… in our history books. We’re not making this up:
“We sleep peaceably in our beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on our behalf.” (George Orwell)
It has always been so. Civilization and the ability to inflict violence go together, are inseparable. Our pampered elites cannot understand this and have no ability to understand this. They look upon men with guns like apes gaping at The Last Supper.
Our venerable history books speak of Western Civilization as beginning with the Greeks somewhere around 700 BC. Not so. It began with the Hebrews pushing into what they called ‘the Promised Land’ 500 years before. We forget that the most influential book in Western Civilization had its origins in the violence spread by the Israelite commander Joshua and his successors. The poetry of Solomon, the beauty of the Psalms, all rest upon the shoulders of Israelites with swords.
Stephen King is a worm. ROFLMAO!
This is a very good article Cjunk. Thank-you for posting it.
And where do the chickenhawks fit into this equation?
who will defend what remains of Western Civilization? Will the likes of Stephen King step up to the plate?
Will the likes of Ezra Levant?
Will Pinch Sulzberger and Ward Churchill and Ted Kennedy don battle fatigues and utter their cries of war?
Will Bill O’Reilly and Ann Coulter and David Frum?
Will Bill Clinton and his minions marshal armies and command troops?
Will George Dubya and Steve Harper?
And the larger the guns, the rougher the men, the more secure we are in our beds.
IIRC, it was Thucydides who noted that the Greek city states, those bastions of civilization, were in a constant state of war with one another, Athens being one of the most significant offenders. Their male citizens all trained as soldiers and served in the army and in war, many more than once in their lives.
Manny: Ok, I’ll take you up on it. Since you think that men who don’t serve don’t count, or are cowards, etc., the following must apply …
… only those who serve can comment on, or set policy when it comes to armed conflict. Sounds fine by me.
Where on earth have you been, manny? To answer your questions: yes, yes, and yes.
In fact, the tense is wrong: it’s not “will”. Ezra, Bill, Ann, David, George and Stephen–and let’s add MARK– already ARE engaged in this battle. Thank God. I rest easier in my bed, knowing that such people are on watch.
So then, Paul, you agree that Dubya’s little Iraq adventure is illegitimate in every sense.
manny:
Only those who serve can comment on armed policy.
Those are your own rules.
King claims his statement was taken out of context….. I am shocked!!
Of course I actually watched the clip in question over at newsbusters. Nope, no removal of context there as far as I can see. Of course King is another of these “I support the troops, just not what they are doing” morons. That a professional writer cannot see the tiny logic problem with that statement should cause anyone with a love for the written word to dispair.
Ladies and gents, it’s my pleasure and that of my comrades to serve and to keep us all able to comment on whatever we want without fear of reprisals. But to be able to do our jobs, we need thinkers, commentators and politicians who are willing to face reality – not bow to rose-coloured fantasies – and thereby point us at that which we can do to eliminate what threatens the survival of western enlightenment. But we are a blunt instrument, and ideas, more than the force of arms, are required to keep our liberties safe. Thus, the Ezra Levants, David Frums (and yes, Ann Coulters, much as I dislike her approach) as well as Stephen Harpers perform a necessary service. Heck, even President G.W. Bush performs a necessary service to western civilization – if only as a focal point for the thoughtless hatred and fear of the leftist masses who are much too terrified to see the world as it really is, in its messy, conflicted and dirty state.
Soldiers alone cannot preserve liberty. If a society has given up on defending its liberties, it will either be taken over by the illiberal, or in societies which do not share the tradition of western enlightenment, by its own soldiery. And that, manny, is why your comment reeks of partisan stupidiy at its most pungent: intellectual manure pure and simple.
Zing.
Well done by my land locked brethern……who taught you to read and write. After all, according to ol Stevie King, this is a skill you and I lack, hence our decision to serve Queen and Country.
