isn't our imperialism, it's our inability to finish what we start, or even react with real effect to what threatens us.
Reply #9 Top
Yes, and Elvis died after he wore a jumpsuit, did the jumpsuit kill him? - Bakerstreet

Elvis died from a self-inflicted drug-overdose. His addiction and unhealthy lifestyle; behaviour that lead to his death, were the means to the end.

It isn't our imperialism, it's our inability to finish what we start
- Bakerstreet

I disagree. At the height of the Roman Empire; the Pax Romana Period ( Envision Peace Through American Military Superiority ) the social decadence, and lack of actual ethics led to the downfall of it's leaders, and of course, the plebeians beneath them. This was despite their secret prisons in Europe (not-so-secret-now-I-guess), their numerous military bases around the world, and gargantuan overstretched military.

...there are billions around the world who are ready, willing, and able to profit by our fall... - Bakerstreet

Sure, those people are called the top loaning nations to the United States.
When we default on our loans (mostly bonds maturing within the next fifty years - hey, maybe someone at 'the Fed' is counting on 'irrational exuberance' saving us again) a piece of our Nation is lost.

When people are weak, opportunistic, and indecisive - Bakerstreet

...the citizens of the United States...

...people who aren't step in and take what they have from them...

- Bakerstreet

...the current ruling parties...

..our inability to finish what we start - Bakerstreet

Some things one doesn't want to start, let alone finish. At least one has an opportunity to finish in untailored manner.
Reply #10 Top
Some of us out here know this is real.
I'm not interested in bringing the bastards to justice. I'm interested in killing the enemy.
--feisty in Ohio

I'm glad to see someone here who does, besides the regulars. Kill or be killed is rapidly becoming the order of the day.

Rosie O'Donnel is just an ignorant Cow, who moos to her mind numbed fans "do as I say, not as I do".


Feminist extraordinaire, girl-power (and "-poker") Rosie O'Donnell should be going every day to the White House, thanking Bush for freeing the women of Afghanistan from the slavery and degradation of the Taliban, and the women of Iraq from the threat of the rape rooms. But she won't because the liberal in her won't let her realize the good that's come from this already. From what I understand, Jay Leno's wife, Mavis, almost a radical feminist, actually supports the nation's action, for the good it's doing women in the hard-line Mulsim world. Not for it's own defense, of course, though. That would be too Rightist an attitude.

Could we call Rosie the "Unholy Cow"? I like it.

It's too late RW. Welcome to Rome in its decline.
---Baker

I have to disagree to a point; we're not Rome, governed by a more or less dictatorial emporer and by strict, inflexible laws and ideals. We're much more flexible and adaptable than any actual imperial power, dictatorship or monarchy. There has never actually been a nation like ours, constructed as its governmental system is, in the whole history of the world. We can change. It's always been our strength in the past. The question is, can or will we change in time to prevent our collapse? I hope to God we can and will.
Despite the attitudes of the America-bashers, the world will be a dark, evil and oppressive place when and if that happens. Much worse than anything they, in their hysterics, point to now.

Elvis died from a self-inflicted drug-overdose. His addiction and unhealthy lifestyle; behaviour that lead to his death, were the means to the end.
---deference

(ahem)NOT THAT IT REALLY MATTERS HERE, but.....Elvis died clean and sober. He finally wised up and started back on the right track, but too late.
His lifestyle was, in point of fact, what led to his demise. It was a heart attack brought on by overeating and the effects of his drug abuse and addiction, and perhaps even the strenuous diet and exercise regimen he was using to lose weight and get back in shape. That might actually be a wonderful analogy for the US right now, though. How ironic would that be? The name that most says "America" to many people as the symbolic parallel of our decline.

At the height of the Roman Empire; the Pax Romana Period ( Envision Peace Through American Military Superiority ) the social decadence,
---deference

"Social decadence". Something we could label as an effect of "liberalism", could we not? An overall relaxing of moral standards? Are you saying, then, that a liberalization of its social and politcal mores caused the downfall of Rome? It's sure been a cancer on our civilization.

