August 15 1945

Today is the 61st anniversary of VJ day, the day Japan surrendered. You recall Japan, the country that attacked the United States and forced us into WWII.


I wonder what would happen if some rogue group were to perpetrate an act of war against a sovereign nation these days. I wonder if people would cry that the people that started the war were being attacked too forcefully? Would there be a cry of oh no they are bombing neighbourhoods - where combatants are hiding in homes and storing weapons in homes and firing rockets into non-combat areas.

Then again would a sovereign nation have allowed a bunch of foreign supplied, foreign funded lunatic terrorists to take over part of their country back in 1945? Japan was a country that attacked us, not some bunch of bearded nutjobs with no state - well with no state that would call them theirs, there were plenty of places willing to fund and supply them.


So we used the most advanced technology at the time to quell the Japanese aggression. It seems to have solved that problem. We have - and Israel has much better technology now, we don't need to drop a nuclear weapon on them, why is the 'international community' so intent on handcuffing Israel when it didn't start the war.


VJ day happened because we demonstrated we would do whatever it takes to win. Why is that now a bad thing? Do you think Hizbollah thinks they lost; hell no they are broadcasting their victory on every TV station in the area.


The only way to win this war against terrorism is to kill each and every one of them. Wipe Hizbollah off the face of the Earth. Death to Hizbollah, Death to Hamas, Death to al-Qaeda, Death to all who use terrorism as a weapon.


Perhaps then we can remember VT day rather than just VJ day.

Comments

a flaw

You can't bomb away terrorism or kill everyone who wants to kill you.

Israel has been trying for sixty years.

Killing civilians is ALWAYS wrong. Always. Because something is unavoidable in certain circumstances, or resulted in a positive outcome (for us) that doesn't make it right and it doesn't mean it's something we should do carelessly, thoughtlessly or reflexively.

And before anyone writes this off as namby-pamby leftist bunny hugging do this thought experiment: Which of these choice do you think will result in the fewest dead Israelis ... engaging Hezbollah as a political entity and negotiating peace and security or more bombing and an invasion of southern Lebanon?

Then ask yourself: is the goal to save the lives of your countrymen or to feel good about yourself as a big, strong man?

A perfect reflection

Wipe Hizbollah off the face of the Earth. Death to Hizbollah, Death to Hamas, Death to al-Qaeda,

Substitute America and Israel for the groups above and your statement matches what al-Qaeda, etc are saying. We can't win against terrorists by embracing their world view.Also, Chuck is right. If you look beyond Israel's failed efforts to do "whatever it takes" to rid themselves of terrorists, you'll see that Colombia, Sri Lanka, the Philipines, and most African countries have spent DECADES doing "whatever it takes" to wipe out terror groups and insurgencies to no avail.Wars can be won against states, but fighting terrorism requires methods other than war.

There is really barely any conparison to th two

Except for the fact that in both cases, there is considerably good reason to look at the fact that there may be good reasons for both situations to have occured.

Neither the Japanese OR terrorists attacked the U.S. becane they were insane madmen acting irrationally.

Japan attacked because of American policies that favored American interests at the expense of Japanese interest, rather than seek out a moderated soluution in whiuch mutual interests were met, requiring give nad take on the part of the United States, particularly in the Far East.

The same may be pretty much true regarding the "terrorists". While I do not approve of their methods, it might be of greater value to examine the grievances of the Arab world that resulted in such an extreme reaction.

If we look at the recent events in Lebanon, failing to give any credence to Arab grievances has created considerable support for Hezbollah, even among Maronite Catholics and other Eastern Christians who have been on the recieving end of Muslim discrimination in Lebanon.

Such a simplistic world view, that they are the bad guys, and we are the good guys does more to exacerbate the situation and in fact creates support for such terrorism.

To the degree that all it really takes is for Arabs who are not terrorists but have a major grudge against U.S. foreign policy to not pay very close attention to screening the luggage of every passenger boarding an aircraft in Baghdad, Beirut, Paris or London.

That is the simplest route to the next 9/11.

Re:a flaw

You can't bomb away terrorism or kill everyone who wants to kill you.
That's really fecking unfortunate isin't it?

Israel has been trying for sixty years.
Hmmm... wonder why they would be edgy don't you?

Killing civilians is ALWAYS wrong. Always.
Wrong. Sorry wrong answer there buddy boy. If there were six gang bangers shooting at your car and the only way out was to run over the old lady standing in front of them I'm sure you'd squish an octogenarian to save your family. Hyperbole - sure, but to save my family I'd whack the Pope.

