Liberal Appeasement

And you thought it was just a slur

from JoeUser Forums

I read an article today where a member of the left side of the spectrum was trying to explain why we should be more tolerant of the terrorist.  Now I know that many people got upset when Karl Rove made the statements he did, and some perhaps rightfully so.

But this Article was trying to attach blame to all the victims of terrorism by quoting a recent history of the Middle east.  The problem is, he shot at the broad side of a barn and missed totally.

The suggestion of that article, and of many others on the loony left fringe (note to the easily offended: That does not mean ALL left people) is that we should understand them and try to then reason with them so we can all live in peace like little bunny rabbits.

But of course that will not work as they stated objective of the terrorist is not to get us out of the middle east, but to annihilate our society from the face of the earth.  For the most part, these terrorists have no beef with any western country other than we are strong and they are weak.

To excuse the deaths of hundreds of civilians because we liberated Kuwait (the stated reason Bin Laden has targeted us) is to say that we must never confront evil for risk of offending some nut job wacko!

We should not have confronted Tojo or Hitler because we were going to offend 200m people!  We must not confront Milosovic because we are going to offend millions of Serbs, or Sudan's genocide or we will offend more Muslims!

This is of course totally outrageous and beyond the comprehension of free people.  For the end result of such actions is the loss of freedom and liberty!

Yet the left would have us do this for the sake of peace!  They totally fail to realize that selling freedom for peace means you have neither!  DO you think the Taliban would be a benevolent dictatorship if we just understood them better?

It really boggles my mind that even today after 3 major cities have been targeted by these suicidal homicidal maniacs, that these Casper Milquetoasts can still spout that drivel and think it will make a difference.

It will make a difference all right.  They might give YOU a jar of KY Jelly before they ram the shaft up your poop chute!  But in either case, as the cliché goes, you are farked.

politics
8,146 views 32 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
Where's Ben Franklin now that we really need him!
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
The problem is we lack the middle ground right now. On one side we have the Looney Left saying we should all just have a group hug and make it better, and on the other side we have the Ringwing Nutjobs wanting to invade any country that might possibly have a terrorist hiding within it. Neither approach is going to work. The first shows extreme weakness that will be exploited, the second creates martyrs and lends credibility to the claims of terrorists.

We must be careful with our targets, and when we pick them we must be swift and decisive. And most important of all, we need to say WHY we picked our target and be honest and straight-forward about it. Show the documents and the proof that led to the decision. Then go in and bomb the holy hell out of whoever it is we're after, get them, get out. We can't invade every country in the Middle East, it's not practical and will just make the situation worse.

NATO is the organization we have to work through now too for this. The UN is a dead institution that is too caught up in its own supposed greatness and a desire to spite America simply because it's the big boy on the block that nothing can get done within those halls anymore. It's a shame too because there was such wonderful potential for the UN to be the unifying group of the planet.
DeskScapes - Bring your desktop background to life.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply By: Zoomba

While I will not deny there are some on the extreme right as you describe, I do not see that as the administration policy.  The reason we had 9-11 is that we were suffering from a credibility gap between words and deeds.  A gap such as that is not easily rectified and can only be corrected by showing the enemy we will back up words with deeds.  For 8 years, we did not do that, and so Bin Laden figured us for a paper tiger.  Bush is not going hunting for any more scalps.  He does not need to.  He has made his deeds speak louder than his words, and it is having the desired effect.  Half the mid east is turning around.  And the last beligerent nations, Syria and Iran, are treading very carefully.

As for the invasion of Iraq, it was necessary for that reason.  What those who opposed Iraq try to twist it as , is that Bush Lied.  No, he had the documentation and showed it to all.  That some turned out not to be true was not a fault of a lie, but on faulty data, faulty data that everyone at the time beleived to be true.

NK and Iran are going to bluster and strut.  But they are not going to go out of their way to antagonize the rest of the world either.  While there is no consensus now to invade either, should the nations perceive them to be rogue, that will change quickly.  ANd they both now see that it is the perception that will be met with force.

Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top

spectrum

Always loved that word... wonder if its related to scrotum....