...the citizens of the United States...
---deference

Yep, we're the only people in the world who are weak, opportunistic and indecisive. The only ones. We deserve everything I described in my article, don't we? We've never done one good thing for anyone in the last 230 years, have we? We're such evil bastards. Aren't we?
Deference, you are virtually a stereotypical self-loathing America hater. Thanks for giving us a prime example of the ones who will ultimately be at fault when the Muslims destroy us.

Sure, those people are called the top loaning nations to the United States.
---deference

Tell me how our collapse would benefit, much less profit, our debtors?










Reply #11 Top
NOT THAT IT REALLY MATTERS HERE, but.....Elvis died clean and sober. He finally wised up and started back on the right track, but too late.
His lifestyle was, in point of fact, what led to his demise.
- Rightwinger

You're correct, he died on the potty, my faux paux, however, we agree, the analogy of America to Elvis is apt; because of our addictions and unhealthy lifestyle we may lose our crown.

"Social decadence". Something we could label as an effect of "liberalism", could we not? - Rightwinger

I don't think one has to be 'liberal' to be socially decadent. I would say we have a very 'liberal' culture as it is one of excess, but using the word in a quantitive manner can be seperate from the political label. Every time election year rolls around we have some politician pandering to the 'values' crowd and every year afterward our media becomes increasingly saturated with explicit material. Every year our corporate culture shows it's ass multiple times by ripping it's employees a new one while it's exec.'s blast a layman's year's salary on a night of network building (partying). Think Enron. Thousand dollar ice-sculptures, Ferraris and paid escorts are certainly highly illustrative symbols of social decadence. Perhaps one could somehow blame 'liberalism' but I don't see any 'conservatives' doing anything about it - I think affluence is the key to social decadence.

Some of the poorest people the world have ever known have also been seen as the most pious and righteous the world has ever recognized:

Jesus,
Mother Theresa, and
Mahatma Ghandi all come to mind.

Deference, you are virtually a stereotypical self-loathing America hater. Thanks for giving us a prime example of the ones who will ultimately be at fault when the Muslims destroy us. - rightwinger

I would taunt and tease and make an absolute fool out you for once again offering up such untrue cynical smear I think you know to be false but I've done that plenty of times before.

For a refreshing change of pace I'm going to remind you:

You don't have to hate America to make an observation or a critical comment of any part of it. I'm realistically and rationally able to understand we have our issues and we need to work on them. If everything in and about America is without flaw why don't you shut your trap and get on with living in Paradise.



Tell me how our collapse would benefit, much less profit, our debtors? - Rightwinger

If you've ever bought a house, you know.

After one has bought homeowner's insurance and closed on the house and signed the mortgage at the bank, one spends years (most people I know spend 8 - 18 years paying off their mortgage) paying down the debt until eventually they - not the bank - owns the house.

The bank knows that to have someone borrow money at cost it is a good thing.
The bank knows that to own real estate is also a good thing.
The bank knows that a debtor who will likely eventually relinquish both the home and the costs of borrowing funds to buy the home is the best scenario.

If America borrows money, is in debt, continues to willfully stay in debt and is a bad financial bet ,overall, countries such as China will understand they hold the power of a Sword of Damoceles over the head of the United States.

If China were to call in all debts we owed them today I am willing to bet you, Rightwinger, that inflation would skyrocket and that more nations would be tempted to use the Euro, the Yen, or the Yuan as standards of currency then the lowly dollar. Ever heard of the peso? yeah...

Reply #12 Top
In a democracy dissent is an act of faith. Like medicine, the test of its value is not in its taste, but in its effects.

- J. W. Fulbright

I hope you grasp the meaning of that, Rightwinger.
Reply #13 Top
Think Enron.
--decadence (ooops...sorry)---deference

I think affluence is the key to social decadence.
---deference

And in our culture, some of the most affluent are also the most liberal. Think Hollywood. Think news media. Think music. Think publishing. These all have one thing in common: they all have the hearts, minds, ears and eyes of the general populace.

