The Problem of Islamic Intolerance and War

Some people say that they belong to an “anti-war” movement. To me, it sounds as if they belong to “anti-pee” or “anti-poop”. Hell, they can also belong to an “anti-sex” movement too, if they want to. Newsflash: nobody likes war, neither “pro-war” nor “anti-war”. The difference is, “pro-war” people accept the possibility that sometimes war is necessary. War was necessary against Hitler, against Hirohito, and against Ho Chi Min. Today, war is necessary against Hamas, Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, and Iranian Islamic Revolutionaries. “Anti-War” people just blankly refuse to accept war, just like monks who refuse to accept sex.

In this universe there is no other method of destroying strong, aggressive, murderous evil, besides bombing and shooting it into state of death. These rules are not made by me or by Bush or by anybody else. Theyt just are. War sometimes is necessary.

Why is it necessary? Consider this.

SCENARIO I

I go to a small village in Alabama and start shouting insults about Jesus Christ. I might get beaten up, but in the end, the people who will hurt me will go to prison.

SCENARIO II

I go to a small village in Saudi Arabia and start shouting insults about Prophet Mohammed. I am guaranteed to be killed, and the person who killed me becomes a local hero, and might even get a medal from Saudi Government.

Western Civilization is built on ideals of liberty of thought, speech, and assembly. The greatest threat to these freedoms today is the intolerant Islamic ideology of mysoginy, homophobia, and violence towards anything critical of Islam. Everybody who ever studied history knows about Catholic Inquisition, about how religious wars between Catholics and Protestants ravaged Europe for generations, about how thousands of women were burned alive as witches, about how hundreds of thinkers were tortured to death as heretics.

Insiquistion of today is Islam — women are being killed every day, free-thinkers are being tortured for daring to think differently, and Sunnis and Shia make Catholic-Protestand hatred seem not that bad at all.

Are there problems in Western Civilization — sure! But the question is, are these problems even comparable to the ocean of bigoted rage in Islamic world??? NO!

Advertisements

22 Comments »

  1. colonizethemoon said

    But we must also ask the question: what are we to do about that? I would never go straight to war. There other solutions. These people in the middle east are just people like you and me, living in a place of completely different ideology. But that means we need to treat them like people, maybe even manipulate them a bit like people, but also give them the respect of people. War is a last resort.

  2. kittleboy said

    hi,
    just about the first paragraph,u have to know that islam itself is not only bad but also it’s the only thing that can guide us to success & give us happiness.
    maybe the government of IRAN cant manage the country well,but that’s not ISLAMs business!!

  3. salahudin said

    yeah.. jesus, gandhi, dalai llama, mother teresa, nelson mendela… all morons.

  4. armilnov said

    to colonizethemoon:

    Thank you for the comment!

    “But we must also ask the question: what are we to do about that? I would never go straight to war.”

    Didn’t we do all we could? Did we not go to UN for 6 months before invading iraq, giving Saddam every shred of opportunity to avert the war?

    Let me put it into the context:
    Beirut 1983 marines barracks bombing, Kenya and Tanzania bombings, 911, Bali, Madrid. Theo Van Gogh gets knifed for making movie about misogyny in Islam, Salman Rushdie has to hide for the rest of his life, Danish cartoons provoke riots, Pope comments provoke riots, Rushdie knighthood provokes riots…..How much should we wait? What should we do? What is your alternative?

    Did I also mention the fact that, thankfully Catholic Inquisition never had nuclear bomb, and Iranian Inquisition is working hard to get it?

  5. armilnov said

    salahudin :

    Nice blog – very FUNNY! lol

  6. colonizethemoon said

    Like Ron paul, I really do not think that the breaking of UN resolutions are whatsoever reasons to go to war, nor do I think that the possibility of Iraq getting WMDs justifies war either. So I ask the question many are asking, and have asked, why did we go to war….really?

    Riots? Misc bombings? That’s hardly a reason to declare war…oh wait, my mistake we have not declared war yet, and yet we are fighting as if we already did.

