People keep telling me that the terrorists wouldn’t hate us if we didn’t support Israel. Apparently, it’s our own fault they attacked us on 9/11, because they had already warned us many times to stop supporting Israel and get out of the Middle East. If only we had obeyed, they never would have attacked us on our own soil, killing thousands of innocent civilians and attempting to blow up our Pentagon.
I thought it was common knowledge that it’s a bad idea to negotiate with hostage-takers, extortionists, and terrorists. When you give in to their demands, you show they’re stronger than you are. Once they’ve confirmed their advantage, they inevitably escalate their demands. But these folks seem convinced that, if we’d done what the terrorists wanted, they really would have left us alone.
And what was it they were demanding? Only that we give them Israel, — that we turn our backs and allow them to take out our strongest ally in that part of the world. Wow. That’s a pretty heavy price to pay, even for a promise to stop killing our citizens. I don’t think I’d be very comfortable with betraying an ally and leaving them like a sitting duck for their/our enemies to destroy, in return for a promise made by madmen to leave us alone.
Those who promote this course of action assume these fanatical extremists are honorable men who negotiate in good faith, and would keep their word to us if we just sacrificed our friends to their ideological blood lust. That isn’t very likely. They hate us. They hate our culture. They believe the freedoms we hold dear are abominations in the eyes of their god, who will reward them for smiting us.
They would not be satisfied with simply destroying Israel, as they promise to do if we let them. Once Allah granted them that victory, they’d take it as a sign and grow bolder. It might take time to build up their nuclear arsenal, and other weapons of mass destruction, while we obediently look the other way but, eventually, they’d get back to us.
Back in the days of the cold war, the threat of Mutual Assured Destruction acted as a deterrent to nuclear attacks. In the war with the terrorists, we’re dealing with a suicide bomber mentality. If there’s any way for them to take us out, they will. Mutual Assured Destruction is no deterrent for them, because they don’t care if they get taken out along with us. As long as they destroy us, Allah will reward them in the afterlife. How do you deter an enemy who has no fear of death? — There is only one way. By preventing them from ever having the means to strike first.
Sacrificing Israel on the altar of terrorism will not save us. And it would be a cowardly betrayal, not only of our ally, but of our own interests as well.
Government is Not Your Daddy 
I don’t think people hate us in the Middle East merely because we support our buddy Israel…it’s because we support them *only* & don’t help to broker a real peace with the Palestinians, which is in everyone’s interest in the region.
I think 9/11 happened because a lot of radicals in the Middle East made people feel so desperate that they would do anything to strike out at us. No one can say that we haven’t meddled unfairly in Mideast affairs for many, many deacdes…there has to be blowback at some point from that.
“I thought it was common knowledge that it’s a bad idea to negotiate with hostage-takers, extortionists, and terrorists.”
Like I said before, tell that to Reagan and his buddies.
This is not a Crusade that we’re on now…if we turn it into one…we will *never* win it, ever.
“How do you deter an enemy who has no fear of death?”
How did we beat Japan during WWII? They had some of the exact same beliefs about self-sacrifice, and defeating that *entire* country and their empire took less time than this baloney “War on Terror” has so far.
Throughout recorded history the middle East has been a hot bed of civil strife. We are talking more than 2000 years. The jews have never gotten along with the arabs and the arabs, when not occupied with killing foreigners, have concentrated on killing different sorts of arabs. They were killing each other before our nation existed. Our “meddling” in the past few decades has nothing to do with the problem. It is incredibly naive (and ego-centric) to think that it does.
As far as supporting one side or the other, we support both. How much aid goes to Saudi Arabia (as if they needed it)? How much aid goes to Egypt? Palestine?
As to promoting peace in the area, what nation has done more – either Republican administration or enlightened Democratic efforts under Carter?
The fundamental problem is that the Israelis kicked butt every time the arabs have attempted to drive them into the sea. The machismo of the arabs takes a terrible beating and it is simply convenient face-saving to blame the U.S.
If we ever had to take sides in a shoot-out, I’d certainly be for supporting the Israelis. Their value systems are a lot easier to admire than those of their neighbors. (Just my personal preference.)
