We MUST Stay In Iraq!

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]vroom wrote:
Wow.

Some of you folks need to realize that our values are based on people. Living human beings. Nationalities and non-totalitarian ideologies are of secondary importance.

I believe the wild warmongering hatred and fear based hype going on around here.

I don’t know what has you so wound up, but the world isn’t going to end tomorrow, and this is true whether the troops stay in Iraq or not.

Also, a news flash, the bad guys already have access to lots of money and supplies with which to inflict damage.

Anyway, while it might feel good to go kick some us, it does have a way polarizing things and leaving the world in a more dangerous state than it was in previously.

What we need is some intelligent and wise decisions that work towards a better future… not generations of warfare. I believe, though of course I’m not sure, that it would be possible to defuse things, reduce the hatred coming at us from the enemy, reduce their ability to recruit and increase the level of moderate thinking in the region.

Picking fights and acting like the old style Soviet Union (suppressing as much territory as possible via military might) while citizens live within a police state is not the way to a bright future.

Funny how so many ideals are breaking down under the slightest pressure.[/quote]

And while we pat ourselves on the back for our values, the enemy laughs and says, “See, they have no stomach for this. A paper tiger.” The next generation or two is going to ask, “Why did you do nothing when they were weaker? Why did you leave this to us, an enemy grown strong and vast on your watch?” And our response from our rocking chairs will be, “For values and principles.” That’s principled? Those are values? I think not. And the children born today, and those to them, will not thank us for our “values” now.

82

[quote]Sloth wrote:

And while we pat ourselves on the back for our values, the enemy laughs and says, “See, they have no stomach for this. A paper tiger.” The next generation or two is going to ask, “Why did you do nothing when they were weaker? Why did you leave this to us, an enemy grown strong and vast on your watch?” And our response from our rocking chairs will be, “For values and principles.” That’s principled? Those are values? I think not. And the children born today, and those to them, will not thank us for our “values” now.[/quote]

Well said.

The enemy will broadcast to anyone who will listen that they think the West doesn’t have the mettle for the fight. Hoping that the Islamists will suddenly have a change of heart and say “man, what were we thinking?” is nothing but a death wish.

Every time we show a willingness to be more ‘tolerant’, they see it as an weakness to be exploited and attacked. So we have to ask ourselves - do we take human nature as it really is and steel ourselves for the fight, or do we take pretend-world utopia human nature and roll over for an enemy that won’t have a change of heart or conscience?

Our grandparents and great-grandparents had no such moral cowardice when staring down Nazism. They must be disappointed.

83

[quote]vroom wrote:

I believe, though of course I’m not sure, that it would be possible to defuse things, reduce the hatred coming at us from the enemy, reduce their ability to recruit and increase the level of moderate thinking in the region.[/quote]

And your naivete continues to amaze. What solutions do you suggest to accomplish these pie-in-the-sky aspirations?

How can you defuse the Islamist desires of re-establishing the caliphate? How do you defuse the existence of Israel, whose existence regardless of boundaries, will be the object of hatred for even so-called moderate Muslims and for which there is no political solution (can’t have a political compromise with someone you don’t think has a right to exist)?

How do you reduce the hatred coming from the enemy, when it is our very liberalism that they despise? They don’t care about us trading for oil there, as long as they can charge extortionate rates, so that has nothing to do with it.

What exactly has caused the ‘hatred’ of the Islamists toward black Christians and animists in Africa that warrants the latter’s slaughter concurrent with the advancement of radical Islam? What did those poor Africans do to incur the hatred of Islamists? Imperialism? Hegemony? Any of the tired phrases the Left uses in lieu of actually seeing what motivates the Islamists in the first place? Existing outside the strictures of radical Islam is what causes the hatred you worry so much over - after all, many victims of radical Islam have no power to abuse over poor, ignorant Muslims, but they are dead all the same.

