« Another Example of Bush Derangement Syndrome | Main | Honoring A Slavemaster In Harlem »

Infinite hatred?

A little while ago, I finally got fed up with a certain troll around these parts and pulled his plug. He didn't appreciate it, and sent me a scathing e-mail. He pronounced that I was a coward for doing so, and I had shredded whatever little respect he had for me.

I felt a twinge guilty at first, but then I thought about it some more. And I realized he was lying.

This particular troll had never had a kind word (or, for that matter, a kind thought) for me or anyone else except his fellow trolls. He was filled with venom and vitriol for everyone, a cornucopia of abuse. Nothing anyone said or did had any effect on his tirades. It was after a final bout of bile that I finally pulled his plug.

And I haven't heard from him since. Maybe he's given up commenting on blogs, maybe he's changed his name, maybe he's started his own little blog. Regardless, good riddance.

But his proclamation that my banning him had cost me the last shreds of his respect for me struck a chord.

Every time we (or one of our allies) takes a forceful, decisive action against terrorists, we are immediately assailed with dire predictions that we are "playing into their hands," that we are just "making more terrorists," that we are "losing respect and credibility around the world."

I noted a long time ago that the world tends to only like America when we're on our knees. as long as we're reeling from an attack or begging for their forgiveness and tolerance, we're one of the most-liked nations on earth.

But the instant we got off our knees and started hitting back, we immediately started "throwing away" all that good will. Our invasion of Afghanistan started the cries of "we're just creating more terrorists," and every single action we or our allies have taken has generated more and more dire predictions of that.

I've given it a lot of thought, and I've come to two conclusions:

1) Those saying that are full of crap. (No offense, Lair.) I simply don't accept that confronting terrorism and terrorist-sponsoring nations causes more terrorism. Historically, just the opposite has proven true: failing to respond forcefully has encouraged more attacks. Witness Al Qaeda's gradually-escalating attacks, starting in 1993 with the first World Trade Center bombing and peaking in the 9/11 attacks. Since then, they've tried numerous more attacks, but have never come close to reaching that high point.

2) Even if what they are saying is true, I simply don't care. A wise man once said "I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees." Another said it's better to be damned for doing than damned for inaction.

We're creating more martyrs, they say. And I say "big deal." There have been millions of martyrs created over the millenia. I can recall exactly three martyrs whose deaths actually made tremendous advances for their causes -- Christ, Gandhi, and King. And I see very few similarities between those three men and dead terrorists.

If by killing 10 terrrorists we create 20, then we'll kill those 20, too. Then we'll kill the next 40. And so on. And so on. The instant we stop, they'll stop trying to kill us abroad and work on killing us at home. Right now, they're trying to kill those of us -- our armed services -- who are best equipped, trained, and prepared to defend themselves and make their attackers pay a bloody price.

And American bullets are cheaper than American lives. I'm willing to bet they'll run out of martyrs before we run out of ammunition.

Because that's a bet we really can't afford to lose.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Infinite hatred?:

» What the Heck was I Thinking!? linked with Infinite Hatred and Winning the Hearts and Minds

Comments (47)

Couldn't have said it bette... (Below threshold)

Couldn't have said it better.

"And American bullets are c... (Below threshold)

"And American bullets are cheaper than American lives. I'm willing to bet they'll run out of martyrs before we run out of ammunition."

Bingo.

But the Democrats HAVE A PLAN, JT! Didn't you hear Nanci Pelosi? They are going to "do it smarter."

I know. I feel safer already.

Wow. Well, I'm glad you at ... (Below threshold)
unrepentant masshole:

Wow. Well, I'm glad you at least included #2, since it would have taken you all of five seconds to find this article:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5889435/
"Of the roughly 2,929 terrorism-related deaths around the world since the attacks on New York and Washington, the NBC News analysis shows 58 percent of them — 1,709 — have occurred this year."

All this under the leadership of our "War President". But, as you state, you don't care. Fair enough, but here's a question for you:

Got any family in Iraq? Afghanistan? Israel? Lebadon? The UK? Indonesia?

And the wise man you refer to? Do you even know who that is? I'm guessing not. It was Emiliano Zapata, one of the leaders of the socialist-based Mexican Revolution. Probably a lot closer in background and anti-imperialism ideology to Al-Qaida than some dude sitting in front of his mac mini in the richest country the world has ever seen.

"Of the roughly 2,929 terro... (Below threshold)
andrew:

"Of the roughly 2,929 terrorism-related deaths around the world since the attacks on New York and Washington, the NBC News analysis shows 58 percent of them — 1,709 — have occurred this year."

All this under the leadership of our "War President". But, as you state, you don't care."

This is always one of the favorite talking points of the logically challenged deranged Left. They can't quite seem to grasp that 9/11 was the opening shot in a war that had been coming for a long time. By their "logic" WWII was a failure because more Americans died after Pearl Harbor than before.

Masshole, curious to know w... (Below threshold)
wavemaker:

Masshole, curious to know what your alternative is and why you believe it would work better --

Leave them alone?

"Talk" to them?

Say we're sorry, it was all just a big mistake?

Put flowers in their bomb vests?

Answer this for me. Do you even believe that muslim terrorists are "the enemy?"

Uh, Masshole?The art... (Below threshold)
scsi.wuzzy:

Uh, Masshole?
The article is almost 2 years old.
Of those deaths, included are the train bombings in Spain, 350 Israelis (conviently not sorted to avoid confusing the usual PLO mayhem), the work of the Cechen rebels (whose beef and violence predates 9-11).
Do you even think before posting such an "arguement"?

masshole:That numb... (Below threshold)
cirby:

masshole:

That number also includes 1,500 "terrorist related" attacks and deaths in Iraq, but doesn't mention any other mitigating factors (like the fact that a lot of those "terrorist related deaths" were the terrorists themselves, at the hands of US soldiers).

It's much like those "1000 civilian deaths" in Lebanon, which are disproportionately either made up or consider Hezbollah as "civilians."

"Witness Al Qaeda's gradual... (Below threshold)
unrepentant masshole:

"Witness Al Qaeda's gradually-escalating attacks, starting in 1993 with the first World Trade Center bombing and peaking in the 9/11 attacks. Since then, they've tried numerous more attacks, but have never come close to reaching that high point."

Sooooo, the poster makes unfounded claims, I provide documented evidence to the contrary, but I am "logically challenged". Gotcha.

And wavemaker, ...eh, nevermind.

I do feel better about Nancy Pelosi wanting to "do it smarter" I mean, I know how fun it is for this administration to find out HOW DUMB THEY CAN BE in the war on terror, but it's kind of becoming a one-note symphony.

"(No offense, Lair.) "... (Below threshold)

"(No offense, Lair.) "

OFFEND the knucklehead. Sweet jebus, now Lair is farking PC covered?

hit him like a shinny stick.

Well said... (Below threshold)

Well said

Jay Tea, that was very well... (Below threshold)
hdw:

Jay Tea, that was very well said.

JayWell said! And ... (Below threshold)

Jay

Well said! And it's the same with Israel. When the world's Jews said "enough" and "never again" and stopped being the perpetual whipping boy, suddenly they were the cause of the hate directed at 'em.

Enough with the faux "good will."

Another quote from the wise... (Below threshold)
DDT:

Another quote from the wiseman according to Jay:

"Ignorance and obscurantism have never produced anything other than flocks of slaves for tyranny"

It seems the irony has rubbed off on you a bit, Jay.

I do feel better about N... (Below threshold)
cirby:

I do feel better about Nancy Pelosi wanting to "do it smarter"

Yeah, and her way is?

She'll appoint a five-star commission of folks who will study the issue, run it by CAIR, put out a few press releases, then announce "victory" in understanding that some people really, really want to kill us but that we feel empathy for their plight.

I agree, think about this t... (Below threshold)
Johnny:

I agree, think about this though:

from: http://www.islamicpopulation.com/

'Our reasearch shows that the total Muslim Population is 1.79 billion in year 2006.'

if somehow we take away -41,666.67 per hour (1 million per day) will take 4.9 years (at least).

But Wait! 2 created for each destroyed,
+83,333.33 per hour (2 million per day)

'I'm willing to bet they'll run out of martyrs before we run out of ammunition.'

Hummm...

The logistics will be a nightmare.

My head hurts.

Instead I suggest the following: We (USA) have agreed to destroy approx. 4500 w-series weapons (nukes) and some of their delivery systems, over the next six years. We maybe should outsource this.

Cheers



To scsi.wuzzy, replying to ... (Below threshold)
lil' beiruit:

To scsi.wuzzy, replying to Masshole:
The reason there hasn't been more reports on increasing terror attacks is that the State Dept stopped releasing the figures on terror attack numbers in April of 2005. But I'm sure that was because the news was so good.

If by killing 10 terrror... (Below threshold)
jpm100:

If by killing 10 terrrorists we create 20, then we'll kill those 20, too.

If we chose to not kill those first ten terrorist, we would be facing 30 terrorist, not 20.

The reputation of a Paper Tiger takes decades to put to rest.

The reason there hasn't ... (Below threshold)
cirby:

The reason there hasn't been more reports on increasing terror attacks is that the State Dept stopped releasing the figures on terror attack numbers in April of 2005.

Those stats are available through the NCTC (National Counterterrorism Center). They have a web site that holds current information, along with regular reports (the most recent PDF is "NCTC Fact Sheet and Observations Related to 2005 Terrorist Incidents").

http://wits.nctc.gov/
Thee's also a huge problem with comparing years, since the people writing the reports drastically redefined what "terrorism" is for the purpose of reporting.

"The previously used statutory definition of “international terrorism” ('involving citizens or territory of more than one country') resulted in hundreds of incidents per year; the currently used statutory definition of 'terrorism' ('premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets') results in many thousands of incidents per year."

One thing to note: of over 14,000 terrorist incidents in this year's report, 6,000 of them resulted in zero fatalities.

When considering Islamofaci... (Below threshold)
Jonathan T. Kurtz:

When considering Islamofacism, I believe the correct statement should be, "I would rather live on my feet than die on my knees." That's really the choice we have.

I agree with Jay wholeheart... (Below threshold)

I agree with Jay wholeheartedly. I believe that radical Islamism/Islamofascism is an existential threat to Western society in general and to the United States in particular, wanting only the means to carry out the destruction of all that they despise, which is what we hold dear: [insert text of Bill of Rights here]

They cannot be reasoned with, because their belief in a heavenly reward cannot be disproved in the material world. Nor can negotiations accomplish anything more than a temporary calm because they do not act in "good faith" as we in Judaeo-Christian culture understand the term. In their minds, lying, cheating and reneging on promises to the infidels is not only OK, but is a virtue if it will promote their cause. In other words, their idea of "good faith" is to convert infidels or kill them, with nothing in between. (And by the way, you'd better convert to the "right" kind of Islam, or it won't do you any good--they'll kill you anyway.)

Those who don't believe the foregoing are living in a fool's paradise. Failure to be realistic about this threat to our way of life will only invite more September 11s until the lesson is learned ... if not learned too late.

Jay is right, but the liber... (Below threshold)
mvargus:

Jay is right, but the liberal's will never admit it.

The problem is that liberals absolutely to accept that human nature is an absolute and not influenced by all the pretty speeches given by the "elites" living in ivy covered towers.

Now its true that the average liberal is well-educated, enlightened, and oh so much more understanding and compassionate than a "heathen" conservative.
that same liberal will one day find himself Dead Wrong.

The problem is that that education and "enlightenment" removes the liberals from the realization that most humans really don't care about how nice to talk to them, and how much you "feel their pain". They want power over you, and they want it NOW. You have 3 choices, you can be a hunter and overlord, you can be independent because you stand for it and will not stand to be led, or you can be a slave. Liberal's in the end would be slaves to the Muslims. And it would be in their own failure to accept that the Muslims don't share any values with the liberals.

My only thought on this, is that the more force we use now, the fewer martyrs are created later on both sides. On our side, fewer because the Muslims will stop of they are convinced they can't win. On their side fewer because proof that we will be extremely harsh on all Muslims for the actions of one will convince the less fanatical that perhaps their imams aren't exactly being truthful when they call for martyrs and the glories of Allah

When my son was little, he ... (Below threshold)
USMC Pilot:

When my son was little, he told me that a bigger boy kept picking on him. I told him that the next time he got pushed down or picked on he was to hit the big kid in the solarplexus as hard as he could. He replied that he would get beaten up. I told him that he probably would, but the big kid would never pick on him again.

It doesn't matter whether you win or loose the battle. It matters that you convince the enemy that they don't want to fight you anymore.

The onset of the ceasefire ... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

The onset of the ceasefire is being touted as a "great victory" by terrorists everywhere.

So, if we fight them, we lose because we create more...if we don't fight them, we lose because more join the cause.


Well, that's a pretty dim future isn't it?

From a Jerusalem Post article (quoting an Arab columnist):

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?apage=1&cid=1154525865707&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

"As the jihadists movements prove their potency on the battleground in southern Lebanon, the rest of the jihadists in the world win, at the very least, a psychological victory and a renewed sense of legitimacy," he said. "After all, Hizbullah, which was coined to be a terrorist group by world powers, is now viewed as a legitimate and capable resistance movement."
"Hizbullah won the war and in doing so has given hope to the Arab and Muslim world that where there is faith, will and preparation, nothing is impossible. The army that was thought to be too powerful for the 250 million Arabs combined has been put in check by a group of less than 10,000 men. That is indeed legendary and has many implications."


The really sad part is goin... (Below threshold)
hdw:

The really sad part is going to be when our media jumps on the "Israel lost" bandwagon sometime in the next twenty-four hours. Forty-eight hours?

Was/is Tookie a martyr?... (Below threshold)

Was/is Tookie a martyr?

I'm really serious here. Lots of people seemed to think that Tookie was some sort of hero... he was exectuted... has he become a martyr?

Has Zarqawi become a martyr? Has he become a rally cry for Al Qaida? While he may be respected and some people may believe that he is being rewarded in heaven... has his death energized more people to the cause?

The *power* of a martyr isn't revenge. The power of a martyr (or a prisoner) to move the public is the legitimacy lent to a cause by the fact that someone was willing to die or suffer imprisonment for it.

The deaths of innocents caught in the cross-fire creates ill-will or hatred... but we shouldn't assume toward whom. Combatants, such as Zarqawi, are willing to fight but they're trying really hard not to die. The death of Zarqawi no more creates a martyr than the death of one of our soldiers.

If we want to talk martyrs we should talk about those Iraqis who are trying to build their country, who take government roles knowing that they will be targeted for assassination and particularly to the families of those so slain who refuse to give up.

I wonder, sometimes, if some people can only think in terms of revenge. I wonder what it means if someone can only view the world as an endless cycle of revenge killings. Taking as gospel that any death will only lead to greater violence requires a certain way of thinking about the world.

Never ending revenge almost makes me think of high school.

I suppose I am what lots of... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

I suppose I am what lots of you folks would call a liberal. I don't see myself with that label as I am a fiscal conservative and a moderate when it comes to social issues.

That being said I wonder what drives some of you bloggers to condemn with silly labels and general statements, those of us who have doubts about how the President is conducting the war on terrorism. To say utterly stupid things like liberals will be slaves to Muslims shows the emptiness of your thought and argument. To believe that "iiberals" are somehow "soft" on terrorism means you don't read or listen to opposing views.

As a "liberal" and having lots of "liberal" friends I can say with absolute certainty I/we believe that there are islamo/fascists who hate us, want to kill us and will stop at nothing to do that. Do they need to be stopped? Of course they do.

What I, as a liberal, believe is that fighting a war in Iraq is not the way to do that. I/we believe that precious resources in human life and national treasure has been disasterously wasted in an ill-fated, mismanaged war. I believe that Mr Bush's policies have, in fact, resulted in creating more islamo/fascists who are willing to die to kill us.

I don't pretend to have the answers. I do believe that blind acceptance of what those who govern us (Democrat or Republican) say is dangerous. I do believe that there has to be a balance beetween the preservation of our civil liberties and the conduct of war. I'm not sure that our civil liberties are being destroyed or not but I don't want to accept the word of any government of ours that assures me they are not.

If that makes me a liberal, then good for me.

Heralder, I'm all for letti... (Below threshold)

Heralder, I'm all for letting the defeated save face but I sure wish that the party of "nuance" and "international sophistication" could figure out that a nice big chunk of the world can not percieve the idea of a cease-fire for any reason other than the inability to continue. (The same way that "freedom of speach" is only the inability to silence one's opponents.)

By NOT FIGHTING we make them stronger. Yet the folks who are supposed to understand the world so much better than us back-woods provincial hicks think that any fighting makes the enemy stronger because it creates *martyrs*.

Hugh:A coherent, t... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

Hugh:

A coherent, thoughtful and honest post. But, sadly, you don't offer any solutions to the problem of Islamo-fanatcism/fascism and how you intend to stop it. You dissolve into the trap of "well, here's how we shouldn't be doing it" and that contributes zero to solving the problem. It's stagnant thinking, not forward-thinking.

I think Hezbollah's public response to today's ceaasefire is a perfect example of exactly how leaving Iraq would produce the same result: Muslim fanatics using the airwaves to claim victory in the face of what is obviously a defeat and build their recruiting base. It says to the common Muslim" See, we can beat the Great and Little Satan!" and the indoctrinated, propaganda-fed Muslim populace will fall for it because they don't know the truth.

Hugh, it's simple.... (Below threshold)

Hugh, it's simple.

You don't think that Iraq was a good idea. That's a legitimate opinion to have.

I think that Iraq was a good idea, but that's the result of blind acceptance.

Do you see the difference?

I figure that I could be wrong or I could be right. What do you think? Is it possible that I could be right and you could be wrong? I could explain why I think Iraq was necessary and why everyone should care about a good restult there. Would you be willing to admit that I *could* be right?

Because disagreeing requires that the other point of view be seen as valid, not correct, just valid and reasonable. If you're willing to go there Hugh, you are unique.

Or maybe not. Maybe it's just the sorts of "liberal" commenters that I encounter who think that we should bring our troops home, who have no suggestions whatsoever about how to get a good result in Iraq other than leave them to work it out, or not work it out. Who seem content with the fact that whatever happens, at least it wasn't their falt.

It's a bit hard to see that as a fringe opinion, though, after Lamont.

Synova:I did not m... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Synova:

I did not mean to imply that belief in the war in Iraq equates blind acceptance. What I was referring to was simply accepting what we are told by those who govern us without doubt or a willingness to find out if it is the truth. I mean that when either party is in power. Hope that clears that up.

I don't pretend to have any answer to how to resolve Iraq. I think it's been horribly bungled and I don't think Mr Bush et al know what to do either. Fortunately I don't get paid to make those decisions. I will admit that I have grave doubts about the president's credibility so I find it hard to accept his answers (whatever they may be)

I'm confused, as I think lots of Americans are.

Peter:Thanks for y... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Peter:

Thanks for your response. Believe it or not I don't fault Mr Bush on his handling of the GWT other than I believe Iraq was a disaster. Actally, a huge disaster with terrible negative consequences to the GWT.

So, I suppose my solution would have been to use our resources more towards Afghanastan and trying to capture/OBL et al. Also, I think it's pretty clear that Homeland Security resources and management have been terrible and were it up to me I would stop the silly allocation of funds to things like petting zoos in Indiana. Perhaps a small point but I think it demonstrates how poorly our resources and assets have been managed.

The only other issue I have is the previous point about balancing civil liberties and the fighting the war.

The army that was ... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
The army that was thought to be too powerful for the 250 million Arabs combined has been put in check by a group of less than 10,000 men. That is indeed legendary and has many implications."

Make no mistake, Israel was held in check by Israel, not by Hizbullah. The day that Israel and the west quit playing at war is the day Arabs will taste real war like they have never experienced in all their history. This is the “total war” practiced and perfected in WW2, the type of war where civilians are legitimate targets, which is how Hizbullah views civilians even now. Will we be any better than the terrorists? No, but the generation that fought WW2 has been labeled the “greatest generation” even though they targeted and killed civilians on a massive scale. History shows it’s the winning that counts.

Arabs know this, but we have this idea that our technology enables us to defeat nations without inflicting much suffering on the people. The problem with this is that the people don’t feel defeated and so they keep fighting as we see in Iraq. To have lasting peace, war must be the terrible deterrent that no one wants to go through.

Hugh, I disagree with your ... (Below threshold)

Hugh, I disagree with your plan. Osama Bin Laden was never THE enemy -- he was just the most prominent one for a while. He has been essentially nullified; the actual details are irrelevant.

Iraq was the next logical step for a variety of reasons. (And before you accuse me of mindlessly parroting the Bush administration, let me add that they haven't bothered to spell it out adequately.) We had sufficient legal cover thanks to his repeated violations of the terms of his 1991 surrender. It put Iran in a squeeze play between two nations occupied by the US and our allies. And Saddam's ongoing support for terrorism in general allowed us to make a statement: our enemy was not Al Qaeda alone, but all Islamic terrorism. Period.

There were others, but those are a couple of the major ones.

As far as homeland security... take that up with the Democrats and the ACLU, who scream "Big Brother!" at every single attempt to do just that. Please note that the British just broke up a major terrorist operation using many of the techniques decried by those worthy folks and regularly exposed and ruined by the New York Times.

J.

Hugh - there is an intense ... (Below threshold)

Hugh - there is an intense polarization in America right now where if you're for the war in Iraq (I am) then I must be blind, or if you're against it (as you are) then you're unpatriotic or some nonsense. The polarization has gotten so bad that constructive criticism no longer exists.

Even on web sites such as this, it's too easy to slip into "you suck!" "No, you suck!" if there isn't 100% agreement.

But you're right, blind acceptance is a bad thing. I just absolutely loathe it when I am accused of it because I agree with the president.

Big MoI couldn't a... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Big Mo

I couldn't agree more and it's sad. I don't understand it at all. I intensely disagree with Republicans on lots of issues but I respect anyone's right to believe what they want and their right to say it. I know lots of folks who blog here detest the ACLU. I thank God for them. They help us both keep the right to believe and say what we want to say.

So, I suppose my solutio... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

So, I suppose my solution would have been to use our resources more towards Afghanastan and trying to capture/OBL et al.

I think this is a point where many Dems and Reps diverge on: capturing OBL and righting the wrong of 9/11 will solve a large chunk of the problem. Fight's over, let's go home and have a parade. This is the perception Reps have of Dems approach to capturing OBL. The Rep response is: No, that just solves one part of the problem. The larger problem are the states, correctly identified by Bush as Iraq, Iran and NK. (I personally feel he should have included Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Yemen and a few others as not doing enough to reign in their terror masters.)

True, ito capture and bring to justice the man responsible for 9/11 would be very good, but would be the end of terrorism as we know it? No. Yes, it would be a nice prize and a major blow, but it does not succeed in solving the ultimate problem of Islamo-fanatacism and the culture that breeds it.

The other day, an NRO columnist described many in the hawk community as being "gloomy hawks"; that is, someone who believes war is the right way and that the GWOT would be a series of hot and cold wars wihtout any great surrender on the part of the enemy. In short, a lot of hot and cold wars. Anyway, I'm considering myself a gloomy hawk these days.

I would consider a "sunny hawk" if we were to be less poitically correct in the way we fight this war, and start going after the very sources behind them. And that involves some very unpleasant business. Such as raiding mosques for weapons stashes; capturing and/or executing imams like Moqtada al Sadr who incite violence; summary military executions of those caught planting IEDs; conduct huge military sweeps throughout Baghdad; massive curfews; completely shutting down Iraq's border (no gets in; no one gets out); and pull all/most of our troops from Europe to help get the upper hand again in Iraq. And that all involves being very illiberal, and we simply aren't game to act that way. But our enemy is and that's a problem.

My only response to civil liberties would be this: "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." Life comes before Liberty. If there's a foe who wishes to rid me of my life, then my liberty comes second. Without question.

The way we defeat this scou... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

The way we defeat this scourge is to kill it, quickly, methodically, remorselessly.

Hugh et al may not have the stomach for it, but they are going to have to deal with it. Big things are coming our way before this war is over.

It's just begun.

Jay, don't you know that ev... (Below threshold)
bobdog:

Jay, don't you know that every troll you whack just produces two more?

Great article. I agree completely.

People aren't a troll becau... (Below threshold)

People aren't a troll because they disagree or even because they make annoying comments.

MitchellI agree wi... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Mitchell

I agree with you...just not about Iraq.

The big elephant in the room, nothing said by either point of view, is Iran and North Korea. If we think we can win the terrorism war without adressing Iran, then I say we lose the war. Again, I don't pretend to have the answers but I see nothing constructive coming from the president either. It's simplistic, from my point of view, to believe that force is the answer to teh whole problem.

What about Korea? There are 2 of the famous "axis of evil" members where I see no progress in dealing with them. Missles get fired off, nuclear material gets developed and we seem to stand idly by. What should we do? Forec? Talk? Containment? These are questions that involve more than simply saying lets go kill them all.

Dear Jay:We can't ... (Below threshold)
ClearwaterConservative:

Dear Jay:

We can't just keep going around killing people. Sooner or later we must realize that we will get more with honey than with vinegar.

Hugh, I don't mean to be sn... (Below threshold)

Hugh, I don't mean to be snide, but have you looked at a map lately? More to the point, looked at it from an Iranian perspective?

East: Afghanistan and a sizable US military presence.

West: Iraq and an even more sizable US military presence.

South: Persian Gulf and sizable US Naval presence.

As far as North Korea goes... the key there is China. Kim Jong Il's continuing existence is at their sufferance. That's where the behind the scenes action is going on. But Japan is also important, and they're getting more and more anxious...

The last time Japan was this kind of anxious was in 1941, when they saw their oil supply threatened. This is an even greater threat to their existence. And NO Pacific nation wants to see Japan get that worked up again -- especially Japan.

Bush said the War On Terror was a long-term commitment, possibly decades... and he was dead right. We've only just begun.

J.

What about Korea?</p... (Below threshold)
cirby:

What about Korea?

Give it a few more months, until we get into that charming NK winter, and people are starving and freezing. China's already pissed off at NK, and they're starting to realize just how little Kim provides, other than as a distraction on the world stage.

I think the big international effort towards NK is going to be "wait a couple of years and try to bribe one of his inner circle to kill the little bastard off."

Iran? We're just waiting for their next revolution. The Mullahs are bleeding power, and one good "accident" at one of their fuel import facilities this winter could be the spark the dissidents need.


We can't just keep going... (Below threshold)
cirby:

We can't just keep going around killing people. Sooner or later we must realize that we will get more with honey than with vinegar.

The problem is that when we try the "honey" approach with our current enemies, they try to make bombs out of it.

Rational discussion and passive friendliness only work when the other guy isn't a raving psychotic who wants you dead at any price.


The honey thing...... (Below threshold)

The honey thing...

When a person is actually talking about insects such as ants it's necessary to know what kind of ants they are. Not all ants like honey. Do all flies like honey? I thought most flies prefered meat. Some ants need meat traps too, not honey traps.

Honey is better than vinegar is a truism... which doesn't mean it's actually true. It depends who is involved and how they are motivated. Not everyone is motivated by sweets.

I am confused over a few po... (Below threshold)
MunDane68:

I am confused over a few points on our forgiegn policy lately, why is it that we are convinced thatr we have to be BFF with all of these countries that have people in them that think the peachiest keen thing would be to destroy The GReat Satan and the Little Satan along with it? You know, in the name of of the House of Peace.

Why is it that we, as a culture that believes in fair play and honesty for all, continues to hold that the word will be kept by a culture that says that not only is lying ok to outsiders, but it is required if you have a choice between telling the truth to the keffir and lying to him, lie so that you may improve your position.

Why is it that we bend over backwards in name of tolerance only to see those that are outsiders in their culture mistreated, abused and killed?

> If by killing 10 terrrori... (Below threshold)
Arthur:

> If by killing 10 terrrorists we create 20, then we'll kill those 20, too. Then we'll kill the next 40. And so on. And so on.

"If you kill enough of them, they stop fighting." - Curtis LeMay




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy