Posted on 08/09/2002 6:58:34 AM PDT by Lazamataz
I believe he has the right to speak his mind. I also believe the 2800 people massacred on 9/11 deserve a little more respect than this pile of garbage.
I personally believe that these kind of comments are treasonous.
2) Perhaps if I had thicker skin, I would not have found your hideously complex "punch in the nose" analogy so sophmoric and banal, and so patently offensive . . .
Your inquiry:
How many more countrymen must die before you are willing to support our country's efforts to stop the onslaught?
- is based on a premise that I deem invalid, that is why I asked you to point out where and how you concluded the premise was true from my statements.
Do you understand why a question containing a false premise cannot be answered?
It was, and still is, a cheap device used to make an assertion, and I am suprised you are still clinging to it.
Thus far, I dont think you will find ANYONE who will 'support ALL of our country's efforts', so you are going to have to be specific. Lifes a bitch, eh? and quite complicated.
Since I'm bored of this simpletons argument and don't wish to go through another round, I will give the simpleton affirmation that - SUPRISE! - in general I support our fight against terrorism. Happy? I doubt you ever truly doubted that though.
In (1) you poke fun of my verbose style, but in (2) you are sarcastic about my use of a simplistic analogy. Perhaps you can indicate on a 1-10 scale how descriptive and detailed you would like me to be, how analytical, how complex.
But even then I doubt I could comply to your satisfaction because I would have to inflate a simple demonstration of principle, such as (2) into a flowery dissertation just to bring it up to snuff.
So instead I will challenge you to show why the general principle illustrated by the punch-in-the-nose analogy is inapplicable.
Just to make it less 'sophmoric' we will call it by its true name: Porportionate response. Go take a peek at what the war crimes treaties have to say about those two words.
Statesmen talk and reason, taking action after careful consideration, barbarians beat drums and chant, believing they are 'helping the war effort' and supplying 'moral'.
Conservatives and liberals like to DO - things like signing Constitutionally abhorrent Acts they don't even read. Conservatives are DOing a lot of telling professionals in the Pentagon what IS and IS NOT prudent militarily right now.
Maybe you should email them with your approval- maybe you can ask them why the Generals are being such pantywaists, or have them call for a gonad check.
Your punch-in-the-nose analogy is demeaning and offensive to simpletons such as myself, and to those, such as myself, who've lost friends, relatives and loved ones in the 9/11 attacks. It cheapens and diminishes the deaths of thousands of civilians to an analogy akin to a mere insult.
For one who considers him/herself a statesman, the use of this particular analogy is peculiar at best. Surely a statesman and wordsmith such as yourself can recognize that, no?
Thank you Sir/Madam, but this simpleton will decline. You seem to have no qualms with being offensive, so any attempt to engage you on this subject and pursue a meaningful dialog (which you yourself requested many threads earlier) would be pointless. Though it may be simplistic of me to reach this conclusion, it would appear you're only interested in engaging in a war of words with those you consider to be opponents. As you consider me a simpleton, I could hardly be enough of a sporting challenge . . .
Please be honest with yourself. Proportionate response as defined by the the war crimes treaties is not applicable with the intractable enemy with which we find ourselves engaged. This is an enemy which cowers and runs to safe havens here they find them . . .
Please help me dispel the notion that you are in favor of a proportionate response, however poorly defined it may be. This invokes tragic images of lessons unlearned by our privliged senators and congressmen, from our previous attempts at a "proportionate response" in Laos and Cambodia.
If you recall, a terrible price was already paid by our soldiers and infantrymen for those lessons, in the conflict in Vietnam. Surely you do not wish to condemn them into being yet another living (dying) example of lessons which our representatives have failed to learn.
For one who considers him/herself a statesman, the use of this particular analogy is peculiar at best. Surely a statesman and wordsmith such as yourself can recognize that, no?
No, what you want is a politician.
The second thing you are going to need, in order to form a rational assessment, is detachment. If you had used detachment you would have understood that an analogy has nothing to do with scale -- it is the mapping that is important.
The next thing about detachment, is that you could have the clarity to understand that, contrary to common perception, fury and emotion do not make you a better warrior.
Cornered prey will often mount a final desperate attack. To prevent this you let the enemy believe he still has a chance for freedom. His will to fight is thus dampened by his desire to escape. When in the end the freedom is proven a falsehood the enemy's morale will be defeated and he will surrender without a fight.
