« Playing Doctor | Main | Malignant Islam III: Prognosis »

Malignant Islam II: Treatment

Earlier today, I decided to "play doctor" and compare Islamism to a malignant brain tumor. I left off with the diagnosis, now it's time for Dr. Tea to give his recommended treatment.

There are many ways of treating tumors. The most aggressive doctors combine treatments, trying what I call "shotgun problem solving" -- trying several remedies at once, in hopes that one or more of them will work. This has the disadvantage of not being overly helpful in learning what caused the problem, so you don't learn much, but it tends to work much faster than a more methodical approach.

One way is through surgery. Just go in and cut it out and hope like hell you got all of it. It's the brute-force approach, the most violent, but it is also the fastest, with almost instant results.

There's the radiation and chemotherapy approach. This is the art of poison -- of poisoning both the tumor and the person stuck with it in hopes that the tumor will die first. It's probably the most unpleasant, certainly the slowest and most painful, but often the most successful.

And there's one technique that I've heard used a bit -- "starving" the tumor. Isolating the blood vessels and other means by which the tumor acquires that which it needs to keep growing, and cut it off. Eventually, it will stop growing, then start to shrink. In some cases, it can die away completely.

Right now, we're focusing mainly on the surgical approach. In Afghanistan, in Iraq, in Pakistan, in plenty of other places around the world, we're finding the malignant tumors of Islam and removing them -- by killing them. It's a remarkably effective approach -- those we kill tend to not cause too many more problems -- but it's rare that we kill enough of the psychos to guarantee they will not regroup and regrow.

The next technique is tougher, but offers much better hopes for a long-term cure. We need to "poison" the ideology that is at the core of militant Islam. We need to attack the Muslim ideology and make it utterly inhospitable to Islamism. We need to sever the underpinnings in the Muslim faith that allow for the support -- or, at least, the tolerance -- of the beliefs and practices that are at the core of Islamism. In short, we need to get the vast majority of Muslims to recognize that the tumor in their brain -- the serpent at their breast -- is a far more immediate danger to them than we are.

And that needs to be done simultaneously with the message that "if you won't take care of yourself, we're ready to do whatever it takes to make sure you don't keep harming others." We would not be acting out of hatred, or even fear, but simple self-preservation and in defense of others.

Militant Islam has killed tens of thousands of innocent Westerners. But it has killed far, far more of its own fellow Muslims. Islamists are a far greater threat to the average Muslim than all of us non-Muslims combined. And if they keep lashing out at the West, they could end up provoking a truly brutal response that would forcibly remind the Muslim world of a very unpleasant truth:

Take a look at the weapons the Islamists use (or covet). They didn't invent a damned one of them. The AK-47, the bomb, the airliner, the rocket, the mortar, the missile, the poison gas, the biological agents, the nuclear bombs -- all the products of the West. We invented all of them. We have them. We've had them a lot longer. And we are far, far better at using them, should we so choose. And that choice is getting closer and closer all the time.

Finally, there's the third treatment method: starvation. This one is the least invasive, the least likely to succeed on its own, but in its own way is just as critical as the others -- if not more so.

The lifeblood of the Islamist movement is temporal power. It is their ability to affect world events, the conduct of nations, the global dialogue, far out of proportion with their actual numbers. And that is because they have access to tremendous sources of the real power in this world today: money and oil.

The Islamist movement finds itself with its strongest adherents on top of and around the world's biggest suppliers of oil, and oil is the linchpin of modern civilization. They don't own the oil, but they can influence those who do own it, those who dig it up, those who transport it, those who refine it, adn those who sell it. And they do.

In Saudi Arabia, they've found a model that works quite well for them: they simply threaten to raise hell among the ruling powers. To keep themselves safe, the Saudis just throw money at them and tell them to go bother someone else. That has worked out pretty well for the Saudis; they are, in essence, treating the rest of the world as their personal toilet, dumping their crap on everyone else and letting them clean up the mess. And it works well for the Islamists, as well; the Saudis have plenty of money, and they are willing to give quite a bit of it as Danegeld. A pity that the works of Kipling are apparently banned in Saudi Arabia.

