Thanks for this. I believe Beinart has the right of this, especially the way it's expressed in the last two paragraphs. This exchange did more to clarify the liberal/Democrat view of the "War on Terror" than anything I've read since 9/11, and presents it in a way I can mostly agree with. (I think any foreign policy has to be backed by credible "teeth", though the teeth should only be used in the most extreme circumstances)
I'm impressed that Beinart has replied & am greatly pleased that Armondo has posted this along with his reply.
I agree with Armondo's use of the Karl Rove metaphor. Liberals and Conservatives are not whole worlds apart in terms of their views on national security. The metaphor, to me, pointed out that the Rovian thought in neo-con/republican circles is to paint liberals & Democrats as actually being worlds apart. A useful tool for Rove to smear Democrats, but a straw man.
Are there differences between Dems & Repubs? Surely, but it's a matter of degree, not a black and white yes or no.
The conservative movement did not begin with Goldwater. It began with a group of intellectuals in the 1950s who were wildly out of the mainstream, but worked diligently to develop a fusion of libertarianism, extreme anti-communism and cultural traditionalism that became the conservatism we now know. Once they had done so, people from Richard Nixon to Lee Atwater to Karl Rove figured out how to sell it. But the intellectual work had to come first?and it had to be liberated from political constraint. Politicians will always focus on winning elections. But non-politicians need to think about principles, so they gradually shape the environment in which politicians exist. And if you say you?re not going to write something because Karl Rove says it, then you are intellectually inhibiting yourself. And it is intellectual weakness?the sense that people don?t know what liberals believe at the level of principle, because liberals aren?t quite sure themselves?that is the greatest hurdle we face.
This is so true. I really wish us liberals could have the intellectual battless those conservatives had back in the 50's it'd really help us move forward and give the Democratic party some ideas to run on.
Myself and Armando have disagreed on this before, he believes that the Democrats can come up with the ideas themselves and he fails to realize politicians just aren't strong willed enough to do this.
And kudos to Mr Beinart for coming out here and engaging the blog world, maybe this can be the place we hash out our new fangled liberal ideals.
Seriously Armando, how does one make an offical complaint at Online Integrity?
I can't find an email for you or Josh at online integrity, nor a complaints form, and I have left you comments here and at DailyKos.
How come online integrity has not taken Jeff Goldstein to task for contiuing to out Thersites and NY Mary?
I tried to post a comment about an abuse an online integrity, but the comment never posted and my username was banned from the site.
A rather serious situation has come up regarding Jeff Goldstein a signer of the online integrity pledge. A commenter of Jeff?s outed Thersites and NY Mary?s meatspace names and their place of employment. Jeff later went on to publish and republish these names.
A very interesting exchange. I do not understand how the following is true however from Armando:
I think most do see it as our cause. I think what Peter is missing is that what most liberals object to is the view that we must ?stand with Bush? in order to fight for a liberal foreign policy against Islamic jihadism. Many of us believe the opposite. Many of us believe that Bush has been a disaster in the struggle against Islamic jihadism. Many of us believe that the Iraq Debacle was one of our biggest setbacks in the struggle against Islamic jihadism.
Primarily I am speaking about the first sentence. I do not see the evidence on the liberal discussion boards - on dkos, du, etc. I would like to hear some evidence of the claim that most liberals realize that the struggle against Jihadism is necessary.
But lets presume that you are correct Armando (and I believe that you yourself believe in this struggle but are in the minority). Could you give me examples of your view (and maybe other liberal thinkers view) on how to proceed in this struggle? Could you give me something as if you were in charge so Bush does not interfere with your thinking?
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
So while I think Peter is rather off in his characterization of the conservative movement (liberals don't pass up chances to slime the opposition), he seems to be more on target when speaking about liberals themselves.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
I think liberals agree that ending jihadism is very important, personally. As a self-styled liberal, Ender, when it comes to foreign policy, I am fully aware, and absolutely certain, that eliminating jihadism has to be a major foreign policy goal, over the next 20 years.
That is why it so scares me, to see our current administration do the exact opposite of eliminating jihadism. And I mean the exact opposite. If militant Islamic fundamentalism were a species of house plant, I picture our conservative leadership putting it in a great window, with all-day light, pouring water on it, and perhaps talking to it, and giving it a name.
The sad reality is that conservative foreign policy has done nothing but encourage jihadism, rather than fighting it. You can't bomb people into liking you, and accepting your leadership. And that is ESPECIALLY true if you're talking about people who are literally on the other side of the planet.
I would rather "nip it in the bud," by making friends in the world, and treating people fairly in the Middle East & elsewhere, than watching the result of bully tactics grow into a worldwide rebellion against all that the USofA stands for - my USofA, our USofA. We must terrorism in the same way we defeated communism - BY BEING BETTER, LONGER. We have to be that beacon of hope, in order to inspire democracy and freedom worldwide.
That is how you promote democracy. And if you do all that, and they STILL wish to send suicide squads after you, then of course, it's time to get military. But we have the the most expensive, most comprehensive military on the planet!!! Why are things going to so horribly awry in the "war on terror." Because the "War on Terror" has been atrociously misguided. It's not a war you fight with bombs. It's a war you fight with ideas.
You cannot bomb jihadism out of existence, unless you're willing to nuke the entire Islamic world, which at this point, it seems we are NOT yet willing to do. I'll admit that I'm not familiar with Peter Beinart's book, but I think that the ol' liberal ideal of leading through persuasion - which was miserably betrayed by Vietnam, and Iraq, among other places - is important to revisit.
We can beat terrorism and jihadism the way we beat communism - by being better.
Liberals believe in partnering with like minded members of the global community rather than using blunt force and acting arrogant. Many of us felt that the feelings of global goodwill that occured as a result of 9/11 were squandered. We could have taken the time to verify intel using the UN weapons inspectors and made a case if indeed there were WMD's (or as the case turned out we could have determined that our source had something to gain from deposing Saddam).
Saddam had nothing to do with the jihad issued by Osama bin Laden........He was a secular leader who bin Laden himself labelled an infidel. It is incredibly aggravating to hear over and over again that he was part of the war on terror. Was he a problem that deserved addressing? Certainly. A pressing problem? Not really. We should have built a coalition while continuing containment and focused on the real jihadists. This let's pretend Saddam and 9/11 have anything to do with each other is yet another reason "us liberals" are aggravated. If we are going to use valuable resources that belong to the nation like tax money and our sons and daughters we deserve to hear the truth as to why we attacked Iraq, not pretend stories that mask an agenda. I have my suspicions that Iraq was to be used as a platform to launch military if needed against threats to the US, however THAT was not what we were told was it? Our government is not meant to be a place where a few people can launch their private agenda. The people have a right to know what the government is doing on their behalf.
"democracies don?t believe strongly enough in themselves; they lack faith in their own goodness and this makes them weaker than their fanatically self-confident totalitarian foes"
I think that this quote is money once you switch the word democracies with Democrats
They're not oriented as policy think tanks if that's what you're saying. That's true of any issue. I don't really see what having know-it-all armchair generals around of the type found on RW message boards would add to the discussion.
Hey Armando or Tall Dave, how about a post on the all important gay marriage amendment?
I want to hear the conservatives make the argument that my 13 year marriage is in jeopardy if Congress doesn't pass an amendment that allows us to discriminate against gay couples. I want to hear the argument that government deserves to be involved and should be allowed to interfere in people's choice of a life partner so we can save the "sanctity of marriage".
Hmm so I guess leading through persuasion and partnering with like minded members of the global community are the preferred approaches to dealing with the terrorist threat...
I think there are times when leading through persuasion, by example, through diplomacy, etc is actually worthwhile and can lead to good results. That really depends on the enemy we face. I do not believe it works with every single enemy and there are various factors you have to consider.
Does your enemy have any rational inclinations whatsoever? Is there a chance of arriving to a peaceful conclusion with your enemy? Have we responded to our enemy in a way that satisfies our nation's desire for justice (not revenge)?
If the answer to the first two question is no then either we proceed with the military solution to eradicate the enemy, or we strike back and fight a defensive war, or we surrender and accept the enemy's terms. If the answer to them is yes, then I am all for the eventual dialogue provided we've satisfied question number three.
To be honest I am not sure about the first two in this case. I am more inclined towards the no answer, but they might turn into a yes if the war progresses to more violent stages. Fear often breaks through the fog of irrationality and makes people more willing to accept peace. So (as an example) if circumstances on the ground in US (nuclear terrorist attack) lead to the destruction of all of Islam's holy sites, that might snap enough radicals to face reality of this war.
Sorry about not posting much, I am doing the Guard stuff this weekend.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
When I read the congressional Democrats? recent national security document, I see the same thing I saw with Kerry: good policy ideas with no larger vision connecting them.
I have yet to see a visionary statement produced by a committee.
The Democratic Party does not have such a statement because it does not yet have a standard bearer.
No problem, Ender. The bad part at this point is that I believe by using force before it was necessary in Iraq we have perhaps created a few more radicals that we aren't going to be able to reason with. Seeing the things you love destroyed along with the people you love often makes one angry to the point where revenge and retribution become your reason for existing. I do find myself torn on Iraq at this point part of me feels that we have an obligation to see this through until the fledgling government can defend itself while another part of me thinks that us being there may be like putting fuel on a fire. What's your MOS if you don't mind my asking?
In the fight against jihadism we have chosen the wrong battlefield. While there are certainly beaucoups jihadists in Iraq now, it is only because he created the conditions for their insurgency.
To seriously fight jihadism requires putting the madrases in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan out of business. There is a twofold method of doing that:
1. Be more aggressive with the Saudi and Pakistani governments about cracking down on these schools and toning down the overt anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism.
2. Impose, if necessary, a diplomatic solution to the Palestinian problem. Nothing will enhance our position in the Middle East and undercut the jihadists more than bringing about peace on the West Bank.
I am in Aerospace Warning and Control Systems - which is surveillance, radar, aircraft control. Almost the same as what AWACS does except for from the ground.
As for creating a few more radicals, pretty much everything we do aside from surrendering will displease people and create more radicals.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
what amazes me is not just how wrong the Bushies and their apologists were in regards to the attack on iraq, it amazes me that anyone with a three digit IQ would ever have thought these partisan dinosaurs could ever pull off a preemptive war in the mideast that would have a different result.
all the conservatives are left with is ; One day history will prove us right.
Cool job. I'm more of a people person myself(Navy corpsman with a pharmacy specialty or 8482/0000 as the Navy would say) and married a ET for the electronic stuff on the home front but I always am fascinated with the amazing things technology has come up with).
I don't agree. I thought we had a real shot at creating a real democracy in Afghanistan and that would have been awesome. Instead we split our resources and so we have problems in both spots and we still don't have Osama. It's somewhat frustrating to me because I do see that strategically Iraq(right next to Syria, Iran, and Libya) could be beneficial to us but we needed it to be done alot differently than it was.
Visionary statement? Quite frankly I'm not impressed with alot of pretty words......look where that has gotten us. Sound policy would be a start. I keep trying to figure out why everyone expects the GOP and the Dem vision to be any different? It isn't like both sides don't want a strong, safe USA. The difference isn't the vision it's about how you create that vision and that is done through policy.
Do you folks on the right really believe that the liberals want America to be weak or unsafe (even after talking to most of us)?
Left and right have the same vision. The difference is in the details of how we achieve that vision.
I'm always amused when those who supported the diversion of funds, troops and resources AWAY from a war against actual jihadists in favor of an invasion of a secular nation with dubious (at best) ties to radical Islam accuse "liberals" of not having sufficient "vision" and/or the stones to deal with jihadism... well, not really amused... nauseated is more like it...
How much further along we would be in the struggle against jihadism had the so-called "conservatives" suffered such a dearth of vision and heeded the warnings of "liberals" like Wes Clark??? Well, we'd at least have about 2500 of our finest men and women still alive to fight and defend us...
How can we be more aggressive with the Saudis and Pakistanis? Threaten them? I am not sure we have the leverage.
As far as a diplomatic solution to the Palestinian problem, we should not be imposing a solution on a souvereign state and our ally. We've proposed enough plans. Now Israel has a new government and a plan and I am more than willing to wait and give them a chance to implement it.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
It's not that many liberals want America to be weak or unsafe. But unfortunately the way it looks is that liberals do not propose anything that would keep America safe or strengthen it.
Do we really have the same vision? Maybe. The methods of achieving it are so different as to be unacceptable to us.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
It takes a while to build a stable democracy in places where they've never had it. It doesn't get done in a few years without encountering serious problems. Even in the more western countries like Russia they are having a serious problem with democracy and liberty. It takes patience and perseverence.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
The Saudis are extremely problematic. We are and have been basically in bed with them. The Pakistanis? Eh I'm not convinced that part of the problem isn't that Musharaff isn't hanging on to power by a thread. From what I understand there have been quite a few attempts on him
Part of the problem in Israel is we have been far from a neutral mediator. Even now we are undercutting funding to Palestinians because we don't agree with their choice of government. We provide the Israelis with military aid in massive amounts.(Sadly military aid is the largest portion of our foreign aid) Why would the Palestinians have reason to believe that we are looking out for their welfare and trying to help mediate in good faith? I have a question for you Ender. Do you think Rumsfeld has done a good job as Sec Def or do you think he should be replaced?