Six Dynasties Period China
During the Southern Song period, general Tan Dao-Ji launched an attack against the north on behalf of the emperor. Throughout the campaign he seized cities and destroyed fortifications, taking more than four thousand prisoners. His advisors suggested that he should execute them all and erect a victory mound with the dead. Tan Dao-Ji replied: "At this time we have attacked the guilty and consoled the people. The army of a true king takes the upright as its position, so why is it necessary to slay the people?" He released all the prisoners and sent them back to their homes. These former prisoners told their kinsmen of their capture and release and of the fair treatment they received at the hands of general Tan. Thereupon the barbarians dwelling in the region were elated, and wherever general Tan, went a great many came forward to give their allegiance to the emperor.
Defeat the enemy from within by infiltrating the enemy's camp under the guise of cooperation, surrender, or peace treaties. In this way you can discover his weakness and then, when the enemy's guard is relaxed, strike directly at the source of his strength.
Japanese Folk Tale
In feudal Japan there lived a venerable Kendo master who decided to test his three highest-ranking students. He brought them one by one to an old temple in the nearby mountains where he told each student the following: "You have studied with me many years, now lets see if my teaching has been in vain. There within the temple awaits your test, pass and you will have graduated."
Within the dimly lit temple the Master had hidden four Samurai armed with clubs and instructions to jump anyone who entered the temple. The first student entered the temple and before his eyes could adjust to the light, was surprised and beaten by the Samurai."I am sorry, you have failed." Said the master.
The second student entered the temple and sensed the attackers. He was able to deftly evade their attack and defeat them. The student came out of the temple triumphant, but again the master said, "I am sorry, you have failed'
Finally the third student was brought to the temple and told about the test. The student replied, "But venerable master, protocol dictates that when entering a temple the master must always precede the student, so if you please, I shall follow you in." To which the master replied, "You rascal, you have learned all I can teach you."
We neglected our garden, now wild things abound.
Don't you get it- its a tar baby. You want to go 'all-out' and start beating on the bee-hive. Just like they want you to.
You going to accept responsibility for the future attacks you are provoking with this indiscriminate vendetta-based policy?
Consider our actions during the end of Desert Storm. With troops 65 miles from Bagdad, we suddenly stop, seemingly satisfied with the head count at the surrender table.
Do you remember the reason du jour given for this sudden cessation of hostilities, our proportionate response? We did not want to create a "power vacuumn" and risk "regional instability" with the forced removal of Saddam Hussein. Precisely what did that accomplish?
We once again have a enemy (the same enemy, no less) with the same unmitigated desire and ever-increasing ability to wreak havoc on our nations' security, as well as that of our allies, through a cache of WMDs. We once again have a enemy providing safe haven, assistance, and resources to maniacal fanatics hell-bent on dispensing misery on anyone and anything even remotely associated with America.
Attacks continued on our embassies abroad, our ships and bases, as well as those of our allies. Throughout X42's reign, the attacks grew more brazen, continuing on our own soil. Our token proportionate responses did nothing to stem the tide, ultimately resulting in the events of September 11th. I am not optimistic that this was the culmination; I anticipate things will get much worse.
I have two teenage children. Soon they will inherit the America we are giving them. As I glance back through the pages of history, I view with clarity the failures arising from the implementation of proportionate response; soldiers who are now just a name carved on a wall because we dared not cross a line on a map, our enemies knowing full well they could move arms and troops with impunity because we dared not cross that line.
When you distill this situation down to the basics, we have three choices:
1. Submit to our current enemies and either convert to Islam or fall by the sword.
2. Do nothing, or something meaningless having the same net effect as doing nothing.
3. Pursue our enemies to the ends of the globe until they either aquiesce or are vanquished.
The first choice is not an option. The second choice has been tried repeatedly, always returning the same predictable result; a momentary respite while our enemy is given the opportunity to regroup.
I choose the third option. I make this choice not out of some pep-rally induced fervor, rather through a reasoned, careful consideration, based on both the information in our hands today and the lessons borne from a sober, realistic review of history.
As was promised.
Do you remember the reason du jour given for this sudden cessation of hostilities, our proportionate response? We did not want to create a "power vacuumn" and risk "regional instability" with the forced removal of Saddam Hussein. Precisely what did that accomplish?