We already are waging a war against the financial underpinnings of Islamism, and have won some decisive victories. We have tossed in prison quite a few of the fund-raisers, the money men, the financiers that make terrorism not only possible, but occasionally quite profitable. But that is only the beginning.

As I said, the linchpin -- the utterly essential core of modern civilization is oil. And currently much of the world's oil comes from Islamic nations, or is transported through or near Islamic nations -- which means that the Islamists have ready access to disrupt that flow. As long as that remains true, they hold a knife to the world's throat.

There is no ready solution to this problem, no selective blood vessels to seal off, but there are several things we can do which will help. And the biggest is to reduce our dependency on foreign oil.

Like most problems, there are multiple solutions. I divide them into three categories: short-term, mid-term, and long-term.

Short-term, we need to develop more of our oil reserves at home. We have huge deposits of oil right here in the US, or readily at hand (deposits off the shores of Florida and California come to mind). But we lack the political will to access them. We SHOULD be extracting oil from the Alaskan National Wildlife Reserve -- carefully, and delicately, but using it nonetheless. We SHOULD be drilling off our shores, not letting Cuba and China have that oil. And we SHOULD be working on ways to transform coal and shale and whatnot into oil.

We also need to make our supply of energy far more flexible. We currently have a couple dozen or so special blends of gasoline, each mandated by the federal government or a state. We need to knock that down to the bare minimum, so a shortage of gasoline in one region can be eased by supplies from another.

We also need more refineries. South Dakota just approved the first new refinery in 30 years, and that's a a good first step. Currently, our existing refineries are running very close to capacity, which means one real disaster (such as, say, a huuricane hitting one or more of them) will cause huge problems for our supply.

Mid-term, we need to reduce our energy use. Or, to be more honest, slowing the rate of increase. We need to find more efficient ways of using energy, especially in transportation. And simple tricks like electrical vehicles -- which are actually less efficient, once one takes into account the energy used to manufacture their batteries and the actual cost of generating the electricity to power them -- simply won't cut it.

And long-term, we need to get ourselves out of the habit of burning oil. Petroleum is one of the most amazing substances the world has ever seen. We make a huge number of critical substances out o it, and what is the most common use we have for it? We BURN it. True, its energy density is remarkable, but we have so many other ways of generating energy that we have neglected or cast aside. We need to look at a whole host of alternate energy sources besides burning oil -- improving the efficiency and cleanliness of coal, developing wind power (even if it might slightly infringe on the oh-so-scenic view off Cape Cod that the worthless Senators from Massachusetts, Kennedy and Kerry, enjoy so much), we need to develop nuclear power (after all, dammit, we invented it!), we need to look at things like geothermal and solar and hydro power.

Because every single barrel of oil we import -- especially from the Muslim world -- is just more money and power (real or potential) we give them, and their tumor, the Islamists, to use against us.

Let's be honest. If it wasn't for oil, we'd be looking at the psychotic Muslims butchering their coreligionists in the same way that we do the all-too-frequent genocides in Africa: "Tch, tch, tch. Isn't it terrible. Someone should do something. Can I have another latte?" But because of that oil, they have the power to threaten us -- both directly and indirectly.

Right now, our neighbor the Muslim is growing more and more psychotic from that tumor, that terrible pressure in his brain. And we are not only allowing it to happen, but we are part of the problem. We are feeding that tumor, we are aiding and abetting his denial of a problem, we are putting weapons in his hands, and we are making excuses when he lashes out in his tumor-induced psychosis and causes harm to those around him.

We need to stop that. More, we need to either persuade him to accept our help and get treatment, or isolate him and keep him from continuing to harm others.

Or we can keep doing what we're doing now -- hoping that our kind words and bribes will convince him, in his psychosis, to not harm us too severely before his tumor finally kills him.