Israel and the Palestinians have had nearly 60 years to come to an agreement and have not. That lack of action has seriously affected our own standing in the world as well as our national security. So if they aren't going to do it themselves, then it should be done for them.
As far as not intervening in the affairs of a sovereign state, what are we doing in Iraq? What is it we are contemplating doing in Iran?
Regarding what can be done about Pakistan and the Saudis, plenty.
How about starting by listing Saudi Arabia as a state sponsor of terror and cutting of military aid to Pakistan?
How do you figure? Earlier you stated that it seems that working as a part of a global community seemed to be a reasonable approach ot problems? Are you taking that back? Do you now believe that military dominance and brute force are or should be the primary means to shape the world? Did you hear liberals complaining when we went after Osama Bin Laden? Of course not. We didn't start complaining until eyes were taken off the ball and the right refused to listen. It was arrogant to believe that we could utilize force in Afghanistan and in Iraq and still be able to maintain leverage in places like Iran and North Korea. Our military is set up for two fronts not twenty.
Aren't you concerned about having the military occupied with building nations in multiple places? Aren't you concerned about how that would play out if North Korea got froggy?
I am in favor of neutral mediation in sutations where there is no case for neutrality. Israel is a good ally, a democratic nation, a rational country of fellow travellers in this world of ours. Palestinians are... despised by even their fellow arabs for being so problematic, primitive, and savage in their methods. They employ terrorist methods which have support of the majority of their population and elect terrorist leaders. I would hold it against our government if we treated them equally. Fortunately we do not. Why should we agree with every "democratic" choice? Democracy can produce the worst tyrants. Palestinians pretty much deserve everything that's happened to them, including Arafat and Hamas. So don't mediate and let Israel do what they wish. They have more experience dealing with the problem.
As for Rumsfeld, I think he does an adequate job. No one is perfect and he made plenty of mistakes but as the chief of DoD I do not want him replaced until Bush decides to.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Intervening in the affairs of Israel would be similar to intervening in the affairs of Great Britain or Australia. They are a friend while Iran is a terrorist nation whose military development must be controlled if we want to keep this War on Terror on the right track.
Pakistan has been a helpful ally and provided logistical support to our troops. I don't mind helping them if they keep the country open and share intel. I agree with you on Saudis but thinking pragmatically we can't afford to offend a huge provider of our oil. It's not in our best economic interests and therefor absurd.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
I think there are times when leading through persuasion, by example, through diplomacy, etc is actually worthwhile and can lead to good results. That really depends on the enemy we face. I do not believe it works with every single enemy and there are various factors you have to consider.
I never said that "working as a part of a global community" is a reasonable approach to problems. Mainly because I do not believe in working with the "global community" and do not even believe in the global community.
The world stage for me is a mix of countries worth engaging economically, not worth enaging economically, friends, enemies, and a vast majority of countries whose opinion does not matter in the greater scheme of things. So I am for engaging the major players who matter and dealing with them directly.
Sure, sometimes it is in our interests to engage them for the purposes of alliances or pressure on deviant countries. Other times, when it is in our best interests, it is also fine to act unilaterally. Military dominance is essential to our well being, at the same time what I am saying is not that every problem needs a military solution.
It was arrogant to believe that we could utilize force in Afghanistan and in Iraq and still be able to maintain leverage in places like Iran and North Korea. Our military is set up for two fronts not twenty.
I disagree. That is somewhat misleading. We do not need to throw 100s of thousands of troops into Iran because to solve their nuclear weapons problem we do not need to occupy them. US Air Force has plenty of resources to strike hard and destroy all of Iran's technological infrastructure which is what I believe will happen in the near future, either by our or Israeli hand.
So even being in Iraq and Afghanistan we can still accomplish other military goals.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Not really. Our troop levels in South Korea is adequate and I do not envision anything happening there. Even if it did, it would degenerate so fast that we would not want more of our troops there.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
A good start would have been stabalizing Afganahstan. It's not like the conflict somehow ended because we said it was over. The Taliban still has a presense. Warlords still remain a big stick in the mud. Tribal politics still reins supreme and there does not appear to be any substantial unified government.
Once we were done with Afganastan, we could, perhaps, look towards Africa. Bin Laden retains a powerful presense in Sudan (see: US Embassy bombings). Al-Queda has a respectable presense there as well. We also could have put more active pressure on Saudi-Arabia to end it's habit of funding radical terrorist groups with American oil money.
But I'm no foreign policy expert. Perhaps (and here's a real crazy thought) he could have asked some of his foreign policy analysts. You know, the ones he ended up firing whenever they released reports he disagreed with. Richard Clarke, Shinseki, the CIA, anybody in the know. Just a thought.
Peter, in case you're still reading this in hopes of an engagement with your ideas, I just wanted to ask what you think of Michael Klare's recent work (particularly Resource Wars and Blood and Oil), which to my mind present a non-partisan analysis of geopolitical issues facing any party or ideological tendency in the US. Specifically, what should liberals take from the foreign policy challenges and dilemmas he lays out in his books? I ask b/c simply saying "I'm against global jihadism and have an effective plan for winning any kind of war they try to fight" fails to address the larger question of why we can expect any number of attempts to gain power and profits from oil-rich areas of Latin America, Africa, Eurasia, and the Middle East from organizations and political movements Americans find reprehensible.
Do you address in your book what a liberal foreign policy that prioritizes and engages the broad spectrum of threats the US is likely to face in this century might look like? I'm thinking such things as increasing wealth in stable oil-producing nations and conflicts in unstable ones would have to be near the top of the list, as would increasing alliances to contain our military and compete with our economy, increasing global influence of nations we're in debt to, increasing recognition of the potential impacts of climate change.... What should liberals be proposing to address these (or other) issues that could affect our relations with other nations and with the transnational institutions we helped create in the post-WWII era?
I'm also interested in your views on Dan Simmons's recent posts--in his April message and his May-June message on his web site --on historical parallels with global jihadism and possible future directions of conflict. As a great fan of his science fiction, I must admit to being surprised he's sounding the alarm bell so vehemently (he comes off as chicken little to me, but what do I know?). Is this the kind of narrative of why global jihadism matters that you endorse? If so, why? If not, why not?