I think there are quite a few things we can do to help fend off the evil of radical Islam, and the West would benefit greatly from a few changes from the current approach, in my opinion - but it foolish, nay, deadly to approach the enemy the way you do. We should treat them not as projects by which we have a neato opportunity to civilize them, but we should treat the skeptically as enemies.

If this offends your tender sensibilities, that is unfortunate. From an important Union general seen in my avatar:

[quote]“You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out. I know I had no hand in making this war, and I know I will make more sacrifices today than any of you to secure peace…You might as well appeal against the thunder-storm as against these terrible hardships of war. They are inevitable, and the only way the people of Atlanta can hope once more to live in peace and quiet at home, is to stop the war, which can only be done by admitting that it began in error and is perpetuated in pride.”

-Sherman’s letter to the mayor of Atlanta, prior to the razing of the city[/quote]

The solution? Punish them for wanting war. War is all romantic and glorious, right up until the time it visits your doorstep. All of the jeremiads against the West are all exciting and inspiring - it makes young, dumb wannabe revolutionaries get all upi n arms and ready to go - right up until you and your family experience the hardship of real war. War is awful - and if you take it to your enemy in toto, you remind them to not be so cavalier about wanting and cheering war the next time.

They can love us or hate us, but make them quake when the thought of waging war against us is mentioned. That is the first step in lasting peace. Make them know war is not and never can be an option against the West, then you can work on the rest. As long as they think war will accomplish their agenda, it is naive to think they will quit as a matter of loving and tolerant epiphany.

84

[quote]Sloth wrote:

Yes, very confident of not being one of those soldiers. Thanks to having emergency surgery to correct esophageal varicies (induced by hypertension of the hepatic portal vein) at 16 years of age. Spent about a week in a drug induced coma before having the vascular system around my liver rerouted to relieve the blood pressure. I have one shunt that is a blood vessel removed from my groin area on the left side. And another that is synthetic.

You don’t even begin to know how much it hurts to be told you can’t do something you’ve set your heart on since childhood.
Because, for whatever reason, you develop a condition that you have no control over. Especially when you remain optimistic and bust your ass to try to overcome a possible dead end in your aspirations, only to have someone make the decision for you.

[/quote]

Numerous members here will now proceed to call you a coward, that you’re really faking, and blah, blah, blah… I’m not one of them.

85

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
Sloth wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:

“The evil” huh? Could you even give that evil a name, beyond some moronic term like “Islamofascist”? I’m guessing you’d have a hard time explaining concrete differences between Shia and Sunni without cutting and pasting from Wikipedia, but maybe I’m wrong.

Glad you asked. I believe this article does a damn fine job answering that.

http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2006-winter/no-substitute-for-victory.asp

That was directed at Headhunter, not you dude.[/quote]

I don’t mind him answering you. He’s a much better debater than I and besides I enjoy watching him rip you guys a new one.

86

http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2006-winter/no-substitute-for-victory.asp

This kind of thinking is just as dangerous as any other form of extremism.History is littered with examples of men touting this extreme approach of foreign policy couched in the guise of “morality”.
Every government I can think of,has at some time or another supported and colluded with murderous regimes when it is their own geopolitical interest,so they have no grasp at the moral high bar.
The author comes across as a little…deranged.

Am I the only one that thinks so?

87

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Sloth wrote:

Yes, very confident of not being one of those soldiers. Thanks to having emergency surgery to correct esophageal varicies (induced by hypertension of the hepatic portal vein) at 16 years of age. Spent about a week in a drug induced coma before having the vascular system around my liver rerouted to relieve the blood pressure. I have one shunt that is a blood vessel removed from my groin area on the left side. And another that is synthetic.

You don’t even begin to know how much it hurts to be told you can’t do something you’ve set your heart on since childhood.
Because, for whatever reason, you develop a condition that you have no control over. Especially when you remain optimistic and bust your ass to try to overcome a possible dead end in your aspirations, only to have someone make the decision for you.