When discussing birth control, there's a saying that has almost become a cliche': "hope is not a method." It's also a lousy basis for national policy.

And when our survival is at stake, it's downright suicidal to put all our stock in "let's hope the crazy person eventually will act rationally."

I'm no doctor, and I am well aware of the limits of metaphor, but I don't recall ever hearing of a case where negotiations and compromises actually worked with tumors.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/30097.

Comments (46)

Well said Jay Tea, well sai... (Below threshold)
DoninFla:

Well said Jay Tea, well said...

While I'm as big a fan of s... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

While I'm as big a fan of starving OPEC as you are, somebody yesterday reminded me that oil is a fungible commodity; and that if North America and Europe wean themselves off of Saudi Arabia's scabby teat, that China and India will happily take their place. And there's nothing that the U.S. or UN or NATO or anybody else can do to deter them in a meaningful way.

So, let's grant that they will have a means to pay for recruitment, training, and weapons; and that there will be shady international actors happy to take their money in exchange for what they need.

I think it's inevitable that this conflict will be fought in perpetuity, since a) the values of radical Islamists demand it; and b) the values of decent Western people do not allow for a "final solution" to the problem. Following your medical analogy, Jay Tea, the tumor is not only malignant, but also potentially harmful to others who may come in contact with the patient; and yet a doctor is bound by the Hippocratic Oath to not murder the patient for the good of others.

This is the world in which we live. The world with neat solutions to complex geopolitical problems ain't this one.

So whats Your prognosis Dr.... (Below threshold)
914:

So whats Your prognosis Dr. Tea? Herbal remedies, cannibus?

I recommend radiation treatment.

The main problem is the lef... (Below threshold)
GarandFan Author Profile Page:

The main problem is the leftist fools who believe in Hope and Change. That the Obamassiah can talk our enemies into cooperation. They like to use the old Soviet Union as an example. They conveniently forget one point. The Russians didn't want to die in a nuclear war any more than we did. In the mid-East we have a whole group of people who have no problem in dying for their religion as long as they take a sufficient number of heathens with them.

Good comment Hyper! I was ... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

Good comment Hyper! I was thinking the same thing.

I don't much care for the argument that we could ignore the problem if we didn't need their oil.

Oil is money. Money is power. That power is the threat regardless of where they get the money.

I don't think this problem has to be perpetual, though. At least not on a major scale. We are planting seeds now. Unless Obama gets elected and kills the seeds of peace that have been sown (as he has promised to do) they will grow.

The main problem is the ... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

The main problem is the leftist fools...

Oh, I'm sorry I blew up the World Trade Centre, you fucking idiot.

Um, sorry about that, I gue... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

Um, sorry about that, I guess I find it offensive when in a discussion of Islamic jihad, somebody blames the left as the "main problem".

What you meant to say, obviously, Garandfan, is that you disagree with the proposed solutions of those to the left of you; and not that those to the left of you are personally responsible for Islamic terrorism. Right?

That is cannabis no... (Below threshold)
914:

That is cannabis not cannabus. Well how do I know? I dont smoke the stuff.

Well I can't think of any l... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

Well I can't think of any lefties being part of the solution...

Pat Tillman wasn't part of ... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

Pat Tillman wasn't part of the solution?

I still like my malignant t... (Below threshold)
epador:

I still like my malignant teratoma analogy - tumor of many tissue forms that can occur anywhere in the body - rather than a brain tumor, which gives the religion more localized spread.

Hyperbolist points out there are no neat solutions to the problem, just as there are no neat solutions to treating most malignancies.

Perhaps my distant background in medical oncology prejudices me, but I see radiation as a way of indiscriminately killing both "good" and "bad" cells. You can try to pinpoint the accuracy and hit as few good cells as possible with fancy new techniques, but there is always collateral damage. Chemotherapy, in its infant form, killed both with a slight advantage for the normal cells, but now can be engineered to selectively attack chemically, immunologically, or physiologically the malignancy, either killing or transforming the malignant cells to benign ones. I would place surgery, freezing, heat, and vascular interruption all in the same metaphoric category as war/violence. Radiation fits there too, but I put the nuclear "option" separate due to the severe consequences of its use.