Pakistan....the helpful ally that provided information on nukes to North Korea? Hmmmmm. You'll forgive me if I think that you overstate their trustworthiness as an ally. In my opinion we should trust them as much as we trust the Saudis.
Quite frankly it's time we tell Americans they need to decide whether it is more important to thwart terror or get a cushy deal on oil.
Go ahead then and continue to ignore the problem but don't be surprised then if there is never peace in the Middle East and democracy of our kind doesn't succeed. Also don't be surprised if they continue to lump us as an enemy just as they do Israel and folks over there can continue to be manipulated by the likes of Osama. Problems don't go away if you ignore them, they only get worse. I agree with quaoar 60 years is more than enough time.
Isn't it amazing everyone who could critically think was sent away meanwhile we still have the big dummy who thought "to be provided" was enough planning for post war, didn't bother to secure borders, didn't bother to send enough people, didn't bother to send them with equipment, didn't ebven care if the information he was acting on was accurate......No offense Ender but if you think Rumsfeld doesn't need to go you ain't been paying near enough attention. He should be replaced.
On the one hand democrats want us to "thwart terror" but on the other hand when oil prices go up it's all republican fault and big business gouging. So if we try to go after Saudis at the expense of our oil, GOP will die on the cost of oil...
Damned if you do and damned if you don't.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
The reason that the 'War on Terror' was chosen by Cheney and his pals to describe our actions post 9/11 was to further their agenda of control, domestic and international. Once this was the accepted method of dealing with the 'jihadist' terrorists (or anyone else so designated by the administration) the 'Commander in Chief' was free to use 'extraordinary' powers. The fact is that Bin Laden and his compatriots are international criminals and should be pursued as such. For the Bush administration this method would not serve their overarching interests here at home and in the world at large. The use of military force has proven to be ineffective in fighting the jihadists because they are not a military enemy. In Iraq and Afghanistan, much like the Soviets before us, our overwhelming military supremacy means nothing. The enemy we are fighting is part of the local population and when we hit them we hit the locals as well, thereby steadily eroding popular support for our goals. If we had treated Afghanistan under the Taliban as a rogue state to be dealt with by UN forces and occupied by a diverse international force including Asian troops, we would be in much better shape than we are at present. The historical resonance of British troops occupying their country again is obvious to the Afghan people. The problem of terrorism is rooted in small groups plotting in secret. We need to address these enemies in a micro enforcement method, as an international policing problem rather that in a macro, ie. military method. Indonesia which has been subject to large scale terrorist attacks, and has a large population that would be inclined to support an insurgency, has done well with the police model. The main problem with the police model is who would get the appropriations for hardware and munitions. The reasons for our 'War on Terror' are domestically political and internationaly economic, and until those facts are addressed discussions of tactics are basically moot. At the beginning of our 'liberation' of Iraq anyone who reads history pragmatically, without an ideological axe to grind, saw the debacle we were getting ourselves into.
I like it when liberals blame conservatives for not doing something (like securing our borders) when at the same time their leadership is opposing any efforts to actually do something meaningful about it.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
I am not ignoring the problem. I just think Israel should solve it on their own. Our best attempts have failed when Arafat and his gang of thieves have rejected all of Israel's best offers. I am not interested in helping there and am perfectly willing to accept whatever Israel deems necessary.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Bombing Iran would be the dumbest thing we could do. You go after flies with a flyswatter not a hammer for reasons that should be obvious. War is the last resort of civilized nations. Gunslinger diplomacy will not work in the real world. Mutual self interest is what makes things run better. For an example an American might understand, just because you drive a Hummer and can push everyone else off the road doesn't mean its a good driving technique. Our military's greatest strength lies in its use as a threat. Teddy Roosevelt said, "Speak softly and carry a big stick." He didn't say use the stick to play whack-a-mole with the world. War eats the resource, ie kills soldiers and civilians (humans), and destroys hardware and munitions, and in the long run only makes us materially weaker as a nation, especially an open ended enemy of the week war like we've got going now. It is only good strategy for the people who supply our military. Your rejection of global cooperation is very short sighted and does not serve any strategic purpose.
Ender- I love it when right wingers play the victim and blame everything on everyone else. In our political system the majority party has the ability, if unified, to make and pass laws. The President signs them. At present the Elephant party, led by our dear leader GW Bush, is the majority party. Any responsibility for not passing the laws you are interested in rests with the majority party. Please, when you are the party in power, both houses of congress, president and the courts, you can''t play the victim card anymore. It's just soooooo weak dude.
I did not reject global cooperation but cooperation with those who are immaterial. Despite your dream of global equality, peace and love, some nations simple are the bottom feeders of humanity and we need nothing from them, least of all affirmations of our policies.
Teddy Roosevelt, in addition to saying that wonderful quote, was quite the imperialist at heart and did not mind using that big stick. Look that up if you have some time.
If you don't use the big stick when necessary to defend your country, your ideals, your global interests, it is less than worthless and you are nothing but a coward. Our military's greatest strength is in its demonstrated skill and strength on the battlefield.
When dealing with uncivilized nations, war becomes necessary especially when those despicable, terror-supporting countries try to acquire weapons that would make the capable of blackmailing the world. It is my hope and prayer to whatever goodness and morality America posesses that we will stop Iran by whatever means necessary and not be the cowards of pre-WW2 era before its too late.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Ender, just a question. How were we defending our country or our ideals by attacking Iraq without direct provocation? Especially in light of the, obvious to many of us at the time (you could look it up), lack of WMD. You don't have to answer about our 'multi-national' global interests, those oil boys are kinda obvious. Your embrace of TR's imperialism betrays your bloodthirsty style of internationalism for what it is. Cuba and the Phillipines were the Afghanistan and Iraq of the turn of the last century. We massacred the natives in those conflicts also. By the way way I noticed that you managed to call me a hippie and a coward in n the same post, you crazed baby-killer you. Just because I wouldn't fight your war for the enrichment of our corporate elite doesn't mean there aren't things worth fighting for.
I would have proceeded with a war against jihadism somewhere where there was actual...ummmmm... jihadism for starters, rather than creating jihadism in a nation where, for all intents and purposes, it did not previously exist... but that's just me... clearly, I lack the vision and the stones to effectively combat jihadism...