Because something is unavoidable in certain circumstances, or resulted in a positive outcome (for us) that doesn't make it right and it doesn't mean it's something we should do carelessly, thoughtlessly or reflexively. I don't take a whiz carelessly, thoughtlessly or reflexively. I'm certain there would be due deliberation. Truman told Japan "Surrender or suffer prompt and utter destruction." It worked then I say we try it again. Lebanon remove Hizbollah from your country or suffer prompt and utter destruction. Syria and Iran stop funding terrorists or suffer prompt and utter destruction.

And before anyone writes this off as namby-pamby leftist bunny hugging do this thought experiment: Which of these choice do you think will result in the fewest dead Israelis ... engaging Hezbollah as a political entity and negotiating peace and security or more bombing and an invasion of southern Lebanon?
Lets see now what would be the best course of action, fantasy or reality. Hizbollah are terrorists. Holy crap don't you understand that. You cannot negotiate with terrorists. How many times do you have to be told that. Do you not remember the Khobar Towers, do you not remember the Madrid Train Murders, do you not remember the Belsan school attack, do you not remember the London Tube murders, do you not remember the World Trade Center murders, do you not remember the Munich Olympics in 1972? How far up your whatever is your head? You cannot negotiate with terrorists. Carter tried it after Iranian Islamic lunatics captured the US Embassy in 1979. They only let the hostages go after Reagan won the election because they were afraid he would stop bullshitting and pave them over. Remember if you will that the current president of Iran was one of the hostage takers. He knows we are a nation of scared babies.

Then ask yourself: is the goal to save the lives of your countrymen or to feel good about yourself as a big, strong man? Both. I want to keep Americans safe. Remember when you were afraid of being flown to Cuba for a cigar and a mojito rather than blown out of the sky. Remember when you got dressed up to go on an airline trip rather than taking off your shoes and belt? I want those days back, I want the pussification of America to end. If you don't have the balls to stand up for American and for that matter Israel against terrorism then STFU. You are just stiring up the other babies who think they can talk their way out of this.

Every day I grow more and more weary of the pansys who want to talk everything through, this is not the psychiatrist's couch. This is real life, real people are being murdered by terrorists, people I know, people whose houses I've visited. If you can't see how the terrorists are turning us into a nation of sniveling pussies then you are simply so far out of touch that France wouldn't want you.

I'm too old and broken to go into the US military. The IDF does not want me right now either, but they said to keep checking as conditions change.

I'm tired of this crap, I'm tired of my mother worrying if it is OK for me to fly for work, and I am tired of the second guessing and hand wringing from the wimps in this country. It has been time to crap or get off the pot for years and nobody has done anything and look where it got us. We are the strongest nation on the planet with the best form of government. If we can't stop a bunch of zealots from making us stand in our shorts in the airport or get 3 kidnapped Israeli soldiers back we should just cut off our balls now. I'm not ready to do that.

Re:A perfect reflection

Wars can be won against states, but fighting terrorism requires methods other than war.
Well Hizbollah is state funded, equipped by states that support terrorism and has Lebanon so tighlty by the short and curlies that it is almost the official state terrorism provider (c). I'm surprised they don't use that on billboards.

So when you think of a way to stop terrorists other than killing them please call the president, then let me know.

Re:There is really barely any conparison to th two

The comparison is that it is August 15th.

Use the occasional paragraph break please. It would allow me to read your posts.

I don't give a damn about Hizbollah grievances. I don't give a damn why anybody does not like Israel or the United States of America or Peru for that matter.

If you don't think that they are the 'bad guys' then cut your pair off and ship them to your local Imam because if you are not part of the solution, and trust me 'validating their concerns, and listening to their grievances' or whatever feel good dovish liberal crap you want to say is not part of the solution. The solution is Death to Hizbollah, Death to Hamas, Death to al-Queda, that is the solution.

Who gives a shite if anyone has a grudge against US foreign policy? Hell I've had a grudge against US foreign policy for years, but I don't go blowing up secretaries from Long Island. There is a difference between diplomacy and lunacy. I can diplomatically express my grudge. Lunatics have to be killed. It is not going to be easy, it is not going to be fun, but it has to be done.