A society founded solely on peace and good will can survive on those ideals – as long as all societies that interact with it share its benevolent view of the universe. But it would only take one whose values lie in the realm of violence, rapacious expansion and (pick your flavour) ethnic superiority to overwhelm and subjugate the Kingdom of the Rose-Coloured Glasses. Nothing that the anti-military types want to see happen in politics can guarantee that any other society will be as committed to peace and endless dialog as the West remade in their image. If we unilaterally lay down our arms, and send home our ‘rough men'(and rough women), we will vanish.
The usual dimwitted “chickenhawk” accusation. In other words, they don’t call the fire department if their house is on fire, because they aren’t firemen. They don’t call the cops if they’re being robbed, because they aren’t police officers.
I assume this means they’d be happy if the Pentagon or Department of Defence was setting foreign policy.
(Hey, Ann Coulter in a uniform, I like it ….thanks for that image, idiot boy.)
In Robert Heinlein’s “Starship Troopers” military service (Or, for women who elected to do so, producing three-plus children) was a requirement to vote. Sounds good to me.
James Pawlak
USN 1956-1959
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
King is an abberant idiot, his writings prove it. Man is aviolent animal, just a touch more civilized than the rest. All that makes us different is that thumb thing. Part of our problem today is that devotees of islam haven’t evolved beyond having opposing thumbs. Civilized people have allowed their religious text and their interpretations to evolve. Islam is entrenched in the dark ages with the beliefs of cavemen. They are too stupid to apply modern and realistic interpretation to garbage written in the dark age, so there they remain. With an average IQ of 73, what do you expect. What needs to happen, is the rest of us have to stop forgiving them. Point out that they are in fact backward idiots! Don’t “make allowances”, that just propogates the fiction that Islam is a “peaceful” religion. It isn’t! It is a hate filled diatribe idealizing a child molesting biggot that cannot be forgiven, and anyone that believes in it is an uneducated backward idiot!….
Anonymous soldier at May 11, 2008 7:54 PM
Well said, Friend, and thank you. Another poster also said it well here some weeks ago (I paraphrase from memory):
“Civilizations don’t fall because Barbarians are at the Gates.
They fall when the inhabitants open the gates to let the barbarians in”
mhb23re
at gmail d0t calm
According to you guys, the troops deserve support in anything and everything they do. So: you consistently say of people who oppose the Dry Drunk’s War for Lies that they don’t support the troops. And you maintain that they lie when they say they support the troops but don’t support the Dry Drunk’s War for Lies.
It’s certainly a clever rhetorical gambit and it’s served you all well. You hide behind the sacred entity of ‘the troops’ and impugn the patriotism of the people who have serious questions about their mission – as though the troops themselves chose it.
Actually it’s you who betray the troops when you try to shut down debate about the validity of a mission which is demonstrably based on lies. It’s utterly preposterous and completely unpatriotic to maintain that a war plan once set in motion is ‘sacred’ and any dissent is a ‘betrayal of the troops’.
But what do you guys care? You’ll say anything to keep a war going, no matter what it’s based on – so long as not a single drop of your blood is ever in danger of being spilled.
Anonymous soldier,
As a former soldier who is not as eloquent with words, thanks for putting to words what are essentially my thoughts on this as well.
In other words, they don’t call the fire department if their house is on fire, because they aren’t firemen….
That analogy doesn’t hold water. There’s a fire NOW (according to them) They refuse to join the bucket brigade. Oh, they want the fire fought, but they want someone else to do the heavy lifting. Since they tell us this fire will consume everything we hold near and dear, and they are of an age, and are able-bodied, why are they content to sleep soundly while rough men/women do their dirty work? Why should they be held in anything but contempt?
Bolik, are you drunk or on drugs? Your comment has about as much coherency as my dogs when faced with a tasty, but unattainable treat dangled to get them to do a trick they’d really not do.
What is “Dry Drunk’s War for Lies”? Do define in words understandable by those who practice the Queen’s English, as opposed to marijuana-fueled MSN-speak practiced by the barely literate denizens of university liberal arts faculties (and here I speak of professors as well as students).
Do define how the “mission is based on lies”, when just about every troop who has served in Afghanistan will tell you it’s a job worth doing, if only for the future of the Afghan folk. Again, a piece of mindless wording worthy of someone whose skills would barely meet the demands of hamburger-engineering at McDonalds.