We were able to prevail over the Japanese in such short order because we as a united people went after them all out and didn’t quit until it was done. We didn’t attempt a limited war. We withheld nothing in our arsenal. We stepped on anybody who got in our way. The good news and encouragement for the Islamo-fascists is that we as a people would today rather blame ourselves and do not have the stomach to do what it takes to win. They, on the other hand, demonstrate every day that they will do whatever to prevail.
Israel is not the problem. These terrorists are sick, twisted perversions who do not want peace at all. They are using Israel as a scape-goat. If we were to give up our support for Israel, the destruction will still continue.
The radical Muslims have a hate for the west that we will never understand. They hate us for just being. How can one negotiate with such as they are?
Israel cannot negotiate with people who do not believe she has a right to exist. The enemies of Israel have nothing to lose because they do not value life, therefore the Israeli Government has one course of action and that is to protect its citizens at all cost. Hit the terrorists before, during and after an attack. The human rights question is off the table because we are not dealing with people who even know the meaning of the words.
For the sake of the entire western world, Israel must be protected and she must survive. We would not like to live in a world without Israel.
“How did we beat Japan during WWII?”
Good point, Mr. Guy. And, for once, I think we’re actually in agreement.
IMHO, Bush underestimated the enemy from the start. The U.S. was attacked on our own soil. That’s an Act of War. A war worth fighting is a war worth winning, and the best way to win a war is to quickly and decisively overwhelm the enemy, using an order of magnitude more force than anybody considers necessary. As we demonstrated in Japan, the up front toll for that course of action is very high but, in the long run, the cost in lives and money is less than dragging it out over years or decades.
But it’s hard to get popular support in this country for that kind of drastic action. Would you have supported it?
This “they’ve been fighting in the Middle East for a long time thing” is useless drivel IMO. Jews and Palestinians lived in peace, literally as neighnbors, before Israel was founded, period. Supporting both sides by propping up Muslim authoritarian regimes that have little popular support is no way to run a foreign policy IMO.
“As to promoting peace in the area, what nation has done more – either Republican administration or enlightened Democratic efforts”
Thanx for asking…the Dems win hands down. Bush has ignored the problem for way too long to do anything good about it now. It is not in anyone’s best interests that there be any more “shoot-outs”…that will *not* solve anything. I think the Israelis got their butts kicked in Lebanon not that long ago BTW.
Again, “Islamo-fascists” is a meaninless, made-up phrase, period. Stop listening to the propaganda of the Right-wing.
“If we were to give up our support for Israel”
Again, no one that is serious is asking for this to happen, period.
“The human rights question is off the table because we are not dealing with people who even know the meaning of the words.”
The human rights issue is never off the table…how could you say something so monumentally stupid??
“We would not like to live in a world without Israel.”
The world was rotating on it’s axis just fine before Israel existed BTW.
This is what I support:
-Bring the vast majority of our troops home from Iraq.
-Put more troops into Afganistan to stop the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.
-Get Pakistan to be ‘with us or against us’ in fighting Al-Qaeda in their own country.
-Confront countries in the Middle East to stop funding terrorism and assist the U.S. and the rest of the West (and Russia if need be) to bring a two-state, peaceful solution to the Israel/Palestine problem.
-Wean ourselves off foreign oil with a real alternative energy program for the USA.
Problem solved I think…
Mr. Guy:
I rather object to the allegation that “Islamo-fascist” is a made up term of the “right wing” and that whatever the right wing propanganda may be happens to influence my evaluations.
It is rather well documented that the world-wide jihad being waged by al-quaeda, et al., is funded and promulgated by the Wahaabi sect in Saudi Arabia using oil revenues generated by the United States and by the Mullahs in Iran. In pursuit of their aims they managed to install a particular form of government in both Iran and Afghanistan managed according to the Islamic code of Shari-a. That system of government, both by the Mullahs in Iran and the Taliban in Afghanistan, can only be described as fascist.
Whatever the right wing or the left wing may think about the terminology, “Islamo-fascist state” is a shoe that fits.
Question in passing: why would it be important to expand the battle in Afghanistan and abandon it in Iraq?
Islam is a monotheistic religion characterized by the acceptance of the doctrine of submission to God and to Muhammad as the chief and last prophet of God.
Fascism is a political theory advocating an authoritarian hierarchical government (as opposed to democracy), the centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism & racism.