Numerous members here will now proceed to call you a coward, that you’re really faking, and blah, blah, blah… I’m not one of them.

[/quote]

I wouldn’t call him a coward. He is not actively trying to convince high school students to join the military so they can fight in Iraq. He is just stating his opinions.

88

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
vroom wrote:

I believe, though of course I’m not sure, that it would be possible to defuse things, reduce the hatred coming at us from the enemy, reduce their ability to recruit and increase the level of moderate thinking in the region.

And your naivete continues to amaze. What solutions do you suggest to accomplish these pie-in-the-sky aspirations?

How can you defuse the Islamist desires of re-establishing the caliphate? How do you defuse the existence of Israel, whose existence regardless of boundaries, will be the object of hatred for even so-called moderate Muslims and for which there is no political solution (can’t have a political compromise with someone you don’t think has a right to exist)?

How do you reduce the hatred coming from the enemy, when it is our very liberalism that they despise? They don’t care about us trading for oil there, as long as they can charge extortionate rates, so that has nothing to do with it.

What exactly has caused the ‘hatred’ of the Islamists toward black Christians and animists in Africa that warrants the latter’s slaughter concurrent with the advancement of radical Islam? What did those poor Africans do to incur the hatred of Islamists? Imperialism? Hegemony? Any of the tired phrases the Left uses in lieu of actually seeing what motivates the Islamists in the first place? Existing outside the strictures of radical Islam is what causes the hatred you worry so much over - after all, many victims of radical Islam have no power to abuse over poor, ignorant Muslims, but they are dead all the same.

I think there are quite a few things we can do to help fend off the evil of radical Islam, and the West would benefit greatly from a few changes from the current approach, in my opinion - but it foolish, nay, deadly to approach the enemy the way you do. We should treat them not as projects by which we have a neato opportunity to civilize them, but we should treat the skeptically as enemies.

If this offends your tender sensibilities, that is unfortunate. From an important Union general seen in my avatar:

“You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out. I know I had no hand in making this war, and I know I will make more sacrifices today than any of you to secure peace…You might as well appeal against the thunder-storm as against these terrible hardships of war. They are inevitable, and the only way the people of Atlanta can hope once more to live in peace and quiet at home, is to stop the war, which can only be done by admitting that it began in error and is perpetuated in pride.”

-Sherman’s letter to the mayor of Atlanta, prior to the razing of the city

The solution? Punish them for wanting war. War is all romantic and glorious, right up until the time it visits your doorstep. All of the jeremiads against the West are all exciting and inspiring - it makes young, dumb wannabe revolutionaries get all upi n arms and ready to go - right up until you and your family experience the hardship of real war. War is awful - and if you take it to your enemy in toto, you remind them to not be so cavalier about wanting and cheering war the next time.

They can love us or hate us, but make them quake when the thought of waging war against us is mentioned. That is the first step in lasting peace. Make them know war is not and never can be an option against the West, then you can work on the rest. As long as they think war will accomplish their agenda, it is naive to think they will quit as a matter of loving and tolerant epiphany.[/quote]

Thunder,

I applaud this recent post. There are plenty examples of people on this board who could be used to justify the contention that the West will run when confronted. You see phrases like: “illegal war” and crying about air conditioning in Guantanamo.

Not only do they not understand the stakes of this WORLD WAR III, they have a fundamental misunderstanding of the danger that terrorism poses in a nuclear/biochemical age.

Finally, they appear to not understand religious fundamentalism and the concept of martyrdom.

If you read the nonsense about how “we talked the Soviet Union down. Why can’t we do that here?”

Those sentiments clearly illustrate my point. Not only were the Soviet’s not religious fanatics, they didn’t have the ingrained believe that martyrdom will be rewarded.

I agree wholeheartedly that this philosophy must met with extreme force.

A final delusion that our leftist friends labor under is that we can reason with the extremists. I’ll tell you clearly that the extremists view our vacillation and what the democrats are attempting today as victory. The same can be said for hezbollah in this summer’s war with Israel.