Dissent is right the troops who think the Afghan mission is worth doing will defend to their utmost. Part of serving this country is defending the right to spout any view, including incoherent idiocies like yours.
Every soldier knows no plan survives contact with the enemy and the notion of a war plan being sacred is laughable – something only a civilian with no grasp of anything resembling reality would actually write.
And sunshine, as a serving soldier, my blood is in danger of being spilled. What is never in danger of being spilled is the sweat, let alone the blood, of you leftist ilk – the ones with the entitlement mentality who would never, ever lift a finger for the betterment of their society.
You, sir, are a complete waste of oxygen. Count yourself lucky that my job is making sure you can continue wasting oxygen.
Hey, “anonymous solider”, no problem:
Dry Drunk’s War for Lies: Well, Bush, President of the US, is a dry drunk. A dry drunk is an alcoholic who simply stopped drinking without dealing with the emotional problems which made him drink. I’m sure you’re aware of AA, and the 12 step problem and all the rest. These programs help the alcoholic take care of all the profoundly immoral behaviour he must now take responsibility for as a newly sober person. If, like Bush, an alcoholic simply stops drinking in an act of will, without dealing with his emotional problems, he is what is called a ‘dry drunk’. A person who is still emotionally screwed up and transfers his obsession with drinking to something else – in Bush’s case exercising and starting illegal wars – and still refuses to take real responsibility for his actions – like any drunk.
His War for Lies? Bush and Co. repeatedly stated that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, scaring Americans by insinuating that Saddam was going to nuke them (the Smoking Gun-Mushroom Cloud thing).
My post was mostly about the Iraq war and the manner in which Right-wingers have rebuffed criticism of the war by saying to criticize it is to be disloyal to the troops.
Anything else I can clear up for you, “Anon. Soldier”? You’ll note that I didn’t resort to hoisting personal insults at you as you chose to do to me (no offense taken, of course).
The amazing thing is that folks like bolik will never be able to see the logical fallacy of the “I support the troops, but not the war” statement. It is very possibly the single most intentionally dishonest drivel from the left I have ever heard.
I much prefer the very very few that have the guts to state they do not support either the troops or the war. I find it much easier to respect a honestly held point of view I disagree with than the spouting of illogical PC drivel.
Bolik, you’re hoisting personal insults at President Bush. That pretty much invalidates your arguments. Attack his strategy all you want. As a military professional, I have serious issues with the attack on Iraq without securing Afghanistan first – other soldiers here will understand the concept of “centre of gravity” and see what I mean. But attacking President Bush based on some imaginary mental illness is, well, a symptom of “Bush-derangement syndrome”, another made-up mental illness, but one with plenty of empirical evidence among the leftist masses.
As for the “war for lies”, as it stands, there is about as much evidence for Saddam having stashed his WMD in Syria as there is for their non-existance. Considering the nuke reactor the Israelis wiped out recently, I would suggest that technology transfer to Syria prior to the 2003 invation may have some validity.
You’ll find that most THINKING people have reservations about how the Iraq situation has been handled, me first. However, having stepped into that particular wasps’ nest, there is a moral obligation to see it through, something the left cannot, in its blinkered ideology even grasp.
Disloyalty to the troops is not expressed by having reservations about the mission – it is by expressing active opposition in such a manner as to provide aid and comfort to the enemy, killing our fellow canadians. I refer you to Jack Layton’s comments over the last few years as a case in point.
If your beef is with the President and government of the US of A, do visit blogs dealing with their issues. This is a Canadian blog, and our concern is mainly with our troops in Afghanistan, and the good they are doing for the Afghan people.
Is the above clear enough? Or is your little leftie sense of righteousness still screaming bloody murder at the cold reality of planet Earth as it is?
bolik, ummm… so anyone who betters them selves by disposing of addictive and destructive problems are wrong for doing so, because they are only “posers” in your opinion??? Got to love a lefties perverse slant. At least it’s worth a good laugh.