The two don’t go together. They have elections in Iran, and that idiot Ahmadinejad will eventually be voted out if we don’t keep saber-rattling and pumping him up. We need to negotiate with Iran…there are plenty of people there that want to be our friends. Scaring them into developing nuclear weapons will do us no good IMO.
Iran and Al-Qaeda are not allies…neither were Iraq and Al-Qaeda. Iran actually did nothing to impede us in Afganistan…where the actual terrorists are that actually attacked us are, remember them? Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, period. The only people that can win in Iraq is the Iraqis.
I think you’re narrowing the target a little too tightly to be effective, Mr. Guy. The actual terrorists that actually attacked us are dead.
The terrorist leaders who recruited, trained, and assigned them to that mission, and the governments that fund the international terrorist networks within which they operate, are located in multiple countries throughout the Middle East and elsewhere.
IMHO, this war will ultimately be fought in every country that harbors or funds terrorists, because it’s a war on terrorism, not on a particular country. And the countries where the terrorists organize, plot, stage, and train their operatives will either fight with us or against us. If they side with the terrorists, we will fight against them. If they side against the terrorists, we will fight the terrorists alongside them.
This is whole new kind of war, and we can’t fight it by the old rules. The terrorists have changed the rules. We’re fighting their war, not ours, and if we don’t acknowledge and adapt to that fact, we will surely lose.
Whether Islam is polytheistic or monotheistic is not relevant to the issue presented. When a nation’s government is predicated upon religious law such as Shaari-a, that government is a theocracy.
There certainly is no logical inconsistency in a theocracy being fascist. As a matter of fact, the odds are it will be.
If a country such as Iran happens to hold democratic elections for inconsequential administrative posts, that fact does not relieve it of its fascist character when real power is held by un-elected mullahs. Again, an issue of the shoe fitting.
What I recognize and you apparently refuse to accept is that we are engaged in war with wannabee Islamo-fascists who are bent on nothing less than the death and destruction of us, our nation, and particularly our culture. What battles may be desirable in the prosecution of that war should be strategic decisions not simply reaction to the enemy’s initiative. On that level I see no problem whatever with the battle on the Iraq front. Strategically, that front was necessary. If not in Iraq, then in Iran or Syria. The commander-in-chief chose Iraq. I’m cool with that.
“The actual terrorists that actually attacked us are dead.”
And a lot of the the actual terrorists that funded and planned it are still at large. They’re in Afganistan and Pakistan. We’re losing the fight to the Taliban and Al-Qaeda in Afganistan too.
The “War on Terror” is an ridculous and unwinnable exercise. We’re not going to eliminate terrorism from the Earth. We’d have an easier time eliminating cigarette smoking or making a right turn on red. It’s completely silly, but I think that’s part of the point of this whole exercise…an unwinnable war will be endless…plenty of money for businesses to make and plenty of fear for governments to hype up.
A theocracy is not necessarily a fascist state.
“On that level I see no problem whatever with the battle on the Iraq front. Strategically, that front was necessary. If not in Iraq, then in Iran or Syria. The commander-in-chief chose Iraq. I’m cool with that.”
I’m sorry Jackson, but you’re a fool. Iraq had nothing to do with the terrorists that attacked us, period. The Iraq War was an optional war that was initiated for completely fictitious reasons. Last time I checked, Iran and Syria haven’t attacked the USA either. Our commander-in-chief is a bigger fool than you are probably, and we’re going to be getting a new, Democratic one soon that will be changing course…thank God!
Mr. Guy,
Are you an elitist intellectual endowed with some sort of infallible enlightenment or just a school boy resorting to name calling?
Your strategy in the war against the Islamo-fascists necessarily sucks because you don’t acknowledge the fact of the war, the nature of the enemy, the scope of the endeavor, or the desirability of taking the offensive.
Applying your strategy to history, in WWII we would have abandoned the fight in Guadalcanal to concentrate on the battle in North Africa (or vice versa). After all, the folks in Guadalcanal (North Africa) never attacked us.
Whether you personally like G. Bush or not, you need to thank him for at least recognizing the enemy and taking the offensive in the fight. Just maybe his decisions may save your life and your right to voice your opinions. The enemy offers no such advantages.
I call ’em as I see ’em. It’s a shame to see so many people that are still buying into the Right-wing propaganda about “the nature of the enemy, the scope of the endeavor, or the desirability of taking the offensive.”