Some of the poorest people the world have ever known have also been seen as the most pious and righteous the world has ever recognized:

Jesus,
Mother Theresa, and
Mahatma Ghandi all come to mind.
---deference

So? There are a lot of poor people who are theives, drug users and violent criminals.

Jesus' poverty was a part of His message. Mother Teresa's was a part of her job and her chosen life. Mohandas Ghandi's was a part of his socio-political power (before he became the "Mahatma", he was a successful attorney).

This isn't necessarily directed at you, def, but I love how liberals will so often use religious figures, especially Jesus Christ, as examples to hide behind and point to when it suits their needs, but will generally shoot them down when it suits some other purpose.
For example, the "Jesus was one of the greatest liberals in history" argument. For His time, yes, he was, but He also taught a kind of morality and outlook that many liberals I've encountered consider to be repressive and prohibitive. This, generally speaking, is why Christianity so often comes under fire from the Left.
Why those same people will frequently do and say things in aid and support of other, much more repressive and prohibitve faiths, faiths that, for example, degrade woman, toture and maim theives, suppress social and ideological freedoms and regularly use and promote violence against opponents and dissidents (read in all of this: Islam), I have no idea.


In a democracy dissent is an act of faith. Like medicine, the test of its value is not in its taste, but in its effects.

- J. W. Fulbright

I hope you grasp the meaning of that, Rightwinger.



"From time to time, the Tree of Liberty needs to be refreshed with the blood of tyrants and patriots."---Thomas Jefferson


Do you grasp the meaning of that, deference?

I have no problem with honest, reasoned dissent; that's one of the many things that makes America great. What I have a problem with is the simple denial of our situation and undermining of any and all efforts at defense and unity by those whose head-in-the-sand attitude is a purposeful result of simple partisan political hatred and frustration, on both sides.
This conversation won't matter at all, deference, when we run into each other and nod our turbaned heads in greeting on our way into the mosque.




Reply #14 Top
Good post, Rightwinger.

Seeking to divide the American people amongst any line, Democrat and Republican, Liberal vs. Conservative, etc. ignores too many contributing factors and unrecognized variables. I don't wish to pursue that strategy as a way of fixing our country's ills. As you have probably realized by now, I'm not using the war on terror issue as political fodder to bash or bolster anyone. I do remain skeptical of the execution of the war 'on terror'. We could be much smarter about it.

* Re-evaluate our stance on immigration
* Secure our Canadian / Mexican borders
* Secure certain vulnerable and highly dangerous terrorist targets
* Change our course in foreign relations by ending world policing and dirtying our hands with the soil of other countries inflaming otherwise inert fundamentalist groups (read:Shiite Muslims wishing to rid the infidel presence from the Middle East by attacking it's source)

I understand it's much less fun but the best offense is a good defense.

The J.W. Fulbright quote I mentioned was consistent with his life philosophy of continually questioning actions by our government particularly in regard to our conducting certain wars as Vietnam and the witch hunts created by snake-oil salesman such as McCarthy. We see some interesting parallels today so I feel the quote to be quite relevant.

I much admire Thomas Jefferson, but I don't agree with the possible application of his quote to U.S. citizens (Patriots) and Muslims (tyrants) if that is what you were implying. The quote tends to lend itself to reflexive not preemptive conduct via an introspective not extroitive action concerning 'refreshing the tree of liberty'.

So we may say that 'refreshing the tree of liberty' in Jefferson's time was a reference to the current tyrranical government; the British Empire, or even a possible future tyrranical American Empire but not a foreign government outside the American bubble utilizing a preemptive strategy. There are probably more affective quotes specifically regarding that.