Any sign of weakness will embolden them.

I fear that the recent elections have made this more difficult. I heard recently that 1/3 of Evangelical Christians voted for democrats “to teach the Republicans a lesson.” If any of you out there employed this strategy, I say to you: “You have done us all a disservice and you should be ashamed at your myopia.” You’ve, in essence, coalasced the democrats into an ever-escalating Anti-War stance. The dems, headlined by teddy kennedy, feel that they can score political points. What they are actually doing is admitting total defeat. Unfortunately, that will comfort and encourage the enemy.

Sad.

JeffR

89

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

The solution? Punish them for wanting war. War is all romantic and glorious, right up until the time it visits your doorstep.
[/quote]

Indeed.

90

[quote]JeffR wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
vroom wrote:

I believe, though of course I’m not sure, that it would be possible to defuse things, reduce the hatred coming at us from the enemy, reduce their ability to recruit and increase the level of moderate thinking in the region.

And your naivete continues to amaze. What solutions do you suggest to accomplish these pie-in-the-sky aspirations?

How can you defuse the Islamist desires of re-establishing the caliphate? How do you defuse the existence of Israel, whose existence regardless of boundaries, will be the object of hatred for even so-called moderate Muslims and for which there is no political solution (can’t have a political compromise with someone you don’t think has a right to exist)?

How do you reduce the hatred coming from the enemy, when it is our very liberalism that they despise? They don’t care about us trading for oil there, as long as they can charge extortionate rates, so that has nothing to do with it.

What exactly has caused the ‘hatred’ of the Islamists toward black Christians and animists in Africa that warrants the latter’s slaughter concurrent with the advancement of radical Islam? What did those poor Africans do to incur the hatred of Islamists? Imperialism? Hegemony? Any of the tired phrases the Left uses in lieu of actually seeing what motivates the Islamists in the first place? Existing outside the strictures of radical Islam is what causes the hatred you worry so much over - after all, many victims of radical Islam have no power to abuse over poor, ignorant Muslims, but they are dead all the same.

I think there are quite a few things we can do to help fend off the evil of radical Islam, and the West would benefit greatly from a few changes from the current approach, in my opinion - but it foolish, nay, deadly to approach the enemy the way you do. We should treat them not as projects by which we have a neato opportunity to civilize them, but we should treat the skeptically as enemies.

If this offends your tender sensibilities, that is unfortunate. From an important Union general seen in my avatar:

“You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out. I know I had no hand in making this war, and I know I will make more sacrifices today than any of you to secure peace…You might as well appeal against the thunder-storm as against these terrible hardships of war. They are inevitable, and the only way the people of Atlanta can hope once more to live in peace and quiet at home, is to stop the war, which can only be done by admitting that it began in error and is perpetuated in pride.”

-Sherman’s letter to the mayor of Atlanta, prior to the razing of the city

The solution? Punish them for wanting war. War is all romantic and glorious, right up until the time it visits your doorstep. All of the jeremiads against the West are all exciting and inspiring - it makes young, dumb wannabe revolutionaries get all upi n arms and ready to go - right up until you and your family experience the hardship of real war. War is awful - and if you take it to your enemy in toto, you remind them to not be so cavalier about wanting and cheering war the next time.

They can love us or hate us, but make them quake when the thought of waging war against us is mentioned. That is the first step in lasting peace. Make them know war is not and never can be an option against the West, then you can work on the rest. As long as they think war will accomplish their agenda, it is naive to think they will quit as a matter of loving and tolerant epiphany.

Thunder,

I applaud this recent post. There are plenty examples of people on this board who could be used to justify the contention that the West will run when confronted. You see phrases like: “illegal war” and crying about air conditioning in Guantanamo.

Not only do they not understand the stakes of this WORLD WAR III, they have a fundamental misunderstanding of the danger that terrorism poses in a nuclear/biochemical age.