Re:A perfect reflection

"So when you think of a way to stop terrorists other than killing them please call the president, then let me know."First you need to provide proof that killing terrorists stops terrorism. Experience seems to indicate otherwise - whether you're looking at Israel, Turkey, Egypt, Iraq, Phillipines, etc.If you consult the Terrorism Knowledge Base, you'll find that terror incidents have been on the rise, somewhat dramatically since 2001. I provide some details from the TKB in my letter to Sen. Murkowski.As a way to deter terror, the President's strategy is not demonstrating results. The period without attacks on American soil since 9/11 has not yet equalled the six years and four months that passed without an attack on US soil between the Oklahoma City Bombing on April 19, 1995 and the 9/11 attacks.While not producing producing results, the President's strategy of "whatever it takes" has result in the loss of $400 Billion and tens of thousands of lives, including nearly 3,000 US soldiers.So I think you're the one who needs to explain how your method is effective and where it has produced lasting results.

How droll

That's an amusing piece of revisionist imperialism-mongering.

Re:A perfect reflection

I think the President's plan has produced results. I do want to be clear that the mission in Iraq and the mission against terrorism are two distinct battles. Iraq is not a fight against terrorism per se but an effort to topple a malevolent dictator, assure the compliance with international law, and bring a modicum of Freedom to an oppressed people.

I'm not sure I'd call the OKC bombing terrorism, although that does beg the question what would I call it. It is no less terrible because it was perpetrated by an American, in fact it may be moreso, but I don't see the period between that and 9/11 as an interregnum from terror because of some action, or lack thereof.

Note that there has not been another terrorist attack on the US since 9/11 yet there have been successful attacks elsewhere. While I am not particularly pleased with the little things that have change such as the airport security nonsense, the hoops non-citizens must jump through to get a drivers license, the general paranoia that people complain about, I can understand why some of the actions are necessary. However I want the old days back when I could meet my family at the airport gate, rent a Cessna 172 without a passport check, not hear about the NSA keeping track of what #s I call. (I don't care if they do but stop the whining about it).

Something is working because we know that there have been attacks in the US planned but none have come to fruition, that was demonstrated just last week and now I can't bring hair gel (whatever that is) on the plane.

If I come up with a better solution I'll let everybody know, but for the time being wiping terrorists off the planet seems like global housekeeping long overdue. [ Of course no one is taking foreign policy advice from me, and I didn't even write my Senator so I won't be surprised if nobody gives a darn what I think.]

Re:There is really barely any conparison to th two

Tough luck then

Because as was just proven in Lebanon, and thirty years ago in Vietnam ,no amount of force can dislodge or defeat an nationalist based insurgency, as is being proven in Iraq, where the U.S. is being fought to a standstill, no amount of bombing, no matter how technologically more advanced your weapons were.

If you every actually read your history, you would not that the founding fathers of the United States were describes as "terrorists" by the British during the "war of Independence.

They acted pretty much in the same way.

Kidnapped and murdered civilians who supported the British, destroyed civilian property that belonged to the British, and so on.

The problem is that when American policy results in millions of dead children, the parents of those children tend to get failrly pissed at the United States.

In fact you didnt go blowing up secretaries from Long Island..

Your dollars have gone blowing up secretaries from Beirut, Damascus, Amman and on and on. You sent the little green soldiers and everything involved in killing Arabs in the middle east for decades.

You simply call your soldiers LEGITIMATE while calling their terrorists.

A terrorist is merely a person who has a bomb, but no B-52 to drop it.

Until you get that point, you just dont get it.

The French understood this better than you do.

So did the Algerian terrorists.

The first president of Algeria was quoted as saying "Supply me with rockets, artillery, tanks and jets and I will fight war THEIR way. Since I am denied that equipment I will fight it with what I have available.

I find it amusing that you oppose those who engaged in September 11th because they used bombs, but you are just as opposed to Hezbollah when they use STANDARD military equipment.

You are bombing secretaries with the equipment you pay for and provided to those who bombed Beirut.

The French tried the same policy regarding Muslim lands that the U.S. has been doing in the Middle East.

WE no longer colonize in name, we do so by proxy, which is pretty much how every empire that ever existed has. WE send trillions of little green soldiers all over the world to pay off proxy governmentw who will do our bidding all over the world.

The French did it directly as was the rage in those days

But eventualy they got out. Becaue they knew that there way no way to win

You look at Algeria as it was and you are looking at the same thing we are going through right now.

The French were smart enough to get out of other peoples homes and smart enough to stop trying to rob other peoples property.