Extremists in your midst spread propaganda claiming that the West is engaged in a war against Islam...This propaganda is false, and its purpose is to confuse you and justify acts of terror. We respect Islam, but we will protect our people from those who pervert Islam to sow death and destruction. Our goal is to help you build a more tolerant and hopeful society that honors people of all faiths and promotes the peace.” - George W. Bush

WWW Link

This conversation won't matter at all, deference, when we run into each other and nod our turbaned heads in greeting on our way into the mosque.
- RW

Now, RW, I don't think that's correct. If you had told me during WWII that if we don't do something soon we could soon be speaking German you may have held my ear, but Hitler was certainly trying to dominate the globe via military force.

Terrorism by religious zealots is something entirely different, not meant to gain strategic ground movement but to send religious messages. Notice that not one of Bin Ladin's video clips or speeches nor any of the militant fundamentalist Muslim clerics have ever called for a forced conversion of the U.S. public to Islam. I think you understand this and may agree.
Reply #15 Top
You all make me laugh, with your demagogue quotes. You each try to convice each other that you are right, the other is wrong. You try with words, words, words, but it never works.

But you still try, you still do. Because you feel you need to do it. Because you have to try to go rant on an internet forum, where the only peoples who will read you are those who are on your side, and those who will oppose you. Again, still only in words.

First time on this forum, and it's the same rethoric all over it. Except with some crazy muslim extremists, you are split between two sides who shout insults over insults over fact "A" and "B".

exemple:

Did the Iraqi war made U.S. safer?

"The report says no, there are more islamists!"

"Duh, off course, if we attack them they'll get angry at us. They know they will lose! Al-Qaeda leadership is crippled!"

"No, the Iraqi war created a new whole generation of terrorists, which are even more against us!"

"You said the Intelligence wasn't right when we wanted to invade, but now you beleive it?"

"Bush knew about it, and he lied!"

"You don't know what he knew and didn't knew!"

My point? It's a goddamn deaf dialogue. That's what will destroy U.S.A. (and maybe the Western World along with it) over everything else. Not your Imperialist Culture, not your decadence, but the fact that you are divided into 2 parties who don't even listen to each other. Ask yourself this:

WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME YOU CHANGED OPINION ABOUT SOMETHING POLITICAL BECAUSE OF SOMEONE ELSE'S ARGUMENTS? If you can't remember, then why are you here?
Reply #16 Top
Good blog Rightwinger. Some of the sentiments I've blogged about before.

Unfortunately the discussion somehow always turns into who is wrong, who is right and whether we're all too lazy to be botherred to do anything or we're just so ho hum bored and we deserve whatever we have coming to us!

This kind of reasoning is rather ridiculous to me.

So we're supposed to roll over now and die? We're giving up and letting extremist take over our country because they're taking over the rest of the world?

I don't think so!



Terrorism by religious zealots is something entirely different, not meant to gain strategic ground movement but to send religious messages. Notice that not one of Bin Ladin's video clips or speeches nor any of the militant fundamentalist Muslim clerics have ever called for a forced conversion of the U.S. public to Islam. I think you understand this and may agree.


What the heck are you talking about? Are you saying they, the extremist are just doing what they're doing to our country, to our people because they just want us to continue to be who we are, the way we are? They don't want us to see things their way? To bow to them and live the way they do? To wipe us off the face of the earth? I'm just not getting you hear Deference?


Reply #17 Top
You all make me laugh, with your demagogue quotes. You each try to convice each other that you are right, the other is wrong. You try with words, words, words, but it never works. - Cikomyr

It can be very frustrating to view some JU dialogue, sometimes even more so being a part of it. I understand your point, but at work is an exercise that is quite beneficial even if some don't change their mind even a little bit.

1. A Joeuser is allowed to speak one's mind on issues in a public syndicated forum granting them relief.
2. Other Joeusers get their chance to comment on topics they might not have otherwise breached.
3. Joeusers may spend hours researching and editing their posts providing more information to the web browsing public and exercising their reading comprehension and research muscles.
4. Joeusers benefit from an eventual understanding with other Joeusers over a period of time despite seemingly massive differences.