    We are trying to fight terrorism with a war on a nation and we are in big trouble because of it. The terrorists are water, as bruce lee once described it, and we yet know how to fight it. But unfortunately it seems the idea that we must do something rather than nothing, even if it makes things worse, has arisen, and that is simply bad policy.

  7. armilnov said

    colonizethemoon: Thank you for the comment 🙂

    “nor do I think that the possibility of Iraq getting WMDs justifies war either”

    First, Iraq was not getting WMDs, it possessed them and used them. FACTS: Saddam used nerve gas in Anfal offensive against Kurds(1986-1989), during the attack on Halabja etc. These are undisputed historical facts. I do not know why Saddam did not comply with weapons inspections, if he did indeed get rid (or smuggled somewhere else) WMDs. He got every opportunity to come clean — he did not. President and the Senate, who both authorized the war, had every reason in the world to reasonably believe that Saddam possessed WMDs.

    Second, “in April 2002, Saddam Hussein increased from $10,000 to $25,000 the money offered to families of Palestinian suicide/homicide bombers. The rules for rewarding suicide/homicide bombers are strict and insist that only someone who blows himself up with a belt of explosives gets the full payment….Iraq shelters the Abu Nidal Organization, an international terrorist organization that has carried out terrorist attacks in twenty countries, killing or injuring almost 900 people. Targets have included the United States and several other Western nations. Each of these groups have offices in Baghdad and receive training, logistical assistance, and financial aid from the government of Iraq…..Former Iraqi military officers have described a highly secret terrorist training facility in Iraq known as Salman Pak, where both Iraqis and non-Iraqi Arabs receive training on hijacking planes and trains, planting explosives in cities, sabotage, and assassinations.” Src : US Dept of State So, Saddam did support and fund terrorists. As a matter of fact, this makes Saddam the only(!) head of state in the world to have publicly funded terrorist operations.

    So, to sum up: Saddam used WMDs and never gave anyone a chance to think that he got rid of them, he funded Palestinian terrorists and possibly Al-Qaeda too, he violated resolutions of United Nations, he attacked neightboring countries — Quwait and Iran, he regularly launched rockets at American planes patroling no-fly zones, and regularly engaged in ethnic cleansing against Kurds and Shia.

    So, what in your opinion justifies war?

    Besides, we also went into Iraq to fight Al-Qaeda on their home turf. Would you agree that we succeeded? Who is Abu Musab al- Zarqawi, if not the Al-Qaeda chief in Iraq? Who bombed the al Samarra mosque in 2006? Al-Qaeda in Iraq is the driving force behind the insurgency. They commit the atrocities designed to inflame Sunni-Shia relations. We went to Iraq to fight Al-Qaeda terrorist on their turf – we got what we wanted.

    “We are trying to fight terrorism with a war on a nation and we are in big trouble because of it.”

    I disagree – what about Iraqi Army, Iraqi Police? Why, do you think they fight alongside US troops, why do you think they get killed for their country? Iraqis are sick of Al-Qaeda scum terrorizing the population, and many Iraqis willingly help US forces there – read this. QUOTE:
    “He is an informant. Only minutes before he was working with the U.S. soldiers, pointing out al Qaeda’s houses…. Why is he taking this chance? Because, he says, al Qaeda burnt down his house and killed his brother. ”

    This fight is not against Iraq, it is against Al-Qaeda. Those are not the same.

    “Riots? Misc bombings? That’s hardly a reason to declare war…”
    Bombings are not a reason to declare war? If we got attacked on 911 by a group funded and trained by government of Italy, you do not think that we would declare war?

    Again, what in your opinion justifies war?

    Thanks for this exchange this is fun 🙂

  8. 2008voter said

    to colonizethemoon:
    “I would never go straight to war. There other solutions. These people in the middle east are, living in a place of completely different ideology. But that means we need to treat them like people, maybe even manipulate them a bit like people, but also give them the respect of people. War is a last resort.”