The posting, anon, was about Iraq.
So what is more contemptible in your estimation, the pudgy rightist, sleeping soundly in his bed, yet beating the drums for a misguided, illegal war, or the leftist sleeping soundly who opposed the misguided war in the first place?
I for one am very proud of the effort and sacrifice being made on our behalf and on the behalf of the long suffering people of Afghanistan by our troops. To the folks that don’t get it, and seem to exist only to make sneering asides, ad hominem attacks,your freedom to act as you do comes directly from the actions of the soldiers,men and women with the courage to stand up to the criminals who chop the heads of little girls who dare go to school, to quote the words of Marine Corps Padre Dennis O’Brian
It is the soldier, not the reporter who has given us the freedom of the press.
It is the soldier not the campus organizer, who has given us the freedom to demonstrate.
It is the soldier, not the lawyer, who has given us the right to a fair trial.
It is the soldier, who salutes the flag, serves under the flag and whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protester to burn the flag.
Cheers Bubba
Besides, anon, we’re not in Afghanistan to help the people, we’re there to suck up to Washington.
Manny
Do define the term “illegal war”… amuse me heck, define “misguided war” as well… it’s been a long week not soundly sleeping in my bed, but training to ensure that the leftists sleeping soundly may continue to delude themselves about the real state of the world. I need some giggles right about now.
Do explain how you would have handled a regime working hard to develop nukes (as is Iran right now, by the way) and who was actively pursuing links with an ideological movement dedicated to world supremacy, for no other reason than to maintain his grasp on power. You leftists do a lot of finger-shaking at those who take action, but I have yet to hear any of you actually come up with something that works in the real world.
When the rubber hits the road, the political left is about as useless as a left-handed spanner and teats on a boar hog.
C’mon, genius, tell me how you would have done it differently…. one of the pudgy rightists (who could probably out-distance you on a 10k run without breaking a sweat) wants to know.
It’s easy to criticise – it’s damn hard to find the guts to go beyond words and into action. The left is all about words. Show me some concrete action.
Yeah, right… (rolls eyes)
Soldier… Don’t hold your breath waiting for the likes of manny to come up with any solid ideas. I think your time and excellent opinions are wasted on the leftist clowns. You and your fellow soldiers are more valuable than that. BTW as an x soldier thanks for what you do.
Well, Anon. soldier-
In ascribing the term ‘dry drunk’ to Bush I’m not insulting him anymore than to call someone who suffers from leukemia a leukemia sufferer. Alcoholism is a terrible disease and I pity anyone who suffers from it – almost as much as I pity the ones around the alcoholic. The ‘dry drunk’ syndrome is a documented medical condition – a little research on your part will bear that out. The facts state that Bush is an alcoholic, and the recklessness, rigidity, inflexibility, and inability to take responsibility which characterize his actions vis a vis Iraq are all classic behaviour patterns of a ‘dry drunk’.
Skipping over your laughable assertions regarding those pesky missing WMDs, I take note of your continued inability to make your points without resorting to personal insults.
This is a standard trait I’ve witnessed in posters here; I wonder if you realize how very empty it makes your arguments seem. Your invocation of “Bush Derangement Syndrome” can only be seen as an attempt to deflect well-earned criticism away from a man you apparently see as faultless: all critiques of his conduct are evidence of a non-existent ‘syndrome’.
Leaving aside the questionable morality of Bush apologists who must rush to invent a ‘buzzword’ to protect the man from any scrutiny (a decidedly undemocratic view of authority) – do you now consider 75% of the American populace to suffer from Bush Derangement Syndrome, given that he is now the most hated President in US history?
Your choice to use an invented term of disparagement, as well as to continually lob personal insults at me, instead of concisely presenting your points, leads one to believe that you yourself don’t have much confidence in the points you’re making (understandably) – you have to buttress them with childish gibes.
As well, your attmempt to tell me what to post about and where will be ignored. US and Iraq have been posted about on this site before. I’ll exercise my freedom of speech without your interference,thanks.