Comments :
Thanks for this. I b
Thanks for this. I believe Beinart has the right of this, especially the way it's expressed in the last two paragraphs. This exchange did more to clarify the liberal/Democrat view of the "War on Terror" than anything I've read since 9/11, and presents it in a way I can mostly agree with. (I think any foreign policy has to be backed by credible "teeth", though the teeth should only be used in the most extreme circumstances)
I'm impressed that B
I'm impressed that Beinart has replied & am greatly pleased that Armondo has posted this along with his reply.
I agree with Armondo's use of the Karl Rove metaphor. Liberals and Conservatives are not whole worlds apart in terms of their views on national security. The metaphor, to me, pointed out that the Rovian thought in neo-con/republican circles is to paint liberals & Democrats as actually being worlds apart. A useful tool for Rove to smear Democrats, but a straw man.
Are there differences between Dems & Repubs? Surely, but it's a matter of degree, not a black and white yes or no.
<blockquote>The cons
This is so true. I really wish us liberals could have the intellectual battless those conservatives had back in the 50's it'd really help us move forward and give the Democratic party some ideas to run on.
Myself and Armando have disagreed on this before, he believes that the Democrats can come up with the ideas themselves and he fails to realize politicians just aren't strong willed enough to do this.
And kudos to Mr Beinart for coming out here and engaging the blog world, maybe this can be the place we hash out our new fangled liberal ideals.
Seriously Armando, h
Seriously Armando, how does one make an offical complaint at Online Integrity?
I can't find an email for you or Josh at online integrity, nor a complaints form, and I have left you comments here and at DailyKos.
How come online integrity has not taken Jeff Goldstein to task for contiuing to out Thersites and NY Mary?
I tried to post a comment about an abuse an online integrity, but the comment never posted and my username was banned from the site.
A rather serious situation has come up regarding Jeff Goldstein a signer of the online integrity pledge. A commenter of Jeff?s outed Thersites and NY Mary?s meatspace names and their place of employment. Jeff later went on to publish and republish these names.
More details can be found at
http://blogintegrityblogspotcom.blogspot.com/2006/05/goldstein-just-another-prick-in-hall.html
This appears to be very serious and raises the following questions:
1) How does someone report an abuse?
2) What is the onlineintegrity process in determining if an abuse has taken place?
3) What is the expected time before OI makes an official remark?
4) Why was ?GeneralMichaelHayden? banned at OI when his ?crime? apparently was reporting an online abuse and providing details?
5) How come email addresses or a contact form are not provided at online integrity?
Does online integrity have any integrity?
A very interesting e
A very interesting exchange. I do not understand how the following is true however from Armando:
Primarily I am speaking about the first sentence. I do not see the evidence on the liberal discussion boards - on dkos, du, etc. I would like to hear some evidence of the claim that most liberals realize that the struggle against Jihadism is necessary.
But lets presume that you are correct Armando (and I believe that you yourself believe in this struggle but are in the minority). Could you give me examples of your view (and maybe other liberal thinkers view) on how to proceed in this struggle? Could you give me something as if you were in charge so Bush does not interfere with your thinking?
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
So while I think Pet
So while I think Peter is rather off in his characterization of the conservative movement (liberals don't pass up chances to slime the opposition), he seems to be more on target when speaking about liberals themselves.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
I think liberals agr
I think liberals agree that ending jihadism is very important, personally. As a self-styled liberal, Ender, when it comes to foreign policy, I am fully aware, and absolutely certain, that eliminating jihadism has to be a major foreign policy goal, over the next 20 years.
That is why it so scares me, to see our current administration do the exact opposite of eliminating jihadism. And I mean the exact opposite. If militant Islamic fundamentalism were a species of house plant, I picture our conservative leadership putting it in a great window, with all-day light, pouring water on it, and perhaps talking to it, and giving it a name.
The sad reality is that conservative foreign policy has done nothing but encourage jihadism, rather than fighting it. You can't bomb people into liking you, and accepting your leadership. And that is ESPECIALLY true if you're talking about people who are literally on the other side of the planet.
I would rather "nip it in the bud," by making friends in the world, and treating people fairly in the Middle East & elsewhere, than watching the result of bully tactics grow into a worldwide rebellion against all that the USofA stands for - my USofA, our USofA. We must terrorism in the same way we defeated communism - BY BEING BETTER, LONGER. We have to be that beacon of hope, in order to inspire democracy and freedom worldwide.
That is how you promote democracy. And if you do all that, and they STILL wish to send suicide squads after you, then of course, it's time to get military. But we have the the most expensive, most comprehensive military on the planet!!! Why are things going to so horribly awry in the "war on terror." Because the "War on Terror" has been atrociously misguided. It's not a war you fight with bombs. It's a war you fight with ideas.You cannot bomb jihadism out of existence, unless you're willing to nuke the entire Islamic world, which at this point, it seems we are NOT yet willing to do. I'll admit that I'm not familiar with Peter Beinart's book, but I think that the ol' liberal ideal of leading through persuasion - which was miserably betrayed by Vietnam, and Iraq, among other places - is important to revisit.
We can beat terrorism and jihadism the way we beat communism - by being better.
Ahem - not so many i
Ahem - not so many italics really implied there - uhh . . edit function?
Liberals believe in
Liberals believe in partnering with like minded members of the global community rather than using blunt force and acting arrogant. Many of us felt that the feelings of global goodwill that occured as a result of 9/11 were squandered. We could have taken the time to verify intel using the UN weapons inspectors and made a case if indeed there were WMD's (or as the case turned out we could have determined that our source had something to gain from deposing Saddam).
Saddam had nothing t
Saddam had nothing to do with the jihad issued by Osama bin Laden........He was a secular leader who bin Laden himself labelled an infidel. It is incredibly aggravating to hear over and over again that he was part of the war on terror. Was he a problem that deserved addressing? Certainly. A pressing problem? Not really. We should have built a coalition while continuing containment and focused on the real jihadists. This let's pretend Saddam and 9/11 have anything to do with each other is yet another reason "us liberals" are aggravated. If we are going to use valuable resources that belong to the nation like tax money and our sons and daughters we deserve to hear the truth as to why we attacked Iraq, not pretend stories that mask an agenda. I have my suspicions that Iraq was to be used as a platform to launch military if needed against threats to the US, however THAT was not what we were told was it? Our government is not meant to be a place where a few people can launch their private agenda. The people have a right to know what the government is doing on their behalf.
"democracies don?t b
"democracies don?t believe strongly enough in themselves; they lack faith in their own goodness and this makes them weaker than their fanatically self-confident totalitarian foes"
I think that this quote is money once you switch the word democracies with Democrats
They're not oriented
They're not oriented as policy think tanks if that's what you're saying. That's true of any issue. I don't really see what having know-it-all armchair generals around of the type found on RW message boards would add to the discussion.