Finally, they appear to not understand religious fundamentalism and the concept of martyrdom.

If you read the nonsense about how “we talked the Soviet Union down. Why can’t we do that here?”

Those sentiments clearly illustrate my point. Not only were the Soviet’s not religious fanatics, they didn’t have the ingrained believe that martyrdom will be rewarded.

I agree wholeheartedly that this philosophy must met with extreme force.

A final delusion that our leftist friends labor under is that we can reason with the extremists. I’ll tell you clearly that the extremists view our vacillation and what the democrats are attempting today as victory. The same can be said for hezbollah in this summer’s war with Israel.

Any sign of weakness will embolden them.

I fear that the recent elections have made this more difficult. I heard recently that 1/3 of Evangelical Christians voted for democrats “to teach the Republicans a lesson.” If any of you out there employed this strategy, I say to you: “You have done us all a disservice and you should be ashamed at your myopia.” You’ve, in essence, coalasced the democrats into an ever-escalating Anti-War stance. The dems, headlined by teddy kennedy, feel that they can score political points. What they are actually doing is admitting total defeat. Unfortunately, that will comfort and encourage the enemy.

Sad.

JeffR

[/quote]

JeffR, welcome back! Haven’t seen you around these parts for a while.

91

[quote]ALDurr wrote:
JeffR, welcome back! Haven’t seen you around these parts for a while.
[/quote]

Hey, my friend. I’ve been keeping a close eye on developments. Seems like Iraq is coming to a head.

I have to tell you honestly that 2008 cannot come soon enough for me, politically. As much as I agree with George Bush on the major issues, he isn’t the President we need for the next step in this crisis.

I’d feel much better if Rudy Guiliani looked into the camera and said, “I was at Ground Zero. I saw the results of our complacency. I want everyone who resorts to terrorism to know, we are going to get you. No matter how long it takes, we are coming. To the moderates and our allies, we pledge the full might of the United States in helping you to remove the scourge of violent extremism. From Somalia to Iran, if you harbor these slime, we are going to get them. To our friends in Pakistan, it’s time for us to get bin laden. He’s been free for long enough. His very existence is a continuing source of pain to us. We are aware of your delicate position, however, we have to have him.”

I’m aware of not wanting to offend a friendly Government in the region, however, it’s time to get this guy.

It’s good to be back!!! Thanks for the kind words.

JeffR

92

Al Durr and I agreeing on something? OMG!!!

Welcome back, Jeff!

93

[quote]ALDurr wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Sloth wrote:

Yes, very confident of not being one of those soldiers. Thanks to having emergency surgery to correct esophageal varicies (induced by hypertension of the hepatic portal vein) at 16 years of age. Spent about a week in a drug induced coma before having the vascular system around my liver rerouted to relieve the blood pressure. I have one shunt that is a blood vessel removed from my groin area on the left side. And another that is synthetic.

You don’t even begin to know how much it hurts to be told you can’t do something you’ve set your heart on since childhood.
Because, for whatever reason, you develop a condition that you have no control over. Especially when you remain optimistic and bust your ass to try to overcome a possible dead end in your aspirations, only to have someone make the decision for you.

Numerous members here will now proceed to call you a coward, that you’re really faking, and blah, blah, blah… I’m not one of them.

I wouldn’t call him a coward. He is not actively trying to convince high school students to join the military so they can fight in Iraq. He is just stating his opinions.[/quote]

On my bulletin board, I have an article about Charles Wrangel (one of your lib heros) wanting to bring back the draft, and I tell them how evil that is.

I do encourage them to consider joining after college, and becoming an officer. What could be more noble than defending the greatest country in the history of the world?

I also encourage those very few who don’t go to college to enlist. Its better than working at a meaningless job at Burger King, wouldn’t you say? (For the reason given above.)

America, the finest and most moral country in the history of the world, needs fine young men to defend it. I don’t consider what I do as in any way wrong.