“Fight them over there so we don’t have to fight them over here.” That’s what Bin Laden sez about Iraq vs. Afganistan and Pakistan.
Read a history book for God’s sake…we are sooooo far past the Guadalcanal and North African phases of this war that it’s not even funny. It’s almost 7 years and counting so far! Guadalcanal was occupied by the Japanese, and North Africa was occupied by German, Italian, and Vichy French troops. Your knowledge of history is shockingly low…what a surprise.
I will thank GWB for one thing and one thing only…when he leaves office, period. That day will be one of the greatest days of the last decade.
The issue is not just reading the texts, it is a matter of understanding them. BTW: I’ll stack up my personal library of history books against yours anyday.
Good to see we’re back to the right wing name calling. An excellent signal you’re out of ideas.
And I’ll stack up my knowledge of military history against yours any day of the week. Nice to see how thin-skinned you are BTW. Maybe you’ll buckle like a belt the next time the terrorists make it back over here…
I think Sherman’s great contribution to the art of war was the introduction of the strategic objective of destroying the enemy’s capacity to make war – as implemented against the South in the Civil War and against the Indians in the War on the Plains.
Application of that strategy calls for an attack on the enemy’s well-springs. Lee chased all over the north seeking to destroy the enemy. Sherman attacked the enemy’s base and the war was over.
The intellectual challenge for the arm-chair general is to figure out whence all the wannabee Islamo-fascists draw their support and sustenance. Too big a problem for small minds.
The “enemy’s well-springs” include the festering Palestinian issue. With that gone, they will have very little else to recruit on, especially if we give up rights to maintain bases in countries that their religious faith deems holy. We also need to kill Al-Qaeda were they are…not where they aren’t.
Would you like the Chinese having a military base in downtown Philly or right next to Mt. Rushmore? I think not.
If you believe that the well-springs of the Islamo-fascists are rooted in Palestine your intelligence sources regarding the enemy are hopelessly inadequate. The Islamos in Indonesia and the Phillipines care not a fig about Palestine.
Face the fact that the Islamo-fascists have decided that now is the time for Jihad against the West. For them it is a holy war of cultures. That in prosecuting such a war they are unraveling a millenium of civilization is unfortunate. But that doesn’t bother them.
I believe that the Mt. Rushmore, Philly, concern was the reason for the Monroe Doctrine.
Keep mentioning that worthless phrase “Islamo-fascists”…all it does is expose you as a member of the far Right-wing.
Whether some of the Al-Qaeda-linked groups in Southeast Asia have the same concerns as the rest of that group is another dodge of the issues at hand I think. This is *not* a Crusade…if it turns into one, no one will ever win.
Thanx also for confirming that you think it’s OK for the USA to have bases all over the world…as long as no one has a presence in our country/hemisphere. That idea has been going over “wildy” across the world for quite a long time now…hypocrisy…
The “Islamo-fascist” thing goes to recognizing and evaluating the enemy for what he is. I’m not sure what it might have to do with political issues. I have an idea that should they gain control, left wing and right wing heads will roll together.
The Jihad, Holy War, or Crusade began back in Beirut during the Reagan administration. You don’t have to worry about “IF” it ever starts. It is here and the question is what to do about it.
As to foreign, domestic bases, I appreciate your concern for maintaining image. I’m more concerned about survival.
Thanx for trying to re-write history again. The Beruit debacle happened when we stuck our noses into another civil war…the Lebanese one.
We cannot dominate the entire world and push everyone around indefinitely. That is not a winning strategy in the long run IMO.
There’s a simple solution. Make ourselves as weak as everybody else and we won’t dominate. If we would also make ourselves as poor as everybody else, we’d avoid that envy thing.
That’s a great strategy for something. Maybe I don’t understand your definition of “winning.”
How about if we work together with the rest of the world instead of trying to bully it? How about if we also try to improve the standard of living around the world? Read a book about Rome…here’s a hint…it didn’t end well for the Romans…
Mr. Guy, wouldn’t it be nice if we lived in a world where everybody was nice and rational and wanted nothing more than peace and love? Unfortunately, we don’t live in that kind of world. You can (and no doubt will) continue to believe we do (or could), but it’s not reality.