No, more related to rainbow.  As in separating light into its component colors.  All colors come together to make up light as we see it.  Just as all people come together to make up society as we live it.

Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
No, more related to rainbow.


and some people have no sense of humour today
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
it's just that the poor terrorist are downtroden and misunderstood doc, while rove, well he is the real enemy. a conservative republican that has whipped the left in many elections and they hate him for that.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
Isn't it ironic that the far left wants us to "understand" and "reason" with them because well, they're just a bunch of misunderstood victims; yet the mean hearted Karl Rove and Prs. Bush are just enemies to be conquered at all costs.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top

and some people have no sense of humour today

I thought my response was very sarcastic.  Did we not get our morning tea today?

Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top

it's just that the poor terrorist are downtroden and misunderstood doc, while rove, well he is the real enemy. a conservative republican that has whipped the left in many elections and they hate him for that.

I cant seem to google how many buildings Rove has blown up.  Do you have that figure handy?

Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top

Isn't it ironic that the far left wants us to "understand" and "reason" with them because well, they're just a bunch of misunderstood victims; yet the mean hearted Karl Rove and Prs. Bush are just enemies to be conquered at all costs.

In their (weak) defense, they are not actually calling for the death of either (well most are not) yet.

Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: Dr. GuyPosted: Wednesday, July 13, 2005it's just that the poor terrorist are downtroden and misunderstood doc, while rove, well he is the real enemy. a conservative republican that has whipped the left in many elections and they hate him for that.I cant seem to google how many buildings Rove has blown up. Do you have that figure handy?


nope doc, but I can google how many democraps rove has destroyed. eh eh eh eh eh
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top

nope doc, but I can google how many democraps rove has destroyed. eh eh eh eh eh

Well, I have heard that talking to the democrat leaders is like talking to a Brick walll.  Maybe every 4 of them make a building?

Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
OH man hahaha and I thought Reiki was bad....are you related to him?

I'm flattered really I am.

Notice with David Copperfield mysticism how he pastes intimate first hand (imaginary) knowledge of first person POV. Notice the whispers he gets from Guantanamo ghosts speaking directly into his ear. Is there a batphone nearby?

But of course that will not work as they stated objective of the terrorist is not to get us out of the middle east, but to annihilate our society from the face of the earth. For the most part, these terrorists have no beef with any western country other than we are strong and they are weak.


Boy you can tell all thay just from reading about an attack over the web eh? Now that's reading between the lines!

They totally fail to realize that selling freedom for peace means you have neither! DO you think the Taliban would be a benevolent dictatorship if we just understood them better?


I think you fail to realize when the pakistani presedent Musharref stopped funding them they had serious money problems. The reign would have fallen in a few years against the northern allies had you just convinced Mushie to crack down on the exploding opium problem and cut off their cash supply! DUH! Link

We should not have confronted Tojo or Hitler because we were going to offend 200m people! We must not confront Milosovic because we are going to offend millions of Serbs, or Sudan's genocide or we will offend more Muslims!


Hahaha. America did not do this alone. It was a joint affair. Let me make this simple for you to understand. Killing is bad. More killing is more bad. When an entity be that a country/islamist group/dictator grabs the reigns of power by the horns and hurts people internationally they got a response.

When things get this bad the remaining countries decide on what best do about it. Think League of Nations. The point was that no country bear the brunt because they might needlessly endanger themselves or engage in unilateral attempt to play backdoor politics under the guise liberty. When looking at the numbers you see that responding at a national level incurs more deaths through warfare that what originally occured by the attacks. Saving life was the idea right? I'm not talking bad guys here.

Now so far the chances of people being bitten by dogs is numerically higher than being assaulted by a terrorist. Couple this with a dismal display at the UN and you wonder is full on war the best way to respond to an enemy that shifts borders, nationalities, and even race at the turn of a dime?