Now with that said, we need to debulk the malignant tumor of Islamofascism with surgery, cryotherapy, or whatever. Hopefully there will not be a need for pre or post op radiation therapy. However it has metastasized widely in small cells that will require aggressive chemotherapy for a LONG TIME. The side effects will not be pleasant. Many will cry that they are not tolerable and we should just let "nature" take its course. There will be loads of quack cures offered. Nonetheless, cultural, economic, and military efforts to convert or destroy these remaining vestiges of malignancy will require perseverance.

There ain't no hospice available if we decide to give in to this. The end will be long, bloody and painful.

As to the hyperbullsh8 about the Hippocratic Oath, sometimes you have to decide whether to sacrifice the mother or the child - you can't save both. Sometimes you do help the patient out of their misery in ways that are not outright suicide (unless you live in Denmark or Oregon). A lot of the time you watch patients make poor choices and suffer the consequences. But when their actions threaten others, you have a legal and ethical duty to get the law enforcement authorities involved pronto.

Under which circumstances c... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

Under which circumstances can a doctor kill a patient against their will, epador? Following the analogy, the free world is the doctor, and radical Islam is cancer within a patient. Who are these "law enforcement authorities"? It's not us, as we're the doctor.

Maybe this illuminates the extent to which analogies are helpful, which is to say, limited.

"Well I can't think of any ... (Below threshold)
Rawhide Rex:

"Well I can't think of any lefties being part of the solution..."

True..those on the left don't really offer much towards a solution.

But what the f*ck have the Righties done?? As with Liberals and the left...jack and sh*t.

"What have the Righties ... (Below threshold)
914:

"What have the Righties done??"

Im assuming You classify the current administration as "Righties"? I'd say Iraq and Afghanistan are example"s of slightly more being done then say...Kosovo? Would'nt You?

"We SHOULD be dril... (Below threshold)
jp2:
"We SHOULD be drilling off our shores, not letting Cuba and China have that oil"

1. Hey Jay - can you cite any evidence at all that China is drilling of the shore of Cuba? Seriously. Can anyone cite any evidence that this is true, or is Jay falling for an urban legend again?

2. That being said, you could replace Islam with Christianity in many of the above sentences. And I'm all for radiation and -ectomy of both.

3. Thank goodness you are not a medical doctor - your poor prospective patients. Your past diagnoses have been waaaaay of the mark. (aka the insurgents can't keep it up, democracy will flourish like a dam breaking open)

I think the topic JT posted... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

I think the topic JT posted deserves fair debate on theory and not on ideological lines. Although I do think the right side of the political spectrum has put the threat of islamoism in a better context then the left, I think the post is past political.

I also agree we have the necessary resources right now to cease using foreign oil. But I believe we only use 20-40% of middle easter oil. I forget which. I think we have raised environmentalism to a religion so holy that we are willing to damage our society to it.

I always have believed in the ingenuity of the american. I also believe someone or some company will come up with an energy solution that will be affordable that does not need a vast infrastructure to sustain it.

Most americans believe in GOD and to use the gifts GOD has given us to improve our lives. Islamism just believes in GOD. They do not demonstrate the works of their GOD. ww

Well, they did something... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

Well, they did something, but as one cannot say with any degree of certainty that Iraq is a better place now than it was under Saddam Hussein (certainly not a safer place, certainly much worse for women, certainly much worse for Christians), then I think Rex's point, inelegant though it may have been, stands.

"Im assuming You classify t... (Below threshold)
Rawhide Rex:

"Im assuming You classify the current administration as "Righties"? I'd say Iraq and Afghanistan are example"s of slightly more being done then say...Kosovo? Would'nt You?"

Ahhh...but is it being done right?

Not that I want to get into a debate on the war..but I can think of greater threats to America than Iraq. Columbia and the 80% of America's illegal drugs for instance. Now why havent we blown them to bits??? And that's something we actually have proof of. Guess you have to wear a towel on your head to actaully be seen as a threat huh?

2. That being said, you ... (Below threshold)

2. That being said, you could replace Islam with Christianity in many of the above sentences. And I'm all for radiation and -ectomy of both.
15. Posted by jp2 | June 12, 2008 1:54 PM | Thanks for voting! Score: -1 (1 votes cast)

Uh, last time I checked, Christians aren't blowing each other and the rest of the world up (Ireland excluded). However, Christians are busy sending doctors and medical supplies and building hospitals in needy areas, supporting impoverished children and families, digging wells and finding clean water sources for third-world villages, building schools, training men and women so they can find and keep a job to support their families, providing disaster relief, etc. I guess we're just too busy helping people to kill them.

You're being incredibly dishonest - but we've come to expect that from you, jp2.

2. That being... (Below threshold)
Maggie:

2. That being said, you could replace Islam with Christianity in many of
the above sentences. And I'm all for radiation and -ectomy of both.

jp2:
That is one of the most vile posts you've
made at Wizbang. How do you suggest christians,
who try follow the teachings of Jesus, be
done away with?

So, Jay Tea, you're admitti... (Below threshold)

So, Jay Tea, you're admitting that the war in Iraq really is about the oil!

No blood for oil!

/cheek

Uh, last time I ch... (Below threshold)
jp2:
Uh, last time I checked, Christians aren't blowing each other and the rest of the world up (Ireland excluded).

How many deaths of innocent Iraqis are due to American bombs? Afghanistan? And didn't America kill 11 Pakistani troops this week? (Yes, rhetorical) All wars started by a devoutly Christian president who believes God told him to invade Iraq and that the end times is coming.

How do you suggest christians, who try follow the teachings of Jesus, be done away with?

I don't suggest anybody "be done away with." Just the religion.

I don't know how anyone can... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

I don't know how anyone can seriously that Iraq was better off with Saddam ruling. The whole country was in total fear and terror of the man and his two psycho sons. Come on lefites. A little honesty may make us want to actually listen to what you have to say, but a statement like that just makes me think you are a one track road. ww

I don't suggest a... (Below threshold)
Maggie:
I don't suggest anybody "be done away with." Just the religion.

How do you suggest it be done away with.
No religion exists without the believers.
Maybe the way it was attempted in the USSR?

So now nobody lives in fear... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

So now nobody lives in fear of being rounded up and decapitated or shot for being of a different sect within Islam, Willie?

Lots of people died under Saddam's rule. Now lots of people are dying in a civil war, and Iran is using it as an opportunity to flex their muscles and wield influence in the region, and the United States cannot do anything about it. Israel is understandably uncomfortable right now.

Things are better? Really? At least under Saddam, women and Christians enjoyed more rights than they do in most other parts of the Islamic world. Things are bad enough in Iraq that having removed Saddam Hussein from power no longer automatically trumps any concerns over the present state of affairs in that country (and it never should have anyway).

All wars started b... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
All wars started by a devoutly Christian president who believes God told him to invade Iraq and that the end times is coming.

So, stop voting for Christians then. You care to cite the source, or is this just another lie?

#18I had no say in... (Below threshold)
914:

#18

I had no say in taking part in the decision process to go to war in Iraq ( unlike Congress ) I might add, I can think of greater threats too. The drug war is a good example I agree. would'nt have a problem with the narco's being droned out of existence.

As for it ( Iraq ) being done right? Not sure war can ever be done right? However, out of self preservation, it need's to be endured from century to century. Seems to be doing much better now. I guess on a scale of 1 to 10 with 10 being no loss of life and 1 being 21,000,000 casualties, I would rate it a 7.

How do you suggest... (Below threshold)
jp2:
How do you suggest it be done away with. No religion exists without the believers.

Atheism/Agnosticism is rapidly growing in this country. Ask JT about it, for in this department he is enlightened.

Just curious, do you think the religion of Islam should be practiced, or would you prefer it be wiped out?

and Iran is using ... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
and Iran is using it as an opportunity to flex their muscles and wield influence in the region, and the United States cannot do anything about it.

But only because of their liberal allies.

One question liberals should think about is what will Obama do after a 9/11 type terrorist attack on the US? Assuming of course you don't think Bush has eradicated that threat. He can't use the military without first admitting Bush was right to do so. If he did, the left would impeach him. Law enforcement is powerless to bring perpetrators to justice if they are killed by their own attack or in foreign countries friendly to their cause. What will he do when no effective response only brings more attacks? Hopefully, the electorate will come to it's senses before November and we won't need to find out what the answer is.

Ah yes, we the left have so... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

Ah yes, we the left have so much in common with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, it's just uncanny. Mac Lorry, you do know that fundamentalist Islam are right-wing conservatives, right? Fascism is far-right--you do know that, right?

Anyway, I look forward to you rooting for another terrorist attack once Obama wins the election so that no matter what he does in response, you will a) blame him and those who voted for him for the attack; and b) criticize his response, no matter what it is. (Too much diplomacy, too little diplomacy, too many dead civilians, not enough dead civilians, etc.) There is no point trying to have a conversation with people like you, as you begin the conversation from a starting point of "You enable terrorists by criticizing the Bush administration and advocating a more diplomatic approach to combating militant Islam".

I think you enable terrorists by being terrified of them. That's what they want. You're giving it to them.

"...Uh, last time I checked... (Below threshold)
Rawhide Rex:

"...Uh, last time I checked, Christians aren't blowing each other and the rest of the world up..."

Please note: The following list is NOT meant to bash Christians by any means. Just wanted to show that people, no matter what religion they are, are capable of doing very evil things...

Colombia - One of the world's longest-running civil wars, not to mention the massive drug trade which kills millions of people around the world every year. More than 95% of the population adheres to Christianity. Fouth highest murder rate in thw world.

Democratic Republic of the Congo - Described by some as Africa's first World War. 5.4 million people have died since the conflict began. Christianity is the majority religion here, followed by about 94% of the population.

Ireland - Nuff said.

Peru - Civil War since 1980 and stull ongoing - 89% of the population adhears to Christianity. Some 70,000 dead since the conflict began.

Chile and Dictator Augusto Pinochet - Catholic - Estimated 50,000 dead since he took over until his death in 2006.

Charles Taylor, President of Liberia - Babtist - initiated and participated in the Liberian Civil War charged with numerous abuses including massacres, torture, kidnapping and political assassinations. An estimated 50,000 and 200,000 people killed, and more than two million people forced from their homes.Tied to the RUF rebels in Sierra Leone which are accused of the use of child soldiers, killing, amputation and other atrocities. Also had extensive business dealings with televangelist Pat Robertson.

Efraín Ríos Montt, Former President of Guatemala - Evangelical Pentecostal (raised Roman Catholic) - Documented widespread human rights abuses committed by his military regime, including massacres, rape, torture, and acts of genocide against the indigenous population. Personal friends with Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson.

Armed Forces Revolutionary Council of Sierra Leone - Christian - Documented armed attacks in Sierra Leone where the primary targets included civilians, humanitarian aid workers, and UN peacekeeping forces that included looting, murder, physical violence, mutilations, amputations, child soldiers, rape, as well as kidnapping women and girls to be sex slaves.

Jamacia - 65% Christian - First highest murder rate in the world.

Venezuela - 83% Christian - Second highest murder rate in the world.

South Africa - 76% Christian - Third highest murder rate in the world.

Ah yes, we the lef... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
Ah yes, we the left have so much in common with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, it's just uncanny. Mac Lorry, you do know that fundamentalist Islam are right-wing conservatives, right? Fascism is far-right--you do know that, right?

An yet it's liberals who are the political allies of fundamentalist Islam. Both work to defeat the US mission to bring terrorists to justice and Iraq into the 21st century as a nation of laws with a representative government. Leberals work to undermine the political will of the US to win a now proven winnable war. Fundamentalist Islam does what it can through armed resistance. Both are working for the same cause, the defeat of the US in Iraq and perhaps in Afghanistan. If successful, eventually fundamentalist Islam will turn on the vary liberals who helped it survive. That makes liberals useful idiots.

Anyway, I look forward to you rooting for another terrorist attack once Obama wins the election so that no matter what he does in response, you will a) blame him and those who voted for him for the attack; and b) criticize his response, no matter what it is.

You mean we'll follow the liberal example? Maybe not, but will liberals abandon their supposed principles just because Obama is a liberal?

There is no point trying to have a conversation with people like you, as you begin the conversation from a starting point of "You enable terrorists by criticizing the Bush administration and advocating a more diplomatic approach to combating militant Islam".

So you finally admit talking to conservatives is pointless. Now look at the top of this post at your quoted paragraph. Like I said liberals are useful idiots.

I think you enable terrorists by being terrified of them. That's what they want. You're giving it to them.

But I don't cower in fear, but rather I act to eliminate the cause of it. That makes the terrorists stay away or become extinct. If that doesn't work we can always follow the liberal example and surrender.

You act to eliminate it ... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

You act to eliminate it how, exactly? I'm not saying you should join the military (though maybe you should). You could always work for a private contractor and help the troops in Iraq defend your civilization, as that's what you seem to think they're doing.

Anyway, I have to get a report out and I'll be damned if I'm going to miss another company softball game because I have to work late. Interesting topic, and lots to think about.

I can't believe people are ... (Below threshold)
ed davis:

I can't believe people are still calling the conflict in Iraq a civil war. Another MSM/Leftist/Fifth Column axiom that needs to be squashed. They (useful idiots/traitors) are spitting in America's face with that propaganda. They repeat the lies so much that no one challenges them anymore. Useful idiots or traitors. Either they know what they are doing to our country and need to be shot as traitors, or they don't know the ramifications of the GLOBALLY spoken word in 2008 and they need to be fired because they are fucking IDIOTS.

"Either they know what they... (Below threshold)
Rawhide Rex:

"Either they know what they are doing to our country and need to be shot as traitors"

How very Christ like of you.

Atheism/Agnostici... (Below threshold)
Maggie:
Atheism/Agnosticism is rapidly growing in this country. Ask JT about it, for in this department he is enlightened.

Is it. You have sources for that statement.
Why can't you give a direct answer to my
question I posted to you?

You act to elimina... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
You act to eliminate it how, exactly?

You first. How do you think I enable terrorists by being terrified of them (as if I were)?

I'm not saying you should join the military (though maybe you should).

Been there done that.

You could always work for a private contractor and help the troops in Iraq defend your civilization, as that's what you seem to think they're doing.

And not only ours but yours too. As you've already admitted, sometimes talking is pointless. So what's your alternative plan or will you just surrender the rest of your freedom.

I'll be damned if I'm going to miss another company softball game

You know the Muslims are not going to let you play such games after they take over.

Rawhide, just how many of t... (Below threshold)

Rawhide, just how many of those wars are actually being carried out in the name of Christ? How many of them are "holy wars" of Christians versus infidels or heretics?

Thought not.

"Correlation does not equal causation," sport. Or, in this case, correlation means jack shit.

J.

Oh, hey Jay. Do yo... (Below threshold)
jp2:

Oh, hey Jay.

Do you have any evidence that China is drilling off of Cuba's shores? Mel Martinez debunked that today.

Here's a good <a href="http... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Here's a good article about China is drilling off of Cuba's shores. "China's Sinopec oil company does have an agreement with the Cuban government to develop onshore resources west of Havana, Piñon said. The Chinese have done some seismic testing, he said, but no drilling."

So it's in progress and what's bunk today could be true in the near future.

What a bigoted, biased, hat... (Below threshold)
kitwe71:

What a bigoted, biased, hateful article. You (the Americans) do not want oil for your consumption. You want oil for world dominance. You do not want China or Europe to challenge your power so you need to control the energy reserves. Thats what the war on Iraq is about. Only morons like you believe you're fighting terrorism. You're govt and intelligence agencies admit themselves that the threat of terrorism has increased and they don't care. The tumor is in Washington. The world is getting a dangerous place.

You do not want Ch... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
You do not want China or Europe to challenge your power so you need to control the energy reserves.

You're confusing us with the environmentalists who are running the global warming scam. They're the ones trying to control the energy supply.

Thats what the war on Iraq is about. Only morons like you believe you're fighting terrorism.

The war in Iraq was to fight aggression or are you too young to remember Iraq's invasion of kuwait? Saddam signed cease fire terms to stop the allies (remember this was a UN approved mission) from continuing it's advance into Iraq. Saddam never complied with whose terms and was quite successful in corrupting the UN itself and would have soon been out from under it's sanctions. It's morons like you who would have left this madman in power with billions in oil money to spend on weapons in a post 9/11 world.

The Iraq war has now been proven winnable, and would have been won two years ago with a lot fewer casualties on all sides if not for the useful idiots like you who undermined the political resolve of the US. That blood is on your hands.

If the US completes it's mission it will leave Iraq with a representative government and peace between followers of different sects of Islam who have been fighting each other for centuries. The US has shed the blood of it's sons and daughters to put into the hands of the Iraqi people great prospects for peace, freedom and prosperity. Something spineless liberals like yourself could never give them.

My conservative brothers an... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

My conservative brothers and sisters, I would pose some facts to the lefties on this site but they would refute it. Like, this is not GW Bush's war. The democrats not only voted for the war, they have been in control of congress for two years and the war still goes on. So, this is a shared decision to go to war, and a democratic decision to keep it going. That is a fact.

More people are murdered in this country every year then the number of service men and women that have dies in Iraq. Fact.

The United States being on the offensive makes me not fear the terrorists. Doing nothing to protect me would make me fearful. Fact.

The left hates GW and republicans so much, they cannot objectively look at policy to see if it is the proper course. They see GW's name on it and they oppose it. Fact.

Jay Tea is correct: no christian murders in the name of Christ. Real Christians would not murder at all. Defend themselves yes. Fact.

Lefties do not know what is best for this country. FACT. ww

Maybe you should borrow my ... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

Maybe you should borrow my stupid nickname, Willie.

a) If one fewer soldier dies in Iraq than there are people murdered in the U.S. each year, that makes it okay with you. So, if there were a million people murdered each year in the U.S., but only 999,999 soldiers died there (stupid hypothetical numbers, but following your implied line of reasoning), this would somehow be meaningful.

You know what? I think 4,000 is too many dead Americans considering how far away that country is from stability. 4,000 wasn't a lot in WW II, but this isn't 1945. And how about the number of dead Iraqis? Not too many? The right amount? The omelette of freedom sure takes a lot of eggs...

b) Who cares if the Democrats in Congress also supported, and/or still tepidly support, the conflict? Does that make it right? Do you think liberal-minded people are incapable of divorcing themselves from the spineless politicians' actions that purport to speak for them? I hate the Democrats, but less so than the Republicans.

The United States being on the offensive makes me not fear the terrorists. Doing nothing to protect me would make me fearful. Fact. Yeah? I like beer. Fact. (Stating your opinion, and that stating that it is a fact that that opinion is in fact the opinion you hold, is redundant.)

Unfortunately you know noth... (Below threshold)
hamokey:

Unfortunately you know nothing about Islam, Oil politics or cancer.

I hope you are happy in your ignorance.

Unfortunately, you are not ... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:

Unfortunately, you are not able to demonstrate your knowledge of Jay Tea, Islam, oil politics or cancer. You must be very unhappy in your ignorant, belated, drive-by comment.




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:

tips@wizbangblog.com

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