Just like you assume that there could be peace in the Middle East if only Israel would stop protecting itself against those who have sworn to destroy it, you assume that, if the U.S. just left everybody alone, they would leave us alone too. You’re ignoring the fanaticism of religious ideologues who believe that Allah will reward them for converting all the infidels they can, and for destroying all the ones they can’t convert.
You assume that the U.S. and our allies are the source of the only true evil in the world, and everybody else is our hapless victims. I have a really hard time with that attitude. Naivete is charming in children; not so much in adults.
“You can (and no doubt will) continue to believe we do (or could), but it’s not reality.”
I am not naive at all, but working in the opposite direction from where I think we need to go will do no one any good I think.
“if only Israel would stop protecting itself against those who have sworn to destroy it”
When did I ever say that Israel shouldn’t defend itself or that it shouldn’t exist? Don’t act like the USA hasn’t been meddling in other people’s affairs for far too long and that we haven’t been recently experiencing blowblack from that. Re-writing history so that we all feel better about things does nobody any good either IMO. We have to learn from history, and, unfortunately, we have a hard time doing that in this country.
“You assume that the U.S. and our allies are the source of the only true evil in the world, and everybody else is our hapless victims.”
When did I say that?? I am not part of the “blame America first” crowd that you on the Right love to try and throw at people. Being a student of history in NOT un-American!
On the Roman theme, what do you believe made Rome successful? Why do you believe they ultimately disappeared as a world power?
It is great to say they came and they went. What is the lesson in that thousand year experience?
Empires fall, autocracies and dictators fall even faster, and the failure to adapt to & understand your enemies will cause you a quick defeat. Also, watch that lead piping. ;)
The Bush Regime’s over-emphasis on increasing the power of the Executive Branch is very dangerous IMO. Their failure to understand the enemy & their underestimating the enemies that we are really facing has been their downfall. One of the legacies of the Bush Regime will be that Bush took unprecedented good faith towards the USA after 9/11 and turned it into dust.
“Empires fall, autocracies and dictators fall even faster, and the failure to adapt to & understand your enemies will cause you a quick defeat. Also, watch that lead piping.”
I guess the message you got is that nothing lasts? Since the Romans took the longest to collapse, shouldn’t we heed what they did? And avoid lead based paint on toys out of China.
“The Bush Regime’s over-emphasis on increasing the power of the Executive Branch is very dangerous IMO. Their failure to understand the enemy & their underestimating the enemies that we are really facing has been their downfall.”
I personally deplore the creation of a Department of Homeland Security as a permanent cabinet department and see all sorts of potential evil therein. KGB stands of Department of State Security. Sounds altogether too similar for me. Curious that nobody criticizes that.
It is humorous that one who refuses to heed what the “enemy” has to say about himself and prefers to invent justifications for him would point to failure to understand and appreciate the enemy as a problem. BTW: what enemy did Rome fail to understand and appreciate.
“One of the legacies of the Bush Regime will be that Bush took unprecedented good faith towards the USA after 9/11 and turned it into dust.”
All part of that initial “with us or against us” attitude I suppose. Also, it might have sunk in what “with us” means as happened in Spain.
“I guess the message you got is that nothing lasts?”
Try again…the model of the Romans is not a winning strategy in the long-run. I know that can be a difficult thing for a lot of Right-wingers to understand…the long-run…but be that as it may…
Are you kidding me? The Dept. of “Homeland Security” is right out of the Nazi playbook…it’s a joke too.
The barbarians and the Christians pulled Rome down over time I think.
“All part of that initial ‘with us or against us’ attitude I suppose. Also, it might have sunk in what ‘with us’ means as happened in Spain.”
The “with us or against us” thing was stupid and childish. Going against what pretty much the entire world thought was best (NOT going into Iraq) and smiting every treaty that Bush could get his hands on is what did it. The Spanish realized what most of the rest of the “Coalition of the Willing” realized…they were played for fools and lead down a garden path to nowhere by Bush and Company.
Here’s our communication problem.
Jackson said: “I guess the message you got is that nothing lasts?”
Mr. Guy said: “the model of the Romans is not a winning strategy in the long-run.”
Keep in mind my original caveat that Rome lasted longer than any other system.
Point to a more successful model – not just Mr. Guy knows best.
Thanx for letting us know Jackson that you’d rather be ruled by a dictator that believes in multiple Gods…good luck with that. Get this through your thick skull…hegemony and freedom & democracy don’t go together, period.