The approach needs to be as flexible as the enemy is. One needs to surgically identify and remove these people without laying god damned razor wire around an entire city. But that requires cooperation, something the boys in charge aren't too keen on.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
No, he had the documentation and showed it to all. That some turned out not to be true was not a fault of a lie, but on faulty data, faulty data that everyone at the time beleived to be true.
NK and Iran are going to bluster and strut. But they are not going to go out of their way to antagonize the rest of the world either.


he may have had documentation--like the fake documents about iraq buying uranium from niger--but it's not true that everyone believed them to be true. in fact, the only people who insisted they were true and continued to do so beyond any reasonable limit were the project for a new american century hawks who WANTED them to be true.

perle & wolfowitz (as cheney well knew and bush could learned from his father) spent a good deal of the 80s re-analyzing cia data to make it fit their template. the net result was our spending millions of dollars to stay even with their perception of the soviet threat. the cia was already overstating soviet capabilities and the team b guys were inflating that overstatement.

the us intelligence group (the state department's inr) which produced the most accurate estimate in those days was also the group that pronounced the niger documents fakes...and made a continous, if unsucessful, effort to have them taken that whole issue outta the mix.

so what if we spent a few billion more than was needed...especially since we ultimately pushed the soviets into bankruptcy by doing so? it was foolish and we lucked out.

we certainly can't afford to be so foolish as we've been since 9/11 2001. if we're as lucky as last time, no terrorists organizations will succeed in arming themselves with nukes until we've managed to put iraq back together again. if we arent...

you presumption as to what nk and iran are gonna do (and they're gonna do nothing right?) is very likely more dangerous than articles by the fuzzy bunny people. i've no doubt the administration feels the same way about nk and iran as you do. it's the reason we're putting so much of our money and energy into making iraq the new terrorist training camp instead of making any kinda effective effort to help secure the nuclear inventory of the old soviet union.

if we're really lucky, we'll elect someone in 2008 who'll start making a real effort to deny terrorists the opportunity to wreak nuclear havoc on us. if we're even luckier, we still have three years to waste yelling 'let's roll'
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top

Boy you can tell all thay just from reading about an attack over the web eh? Now that's reading between the lines!

No, by Reading Bin Laden's Fatwa.  Something you are grossly unfamiliar with based upon your ignorance.

Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top

I think you fail to realize when the pakistani presedent Musharref stopped funding them they had serious money problems. The reign would have fallen in a few years against the northern allies had you just convinced Mushie to crack down on the exploding opium problem and cut off their cash supply! DUH! Link

Tell that to Castro. Link

Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top

Hahaha. America did not do this alone. It was a joint affair. Let me make this simple for you to understand. Killing is bad. More killing is more bad. When an entity be that a country/islamist group/dictator grabs the reigns of power by the horns and hurts people internationally they got a response.

This is life.  Sometimes Shit happens and someone has to deal with it.  I would go through the rest of your response, but I wil let it stand as a perfect example of what this article is all about.  It is nice to 'feel' for the poor and downtrodden.  But when they start killing women and children, it is time to stop feeling and start containing, however possible.  You can sit there and spew this shit because brave men died to protect your right to do so. 

That does not make you noble, just stupid.

Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top

he may have had documentation--like the fake documents about iraq buying uranium from niger--

Better recheck your facts.  England is standing by that bit of Intel.  They were not fake.  You are wrong again.

Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top

if we're really lucky, we'll elect someone in 2008 who'll start making a real effort to deny terrorists the opportunity to wreak nuclear havoc on us. if we're even luckier, we still have three years to waste yelling 'let's roll'

You spend paragraphs going over old debunked myths, and claiming them facts, and then end your diatribe with a call to Elect another Bush.  For indeed Clinton did nothing, Gore hid under a desk, and so did Kerry.  And we are supposed to believe any of them would have done something?  Instead you point the finger, falsely, at Bush's team, complain about the Intel, Intel that Bush could not rebuild in 6 months, that Clinton had gutted, and then say we need a Leader to Out Bush, Bush.

Nice try for circular logic.

Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
Re; Hiroshima and Dresden. I think it is hard for people of our generation to fathom the loss of life that we faced in WW2. We lost as many, sometimes twice as many, soldiers in SINGLE BATTLES in WW2 as we have lost fighting BOTH conflicts in Iraq. We, ourselves, wonder why we bother sending ground troops into Iraqi towns when we could just bomb them flat and not face the house to house fighting. In WW2, we lost a thousand men in a battle regularly.