    This is true but the people of Nazi Germany and Militaristic Japan were “just people like you and me” would you agree ? So what does it mean practically? If we deal with people we have to behave ourselves like a Guinea pigs and let them experiment using us as a targets for terrorism and hatred ? Majority of people in Iran and many Arab countries taught in school that it is an honor to kill an infidel. So those and you are “just people” unlike you and me programmed to hate us, this is the difference.
    War as a last resort?
    1. How many 911 you need to consider that time of last resort is coming ?
    2. why it must be a last resort? To save lies? If Hitler would be attacked in 1938 it would be an aggression, but it would save millions of lives . Pacifism historically killed more people than militarism because pacifism is encouraging violence by ignoring first signs of violence.
    Pacifism is not an ideology of kindness it is essentially ideology of indifference

  9. 2008voter said

    to colonizethemoon:
    “We are trying to fight terrorism with a war on a nation and we are in big trouble because of it.”
    We are in big trouble not because we are fighting war but because we are trying to fight POLITICALLY CORRECT WAR. Our main problem is not on the battlefield but at home with those who want to be safe but who want to do nothing in order to be safe . It is like to tell police you cannot stop violence on the street with violence, you have to treat criminals like people ( and they are people) and try to persuade them to change their behavior, to win hearts and minds of criminals. Our main problem is mind set of people in the USA who are anti-war because they want everything to be nice and everybody to be nice and they are very upset when it is not happening. I would call aggressive wishful thinking

  10. colonizethemoon said

    I apologize not being able to respond to each of you personally, I just don’t have that time. But that’s okay, because I think you all are thinking similarly, and led to the same conclusion because of the same things, those being:
    1. We are fighting a politically correct war, unnecessarily.
    2. War is the appropriate action in order to properly combat terrorism.
    3. If it was not for the fact that we are “holding back” in today’s war we would be successfully combating terrorism.

    As for one/3: If you think this, which I admittedly did at one point, you have an very incomplete understanding of politics, which most of us do. In the case of this war, and most wars, “political correctness” is not something that one opts to participate in whim. Bush is the last man that would succumb to criticism and then participate in political correctness. We are fighting the war the way we are because it’s the only way. If the Bush administration thought that nuking the iraqis, or anything short of nuking the iraqis, would improve our situation I do not think he would hesitate to do so. The fact is that the importance of political correctness NEGATES the possible positives that could be gained by a more aggressive war. It’s much like those who get angry when a person gets found innocent because of a “technicality” in our justice system.

    As for two: I talk about this more on my latest post on http://colonizethemoon.wordpress.com/, but to add to it…
    We must approach policy as a means to solve, and properly address concerns and problems.
    Problem: Terrorism.
    Concerns: 9/11. Continued terrorism. Rising culture tensions.
    Goal: Significantly reduce risk of terrorism (Eliminate funding, eliminate membership, increase public security), loosen tensions between cultures, gain international support in the fight against terrorism.
    Proposed Solution: War in iraq? War in Afghanistan?
    Honestly, ask yourself, do these wars really address our problems? Could we not be better off out of iraq gaining international support, using special forces and the like to specifically combat physical terrorism?

    I’m no pacifist, if it would mean eliminating terrorism internationally I’d make the decision to fucking nuke all of iraq. But the fact is that will do nothing but make matters worse for the united states, and the rest of the world. One real world example of this was the dropping of the nukes on japan. By using the very simple Problem/solution formula I have provided we will see that war and nukes were justified:
    Problem: War With Japan
    Concerns: Heavy causalities on both side if war continues, Japan has a lot of trouble with accepting surrender.
    Goal: 1st priority: Reduce American causalities 2nd priority: reduce Japanese causalities
    Proposed solution: Strategic use of nuclear weapons.
    Solution: Worked! The use of nuclear weapons, without a doubt heavily reduced American & Japanese non-civilian causalities and also reduced the potential for extremely heavy Japanese civilian causalities.

  11. armilnov said

    I hope this (somewhat) shorter reply will be easier to digest. 🙂

    “We are fighting the war the way we are because it’s the only way. If the Bush administration thought that nuking the iraqis, or anything short of nuking the iraqis, would improve our situation I do not think he would hesitate to do so.”