Which is pretty much what we are doing in the Middle East when it comes to oil.

It started in 1954 when the U.S. overthrew a legitimately elected Prime Minister who decided to forgo the foreign offerto take over and develop Iran's oil, becaue he wanted to use it to benefit his own people...Iranians.

The British and Americans kindly offered to take eighty percent of the profit from that oil and give Iran twenty. The Oxford Educated Iranian Prime Minister thought that was just a BIT unfair.

So we got rid of him, just as we did to every leader who did not accept out kind offer to take most of THEIR profits from their natural resources.

Dont tell me that if someone broke into your home, stole 80 percent of what you owned, raped your wife and killed your kids, you would not turn a gun on them.

THAT fairly much sums up U.S. policy in the Middle East.

You forget, the U.S. was not merely sitting in the United States and flying to the Middle East every onece and a while when there was trouble.

All that would have been necessary to prevent 9/11 was a policy in the Middle East that was equitable. Where mutual interest and gain occured.

Rather than the poicy we did engage in,which was pretty much theft, how ever you want to cut it.

We maintained military bases to assert our policy and our control over someone elses home. We had our forces at had to make certain that we could keep American companies taking eighty percent of someone elses property. Whether they wanted our assistance or not.

It did not matter if those countries decided that they wanted to develop those resources on their own, in the interests of their own people. WE simply would not allow them to do so.

And all along the way we did not merely kill troops of other nations to assert this control.

We killed secretaries, farmers, cattle hearders, shopkeepers, mostly the same sort of people who died in the U.S. on September 11th.

To suggest that YOU are not accountable for those YOU elect to represent you is the greatest absurdity of all.

The fact is that September 11th was retaliation,for years of YOU deciding to elect people who were going to follow a policy of robbing theAraq world of its oil,not dealing with them as equals, but using our relative strength take from them.

It merely took decades for the rather fatalistic Arab people to get angry enough to stop accepting the abuse as "God's will"

Thus the events of 9/11 were not a blind fanatical attack. They were retaliation for decades of abuse and murder comitted in the name of U.S. policy and interest.

Now exactly whose elected representitives enacted and played that policy out?

The fact is that in dictatorships the people of those nationa can claim complete innocence in the actions of their nations. They had NO say inwh wasgoing to rule them.

In America the VOTER is responsible for what his goverment does because they are acting in the voters name.

So the policies that raped the Arab world are the responsibility of those who voted in the governments that comitted those acts

Now do we CONTINUE with a policy that is one sided and will ALWAYS result in retaliation against the U.S.

If I punch someone in the nose I am smart enough to expect a punch back.

9/11 was just a punch back. Retaliation for a good deal of abuse.

Do we continue punching people FIRST.

Do we develop policies in which those who attacked us have no reason to even feel abused by the United States.

For years and years the citizens of the3 Arab world looked up to the United States and beleived that the U.S. would assist them in establishing democratic regimes over the thuggish dictators who ruled them.

When they discovered that those thuggish dictators who brutalized them were AMERICA'S thugs, they were first rather disappointed. Then angry.

THey decided at first they wanted NO part of America.

They were going to establish their OWN governments that ran on their OWN principals and they would not have anything to do with America ever again. They did NOT try to harm the United States, they just decided to go their own way.

But because THEY had OIL we would NOT allow them to do this.

OR you would not because YOU elected people who would NOT allow them to go their own way.

They wanted nothing from us, thy wanted nothing to do with America, that had no intention of attacking us, but like an abusive spouse, the U.S. would not let them divorce us.

Until yo9u accept THAT the attacks will go on.

There are those idiots who suggest that if we just kept boming Hanoi for a little longer, we would have WON the Vietnam war.

That is absurd, the Vietnamese were used to colonizers and always threw them out using technologies less advanced than their colonizers. They threw put Chinese after Chinese empire. They threw out the French. They threw America out.

The arrogance is that we can rule over people who dont want us to do so is what caused 9/11 and why we cannot win the war on "terrorism"

WE are trying to use s sledge hammer to kill a virus.

Wrong strategy.

Until you diagnose the disease properly and develop the correct treatment, the disease will beat yu.

American policy rigth now reminds me of those funny maskes used in medieval times to protect against "Malaria"

The didnt workd because the entire diagnosis of what caused the disease was wrong.

IN fact, just now we are creating a wonderful growth medium for the disease of terrorism

It ig going to get stronger and bigger.

it will mutate into more deadly forms.