Norseman
The terrible disease of alcoholism isn’t just about alcohol. The alcoholic drinks because of a host of emotional and psychological problems. To stop drinking in a genuinely healthy way is to deal with the problems at the root of the drinking. Sure, you can stop consuming alcohol purely as an act of will – but doctors have found that you’re only transferring your bad behaviour and problems to other parts of your life.
This is all documented – you an research it if you like. Or, if you prefer, you can launch into another ad hominem attack on “lefties”.
Cheers
A misguided war war is one that is justified with lies and propaganda. Case in point- Iraq.
Under fundamental international law, military force is permissible only in self-defense or when authorized by the U.N. Security Council.
While we’re at it, let’s put that Orwell quote to bed. While there is truth to it, on the other hand we have rough men doing evil in the world to forward the nefarious schemes of their masters. The illegal war based on lies makes the world a more dangerous place.
I’m happy then, Manny, that you support the War in Afghanistan.
As an ex soldier(my 2 brothers and I served near 50 yrs), I must agree with the other military types, but I also must allow any citizen to voice his opinion.
Now, saying that, it is very amusing when men(if you can call them that)who would piss their pants if ever having to engage in hand to hand or lay in a shell scrape while artillery rounds were exploding 25m from them offer any opinion on war, the troops or the enemy.
Leftoids, you are preaching to the wrong crowd. Go take it up with your local dipper group, I am sure they would appreciate another raised hand to vote for a motion labeling the boys terrorists, war criminals, or whatever.
Now here is me voicing my opinion.
ALL LEFTARDS ARE COWARD GIRLY-MEN WHO WOULD NEVER HAVE THE BALLS TO PICK UP A RIFLE AND DEFEND THIS COUNTRY !
I hate quoting leftist HOLLYWEED but I agree 100% with this excerpt from A Few Good Men. (remember Canada’s Airborn):
JESSEP
(continuing)
Son, we live in a world that has walls.
And those walls have to be guarded by men
with guns. Who’s gonna do it? You? You,
Lt. Weinberg? I have a greater
responsibility than you can possibly
fathom. You weep for Santiago and you
curse the marines. You have that luxury.
You have the luxury of not knowing what I
know: That Santiago’s death, while tragic,
probably saved lives. And my existence,
while grotesque and incomprehensible to
you, saves lives.
(beat)
You don’t want the truth. Because deep
down, in places you don’t talk about at
parties, you want me on that wall. You want
me there (boasting)
We use words like honor, code,
loyalty…we use these words as the
backbone to a life spent defending
something. You use ’em as a punchline.
(beat)
I have neither the time nor the
inclination to explain myself to a man who
rises and sleeps under the blanket of the
very freedom I provide, then questions the
manner in which I provide it. I’d prefer
you just said thank you and went on your
way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a
weapon and stand a post. Either way, I
don’t give a damn what you think you’re
entitled to.”
Let the fat diplomats pursue “other” avenues. And when they FAIL, the armed forces, are called in.
Military is NOT boy scouts. It’s the pointed end of the spear. Strictly buisness.
Absolutes are amusing, aren’t they?
To take a single example: no adequate records exist, but the best estimate is that between ten and thirty thousand people were tortured at Abu Ghraib prison by the Ba’athists under orders of Saddam Hussein. No panties on the head or simulated electrodes, either — the current was on under Saddam, and heads were removed rather than decorated, as were hands, limbs, genitals, and skin. Like as not, when God gave the victims surcease their bodies would be buried in the exercise yard, so that their allies, friends, and relatives were forced to walk on them, in a culture where showing the soles of the feet is a deadly insult.
Among the results of the “immoral war” was the curtailing of such practices. According to manny and bolik, there is no moral justification for that. It follows that according to manny and bolik, those practices were not merely moral, but were wholeheartedly approved, since it was totally immoral to end them.
So I accept “chickenhawk” with a light heart, in the certain knowledge that unlike manny and bolik I am neither a chickentorturer, a chickenmurderer, nor a chickengenocidist. If they had the courage of their convictions, rather than being limp-wristed apologists, they would be over there with the Minute Men® they so admire, torturing Shi’ia, gassing Kurds, and destroying the wetlands from which Marsh Arabs gain their sustenance.