It kept our word, and prevented the nightmare of 'nation-building' in that highly fractionated county. There good reason why Saddam is a dictator.
Much of the irritation in the region surrounds the conduct of the US before and during the gulf war. In the interests of honest debate I will ask *you* to point out what those reasons 'might' be.
Pursue our enemies to the ends of the globe until they either aquiesce or are vanquished.
Good plan, but there is a problem with your approach that is simular to the gulf war: The US is refusing all negotiations and international proceedures established for conflict resolution- proceedures agreed to by our country.
Its like saying "Since diplomacy didn't get us 100% of what we want in the past when it was actually implemented, we have the right to ignore it altogether."
War is supposed to be a last resort, not a first resort.
The recent gallop polling showing 40% of American public do not understand the Bush administrations rationale for a war with Iraq should be, IMO, very troubling. To me it indicates a loss of confidence in the public to believe what they hear from Washington and the media. Much of this loss I think comes from the administrations reluctance for independent investigation of 911 as well as the maturation of their knowlege about the gulf war.
If the powers-that-be continue with a force-fed agenda you will see it reflected in the Nov and 2004 elections, let alone its effect on the execution of the WOT.
You can't "demand" peoples trust of confidence, nor can you intimidate it from them.
Basically USGOV has run out of clout, and its beginning to boil down to: We want answers on 911 else no war on Iraq.
CSPAN this morning made a fatal mistake of having an umbiguous question: "Do you understand the Administrations rationale for a war with Iraq? YES/NO" - this ambiguity allowed many YES callers to say "Yes, but I dont agree"
The calls were 80% against the administration. Sure, its nothing like a real poll -- but one thing not reflected in a poll is intensity of opinion. There is a decent chunk of Americans who are deeply and sincerely frighted of the direction we are going, and listening to them I highly discount the potential that this is some kind of Democratic Party 'installed' fear, or that it is a fear driven by personal 'instability'.
Refusal to address this will only inflame and spread these fears. There is real evidence we may potentially have subversive elements operating in our government and THEY need to be pursued even more aggressively that some whacko American haters hiding in a cave on the other side of the world.
USGOV did not get suddenly baptized by 911, nor is it any more trustworthy than it was when WTC was bombed or OKC was bombed. In many ways a new administration is like painting a rattlesnake to look like a gardner snake.
Five minutes time contemplating that request would uncover a littany of perceived reasons. If your aim is to demonstrate that some of the US Government's overt and covert actions abroad have been less than honorable over the years, you'll likely receive no argument in this forum. You'll certainly receive none from me.
American influence abroad, rightly or wrongly, has been criticized since our shift away from an Isolationist society in the Twenties and Thirties. Whats done is done; there is no putting that genie back into the bottle no matter how desireable it may be to do so.
The sad fact of the matter remains, there is no turning back the clock, no undoing what should be undone, no "do-overs". And there is the conundrum . . .
Its like saying "Since diplomacy didn't get us 100% of what we want in the past when it was actually implemented, we have the right to ignore it altogether."
We need to be mindful of the consequences of appeasement for appeasement's sake. Neville Chaimberlain's appeasement effort should not be forgotten or ignored. Perhaps the current debate will bring about negotiations with Iraq. I doubt it.
Subversive elements operating in our government? I'll leave that topic for Woody Harrelson . . .
"I cannot quit kicking the man, for when I stop he will surely arise and slay me."
Talmudic thinking. Old Testament genocidal justification.
Peace requires the temporal victor to cede dominance and risk retaliation -- both just and unjust. Without acknowleging that truth we are doomed to perpetual devolution into a system of "justified" barbarism and tyranny.
That is the core fault in the philosophy surrounding the conflict in the "Middle East".
Subversive elements operating in our government?
You request no evidence of my position? Interesting. I would think that a patriot would consider such things to be of paramount concern.
Americans great naivete is to assume that all who are of his country or 'serve it', love it and see it in the same manner as himself. Democracys' achilles heel is subversion by a foreign power.
The analogy is one where everyone in the family knows daddy is abusing daughter in the basement, but remain silent and avert thier eyes due to disbelief, pain and shame -- and perhaps a little misplaced love.
Thus I need to say no more to you in explaination.
If I claim to view things with an open mind, yet turn away from someone without hearing their story or point of view, then surely I am worthy of the epithet simpleton . . .
Tell me please, my allegorical friend, of the subversives in our government.
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.