All because we are still using "medieval masks" to try to cure a political malaria.

Results wanted

I tend to regard Iraq and the War on Terror as seperate missions as well, but the Administration and most Republicans view them as the same conflict.I included the lack of attacks on US Soil in the late 90s and 9/12/2001 to present because I've seen the relative calm after 9/11 cited as proof of the efficacy of the President's policies.I still have to say that I think your belief that the President's anti-terror is more effective than past policy is faith-based in the face of contrary evidence. Terror incidents worldwide, according to the Terrorism Knowledge Base (http://www.tkb.org) are on the rise. They are rising faster than they did in the late 1990s. People worldwide are less willing to help us out because they've come to see America as an aggressor nation.I suppose you could claim that terrorism would be increasing even faster if we hadn't expended that $400 Billion, plus tens of thousands of innocent lives, but that too is a faith statement. It would also imply that more terrorists are trying to kill people post 9/11 than were pre 9/11, which again would imply that the President's anti-terror policies are failing because there is a net increase in terrorists.I'm willing to listen if you have examples where terrorism was successfully fought through conventional warfare or campaigns of extermination, but saying "I believe the President is producing results" and "Killing them is the only way" when statistics and history appears to shout otherwise isn't evidence.FWIW, I'd be willing to back Israel against Syria or Iran if they asked for our help. Both countries are plainly supplying weapons to Hezbollah. Supplying proxy armies seems like a causus belli to me. So I'd be willing to support a "stop supplying weapons or else" declaration backed by by threat of military force even though our forces are stretched very thin by Iraq. And I wouldn't go through the UN for it because Syria and Iran would be protected by Russia and China, just like we insulate Israel from any UN demands. As I've argued on past occaisions, the UN Security Council is broken and the world needs something new that isn't subject to great power vetoes.Lebanon on the other hand appears powerless to do anything to hinder Hezbollah and so attacking them to me is like shooting an abused woman because she "won't stop" her husband from picking fights.While I'm willing to support Israel against Syria and Iran, I have to point out that Hezbollah would continue even without their support. The terrorism would continue, but possibly be less effective.

Re:How droll

Unfortunately it is true.

The U.S. like many other large nations has had a history over the last hundred years starting with McKinley of an imperialism that was based on total sefl interest at the expense of the little brown people who unfortunatelyhappend to live on top of all those natural resources that were the god given rights of America. All we had to do was to either kill of the nativeswho didnt want us stealing from them, or buy off a local streong man who would keep the natives in line.

That is a rather accurate picture of American Foreign policy for a hundred years.

Before 1950 the industrialized nations influences this control through colonization and direct military action.

After World War II thiswasseen to be too unwieldly and difficult so rather than sendour own armies, we rented them using trillions of little green paper soldiers wh remarably resembled American presidents.

Now if we could claim that those little brown people got an square deal, that there was som sort of equitable exchang one COULD reasonable make the claim that recent terrorism is an unreasonable response.

Terrorism may be uacceptable but it is NOT unreasonable given the history of the abuses of the western world in the Middle East.

If anything is a result of REASONED behavior it was September 11th.

We will NOT even be able to start defeating terrorism unless we admit that there are good reasons for it to be occuring, rather than indulge in all of the fantasy thinking of them being insane terrorists who hate us for our freedom.

What they hate us for is the freedom and lifestyles we have attained to in a large part at their expense.

THat is a simple truth.

Without access to all of their oil, all of their natural resources, at prices determined by our use of either force or rented force, we could NOT have either those freedoms or that lifestyle.

It is unreasonable and almost deluded to expect that the response to such policies will be benign.

THe FIRST example of this imperial approach was of course Cuba. THIS started with McKinley and every couple of years the U.S. invaded Cuba whenever a government took over that decided to look after the interests of Cubans rather than American corporations...

At the same time American corporations sent their own private armies to overthrow the constitutional democracy of Hawaii inorder to directly control the white gold of the day...sugar...

That was what Cuba was about as well

McKinley wa followed by sixty years of imperialism and proxy control of the Cuban government until finally the people of Cuba were sick to death of America and backed Castro.

Who has been in FIRM controlfor the last fifty years of the century begun by McKinley.

Those who fail t remember history.

Nothing has changed. The terrorism of the Middle East is just an evloving form of what happened in Cuba.

Do you remember how many years there wre in which airplanes were hijacked with the words "take me to Havana"?