Go for it, guys. As you are patriotic Canadians, recall that the Taliban need IED-setters, suicide bombers, school-smashers, and people to lash women for uppitiness. That latter would be about your speed, but it would free up the more courageous for the other duties; every contribution helps. So why are you still here? Your duty awaits!
Regards,
Ric
Hey Ric
Ya goin’ to China next? Hear they get up to some pretty nasty stuff over there too. And Saudi Arabia? Go for it, guy!
Do you mean the Saddam Hussein who was friend and ally and arms recipient of Uncle Sam, the Uncle Sam who had no problem with his methods as long as he towed the CIA line and stayed their son of a bitch?
Do you mean the Taliban mujahudeen trained and armed by Uncle Sam to fight the Russians? Absolutes are indeed amusing.
Manny: I’m glad you support the War in Afghanistan.
You know what, I really dont like war/wars, people getting killed. The thought of pointing a gun at someone and pulling the trigger, well, its hard to even think about.
The thing about that is, theres a bunch of people in this world who like war, who actually have no qualms about shooting someone, even shooting rockets at elementary schools and thats why we need to stand up to this with force.
Its kinda like the newspaper cartoon I remember seeing when I was a kid with the title “Israel/PLO agree to peace treaty” and two armies aimed at each other with the PLO general yelling “reload!” to his soldiers.
You cant deal with some of these guys with “talks” and “diplomacy”. At some point good, brave men and women have to be prepared to take a stand.
As far as Boliks awsome conspiracy theory about GW being a “dry drunk” on a rampage…….wowzer
Also, the dribble Moral Manny keeps blubbering about Iraq being an illegal war based on lies is pretty boring. So if the war in Iraq was based on “truth” then it would be a “legal” war which Manny would fully support?? I really doubt it works both ways for the “illegal war” crowd.
Paul, I’m glad you agree the the invasion of Iraq was illegal.
Paul, I’m glad you agree that the invasion of Iraq was illegal.
As an ex soldier let me also weigh into this fray.
Why does the Left insist in spite of emerging evidence that there were no WMDs in Iraq? There were. Bush acted on the intelligence of the day and it has proved to be right.
Iraq had disregarded 11 UN resolutions. Iraq was the “illegal” antagonist.
Iraq was charged as being involved in terror and recent evidence shows they were. Terrorism is an act of war.
Staying in Afghanistan and leaving Iraq intact would have been the stupidest strategy imaginable. It would be the same strategy as engaging Hitler and leaving Tojo to do as he wished behind our backs in WW11. What adviser; Colin Powell, Dick Cheney, who; would advise Bush to be so cavalier.
The terror network is world wide, not a localized Gulf problem. Iran and it’s allies have been training terrorists and subversives since 1979 and possibly before. They were training North Koreans for God’s sake (and a large number of Mexicans as well). Read some history.
To do as the Left wished would be to play whack a mole in Afghan and deal with WMDs going off in NY and To. Simply dumb.
You’re so right,Gunney99
How preposterous it would have been to concentrate all efforts on capturing the mastermind behind the biggest terrorist attack on American soil!
Why should the US have played whack-a-mole with leader and the organization which conducted the largest slaughter on American soil? No, it was much better to invade a country which had never attacked them, and get into a quagmire. Such irrefutabale logic!
Highly simplistic.
I respect the Canadian (and American and our allies’) Forces no end. Without men with guns, not only would our civilization not exist, but crime would be far more rampant than it is, and justice would almost never be found.
However.
All societies have men with guns. They can be used for good or ill.
It is Western Civilization’s philosophers (many of whom were either warriors or friends of warriors, it is true) which make the difference. And our traders. Capitalists. Businessmen and women. Liberated women contributing their brainpower to society in ways little tapped into by other cultures.
This is the difference. This gives our men with guns the weapons, logistics, and information to succeed, and the freedom of thought to adjust their performance on the battlefield when circumstances warrant.