There's quite a bit more going on under the surface of these threads then what is apparent to the casual JU visitor, and if we conduct ourselves well, the benefits of our exchange do eventually count for something, even if that something is not a changing of each other's opinion.

On that note, we do have the possibility of further nuancing each other's opinions by talking with each other - simply stopping the Great Conversation that is blogging simply gains us a 100% gurantee that it won't ever happen.

I'm just not getting you hear Deference? - Foreverserenity

If you're speaking of Muslim Extremists (M.E.), Foreverserenity, I think it's been assumed by some that M.E. are trying to take over the world, including America. I don't think that's the case. No doubt, certainly you might find some Muslim out there who believes in somehow converting the entire western world to Islam via some Inquisition (you've heard of the Spainish Inquisition...) but those aren't the ones the U.S. military is battling.

The U.S. military is stuck in a crossfire between Sunni (traditional Muslims) and Shia Muslims (ones who have wrongfully abused a loophole in the Koran to justify 'holy war'; Jihad) within Iraq.

Though Osama bin Ladin may not be a part of either of these two groups, he's seemingly used Jihad to oust the United States from his holy land and to make the U.S. feel the losses he feels he has garnered.

But, after things had gone too far and we saw the injustice of the US-Israeli alliance against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, I started thinking of that.

The events that influenced me directly trace back to 1982 and subsequent events when the United States gave permission to the Israelis to invade Lebanon, with the aid of the sixth US fleet.

At those difficult moments, many meanings that are hard to describe went on in my mind. However, these meanings produced an overwhelming feeling to reject injustice and generated a strong determination to punish the unjust ones.

While I was looking at those destroyed towers in Lebanon, it occurred to me to punish the unjust one in a similar manner by destroying towers in the United States so that it would feel some of what we felt and to be deterred from killing our children and women...
- Osama bin Ladin

WWW Link">Link


It's always the same message. When he last showed up on video, in October 2004, a few days ahead of the US presidential election, bin Laden said there would be no more September 11s if the US stopped attacking Muslim lands. - Asian Times

WWW Link

I don't think Bin Laden (and Al-Qaeda) are out to win 'hearts and minds' by blowing up towers, the USS Cole, or issuing death threats against American women and children civilians or otherwise. They aren't trying to convert the world to Islam with such acts - they are sending the message "Don't touch, don't bother, leave alone."

This might be very easy for the U.S., simply pull troops and see what happens, it'd be much less costly in lives and dollars. The real contention is with Israel and their actions which is probably actually seen as not a simple ally but as an actual limb of the greater body of the U.S. .

Israel deserves it's peace but it's relationship with Lebanon is antagonistic at best. Neither party feels the other is worth staying in the 'holy land' and they'll constantly bicker with each other - neither one of them actually want 'peace'. It'd be to the greater benefit of the U.S. to let Israel handle themselves as they are quite capable without the risk to Americans via inappropriate involvement.


Are you saying they, the extremist are just doing what they're doing to our country, to our people because they just want us to continue to be who we are, the way we are?
- Foreverserenity

No.

They don't want us to see things their way? To bow to them and live the way they do? To wipe us off the face of the earth?
- Foreverserenity

No.


I'd give you much more specific responses, but you are speaking in very general terms which means I'd have to spend days filling in background simply for you to see where I'm coming from, so I've offered the above as a simple band-aide in the hope you'll do some research yourself.

With respect,

Reply #18 Top
to spend days filling in background simply for you to see where I'm coming from, so I've offered the above as a simple band-aide in the hope you'll do some research yourself.


Hmm, I don't need to do research, thanks for the band aide though.

It's quite apparent to everyone in the US that Bin Laden and his followers are doing what they are because of what they are. I don't need to spell that out now do I?   

Reply #19 Top
... thanks for the band aide though.- foreverserenity

Humbly offered.