Hey Armando or Tall
Hey Armando or Tall Dave, how about a post on the all important gay marriage amendment?
I want to hear the conservatives make the argument that my 13 year marriage is in jeopardy if Congress doesn't pass an amendment that allows us to discriminate against gay couples. I want to hear the argument that government deserves to be involved and should be allowed to interfere in people's choice of a life partner so we can save the "sanctity of marriage".
Hmm so I guess leadi
Hmm so I guess leading through persuasion and partnering with like minded members of the global community are the preferred approaches to dealing with the terrorist threat...
I think there are times when leading through persuasion, by example, through diplomacy, etc is actually worthwhile and can lead to good results. That really depends on the enemy we face. I do not believe it works with every single enemy and there are various factors you have to consider.
Does your enemy have any rational inclinations whatsoever? Is there a chance of arriving to a peaceful conclusion with your enemy? Have we responded to our enemy in a way that satisfies our nation's desire for justice (not revenge)?
If the answer to the first two question is no then either we proceed with the military solution to eradicate the enemy, or we strike back and fight a defensive war, or we surrender and accept the enemy's terms. If the answer to them is yes, then I am all for the eventual dialogue provided we've satisfied question number three.
To be honest I am not sure about the first two in this case. I am more inclined towards the no answer, but they might turn into a yes if the war progresses to more violent stages. Fear often breaks through the fog of irrationality and makes people more willing to accept peace. So (as an example) if circumstances on the ground in US (nuclear terrorist attack) lead to the destruction of all of Islam's holy sites, that might snap enough radicals to face reality of this war.
Sorry about not posting much, I am doing the Guard stuff this weekend.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
<blockquote>When I r
I have yet to see a visionary statement produced by a committee.
The Democratic Party does not have such a statement because it does not yet have a standard bearer.
qui tacet consentire
No problem, Ender. T
No problem, Ender. The bad part at this point is that I believe by using force before it was necessary in Iraq we have perhaps created a few more radicals that we aren't going to be able to reason with. Seeing the things you love destroyed along with the people you love often makes one angry to the point where revenge and retribution become your reason for existing. I do find myself torn on Iraq at this point part of me feels that we have an obligation to see this through until the fledgling government can defend itself while another part of me thinks that us being there may be like putting fuel on a fire. What's your MOS if you don't mind my asking?
Ender, In the fight
Ender,
In the fight against jihadism we have chosen the wrong battlefield. While there are certainly beaucoups jihadists in Iraq now, it is only because he created the conditions for their insurgency.
To seriously fight jihadism requires putting the madrases in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan out of business. There is a twofold method of doing that:
1. Be more aggressive with the Saudi and Pakistani governments about cracking down on these schools and toning down the overt anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism.
2. Impose, if necessary, a diplomatic solution to the Palestinian problem. Nothing will enhance our position in the Middle East and undercut the jihadists more than bringing about peace on the West Bank.
qui tacet consentire
cwaltz, I am in A
cwaltz,
I am in Aerospace Warning and Control Systems - which is surveillance, radar, aircraft control. Almost the same as what AWACS does except for from the ground.
As for creating a few more radicals, pretty much everything we do aside from surrendering will displease people and create more radicals.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
what amazes me is no
what amazes me is not just how wrong the Bushies and their apologists were in regards to the attack on iraq, it amazes me that anyone with a three digit IQ would ever have thought these partisan dinosaurs could ever pull off a preemptive war in the mideast that would have a different result.
all the conservatives are left with is ; One day history will prove us right.
well...uh...no it won't
Cool job. I'm more o
Cool job. I'm more of a people person myself(Navy corpsman with a pharmacy specialty or 8482/0000 as the Navy would say) and married a ET for the electronic stuff on the home front but I always am fascinated with the amazing things technology has come up with).
I don't agree. I thought we had a real shot at creating a real democracy in Afghanistan and that would have been awesome. Instead we split our resources and so we have problems in both spots and we still don't have Osama. It's somewhat frustrating to me because I do see that strategically Iraq(right next to Syria, Iran, and Libya) could be beneficial to us but we needed it to be done alot differently than it was.
Visionary statement?
Visionary statement? Quite frankly I'm not impressed with alot of pretty words......look where that has gotten us. Sound policy would be a start. I keep trying to figure out why everyone expects the GOP and the Dem vision to be any different? It isn't like both sides don't want a strong, safe USA. The difference isn't the vision it's about how you create that vision and that is done through policy.
Do you folks on the right really believe that the liberals want America to be weak or unsafe (even after talking to most of us)?
Left and right have the same vision. The difference is in the details of how we achieve that vision.
I'm always amused wh
I'm always amused when those who supported the diversion of funds, troops and resources AWAY from a war against actual jihadists in favor of an invasion of a secular nation with dubious (at best) ties to radical Islam accuse "liberals" of not having sufficient "vision" and/or the stones to deal with jihadism... well, not really amused... nauseated is more like it...
How much further along we would be in the struggle against jihadism had the so-called "conservatives" suffered such a dearth of vision and heeded the warnings of "liberals" like Wes Clark??? Well, we'd at least have about 2500 of our finest men and women still alive to fight and defend us...
totally agree the
totally agree
the fact is, democrats and liberals couldn't have and wouldn't have screwed this up any worse than this
So how would you hav
So how would you have proceeded with a war against jihadism if we didn't go into Iraq?
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
quaoar, How can w
quaoar,
How can we be more aggressive with the Saudis and Pakistanis? Threaten them? I am not sure we have the leverage.
As far as a diplomatic solution to the Palestinian problem, we should not be imposing a solution on a souvereign state and our ally. We've proposed enough plans. Now Israel has a new government and a plan and I am more than willing to wait and give them a chance to implement it.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
It's not that many l
It's not that many liberals want America to be weak or unsafe. But unfortunately the way it looks is that liberals do not propose anything that would keep America safe or strengthen it.
Do we really have the same vision? Maybe. The methods of achieving it are so different as to be unacceptable to us.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
It takes a while to
It takes a while to build a stable democracy in places where they've never had it. It doesn't get done in a few years without encountering serious problems. Even in the more western countries like Russia they are having a serious problem with democracy and liberty. It takes patience and perseverence.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
The Saudis are extre
The Saudis are extremely problematic. We are and have been basically in bed with them. The Pakistanis? Eh I'm not convinced that part of the problem isn't that Musharaff isn't hanging on to power by a thread. From what I understand there have been quite a few attempts on him
Part of the problem in Israel is we have been far from a neutral mediator. Even now we are undercutting funding to Palestinians because we don't agree with their choice of government. We provide the Israelis with military aid in massive amounts.(Sadly military aid is the largest portion of our foreign aid) Why would the Palestinians have reason to believe that we are looking out for their welfare and trying to help mediate in good faith? I have a question for you Ender. Do you think Rumsfeld has done a good job as Sec Def or do you think he should be replaced?