    I respectfully disagree — Bush was the one who stopped Marines from taking Falluja, Bush was the one who stopped Marines from destroying al-Sadr and his army, Bush is the one who felt the need to get us into “Democracy in Iraq” in order to make war politically palatable.

    I do not think that Democracy in Iraq is worth our soldiers’ sacrifice — our security is. Whay can’t we fight a true war — kill Sadr, kill any Iranian who crosses the border into Iraq, chuck some Tomahawks into Iran if they try again to capture more British soldiers — and not masquerade behind “Democracy” facade? That is what I think 2008Voter meant by “politically-correct war”.

    “Concerns: 9/11. Continued terrorism. Rising culture tensions. Goal: Significantly reduce risk of terrorism….Proposed Solution: War in iraq? War in Afghanistan? Honestly, ask yourself, do these wars really address our problems? Could we not be better off out of iraq gaining international support, using special forces and the like to specifically combat physical terrorism?”

    I think the question you asked is not the main question. The main question is : why does terrorism exist?

    I think of this in terms of supply and demand — as long as there is a lot of demand (desire to see some infidels/homosexuals/unchaste women be killed) there will be a lot of supply (people and groups who actually kill). How is this different from NAZI ideology, or from Japanese-supremacist ideology of Imperial Japan? It is exactly the same – only different variables! We had to decisively defeat Nazis in war to destroy the Nazi ideology — why can’t we destroy Jihadi ideology by decisively defeating it during war too?

  12. colonizethemoon said

    While the psychology behind why these people are so succeptable to this kind of ideology, there is one major aspect of the ideology that separates it from Nazis, or Japanese: Nations. The Nazi’s and the Japanese were fighting for their nation; for the growth of their nation, for the strength of their nation, and for the acquisition of other nations. Not to mention the holocaust. The assumed “jihad” motive is completely different from that, thus how they are fighting is also completely different. Jihad is personal and religious, nationalism is not. If you defeat the nation nationalism dies, in the case of Jihad there is no nation you can bomb and defeat.

    And yet, we are fighting these jihadists as if they are they are a nation we can defeat. There’s your problem.

  13. armilnov said

    “Jihad is personal and religious, nationalism is not.”

    I do not agree — nationality is very personal. Also, nationality is just one way one can define a group of people , religion is equally fit for this task. Consider this — both Nazi and Jihadi ideology:
    1. specify one group of “good” people — Aryans(nazis), or orthodox Muslims (Jihadis)
    2. specify one group of “bad” people — Jews/Homosexuals/Slavs (Nazis) or Infidels/Jews/Homosexuals (Jihadis)
    3. proclaim that all troubles of “good” people will cease once “good” people will kill all “bad” people

    Did I miss anything here?

    “in the case of Jihad there is no nation you can bomb and defeat.”
    What about Iran — it is a Shia Jihadi state?
    What about Taliban — Sunni Jihadi state?
    What about Syria — a state that funds and trains Shia Hezbollah militia?

    My point is:
    It is insufficient to attack state alone in order to defeat terrorists, but it is necessary to do so before we can deal with terrorists themselves. Otherwise, it is like killing rats without going for the nest. How else will you deal with Hezbollah without removing entity that arms, clothes, feeds it — Iran?

  14. colonizethemoon said

    The Us gave money and weapons to bin laden, are we now to classify the US a terrorist state? And Russia, they have supported iran heavily very recently, what about them?

    You’re arguing vauge reasons why we should go to war with nations, but the fact is that we can make the same arguemments about countless nations and tha is EXACTLYwhy war must only be relied on a absolute last resort – or we will be fighting everyone. And the main thing that just about everyone in America is in consensus that modern war like this just completely nonsensical, there are other options tha would more effectively combat terrorism, be cheaper (both in $ and is life), and not so tarnish the USs global realationship.

  15. armilnov said

    Thank you for prompt response!