In essence, what makes Western armies particularly effective are freedom and a scientific approach to war (brought about by said freedom).
I’ll give you an example you’ll mostly all be pissed off at, but whatever.
It’s common for our politicians to call homicide/suicide bombers or the terrorists of 911 “cowards”, while a modern fighter pilot with relatively little chance of combat death against our terrorist enemies brave heroes.
And the latter is a brave hero. There’s risk involved there, for sure, albeit much less.
Yet the former is not a coward. A religiously deluded death-cult fanatic, sure, coward, no.
They both have a certain amount of effectiveness and warfare is largely psychological, aimed at the moral of the enemy troops and homeland.
Yet our warriors are much more effective because they dominate the skies and the information battlefield due to more money (capitalism) and better science (free thought including female brainpower doing many functions in society, freeing up men for hard sciences and engineering).
Yet both men, ours and theirs are violent. Different culture and philosophies produces the different results.
In Switzerland every male citizen is a soldier. For anyone who has visited Switzerland, you will know that it is one of the safest places in the world to live in or to visit. Canada was once a nation much like Switzerland in that most men knew how to shoot a gun and knew how to fight. (Our WWI soldiers, for the most part, knew how to ride, shoot and fight before they enlisted; that is why they won battles where others failed).
There is an old quote “an armed society is a polite society”. Scalawags and petty thieves are cowards – they don’t have the gumption to work for a living never mind fighting to steal.
Unarmed citizens risk an unfriendly military dictatorship taking over if a totalitarian government takes over – the reason, IMO, for the “right to bear arms” in the BNA Act and in the American Constitution.
Bottom line, support the soldiers and know how to defend yourself to help them keep this nation Free. Canadians should always be on guard against threats outside our border and inside our country.
Why, no, bolik.
I’m talking about the Saddam Hussein who benefitted from exactly the course of action you claim is the only legal and moral one — a Saddam Hussein who we talked to and negotiated with and gave a little aid in order to turn him up sweet. We spent twenty years doing precisely what you propose. It didn’t work. It spectacularly didn’t work — and now you turn around and use it as an accusation? Talk about dishonest.
And I’m talking about a Taliban which did not exist during the time of the Afghan/Soviet conflict. That’s a lie and you’re a liar, bolik.
No, manny, I don’t base my analysis on stuff I learned from a comic book. Beating up on Lex Luthor is not going to solve the problem. I want Osama to live forever — defeated, discredited, and powerless. I don’t want him dead, I want children to point and jeer at the fool when he walks down the street. And I don’t fall into your trap, either. A single individual with local support, living in a remote area where goats have to carry a topo map and a GPS, can flit from place to place forever, and sending the might of Western Civilization to burn up gas and powder in columns of droves while the guy they’re hunting flits from bolt-hole to bolt-hole and the people who support him can do as they like elsewhere won’t accomplish anything I want.
All of which is irrelevant, anyway. Your flat and absolute declaration is no moral justification for “the war”. If you were arguing “insufficient justification” I might respectfully disagree, but you don’t do that. You’re saying that ending mass torture is not a justification at all; that stopping genocide and environmental destruction counts for nothing whatever; that curtailing the activities of a group of people who tossed live infants into a slit-trench, then stifled their cries with the bodies of their parents before covering them up with bulldozers, has no positive moral implications — was, indeed, another moral wrong to be added to the list. The only conclusion I can draw is that you approve of all those activities, that you want Kurds poison-gassed, Marsh Arabs dispossessed, poor Shi’ia flensed with hot knives, and mass graves filled with people whose killers can’t be bothered with shooting because it wastes ammunition, among the other colorful native practices you declare it was absolutely, unquestionably morally wrong to stop. And if you’re going to fling “chickenhawk” around, it’s fair to ask why you aren’t over there participating in the activities you so vehemently approve of. The Taliban need torturers. Physical abilities aren’t a major question; it doesn’t take much to carve up female schoolteachers with an X-Acto knife. You love those guys. Why aren’t you over there helping them out?
Regards,
Ric