What happened on 9/11 is simply hat those hijackings have evolved into.

It will keep ging exactly the same way until we come up with a new model for dealing with other countries for their resources.

Terror plots thwarted by police work, not war

Security expert Bruce Schneier has an interesting post on what helped to thwart the latest bombing plot.Here's a good quote on the difference between effective security and security theater:

Hours-long waits in the security line. Ridiculous prohibitions on what you can carry onboard. Last week's foiling of a major terrorist plot and the subsequent airport security graphically illustrates the difference between effective security and security theater.None of the airplane security measures implemented because of 9/11 -- no-fly lists, secondary screening, prohibitions against pocket knives and corkscrews -- had anything to do with last week's arrests. And they wouldn't have prevented the planned attacks, had the terrorists not been arrested. A national ID card wouldn't have made a difference, either.Instead, the arrests are a victory for old-fashioned intelligence and investigation. Details are still secret, but police in at least two countries were watching the terrorists for a long time. They followed leads, figured out who was talking to whom, and slowly pieced together both the network and the plot.

Given that the plotters were homegrown, bombing Britain wasn't an option, at least not for Tony Blair.

Re:a flaw

We are the strongest nation on the planet with the best form of government.

Actually, you've got that backwards. You are the best form of nation on earth, but you have the weakest government.

And your problem is not that you are not willing to cut off your own balls, but that you are willing to cut off everybody else's first.

Re:There is really barely any conparison to th two

Paragraph breaks, geez if it is that long no one can read it.

Yeah one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. What freedom is it Hizbollah wants? The freedom to oppress in the name of religon. Um no.

Tell Rosy I said Hi!

Re:How droll

greater than sign p less than sign - that is a paragraph break.

Heck CPUSA can use them you should be able to as well. It would make reading your posts easier, well easier for the people who don't stop after the first few sentences.

yet another flaw

You can't bomb away terrorism or kill everyone who wants to kill you. That's really fecking unfortunate isin't it?

Israel has been trying for sixty years. Hmmm... wonder why they would be edgy don't you?

That's my point. How would you like to have our country like theirs? Always looking over your shoulder and jumping out of your socks when a car backfires. 60 years of the broadsword and not the scalpel and they still live in hell.

Killing civilians is ALWAYS wrong. Always. Wrong. Sorry wrong answer there buddy boy. If there were six gang bangers shooting at your car and the only way out was to run over the old lady standing in front of them I'm sure you'd squish an octogenarian to save your family. Hyperbole - sure, but to save my family I'd whack the Pope.

Ok, you got me there. If I could stop Hezbollah by running over an old woman to save my Israeli family then I would shoot the gangbangers and then I'd ... wait, I think I got that wrong. Ooo, I got it! I have to bomb a Lebanese elementary school to save the old lady from Iraqi gangbangers from innocent ... crud. That's not it either. How about I drop a pancake bomb on this bunny's head?

Yeah, that's the stuff.

Because something is unavoidable in certain circumstances, or resulted in a positive outcome (for us) that doesn't make it right and it doesn't mean it's something we should do carelessly, thoughtlessly or reflexively. I don't take a whiz carelessly, thoughtlessly or reflexively. I'm certain there would be due deliberation. Truman told Japan "Surrender or suffer prompt and utter destruction." It worked then I say we try it again. Lebanon remove Hizbollah from your country or suffer prompt and utter destruction. Syria and Iran stop funding terrorists or suffer prompt and utter destruction.

I wish it worked like that too. But Japan was able to surrender. They didn't have to convince a group of people over whom they have questionable influence to surrender. Japan had all the power they needed to surrender and the onus was all on them. If we say to, say, Syria, "Disband Hezbollah or we'll destroy your country" -- what if they can't? You can't demand that someone do something they have no ability to do. Not unless you do it as a pre-text to kill them.

And before anyone writes this off as namby-pamby leftist bunny hugging do this thought experiment: Which of these choice do you think will result in the fewest dead Israelis ... engaging Hezbollah as a political entity and negotiating peace and security or more bombing and an invasion of southern Lebanon? Lets see now what would be the best course of action, fantasy or reality. Hizbollah are terrorists. Holy crap don't you understand that. You cannot negotiate with terrorists.

Sure you can. You just can't negotiate with all of them. They're not all the same. The IRA can be and were negotiated with. Al Qaeda, probably not.