    “war must only be relied on a absolute last resort”

    Nobody disagrees with you on that (hey, we DO agree on something) – question is, when should this last resort measure be used? (please see below)

    “You’re arguing vauge reasons why we should go to war with nations, but the fact is that we can make the same arguemments about countless nations”

    Really?

    Please name me another nation, which:
    — harbored, trained, and funded terrorists,
    — ethnically cleansed its own population using nerve gas,
    — attacked two neighboring countries within the span of 20 years,
    — violated with impunity countless UN resolutions,
    — routinely tried to shoot down our planes for years in no-fly zones,
    — praised 9/11 terrorist attacks (Yes, Saddam was the only world leader to praise 9/11)

    Besides, let me point out to you, that we attacked Iraq only AFTER spending 6 months bogged down in United Nations, trying to ensure our safety with inspections. What else, in your own opinion, we should have done?

    “there are other options tha would more effectively combat terrorism, be cheaper (both in $ and is life), and not so tarnish the USs global realationship.”

    I am not sure what exactly those “other” options are.
    Besides, about USA “global relationships” — do you think it is a coincidence that France, Germany and Poland have voted for leadership which is EXTREMELY friendly to USA? Angela Merkel, Nicolas Sarkozy, and Lech Kaczynski are unabashedly pro-American and staunchingly support us in this war. By the way, just to give you a feel — Nicolas Sarkozy has paraded streets of Paris dressed as cowboy(!) the day before he was elected President. In his inaugural speech he proclaimed that “France supports USA”. I do not think you might call this a “tarnished” relationship.

    ?”The Us gave money and weapons to bin laden, are we now to classify the US a terrorist state? And Russia, they have supported iran heavily very recently, what about them?”

    Bin Laden used to be a soldier, before he became a terrorist. When we were giving him money, he was fighting (as a soldier) against invading Soviets (my uncle is a veteran of that invasion, by the way). I think there is a huge difference between a military man who fights and kills other military men, ands the man who uses sneak attacks against civilians, women and children.

    Also, Russians (I say this as a Russian) are selling their soul to the devil. They are desperate to make a buck, and they will sell anything to anyone — which is stupid. I do not fear Iranian nuclear missiles, but I think people in Moscow should. They act as if they forgot Chechnya.

  16. colonizethemoon said

    Bits of trivia should not be passed on as proof of anything:
    http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=206

    Unfortunately the means by which bin laden fought before are not dissimilar to how they are fighting now (minus the towers.) Not only that but many of the people we label as “terrorists” are actually fighting for their “country” and against another country. They very well could be labeled as independent patriots or soldiers. But I think we can clearly call them terrorist because of the means, the same qualifies bin laden as a terrorist, and did qualify him as a terrorism. the label shouldn’t change when he decides to stop doing what we say.

    And you’re right, I can’t name a country that did all of that exactly, but I can name some countries who did things that are perhaps more warranting a war. Nigeria, North Korea, Iran, Suez….but seriously more than anything ask yourself:

    What have we accomplished? What did we want to accomplish? Why?

  17. armilnov said

    “What have we accomplished?”

    Before 911 we had 4 states supporting terrorism:
    -Taliban,
    -Iraq,
    -Iran,
    -Syria

    Today we have only two of those around.

    “What did we want to accomplish?”

    To ensure safety of homeland by finding and killing terrorist in their home countries — check out terrorist versus US casualty rate.

    It is sad that MSM salivates over every US casualty report, without mentioning how many bad guys were taken out. It is equivalent to lamenting causalities in Battle for Bastogne, without mentioning how many Germans died there too.

    “Why?

    Because we were attacked for decades and despite our inaction, things did not get better. It was time to try something different — hit back when being hit.

    Let me tally the major ones: 1983 Beirut barracks bombing, Achilles Lauro, the Munich Israeli team massacre, Lockerbie bombing, first WTC bombing, Kenya and Tanzania embassy bombing, USS Cole. Is this enough?

    We did nothing — it only emboldened them.

    “Unfortunately the means by which bin laden fought before are not dissimilar to how they are fighting now (minus the towers.) Not only that but many of the people we label as “terrorists” are actually fighting for their “country” and against another country.”

