Posted on 04/24/2004 6:27:20 PM PDT by A CONSERVATIVE ONE
I must confess, I'm not sure who to root for here.
National Review’s John Derbyshire wrote last week about a ‘1945 solution’ for Iraq. This is shorthand for the bombing of Dresden, the nuking of Hiroshima, etc. — the sort of stern measures that let an enemy know he’s well and truly whipped. But, as Mr Derbyshire points out, war abroad is determined by culture at home, and if we were fighting the second world war today, we wouldn’t nuke Hiroshima or even intern Japanese-Americans: the culture will not permit it. Nor will it permit old-school imperialism. Culturally sensitive nation-building is as aggressive as you can get these days. So Bush has gone for the only big-picture scenario available.
This 'reluctance' will change when it might be too late, but it will change and the carnage will be the worst History has ever noted.
they make bombs
We discourage new converts, for one.
Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64:
Narrated 'Aisha:
that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death).
Most people know little about the inventor of islam. We need to educate people about this 7th century David Koresh, because most people will not tolerate a pedophile, much less pattern their lives after one.
It seems to me we need to understand the objectives of our enemies in this war, and that is not just leaving the Middle East, it is world wide rule by Muslims with Sharia as the law. Unless you are a Muslim, recent history has shown this could have negative consequences for your safety.
I think it was P. J. O'Rouke that said something like you can bury your head in the sand, put a burka on your butt and they will still kill you.
Again we are at war with an enemy that has no problem with wiping out the innocent. That's about as evil as you can get.
It had nothing to do with fricken oil, it had everything to do with fighting for our lives
Very well stated, lizma.
vanmorrison #26: Great post - those who don't realize that the IslamoFascists wish to kill them, too, and remain unwilling to challenge them in every way we can, have a death wish for themselves, their family, and my family, too.
schu (#28): Not only do the IslamoFascists know they can not defeat us militarily, they realize that there is great likelihood that they never will be able to do so. That culture can not support such innovation and the proven US command/control of a military to challenge us.
If they have a hope to defeat us, it must be in the same method as the Germanic barbarians, as Pontiac (#31) wrote. They do not have to be any MORE coordinated than those barbarians were in order to defeat Western civilization, but IN FACT THEY ARE. Their rejection of the moral foundation of this civilization gives them a deceptiveness we are not mentally prepared to deal with. They are a most formidible enemy, and the most dangerous outside threat to the progress of mankind in thousands of years. To defeat them, we will have to use every method that has been learned from history, and not shirk when necessary to apply those methods. That is not to say I presently believe "nuke 'em" is the proper approach: I am willing to defer to Rummy, Blair, Bush, etc (those who realize we must defeat them) in hammering out the most effective methods.
Burkeman is right insofar that we must "contain, preserve and renew"... We MUST reverse the cultural decay of Western Civilization in order to win this war. That decay is the one area which the Islamofascists can point to and credibly gain debate points. To reverse that decay, we must defeat liberalism and socialism on every front. He misreads US policy as "empire building", when it is actually, on clear analysis, simple self-preservation. I respect the desire of some people to ignore mosquitoes, and avoid killing them, but if we let them drink our blood untouched until there is a critical, overwhelming mass, we'll eventually die.
I repeat, we must reverse the cultural decay of the West to prevail. Among other things, the overly "tolerant" and "compassionate" views of the "subjective morality" crowd are incredibly destructive to human society. Burke: I submit that the withdrawal you propose from our responsibility to the rest of the world in waging this battle is also part of that cultural decay, though I certainly sympathize with that desire.
We won't know for many years the outcome of this attempt to restrain the IslamoFascists, and to redirect the course of the independent nations comprising the MidEast (and elsewhere). It is easily predictable that Steyn is correct if we don't make these attempts.
I'm over 50, and have been blessed with the protections of our Western life. My daughter is seven: I cringe for her future, as well as for the rest of the world, are we not able to prevail in this War FOR Civilization.
Haven't you learned anything from...geesh, even our own history??
You'd be one of the 1st ones screaming bloody murder if one of our major cities was rendered "Chernobyl" status.
I group you into the same one that voiced opposition to our involvement in WWII.
That said, the *REAL* crime would be to allow our precious soldiers to be picked-off at one hundred a month when we have the ability to end it in a blink of an eye.
We surely can't prepare mass graves for the insurgents ala Saddam Hussein style. Nevertheless, they still need killing.
We have the technology to not only drop a bomb through a chimney from thousands of feet up, but to locate living humans behind solid concrete walls.
For expediency's sake and to save perhaps thousands of American military, I prefer the former.
And IMO it should have happened "yesterday".
A very practical reason...like it or not.
Getting the Muslims to reform themselves is the key. But to date they show little willingness and even less ability to do so. Furthermore I am unsure their religion/culture is even capable of reform, there are too many internal contradictions. This therefore is the conundrum, they threaten our way of life and we need them to reform, they will not accept outside influence but are unable or unwilling to make the reforms themselves. Where does that leave us?
Satan himself could not have created a better scenario, but then again maybe he did…..
Instead of killing the jihadis it might be more effective to send most of them home minus eyes, hands, or legs, rather than allowing them the honor of martyrdom. I believe we also need to silence the chief rabble-rousers, the ones who preach jihad to the young mohammedan cannon fodder.
Getting the Muslims to reform themselves is the key. But to date they show little willingness and even less ability to do so. Furthermore I am unsure their religion/culture is even capable of reform, there are too many internal contradictions. This therefore is the conundrum, they threaten our way of life and we need them to reform, they will not accept outside influence but are unable or unwilling to make the reforms themselves. Where does that leave us?
We must induce them to reform themselves, or find some way to neutralize them en masse, perhaps by way of engineered microbes or nanobots. Using nuclear weapons to wipe out cities such as Damascus would make us a pariah among nations for generations to come, more despised than the Nazis.
Satan himself could not have created a better scenario, but then again maybe he did…..
Indeed, he may very well have done. I am coming to believe that more as time goes on. Perhaps Mohammed did actually hear voices and see visions, not of Gabriel, but Lucifer.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.