Israel and the Pales
Israel and the Palestinians have had nearly 60 years to come to an agreement and have not. That lack of action has seriously affected our own standing in the world as well as our national security. So if they aren't going to do it themselves, then it should be done for them.
As far as not intervening in the affairs of a sovereign state, what are we doing in Iraq? What is it we are contemplating doing in Iran?
Regarding what can be done about Pakistan and the Saudis, plenty.
How about starting by listing Saudi Arabia as a state sponsor of terror and cutting of military aid to Pakistan?
qui tacet consentire
How do you figure? E
How do you figure? Earlier you stated that it seems that working as a part of a global community seemed to be a reasonable approach ot problems? Are you taking that back? Do you now believe that military dominance and brute force are or should be the primary means to shape the world? Did you hear liberals complaining when we went after Osama Bin Laden? Of course not. We didn't start complaining until eyes were taken off the ball and the right refused to listen. It was arrogant to believe that we could utilize force in Afghanistan and in Iraq and still be able to maintain leverage in places like Iran and North Korea. Our military is set up for two fronts not twenty.
Aren't you concerned
Aren't you concerned about having the military occupied with building nations in multiple places? Aren't you concerned about how that would play out if North Korea got froggy?
I am in favor of neu
I am in favor of neutral mediation in sutations where there is no case for neutrality. Israel is a good ally, a democratic nation, a rational country of fellow travellers in this world of ours. Palestinians are... despised by even their fellow arabs for being so problematic, primitive, and savage in their methods. They employ terrorist methods which have support of the majority of their population and elect terrorist leaders. I would hold it against our government if we treated them equally. Fortunately we do not. Why should we agree with every "democratic" choice? Democracy can produce the worst tyrants. Palestinians pretty much deserve everything that's happened to them, including Arafat and Hamas. So don't mediate and let Israel do what they wish. They have more experience dealing with the problem.
As for Rumsfeld, I think he does an adequate job. No one is perfect and he made plenty of mistakes but as the chief of DoD I do not want him replaced until Bush decides to.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Intervening in the a
Intervening in the affairs of Israel would be similar to intervening in the affairs of Great Britain or Australia. They are a friend while Iran is a terrorist nation whose military development must be controlled if we want to keep this War on Terror on the right track.
Pakistan has been a helpful ally and provided logistical support to our troops. I don't mind helping them if they keep the country open and share intel. I agree with you on Saudis but thinking pragmatically we can't afford to offend a huge provider of our oil. It's not in our best economic interests and therefor absurd.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
I said this: <block
I said this:
I never said that "working as a part of a global community" is a reasonable approach to problems. Mainly because I do not believe in working with the "global community" and do not even believe in the global community.
The world stage for me is a mix of countries worth engaging economically, not worth enaging economically, friends, enemies, and a vast majority of countries whose opinion does not matter in the greater scheme of things. So I am for engaging the major players who matter and dealing with them directly.
Sure, sometimes it is in our interests to engage them for the purposes of alliances or pressure on deviant countries. Other times, when it is in our best interests, it is also fine to act unilaterally. Military dominance is essential to our well being, at the same time what I am saying is not that every problem needs a military solution.
I disagree. That is somewhat misleading. We do not need to throw 100s of thousands of troops into Iran because to solve their nuclear weapons problem we do not need to occupy them. US Air Force has plenty of resources to strike hard and destroy all of Iran's technological infrastructure which is what I believe will happen in the near future, either by our or Israeli hand.
So even being in Iraq and Afghanistan we can still accomplish other military goals.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Not really. Our troo
Not really. Our troop levels in South Korea is adequate and I do not envision anything happening there. Even if it did, it would degenerate so fast that we would not want more of our troops there.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
A good start would h
A good start would have been stabalizing Afganahstan. It's not like the conflict somehow ended because we said it was over. The Taliban still has a presense. Warlords still remain a big stick in the mud. Tribal politics still reins supreme and there does not appear to be any substantial unified government.
Once we were done with Afganastan, we could, perhaps, look towards Africa. Bin Laden retains a powerful presense in Sudan (see: US Embassy bombings). Al-Queda has a respectable presense there as well. We also could have put more active pressure on Saudi-Arabia to end it's habit of funding radical terrorist groups with American oil money.
But I'm no foreign policy expert. Perhaps (and here's a real crazy thought) he could have asked some of his foreign policy analysts. You know, the ones he ended up firing whenever they released reports he disagreed with. Richard Clarke, Shinseki, the CIA, anybody in the know. Just a thought.
Peter, in case you'r
Peter, in case you're still reading this in hopes of an engagement with your ideas, I just wanted to ask what you think of Michael Klare's recent work (particularly Resource Wars and Blood and Oil), which to my mind present a non-partisan analysis of geopolitical issues facing any party or ideological tendency in the US. Specifically, what should liberals take from the foreign policy challenges and dilemmas he lays out in his books? I ask b/c simply saying "I'm against global jihadism and have an effective plan for winning any kind of war they try to fight" fails to address the larger question of why we can expect any number of attempts to gain power and profits from oil-rich areas of Latin America, Africa, Eurasia, and the Middle East from organizations and political movements Americans find reprehensible.
Do you address in your book what a liberal foreign policy that prioritizes and engages the broad spectrum of threats the US is likely to face in this century might look like? I'm thinking such things as increasing wealth in stable oil-producing nations and conflicts in unstable ones would have to be near the top of the list, as would increasing alliances to contain our military and compete with our economy, increasing global influence of nations we're in debt to, increasing recognition of the potential impacts of climate change.... What should liberals be proposing to address these (or other) issues that could affect our relations with other nations and with the transnational institutions we helped create in the post-WWII era?
I'm also interested in your views on Dan Simmons's recent posts--in his April message
and his May-June message on his web site 
--on historical parallels with global jihadism and possible future directions of conflict. As a great fan of his science fiction, I must admit to being surprised he's sounding the alarm bell so vehemently (he comes off as chicken little to me, but what do I know?). Is this the kind of narrative of why global jihadism matters that you endorse? If so, why? If not, why not?
