I've been watching this stuff fill my mailbox and I've been feeling guilty not responding since one of my posts seemed to have revved up the conversation.
But, seems like it comes down to a few simple positions. On the one hand there are those who take a politically balanced view of the complexities of the international geopolitical interaction of conflict over resources, national security and the clash of culture as a complex and labyrinthine issue. And while recogizing a need for effective response to terrorism are cognizant of the broader picture. Not necessarily able to provide a "solution" they nevertheless recognize the reality that there is more going on than just a "bunch of crazy murderers who hate us".
And on the other, there are those who through shortsightedness or over-parochial outlook seem to be using the "truth" or "untruth" of a religion to, as far as I can tell, justify genocide on our part as a solution to a problem for which genocide or turning the US into a military state analogous to a modern Rome with generations growing up in uniform protecting American hegomony, or both, will NOT solve the problem.
While I enjoy debate, this one, for the time being, has gotten beyond my inclination to participate in. I'm checking out.
Tad
Regarding your generalist statement assuming that genocide is part of US policy towards our little islamic pals....
The use of that term in conjunction with our war against terrorism is ludicrous and is the fallback cry of liberal hand wringers throughout the US and the rest of the inadequate world today.
The US does not practice nor have we ever practiced genocide. We have simply been very efficient in "killing" during war time in response to the enemies real and undeniable policy of genocide.
I dont know about most folks but a few turban wearing representatives of the religion of peace flying OUR airplanes into the towers, the Pentagon and wanting to hit the white house while augering into the PA soil pretty much constitutes a genocidal act.
The German military machine and the Japanese military both practiced and utilized preconcieved "genocide" in hopes of bringing about their objectives.
The allies used extreme bombing to persuade,cajole, and push the axis powers to the point they had to believe that victory could not be attained.
The US has not and I believe never will be a Germany or Japan in its conduct of war as a direct means of offensive firepower. I do beleive we would not hesitate to use extreme means if we were attacked. (example given 9/11/01....remember that liberals?)
Whiny crybaby, goody too shoes , lets talk it over liberals are always trashing the US when it comes to our conduct of dealing with our little friends.
Trust me we are being more than judicious in our use of firepower to inflict persuasive means to the "bad guys"
In fact we have lost site of the fact that history proves time and time again that victory in warfare once started is best prosecuted with an overwhelming, powerful consistent policy of no mercy until the bad guys say.."uncle"
In so far as we have been "too nice" well perhaps it has reduced casualties but dragged the conflict out longer than desired. Perhaps a more ruthless prosecution of the war in Iraq would have resulted in a quicker more definitive response from the ragheads than has yet been effected. A few more of the little buggers may well have bitten the old bullet...but hey fortunes of war as they say.
Hind sight is always twenty twenty. Usually the best punch in a boxing ring is the one that brings the opponent to his knees and causes him to realize in the moment the punch is delivered and his consciousness leaves him is that he is defeated.
The idea of war once begun is to WIN. You can then dictate all terms and write your own history.
You dont have to worry about anything else at that point.
Last edited by clanrickarde; 04/27/200610:20 AM.
"Proud to be an Infidel" ... "100% pure American Jingoist"