    I beg to differ — NOTHING can be further from truth,
    I repeat : one combatant fighting and killing another combatant is war, one combatant massacring civilian population is terrorism. Bin Laden fought Soviet Army in Afghanistan.

    I challenge you to tell me of a single act of terrorism by Bin Laden against civilians anywhere during Soviet invasion (1979-1989).

    Besides — in the context or war, I have nothing against people fighting for their country. My grandfather fought against Nazis in Russia – so what? But again: FIGHTING COMBATANTS and KILLING CIVILIANS are two VERY DIFFERENT things. My grandfather never killed women or kids, trust me on that.

    Bin Laden and like-minded scum are not fighting — even in Iraq they use car bombs to cowardly kill civilians.

    “And you’re right, I can’t name a country that did all of that exactly, but I can name some countries who did things that are perhaps more warranting a war. Nigeria, North Korea, Iran, Suez”

    So, you are saying that Nigeria did more to warrant preemptive war that Iraq? How so?

    And Iran – the only reason it is a threat now is because two bordering Sunni powerhouses – Taliban and Iraq – are gone and replaced with US-friendly regimes (look at the map). Iran feels threatened and empowered at the same time, that is why.

  18. armilnov said

    By the way, about Europe: the material you are quoting is over 3 years stale — from 2004. Polls can be “fixed” in many different ways, so it is unreliable. Voting is a different thing. My point is Europe is still Europe, but they have made a staggering change from electing rabid anti-Americanists to electing conservatives who are much more friendly to US: France, Germany, and Poland. Is that a fact? I think so.

  19. colonizethemoon said

    Sorry for the late response. Such is life.

    One word: Political pendulum.
    There is no arguing that our international credibility has been tarnished. How tarnished is always up for debate, but even the most pro war hawk wouldn’t argue that this war has improved our reputation.

    And for the record, Osama bin laden became involved with terrorist organizations in the middle of the 80s. He became public and signed his famous fatwas, and got real international exile later, and I suppose became personally responsible. But he is still very much responsible for those he funded and supported in the 80s.

    This is in case you want specifics:
    While Osama was fighting the Rusians he was an heavy financier, organizer, and supporter of Mujahideen until 88. Before 88 and during the war they did exactly what I said they did.
    Excerpt from wikipedia:
    From 1985 through 1987, over 1,800 terrorist acts were recorded. In the border region with Pakistan, the mujahideen would often launch 800 rockets per day. Between April 1985 and January 1987, they carried out over 23,500 shelling attacks on government targets. The mujahideen surveyed firing positions that they normally located near villages within the range of Soviet artillery posts, putting the villagers in danger of death from Soviet retaliation. The mujahideen used mine warfare heavily. Often, they would enlist the services of the local inhabitants and even children.

    They concentrated on both civilian and military targets, knocking out bridges, closing major roads, destroying convoys, disrupting the electric power system and industrial production, and attacking police stations and Soviet military installations and air bases. They assassinated government officials and PDPA members. They laid siege to small rural outposts. In March 1982, a bomb exploded at the Ministry of Education, damaging several buildings. In the same month, a widespread power failure darkened Kabul when a pylon on the transmission line from the Naghlu power station was blown up. In June 1982 a column of about 1,000 young party members sent out to work in the Panjshir valley were ambushed within 20 miles of Kabul, with heavy loss of life. On 4 September 1985, insurgents shot down a domestic Bakhtar Airlines plane as it took off from Kandahar airport, killing all 52 people aboard

    But despite all this I think the real meat of this issue, and most wars is the fact of accomplishment. War needs a solid, strict, and abundantly meaningful end other wise it can never really be justified. Unfortunately this war too much like Vietnam for me and for nearly all of America. There is a foe out there, and whether it is communism or terrorism, it surely needs to be fought….but not in a war like this. Any accomplishment we have secured at this point in no way justifies the sacrifice it cost, on both sides.