94

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
“If these groups were allowed to take control of Iraq after an American pull out the situation would be dramatically worse then it ever was
under Saddam. If our enemies end up controlling Iraq’s massive petroleum reserves the precious
commodity could easily be traded for nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons from anyone number of anti-American powers.”

— received in an e-mail.

We must attack, advance, then attack more, not less. To ‘redeploy’ would cause way more deaths than winning.
Win or die!!
[/quote]

You eat too much bubble gum, my friend. This is not command&conquer game. This is real life. Real people die. It’s not seizable in front of the screen but it’s true. Americans killed 400 000 Iraqis to get that Oil. They did it. Do you appreciate it? I hope your post is a joke or something.

95

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
vroom wrote:

I believe, though of course I’m not sure, that it would be possible to defuse things, reduce the hatred coming at us from the enemy, reduce their ability to recruit and increase the level of moderate thinking in the region.

And your naivete continues to amaze. What solutions do you suggest to accomplish these pie-in-the-sky aspirations?
[/quote]

Man, sometimes I just can’t believe how much of an asshole you are.

I was pretty basic in my point, even simply suggesting I believed it was a possibility, making sure not to state that it was the way to go and blah blah blah.

Yeah, pretty evil of me to suggest we continue to live by our own principles through this struggle…

Anyway, in the past I’ve talked about the problems with propaganda, our inability to get a message across, our inability to work with the populace, the education and recruitment systems in place working against us.

Why don’t you stop being such an asshole and simply discuss the issues involved.

I’m not one of the people that has some huge moral problem with war. I’m not one of the guys that wants everyone to hold hands and sing Kumbaya. Just because I don’t see nuking the world as a viable way to achieve peace doesn’t mean I’m being naive.

Thinking that invading just one more country will bring about peace might just qualify as naive… we see how well it has worked in Iraq. If you can’t see that such an act of hostility would simply fan more hostility, you are bent.

Sure, it’s easy to say they respect strength, but each time they get attacked with superior force, they don’t simply show respect. They recruit people and blow themselves up to strike back.

At some point, somehow, the path to peace is going to involve a reconciliation. How, I don’t know. Maybe, we’ll have to go down the path of generational warfare before either side is willing to explore that option. I hope not, but I could see it happening.

Iraq was an incredibly poor choice. The war was started for the wrong reasons, by railroading a populace with fear, and it his gotten us exactly what we deserve for that, I am sorry to say.

A fucking mess that will take generations to clean up.

Afghanistan, on the other hand, was appropriate, for the right reasons, and initially seemed successful.

Anyhow, as usual, if you don’t know what I’m talking about or trying to say, as it appears you don’t, then why not just keep your ignorance to yourself?

96

[quote]vroom wrote:
Sure, it’s easy to say they respect strength, but each time they get attacked with superior force, they don’t simply show respect. They recruit people and blow themselves up to strike back.[/quote]

Maybe that’s because the West never hits with it’s full might. The way we wage war now, they know they can simply wait us out. They know that as casualties trickle in month after month and year after year, public support will wane. They understand how our media and democracy works, and they play it like a violin.

What we’re showing them is not strength, it’s stupidity.

By the way, why don’t you address TB’s point about Islamic violence in African and other poor nations who aren’t the aggressors? What have they done to deserve such hostility from The Religion of Peace?

An unconditional surrender also works.

Give them total war once and see how many want to come back for a second serving. THEN you’ll be able to use negotiations and diplomacy to their full effect. It has to be clear in their mind that choosing war with the West is not an option, unless they wish to be remembered only by the history books.

While the various reasons for Iraq are debatable; it’s not the choice of Iraq per se that was the problem, but rather the way the war was waged. Add to that the general ignorance of local customs and cultures, etc. Ignorance and restraint are very poor strategy for any war.