Do you not remember the Khobar Towers, do you not remember the Madrid Train Murders, do you not remember the Belsan school attack, do you not remember the London Tube murders, do you not remember the World Trade Center murders, do you not remember the Munich Olympics in 1972? How far up your whatever is your head? You cannot negotiate with terrorists. Carter tried it after Iranian Islamic lunatics captured the US Embassy in 1979. They only let the hostages go after Reagan won the election because they were afraid he would stop bullshitting and pave them over. Remember if you will that the current president of Iran was one of the hostage takers. He knows we are a nation of scared babies.

He also knows that our ridiculous, tragic and unnecessary invasion of Iraq has made us weak and incapable of dealing with him. And we'll leave the "Reagan the Awesome vs. Carter the Pansy" fiction where it is for now.

Then ask yourself: is the goal to save the lives of your countrymen or to feel good about yourself as a big, strong man? Both.

Those might not be two good priorites to have together. Unless you work for the Department of Defense. Then it's grounds for promotion.

I want to keep Americans safe. Remember when you were afraid of being flown to Cuba for a cigar and a mojito rather than blown out of the sky. Remember when you got dressed up to go on an airline trip rather than taking off your shoes and belt? I want those days back, I want the pussification of America to end.

You want to be righteous and vindicated. I want to be safe and to win. We will have to agree to disagree.

If you don't have the balls to stand up for American and for that matter Israel against terrorism then STFU. You are just stiring up the other babies who think they can talk their way out of this.

Mmmm, strawman.

Every day I grow more and more weary of the pansys who want to talk everything through, this is not the psychiatrist's couch. This is real life, real people are being murdered by terrorists, people I know, people whose houses I've visited. If you can't see how the terrorists are turning us into a nation of sniveling pussies then you are simply so far out of touch that France wouldn't want you.

Right, not a day goes by that I wish we had nuked Russia and started an earth-ending war instead of all that dreary talking. Talk about unmanly.

If it makes you feel better we are not turning into a nation of "sniveling pussies". We're turning into a nation of irrational, dangerous simpletons who lash out furiously for no reason like the blind giant from "The Odessey." It's going REALLY well so far.

I'm tired of this crap, I'm tired of my mother worrying if it is OK for me to fly for work, and I am tired of the second guessing and hand wringing from the wimps in this country. It has been time to crap or get off the pot for years and nobody has done anything and look where it got us.

Look what doing the wrong thing got us: bankrupted, broken, vulernable, divided, angry and confused.

How very nteresting.

I don't agree with all of the discussion, heck I don't agree with most of it, but it was quite interesting.

Thanks to everyone who participated.

Re:There is really barely any conparison to th two

They want the freedom to live the way they choose, even if that is under an Islamic theocracy, which historically, had a rather advanced civilization, perhaps in many ways more socially advanced and cosmopolitan than western civilization.

After 150 years of being ripped off and colonized or controlled, first by the British and French, and then by the U.S. they may merely be pissed off and want to go their own way without American interference.

I say let them. If there are Arabs who do not wish to live under such Islamic governments, it is up to them to fight for other political rule, not America's

However it appears that Hezbollah is loved by the Lebanese, just as Hamas is loved by the Palestinians. There is Nothing more central to the idea of self determiniation as allowing people to pick the kind of government they want to live under. This does not necessarily entail voting such governments into office

Far from being a "god given right" democracy is basically an idea that comes straight out of the European enlightenment and its concepts are foreign and in some ways distasteful to people and nations that had no part in that enlightenment, except at the colonial end.

Had anyone actually paid attention to Jimmy Carter 30 years ago about the Arabs using oil as a weapon, and that doing so was the moral equivalent of war, and that the only way to fight that war was to stop using the enemy in that wars oil and paying them handsomely for the priviledge, the Arabs would be chucking rocks rather than firing Katusha missiles.

If you want to blame anyone blame Reagan for killing Carters`energy independence initiative and kissing the asses of the Arab oils sheiks.

Though Carters programs were problematic and got off to a shaky start had they been lift in place rather than killed, petroleum would be nothing but a bothersome sludge that lowes property values.

Reagan and the REpublicans made fun of Carters initiative, but the smirk is on the other side of the face now.

Had Carters programs been allowed to move forward, over the last 30 years it is more than likely that dependnce on oil and all of the political problems caused by it would have been a thing of the past.

Bin Laden and his buddies would not have been able to raise the money for the plane tickets on September 11th 2001 had Carter been listened to.

Syndicate content