It's quite apparent to everyone in the US that Bin Laden and his followers are doing what they are because of what they are. I don't need to spell that out now do I?
- foreverserenity

Maybe many people in the U.S. think, "Bin Laden and his followers are doing what they are because of what they are." but helping remove the reasons for why some people grow in to that being would be a more efficient way of dealing with them rather then trying to 'deal with them' after they've been formed.

Bin Laden and Co. weren't borne into the world as who they are now, once they've blown themselves up, who will take their place? Why?
Reply #20 Top
To: BakerStreet

What destroyed Rome is what WILL destroy the US. It isn't about imperialism, it is about thinking of everything in a detached, figurative way. It is about seeing death and destruction and threat and wondering how we can spin it to make a dollar or win a vote.


Ahistorical twaddle. A frightened man emoting hysterically and twisting history to suit his polemical purpose of the moment - which is well enough when speaking to dupes and fools who know as little history as RW - but pointless and self-defeating when speaking to others who do know their history.

What fueled the much vaunted decadence of Rome was its final conquest of Carthage, which destroyed its greatest mercantile and military rival. What brought about the collapse of the Empire in the West was not the paltry thesis advanced by Gibbon (moral corruption) but the gap between available income and the costs of defending overstretched borders, plus a chronic over-reliance on what the British used to call 'native-levies' and mercernary forces. Neither Rome's native population, nor even its grossly engorged purse-strings, proved sufficient to the task of defending (let alone further advancing) the boundaries of the Empire.

Both during the heyday of the Republic and the far-longer period of Imperial rule, Rome was the home and center of a 'moral depravity' that would shock the prissy-minded, sex-obsessed and sex-terrified neo-puritans of contemporary America's 'left' and 'right' into utter catatonia if they were ever to fully grasp it. Rome ruled for something close to 1000 years, and for six hundred or so of those years she was an Empire. You need to get your time-scale in order, as well as your facts.

To: Rightwinger

When our civilization was threatened before, by the cruel, dehumanizing brutality of Fascist aggression and tyranny, we united, putting aside political and social differences, and followed our moral compass to ultimate victory. We did what needed done to assure the survival of our ways and ideals.
In recent decades that "compass" has become so skewed as to be virtually unusable. Moral relativity is the order of the day. There is no good or evil, anymore; it’s all in the perception.


This 'moral compass' you refer to. I note it began functioning only after a direct act of war against the UNited States. Prior to that time Roosevelt had lied to the American people with great creativity in order to prepare for a war to which he was passionately committed but which held no appeal whatever for the vast majority of the Americans of the day. Was their 'moral compass' somehow defective?

Or are you, like BakerStreet, simply twisting the facts to suit your own terror-inspired rhetoric? I will agree with you both on one point: America as a nation does appear to be suffering from complacency. But complacency itself is neither the moral evil nor the sign of imminent political collapse you both suggest it is, and is easily cured by two or three timely reminders of essential human vulnerability.

America has already had one such reminder. Others, I have no doubt, are on their way.


Reply #21 Top
which is well enough when speaking to dupes and fools who know as little history as RW
---RW

Gee, you know things I don't; you look at the world differently than I do...how freaky is that? Goshgollygee, but I'm so sorry you hold me in such low regard.
You know something Emp....I don't know how much you make at your job, but I do seem to recall Whip once mentioning that it's around 35 or 40 a year. If so, you're much smarter than whatever the amount truly is.
Problem with you, your intellect makes you self-superior and condescending to the point of nastiness, frequently even when it's not warranted. Screw you, you limey turd.
If you want, I can give you a phone number....it's my dentist. They fix teeth, if you don't know that (which, you being from England, I wouldn't doubt one little bit). Go see him, or find one of your own; NOW, Mr. Powers.

Having said that, let's move on, shall we?

This 'moral compass' you refer to. I note it began functioning only after a direct act of war against the UNited States. Prior to that time Roosevelt had lied to the American people with great creativity in order to prepare for a war to which he was passionately committed but which held no appeal whatever for the vast majority of the Americans of the day.
---Emp

Well, let's not forget that Roosevelt's "creative lying" (is there any other kind?) also pulled the proverbial bacon of your native country at least half way out of the proverbial fire. Therefore, let's not be too harsh on old Frankie, huh?

Roosevelt correctly perceived a threat which he knew would have to be faced eventually, and further realized that facing it sooner and with allies would be better than later, when the enemy would perhaps be stronger, and facing it alone.
So, he began the long process of dragging the American people toward a war they didn't want, but would nonetheless have to fight sometime.
After all, the Germans were preparing to build what they called the "New York Bomber", a plane designed to make it across the Atlantic, dump on NYC, and fly back to territories held by the Fatherland. Sooner or later, it would have happened to us, too. With his "creative lying", Roosevelt avoided the Continental US suffering the fate of Europe and Asia.

Was their 'moral compass' somehow defective?
---Emp

Yes, it was; it was skewed by the suffering, destruction and carnage of a little bump in history they called The Great War. Understandably, they wished to avoid hitting that bump again, and so they buried their heads in the sand, pretending it was all Europe's problem and that it would all just go away. But, when the "direct act of war" came along, they plucked their heads free, shook off the sand and got down to the business of saving Europe's ass. Again.
The differnce now is, even after a direct act of war, and after 30 long years of seeing it coming, too many of us still prefer having our heads in the sand.

Bush is no Roosevelt by any means; his methods are much less subtle and much more hamhanded (Clinton could probably have done it, if he'd been motivated by anything other than keeping his numbers up), but he does see the threat posed by the Islamic Rdicals, and often seems to be the only one in Washington who cares to fight them. The people in party of Roosevelt are the ones who today prefer the sand to actually doing anything proactive to defend us.

Gotta get to work. More on this later, if you're willing.
Reply #22 Top
RW - an interesting and thought provoking post.

Personally I disagree that another muslim caliphate is likely, certainly not in the near future. Bear in mind it would have to overcome the ruling regimes of around 50 nations, as well as many different ethnic groups (Arabs, Bengalis, Persians, Africans, Turks etc). Not to mention the shia/sunni split, and its own religious minorities.

However were one to come about, I have no doubt it would not in the least succeed in converting the world to islam, nor destoying the west. A muslim caliphate attempting to impose their will would be opposed not just by the West, but also India, China and Russia. I think India's and China's economic (and subsequent military) growth is well documented. Watching one civilisation disappear is rare enough, three at once would be unprecedented.

One minor nitpick, I think it will take some time (if ever) before Spain overtakes Indonesia as the world's largest muslim country.
Reply #23 Top
More, continued from post #21:

You know Emp, I've been thinking about you calling me a "dupe and a fool". I don't know for sure, but I'll assume I'm a dupe and fool because on this issue, at least, I side with the President and his vision.
I see the war on terror as one facet of a wider conflict, one that's been going on for about 30 years, and really should have been formally addressed long ago. For the life of me, I can't see why you, and especially you in particular, would disagree on this, but oh, well.....

Abraham Lincoln wrote about the dangerous differences between North and South well before the Secession and war came along. No one wanted really to listen; they thought it would all work out. He was right, they were wrong. He led the country and preserved the Union through its most difficult trial to date, the very thing he warned of, and came to be revered as its greatest president.

General W.T. Sherman warned that the Civil War would be a long and "very bloody affair"; he was assumed to be mentally and emotionally unstable (which, to a point, he was; he suffered from depression) and removed from command, lest his views affect morale. Most assumed the North would crush the Confederacy in a few weeks, a month or two at the outside. He was right, they were wrong. He was also reinstated.

Winston Churchill spent years blowing his trumpet, trying to warn England and the Continent of Hitler's true intentions for Germany and Europe. No one wanted to listen; they called him a "dangerous, warmongering crank". He was right, they were wrong. He was then called to run the country after the hammer fell, as I'd sure hope you know.

People like Father Charles Coughlin, Charles Lindbergh and Kathleen Norris berated Roosevelt for his policies and pro-England stance; they howled when he ordered the Navy to start escorting merchant vessels out into the Atlantic, and again, louder, when he called for a peacetime draft in 1940. But in the end, he was right and they were wrong.
He was elected to four terms in office because the people admired him for his leadership abilities in the very war he worked so hard to ease them into. Ultimately, and nearly too late, they realized just how right he was.

I would venture a guess that those who sided with each of these men in their beliefs may have been considered fools and/or dupes as well, by their contemporaries who disagreed. That, however, didn't make them any less right in the end. If you do, indeed, disagree with me, I'd have to wonder just which of us is the dupe and fool.

I will agree with you both on one point: America as a nation does appear to be suffering from complacency. But complacency itself is neither the moral evil nor the sign of imminent political collapse you both suggest it is, and is easily cured by two or three timely reminders of essential human vulnerability.

America has already had one such reminder. Others, I have no doubt, are on their way.
---Emp

Yes, we agree here.

Overall, I think this war has entered a kind of "Sitzkrieg" period, if you understand the term, which I have faith that you do. But I also have complete faith that it will sometime soon widen, and become much more active, and destructive, in the future.

It will be a long, very bloody affair.
Reply #24 Top
Sorry, I was away for a few days, and didn't realize the amount of posts I'd gotten in the interim. Thank you all, even those jerks who disagree with me. I haven't really got the time now to answer them all individually, and I really should have done this in my posts above, but I'll do what I can.

Deference:

As to the Jefferson quote, I feel that it refers to the need for a nation's, any nation's, freedom and/or soverignty to be defended, rededicated and more deeply appreciated by the citizens (read: "patriots") by standing in the face of aggression (read "tyrants"), any aggression, from within or without. Muslim extremists are just the latest "tyrants" to present themselves to our soverign nation.

Deference and darth silliness:

It may be naive on my part, but yes, I can see the ultimate goal of Radical Islam as being a worldwide empire ruled under their thumb. And al-qaeda HAS recently issued a warning calling for this, and for the US to convert. It was given by that retard from Orange Co., California, another kid like that "American Taliban" moron (who ALSO was from the Left Coast, a fact I find highly significant and ironic in my tightly-closed, suspicious little mind) who converted to Islam and went to join al-Qaeda. I had the link, but I lost it. If I can find something, I'll post it.
Is it possible for them rule the world? Yes, I think it could be; I'm sorry to keep harking back to WW2, but let's not forget that Nazi Germany ruled an empire that stretched from the Atlantic to East Central Russia, and down into Northern Africa. At its height, Imperial Japan ruled from the Russian border in the north nearly to Australia, to the Indian border in the west, and untold numbers of islands and atolls to the east out in the Pacific. And they both did it all without nukes or using any WMD-type weapons. Hitler actually feared and distrusted them (he was injured by mustard gas in WWI). And they both were nations of what, 20 or so million maybe, back then?
We're talking a billion or more people here, and we would seem to have to wonder about any qualms they may have with using WMD and nukes. Especially against us.
Now, could they overcome their sectarian divisiveness? I do seem to recall a few of them there a while back, coming out in unison in protest of a couple stupid cartoons they found mildly offensive, and then again when the poor ole Pope quoted someone from 500 years ago. And let us not forget the hue and cry over the alleged "flushings" of the Koran. They seemed to find unity in these moments, why not eventually in some greater purpose, as well? Perhaps all they need is to find a "Hitler" of their own? You never know. Why wait and see?

I'll end here. Gotta go. More later.
Reply #25 Top
Here is a link to the Left Coast al-Qaeda weasel I referred to above:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/09/02/zawahiri.tape/index.html

The language I heard used in the tape was a little stronger than a simple "invitation", as the article calls it, but then, it is from CNN.

And here's another, from Fox:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,137087,00.html

I guess, if my middle name was "Yahiye", I'd probably change my name, too. Poor guy.