Why was Afghanistan any more appropriate than Iraq? What about the current Taliban resurgence, fed, from many account, by Pakistan, a US ally in the region? Is the installed puppet government there any better than Iraq’s? All the pre-war warlords who operated under the Talibans are still mostly in place, left there to keep the peace…

Good old vroom. A flood of words in a desert of ideas.

97

[quote]vroom wrote:

Man, sometimes I just can’t believe how much of an asshole you are.[/quote]

Nice. You have shown that you are almost positively allergic to disagreement. I realize you would prefer that we all treat your lengthy posts as Gospel and receive Vroom’s wisdom with an expression of gratitude, but some of us just aren’t built that way. Sorry.

And I was actually suggesting the same thing - except my point was to unapologetically defend those values. Thank goodness we did not have the ‘principled’ approach you advocate in previous wars - likely we would not have won them.

That is exactly the point - we are trying to ‘convert’ people who have no basis for believing anything we say. You take for granted our very asymmetric cultures and histories. You also take for granted that we are children of the Reformation and Enlightenment - neither of which the equivalent has happened to the Muslim world. You want more flyers and subversive radio talking up liberal democracy, human rights, tolerance, and secularism? There is no canvas on which to paint. Not yet, anyway.

Name-calling: guess you deserve even less respect than I thought. My post contained many issues involved, assuming you read it. The primary issue - stated at the outset - was that the whole project of ‘getting them to stop hating us’ was misguided because it isn’t what we do that drives their actions, just as it isn’t what African Christians and animists do - long the victims of radical Islamists - that drives their actions. So, I think your general premise is patently wrong and explained why I thought so.

Poor Vroom - life’s not as much fun when people won’t defer to you as some all-wise guru?

I never suggested nuking the world, and one of the things I think most important is severing relationships with the Middle Eastern countries altogether - i.e., getting un-entangled from the world. A slow process, but one that they would learn from - and energy independence is the first step. But, force is an option, and should be used unapologetically and overwhelmingly.

I have no interest in ‘invading one more country, then one more, then one more’ - but if you teach those that want war that the cost is too high, they will soon lose their appetite for hostility, or at least the desire to act on that hostility.

More plainly stated - you worry about the hostility of the so-called Muslim street. I want to reverse that completely - I want the so-called Muslim street to fear the West’s hostility towards them. It is time to take control - and make them afraid of us. That is the first step to lasting peace. Until they know that war against the West is a project of abject failure, they will continue to fight it.

That is because they still operate under the assumption that our show of strength will pass, that we will fade quickly - no guts. Change that assumption - and see what you get out of these suicide heroes.

Reconciliation could occur, but likely not. Whatever the stance of moderates over there, the more public they take their stance, the more likely they become targets in this war. If a mosque ‘comes out’ taking a moderate stance, what are the chances it gets blown to smithereens by a fanatic?

It will take time - sadly, I think a very long time. I don’t think there are that many ‘moderates’ over there, at least not moderate to the degree we need them to be.

The ‘fear’ canard aside - been dealt with, but you continue to use it therapeutically - Iraq could have been a great strategic move, but it was blundered tactically. Is it a mess that will take forever to clean up? Yep - but largely because we tried waging a different, more friendly kind of war.

That is the failure of Iraq - it did much to confirm that we don’t have the guts to truly break the jaw of those opposed to us.

Translation: don’t disagree with me. I think I am phenomenally brilliant and thoughtful, and though I pay lip service to diversity and the value of many ideas, I really don’t like other ideas or viewpoints, especially if they challenge my own. Life is good when I think I am the all-wise guru, and other viewpoints wreck that all-comforting illusion. Thanks in advance.

98

Wow! Vroom, your ass must be pretty cold cause you just got ripped two new ones! Talk about a complete ream job!!!

99

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
ALDurr wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Sloth wrote:

Yes, very confident of not being one of those soldiers. Thanks to having emergency surgery to correct esophageal varicies (induced by hypertension of the hepatic portal vein) at 16 years of age. Spent about a week in a drug induced coma before having the vascular system around my liver rerouted to relieve the blood pressure. I have one shunt that is a blood vessel removed from my groin area on the left side. And another that is synthetic.

You don’t even begin to know how much it hurts to be told you can’t do something you’ve set your heart on since childhood.
Because, for whatever reason, you develop a condition that you have no control over. Especially when you remain optimistic and bust your ass to try to overcome a possible dead end in your aspirations, only to have someone make the decision for you.

Numerous members here will now proceed to call you a coward, that you’re really faking, and blah, blah, blah… I’m not one of them.

I wouldn’t call him a coward. He is not actively trying to convince high school students to join the military so they can fight in Iraq. He is just stating his opinions.

On my bulletin board, I have an article about Charles Wrangel (one of your lib heros) wanting to bring back the draft, and I tell them how evil that is.

I do encourage them to consider joining after college, and becoming an officer. What could be more noble than defending the greatest country in the history of the world?

I also encourage those very few who don’t go to college to enlist. Its better than working at a meaningless job at Burger King, wouldn’t you say? (For the reason given above.)

America, the finest and most moral country in the history of the world, needs fine young men to defend it. I don’t consider what I do as in any way wrong.

[/quote]

Wow, it went from talking about Sloth and how I would NOT call him a coward to all about you. My statement did not once mention anything about what YOU did. All I said is that HE is not trying to get young people to go to the military to fight in a war to make up for his inability to serve. He was just stating his opinions as his right as an American. Amazingly, from that, you felt a need to defend yourself. Did I touch a nerve? Maybe if you didn’t post stupid shit like this,

http://www.T-Nation.com/readTopic.do?id=1208322

[i]Excerpts from thread:

[quote]
Headhunter wrote:

-Most of you guys are young enough to get in on this war. If you join the Marines, for ex, you’ll get some top-notch training and get to defend civilisation. I am truly envious!

You’d also have the honor of defending the only country founded upon Reason, Logic, and Christian Principles. How cool is that!! (It’d also beat some of that liberalism out of those guys who need it, and you know who you are :wink:

-30 years from now, when you’re with your grandchildren, and they ask: “What’d you do in the fight against terror and the Islamo-fascists, Grandpa?”, would you like to say, “Well, child, while others fought, I was playing my X-Box and whacking off to internet porn.”

Don’t miss this opportunity. I send stuff to soldiers over there and it breaks my heart that I can’t be in the front lines, because of my age (51).

-As a teacher, I send young people out into the world and some of them go into the service. I don’t like them, or anyone, to do my fighting for me. Its VERY frustrating.

So, I started this thread to warn you guys not to miss your chance to fight evil. You WILL regret it; not now, but many years from now.

-asthma (mild but there) kept me out; I still get two shots every 2 weeks, even at 51. It sucks, but there it is.
I’ve always had it.

-The point of the thread was to encourage those of you who’re young and more capable to become pro-active. (I am too old to participate and to join up.) Imagine someday how you’ll feel when you didn’t take a stand. For health reasons, the Navy rejected me (asthma) and I feel bad. If you’re young AND HEALTHY, imagine how YOU"LL feel. So, if you’re young and healthy, get behind you’re country. [/quote][/i]

YOU wouldn’t have a nerve to touch. Maybe if you would stop acting like your chickenhawk heroes George W. Bush and Dick Cheney you wouldn’t feel a need to defend your actions.

100

[quote]ALDurr wrote:
Headhunter wrote:

Numerous members here will now proceed to call you a coward, that you’re really faking, and blah, blah, blah… I’m not one of them.

I wouldn’t call him a coward. He is not actively trying to convince high school students to join the military so they can fight in Iraq. He is just stating his opinions.

Wow, it went from talking about Sloth and how I would NOT call him a coward to all about you. My statement did not once mention anything about what YOU did. [/quote]

Short-term memory loss? Or did one of your faces wake up today, while the other did not?