Pakistan....the help
Pakistan....the helpful ally that provided information on nukes to North Korea? Hmmmmm. You'll forgive me if I think that you overstate their trustworthiness as an ally. In my opinion we should trust them as much as we trust the Saudis.
Quite frankly it's time we tell Americans they need to decide whether it is more important to thwart terror or get a cushy deal on oil.
Go ahead then and co
Go ahead then and continue to ignore the problem but don't be surprised then if there is never peace in the Middle East and democracy of our kind doesn't succeed. Also don't be surprised if they continue to lump us as an enemy just as they do Israel and folks over there can continue to be manipulated by the likes of Osama. Problems don't go away if you ignore them, they only get worse. I agree with quaoar 60 years is more than enough time.
Isn't it amazing eve
Isn't it amazing everyone who could critically think was sent away meanwhile we still have the big dummy who thought "to be provided" was enough planning for post war, didn't bother to secure borders, didn't bother to send enough people, didn't bother to send them with equipment, didn't ebven care if the information he was acting on was accurate......No offense Ender but if you think Rumsfeld doesn't need to go you ain't been paying near enough attention. He should be replaced.
On the one hand demo
On the one hand democrats want us to "thwart terror" but on the other hand when oil prices go up it's all republican fault and big business gouging. So if we try to go after Saudis at the expense of our oil, GOP will die on the cost of oil...
Damned if you do and damned if you don't.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
The reason that the
The reason that the 'War on Terror' was chosen by Cheney and his pals to describe our actions post 9/11 was to further their agenda of control, domestic and international. Once this was the accepted method of dealing with the 'jihadist' terrorists (or anyone else so designated by the administration) the 'Commander in Chief' was free to use 'extraordinary' powers. The fact is that Bin Laden and his compatriots are international criminals and should be pursued as such. For the Bush administration this method would not serve their overarching interests here at home and in the world at large. The use of military force has proven to be ineffective in fighting the jihadists because they are not a military enemy. In Iraq and Afghanistan, much like the Soviets before us, our overwhelming military supremacy means nothing. The enemy we are fighting is part of the local population and when we hit them we hit the locals as well, thereby steadily eroding popular support for our goals. If we had treated Afghanistan under the Taliban as a rogue state to be dealt with by UN forces and occupied by a diverse international force including Asian troops, we would be in much better shape than we are at present. The historical resonance of British troops occupying their country again is obvious to the Afghan people. The problem of terrorism is rooted in small groups plotting in secret. We need to address these enemies in a micro enforcement method, as an international policing problem rather that in a macro, ie. military method. Indonesia which has been subject to large scale terrorist attacks, and has a large population that would be inclined to support an insurgency, has done well with the police model. The main problem with the police model is who would get the appropriations for hardware and munitions. The reasons for our 'War on Terror' are domestically political and internationaly economic, and until those facts are addressed discussions of tactics are basically moot. At the beginning of our 'liberation' of Iraq anyone who reads history pragmatically, without an ideological axe to grind, saw the debacle we were getting ourselves into.
I like it when liber
I like it when liberals blame conservatives for not doing something (like securing our borders) when at the same time their leadership is opposing any efforts to actually do something meaningful about it.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
I am not ignoring th
I am not ignoring the problem. I just think Israel should solve it on their own. Our best attempts have failed when Arafat and his gang of thieves have rejected all of Israel's best offers. I am not interested in helping there and am perfectly willing to accept whatever Israel deems necessary.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Bombing Iran would b
Bombing Iran would be the dumbest thing we could do. You go after flies with a flyswatter not a hammer for reasons that should be obvious. War is the last resort of civilized nations. Gunslinger diplomacy will not work in the real world. Mutual self interest is what makes things run better. For an example an American might understand, just because you drive a Hummer and can push everyone else off the road doesn't mean its a good driving technique. Our military's greatest strength lies in its use as a threat. Teddy Roosevelt said, "Speak softly and carry a big stick." He didn't say use the stick to play whack-a-mole with the world. War eats the resource, ie kills soldiers and civilians (humans), and destroys hardware and munitions, and in the long run only makes us materially weaker as a nation, especially an open ended enemy of the week war like we've got going now. It is only good strategy for the people who supply our military. Your rejection of global cooperation is very short sighted and does not serve any strategic purpose.
Ender- I love it wh
Ender- I love it when right wingers play the victim and blame everything on everyone else. In our political system the majority party has the ability, if unified, to make and pass laws. The President signs them. At present the Elephant party, led by our dear leader GW Bush, is the majority party. Any responsibility for not passing the laws you are interested in rests with the majority party. Please, when you are the party in power, both houses of congress, president and the courts, you can''t play the victim card anymore. It's just soooooo weak dude.
I did not reject glo
I did not reject global cooperation but cooperation with those who are immaterial. Despite your dream of global equality, peace and love, some nations simple are the bottom feeders of humanity and we need nothing from them, least of all affirmations of our policies.
Teddy Roosevelt, in addition to saying that wonderful quote, was quite the imperialist at heart and did not mind using that big stick. Look that up if you have some time.
If you don't use the big stick when necessary to defend your country, your ideals, your global interests, it is less than worthless and you are nothing but a coward. Our military's greatest strength is in its demonstrated skill and strength on the battlefield.
When dealing with uncivilized nations, war becomes necessary especially when those despicable, terror-supporting countries try to acquire weapons that would make the capable of blackmailing the world. It is my hope and prayer to whatever goodness and morality America posesses that we will stop Iran by whatever means necessary and not be the cowards of pre-WW2 era before its too late.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Ender, just a questi
Ender, just a question. How were we defending our country or our ideals by attacking Iraq without direct provocation? Especially in light of the, obvious to many of us at the time (you could look it up), lack of WMD. You don't have to answer about our 'multi-national' global interests, those oil boys are kinda obvious. Your embrace of TR's imperialism betrays your bloodthirsty style of internationalism for what it is. Cuba and the Phillipines were the Afghanistan and Iraq of the turn of the last century. We massacred the natives in those conflicts also. By the way way I noticed that you managed to call me a hippie and a coward in n the same post, you crazed baby-killer you. Just because I wouldn't fight your war for the enrichment of our corporate elite doesn't mean there aren't things worth fighting for.
I would have proceed
I would have proceeded with a war against jihadism somewhere where there was actual...ummmmm... jihadism for starters, rather than creating jihadism in a nation where, for all intents and purposes, it did not previously exist... but that's just me... clearly, I lack the vision and the stones to effectively combat jihadism...