It's easy to sit in your armchair and say "Well, I would have gladly lost another 30-40,000 men just so I could say I didn't carpet bomb civilians," but, then you aren't the one responsible for those men, and who have to tell their families you risked their lives over a moral choice.
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
It's easy to sit in your armchair and say "Well, I would have gladly lost another 30-40,000 men just so I could say I didn't carpet bomb civilians,"


The estimates that the Allies had if they had invaded Japan was for 1 million casualties, with close to 500k dead. That is hardly 30-40k.

In addition, while the A Bombs killed about 150k thousand, the estimates of Japanese losses were in the millions.
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
if we're really lucky, we'll elect someone in 2008 who'll start making a real effort to deny terrorists the opportunity to wreak nuclear havoc on us. if we're even luckier, we still have three years to waste yelling 'let's roll'


Then vote republican.
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
Then vote republican.


Hehehehehehe
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
No, by Reading Bin Laden's Fatwa. Something you are grossly unfamiliar with based upon your ignorance.


I've read the fatwa. Instead of focusing where he is I focused on what he said. Here is one of the clearer statements declaring his demands. Link

Surprisingly lucid too. For example:

No, we fight because we are free men who don't sleep under oppression. We want to restore freedom to our nation, just as you lay waste to our nation. So shall we lay waste to yours.


JU response "how could they?"

No-one except a dumb thief plays with the security of others and then makes himself believe he will be secure. Whereas thinking people, when disaster strikes, make it their priority to look for its causes, in order to prevent it happening again.


When people do look for answers they become liberal. Even if they are republican! Or as you say, "liberal appeasers". HEL-LO

But I am amazed at you. Even though we are in the fourth year after the events of September 11th, Bush is still engaged in distortion, deception and hiding from you the real causes. And thus, the reasons are still there for a repeat of what occurred.


JU response. The rhetoric of the left wing media. Tsk tsk.

I say to you, Allah knows that it had never occurred to us to strike the towers. But after it became unbearable and we witnessed the oppression and tyranny of the American/Israeli coalition against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, it came to my mind.


Indirect involvement for the US - direct involvement for Israel. The only thing worse than an anti-semite is a zionist. Stop letting another country dictate your affairs.

I couldn't forget those moving scenes, blood and severed limbs, women and children sprawled everywhere. Houses destroyed along with their occupants and high rises demolished over their residents, rockets raining down on our home without mercy.


Think he was looking for an eye for an eye in those statements? I'd say so.

And that day, it was confirmed to me that oppression and the intentional killing of innocent women and children is a deliberate American policy. Destruction is freedom and democracy, while resistance is terrorism and intolerance.


Oh look at the persistant foreign policy ghost rears it's ugly head once again.....

This is due to many factors, chief amongst them, that we have found it difficult to deal with the Bush administration in light of the resemblance it bears to the regimes in our countries, half of which are ruled by the military and the other half which are ruled by the sons of kings and presidents.


Didn't I just say that the other day? Collusion with questionable leaders?

As for the size of the economic deficit, it has reached record astronomical numbers estimated to total more than a trillion dollars.


Those caves must have exceptional broadband service! Sooner or later the money and credit will run out. Maybe that was his plan all along?

But the darkness of the black gold blurred his vision and insight, and he gave priority to private interests over the public interests of America.


This statement acknowledges the contradictions of the white house. It also alludes to well argued conflicts of interest that have been discussed on JU before. Then the denial set in.

Whether you agree or not at least I have argued from a consistant traditional liberal stance and not very far off from one displaced muslim.

This is life. Sometimes Shit happens and someone has to deal with it. I would go through the rest of your response, but I wil let it stand as a perfect example of what this article is all about. It is nice to 'feel' for the poor and downtrodden. But when they start killing women and children, it is time to stop feeling and start containing, however possible. You can sit there and spew this shit because brave men died to protect your right to do so.

That does not make you noble, just stupid.


What's worse, being someone consciencous enough to look at the opposite perspective or someone who simply multiplies the problem through war?