  20. armilnov said

    Hey, how are you! Nice to hear back! 🙂

    Here are my responses to your points:

    “even the most pro war hawk wouldn’t argue that this war has improved our reputation”
    I could not care less about reputation.
    I prefer to live in a country that has a tarnished reputation, but that still upholds liberal values — such as freedom of sexual preference, freedom and suffrage of women, freedom of thought and religious preference. No reputation is worth keeping when those values are at stake — and they are: remember Danish cartoons? Rushdie? Theo Van Gogh? The war we fight is not to gain reputation, but to keep our liberal values.

    About Afghanistan — here is the direct quote about Soviets in Afghanistan from Human Rights Watch report :
    “The war had terrible effects on civilian life in Afghanistan. Both sides regularly committed serious human rights abuses and violations of international humanitarian law. The Soviets often targeted civilians or civilian infrastructure for military attack, and government forces under their control brutally suppressed the civilian population. Mujahedin forces also committed abuses and violations, targeting civilians for attack and using illegal methods of warfare.8 It is estimated that well over one million people were killed by conflict and violence during the Soviet occupation and over seven million people were displaced from their homes.”

    You are right — Usama always was a terrorist. But when you fight against Red Army, I do not think you have much choice. You have to agree that when your country is occupied by Red Army, it is different from when it is occupied by Americans. At the very least, if American soldier shoots you for no reason, he will be shipped stateside and put on trial as a criminal. If those Haditha marines would be Russians, they would get medals for what they allegedly did.
    Trust me on this one!

    “most wars is the fact of accomplishment. War needs a solid, strict, and abundantly meaningful end other wise it can never really be justified….There is a foe out there, and whether it is communism or terrorism, it surely needs to be fought….but not in a war like this”

    I think I agree – let me express how I would say it : instead of trying to “sell” the war by building “Democracy” in Iraq, we should have fought war by honestly admitting that our only(!) objective is safety of US. Bush’s fault is not in starting the war, but starting it without clear-cut, overriding priority to help America, instead of helping Iraq. This war should not be about “charity” — it is about safety of homeland, period.

  21. colonizethemoon said

    It is unfortunate but fully understandable why reputation is more than just exclusively important. In international politics reputation is more that just how you feel when you go to bed, your reputation can easily have a significant effect on your nations safety and your ability to maintain your liberal values, and because of that we HAVE to care about it. Even if we are to both agree that we should be making decisions with only America’s best interests at heart we must still play international politics because of said importance.

    Meh, two wrongs = right?

    I agree with your last statement nearly 100%. War should only ever be fought with the objective of national safety. Not security, but safety. Once we start justifying a war with “spreading freedom” a red flag should shoot up. Seriously, I want someone to install a “spreading freedom” red flag somewhere.

  22. armilnov said

    “War should only ever be fought with the objective of national safety. Not security, but safety. Once we start justifying a war with “spreading freedom” a red flag should shoot up. Seriously, I want someone to install a “spreading freedom” red flag somewhere.”

    I like the “red” flag idea, and I agree with what you say. 🙂

    BUT, I want to point out, that from the moment Bush got us into this “Democracy” problem, we are already committed. If we withdraw now, massacre of horrific proportions will ensue — ethnic cleanings against Sunnis will make Holocaust seem like a walk in the park. Bush made a mistake for getting us dependent of “Democracy” in Iraq, but now we cannot leave until we leave stable Iraq, or some guarantee that Shias will not cleanse Iraq of the Sunnis.

    “your reputation can easily have a significant effect on your nations safety and your ability to maintain your liberal values”

    I do not agree with that (are you surprised? lol :)). Reputation is like driving a Lexus — it is all about appearance, not substance. I mean, it is nice to have a good reputation — I think, all Americans would love to be loved by the world. By the situation is, Europe and Russia hate America because it is richer, more prosperous, more free — and they would love to see America fail miserably. We are in situation where we have to choose – either be miserable, poor, in constant fear of Islamic rage and liked by Europe OR be wealthy, prosperous, safe, and disliked by Europe. I choose disliked.

    Sorry for long delay, I really need to come back to this blog — it is already in neglect !

RSS feed for comments on this post · TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: