Jimmy Carter has recently written a book called Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. But long ago Jimmy Carter wrote the book on failure in Iran. His example should be a warning to the world. Saturday night I was at a Missionary farewell party. The kids, teens, and tweens went outside with the ice cream mixer and I was left in the family room with my grandson and the toy trucks. I met the missionary’s grandparents and was interested to find out that they had spent six years in Iran. As an expert in the fighter jets, he was sent to Iran to assist the Shah’s forces in building an Air Force. The couple told of the wonders that the Shah had struggled to bring to the people of Iran, of the amazing progress they made and of that people’s horrific fall into the hands of Islamic extremism. I told them of my friend at the High School, Kazz; a former Iranian Air Force officer who taught welding. They knew him and we exchanged stories. I told how during the build up to the First Gulf War Kazz had met me in the hall and told me Saddam would win the war. He didn’t like Saddam, but he said quite simply that the U. S. could not win. Why, I asked? “Because Bush has no balls,” Kazz replied. Those were the days when I taught Debate, and I invited him to come up to my varsity Debate Class to debate the point. I pointed out that I would be busy for the following few days, as we were holding the NFL District, tournament over the weekend at Woods Cross High. “Come up on Monday,” I suggested. “It will be great fun.” Over the weekend the Gulf War took place. Interestingly enough it coincided almost exactly with the District tournament. The only thing more decisive than Bush’s defeat of Saddam was Layton’s victory over the rest of the District. Come Monday, I waited Kazz’s arrival. After ten minutes it appeared he was not coming. I sent one of my students down to the welding shop. “Tell Kazz he’s got no balls.” Kazz was in the class two minutes after the delivery of the message. He literally ran. We spent the hour talking about the greatness of George Bush . . .
Who had taught Iran and Iraq to believe that America lacked the courage to defend itself? It was Jimmy Carter. Carter deserted the Shah and facilitated the take over of Iran by the Ayatollah Khomeini. And how did the religious fanatics Carter put in power reward his acquiescence? They took the embassy, abused Americans and dragged the West through the mud for a year. World Oil prices shot up and our military – forced to pussy foot its way around in the desert – was made the laughing stock of the world.
Now that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad sees Carter and his ilk rising in influence in America, again the terror state, the hub of the Axis of Evil, is emboldened once again. Now they have taken hostages in an attempt to relive their glory days with fifteen British Hostages. The monsters that have held the people of Iran hostage since the ouster of the Shah now seeks to hold the world hostage once again.And the party of Jimmy Carter rushes to their support. There are even those who are recomending Jimmy Carter to bargain for the Hostages. What do the Democrats expect? That once they have again placed power in the hands of the Mullahs they will be rewarded with peace. Peace never comes from appeasement, all the cut and run contingent will earn for their submission to the Iranian funded terrorist in Iraq and the hostage holders in Tehran is a repeat of the failures of the Carter Administration’s dastardly defeat.
48 comments:
Dear Grashopper,
The "war on terror" has created a culture of fear in America. The Bush administration's elevation of these three words into a national mantra since the horrific events of 9/11 has had a pernicious impact on American democracy, on America's psyche and on U.S. standing in the world. Using this phrase has actually undermined our ability to effectively confront the real challenges we face from fanatics who may use terrorism against us.
The damage these three words have done -- a classic self-inflicted wound -- is infinitely greater than any wild dreams entertained by the fanatical perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks when they were plotting against us in distant Afghan caves. The phrase itself is meaningless. It defines neither a geographic context nor our presumed enemies. Terrorism is not an enemy but a technique of warfare -- political intimidation through the killing of unarmed non-combatants.
But the little secret here may be that the vagueness of the phrase was deliberately (or instinctively) calculated by its sponsors. Constant reference to a "war on terror" did accomplish one major objective: It stimulated the emergence of a culture of fear. Fear obscures reason, intensifies emotions and makes it easier for demagogic politicians to mobilize the public on behalf of the policies they want to pursue. The war of choice in Iraq could never have gained the congressional support it got without the psychological linkage between the shock of 9/11 and the postulated existence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. Support for President Bush in the 2004 elections was also mobilized in part by the notion that "a nation at war" does not change its commander in chief in midstream. The sense of a pervasive but otherwise imprecise danger was thus channeled in a politically expedient direction by the mobilizing appeal of being "at war."
To justify the "war on terror," the administration has lately crafted a false historical narrative that could even become a self-fulfilling prophecy. By claiming that its war is similar to earlier U.S. struggles against Nazism and then Stalinism (while ignoring the fact that both Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia were first-rate military powers, a status al-Qaeda neither has nor can achieve), the administration could be preparing the case for war with Iran. Such war would then plunge America into a protracted conflict spanning Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and perhaps also Pakistan.
The culture of fear is like a genie that has been let out of its bottle. It acquires a life of its own -- and can become demoralizing. America today is not the self-confident and determined nation that responded to Pearl Harbor; nor is it the America that heard from its leader, at another moment of crisis, the powerful words "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself"; nor is it the calm America that waged the Cold War with quiet persistence despite the knowledge that a real war could be initiated abruptly within minutes and prompt the death of 100 million Americans within just a few hours. We are now divided, uncertain and potentially very susceptible to panic in the event of another terrorist act in the United States itself.
That is the result of five years of almost continuous national brainwashing on the subject of terror, quite unlike the more muted reactions of several other nations (Britain, Spain, Italy, Germany, Japan, to mention just a few) that also have suffered painful terrorist acts. In his latest justification for his war in Iraq, President Bush even claims absurdly that he has to continue waging it lest al-Qaeda cross the Atlantic to launch a war of terror here in the United States.
Such fear-mongering, reinforced by security entrepreneurs, the mass media and the entertainment industry, generates its own momentum. The terror entrepreneurs, usually described as experts on terrorism, are necessarily engaged in competition to justify their existence. Hence their task is to convince the public that it faces new threats. That puts a premium on the presentation of credible scenarios of ever-more-horrifying acts of violence, sometimes even with blueprints for their implementation.
That America has become insecure and more paranoid is hardly debatable. A recent study reported that in 2003, Congress identified 160 sites as potentially important national targets for would-be terrorists. With lobbyists weighing in, by the end of that year the list had grown to 1,849; by the end of 2004, to 28,360; by 2005, to 77,769. The national database of possible targets now has some 300,000 items in it, including the Sears Tower in Chicago and an Illinois Apple and Pork Festival.
Just last week, here in Washington, on my way to visit a journalistic office, I had to pass through one of the absurd "security checks" that have proliferated in almost all the privately owned office buildings in this capital -- and in New York City. A uniformed guard required me to fill out a form, show an I.D. and in this case explain in writing the purpose of my visit. Would a visiting terrorist indicate in writing that the purpose is "to blow up the building"? Would the guard be able to arrest such a self-confessing, would-be suicide bomber? To make matters more absurd, large department stores, with their crowds of shoppers, do not have any comparable procedures. Nor do concert halls or movie theaters. Yet such "security" procedures have become routine, wasting hundreds of millions of dollars and further contributing to a siege mentality.
Government at every level has stimulated the paranoia. Consider, for example, the electronic billboards over interstate highways urging motorists to "Report Suspicious Activity" (drivers in turbans?). Some mass media have made their own contribution. The cable channels and some print media have found that horror scenarios attract audiences, while terror "experts" as "consultants" provide authenticity for the apocalyptic visions fed to the American public. Hence the proliferation of programs with bearded "terrorists" as the central villains. Their general effect is to reinforce the sense of the unknown but lurking danger that is said to increasingly threaten the lives of all Americans.
The entertainment industry has also jumped into the act. Hence the TV serials and films in which the evil characters have recognizable Arab features, sometimes highlighted by religious gestures, that exploit public anxiety and stimulate Islamophobia. Arab facial stereotypes, particularly in newspaper cartoons, have at times been rendered in a manner sadly reminiscent of the Nazi anti-Semitic campaigns. Lately, even some college student organizations have become involved in such propagation, apparently oblivious to the menacing connection between the stimulation of racial and religious hatreds and the unleashing of the unprecedented crimes of the Holocaust.
The atmosphere generated by the "war on terror" has encouraged legal and political harassment of Arab Americans (generally loyal Americans) for conduct that has not been unique to them. A case in point is the reported harassment of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) for its attempts to emulate, not very successfully, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Some House Republicans recently described CAIR members as "terrorist apologists" who should not be allowed to use a Capitol meeting room for a panel discussion.
Social discrimination, for example toward Muslim air travelers, has also been its unintended byproduct. Not surprisingly, animus toward the United States even among Muslims otherwise not particularly concerned with the Middle East has intensified, while America's reputation as a leader in fostering constructive interracial and interreligious relations has suffered egregiously.
The record is even more troubling in the general area of civil rights. The culture of fear has bred intolerance, suspicion of foreigners and the adoption of legal procedures that undermine fundamental notions of justice. Innocent until proven guilty has been diluted if not undone, with some -- even U.S. citizens -- incarcerated for lengthy periods of time without effective and prompt access to due process. There is no known, hard evidence that such excess has prevented significant acts of terrorism, and convictions for would-be terrorists of any kind have been few and far between. Someday Americans will be as ashamed of this record as they now have become of the earlier instances in U.S. history of panic by the many prompting intolerance against the few.
In the meantime, the "war on terror" has gravely damaged the United States internationally. For Muslims, the similarity between the rough treatment of Iraqi civilians by the U.S. military and of the Palestinians by the Israelis has prompted a widespread sense of hostility toward the United States in general. It's not the "war on terror" that angers Muslims watching the news on television, it's the victimization of Arab civilians. And the resentment is not limited to Muslims. A recent BBC poll of 28,000 people in 27 countries that sought respondents' assessments of the role of states in international affairs resulted in Israel, Iran and the United States being rated (in that order) as the states with "the most negative influence on the world." Alas, for some that is the new axis of evil!
The events of 9/11 could have resulted in a truly global solidarity against extremism and terrorism. A global alliance of moderates, including Muslim ones, engaged in a deliberate campaign both to extirpate the specific terrorist networks and to terminate the political conflicts that spawn terrorism would have been more productive than a demagogically proclaimed and largely solitary U.S. "war on terror" against "Islamo-fascism." Only a confidently determined and reasonable America can promote genuine international security which then leaves no political space for terrorism.
Where is the U.S. leader ready to say, "Enough of this hysteria, stop this paranoia"? Even in the face of future terrorist attacks, the likelihood of which cannot be denied, let us show some sense. Let us be true to our traditions.
again plagiarized...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/23/AR2007032301613.html
i'll have my own comments on this week's blog a little later.
Oh...but why am I not surprised?
The anon is afraid of the "war on terror"...those three words instill fear.
Hmmmmph...
Typical.
Anon...dont be afraid of the "war on terror". Be afraid of the Muslim extremists that beheaded Nick Berg. Be afraid of the Muslim extreemists that beheaded daniel Perl. Be afraid of the muslim extremists that flew planes into buildings, slaughtering thousands. Be afraid of muslim terrorists in Chechnya that slaughtered hundreds of school children by wrapping their necks with primer chord. Be afraid of muslim extremists that glorify in the desecration and hanging and burning of contractors. Be afraid of the iranian leaders that call for a fiery death for all infidels and then incite muslim terrorists to follow them. Be afraid of the muslim extremists that slaughter children in the moutnains of the Phillipines. Be afraid of the muslim terrorirts that rape, sodomize, and behead a family of children one by one in front of the others and their parents and then the parents themselves. Be afraid of the muslim terrorists in Bali that slaughter clubgoers. Be afraid of muslim extremists that strap their own children into cars and use them as cover for a car bomb. Be afraid of muslim extremists that use babies as cover for blowing planes out fo the sky. Be afraid of muslim extremists that slaughter innocent men women and children in subways in England and France and Spain.
But dont be afraid of the "war on terror".
Anonymous always complains when we lump him in with the other liberals and infer that he shares their opinions, but he has this nasty habit of plagiarizing all their strawman arguments.
What a wonderful world this would be if Al Qaeda were the only terrorist threat! We wouldn't have invaded Iraq, and all of Palestine would be at peace.
As for a "culture of fear", I challenge you to find the scared Americans.
I admit I was afraid during the first few fire drills I experienced in kindergarten and first grade. I always assumed there was a fire. After those first few, I learned the truth and stopped being scared. But I never stopped following the drill procedures quickly and conscientiously. And I've always been grateful that those procedures are in place.
Since 9/11, the intent has been to develop useful safety procedures to prevent and deal with terrorist attacks. Perhaps some of us were afraid the first few times we went through the drills. Certainly not every decision and plan has been the most correct and reasonable, and some adjustments have had to be made. The system still has bugs. But the fact that we have the plans in place is no indication of a "culture of fear", any more than a school fire drill.
Personally I think the lefts mantra of fear is nothing but a pantload anyway. Think about it...
After 9-11, how long was it before we went to the movies? To the mall? Heck, we were flyuing three days later...FLYING! Why werent we too afraid to get on airplanes?
When the war on terror was been engaged, where was the bunker mentality of fear? It is a lie...a myth. It is soundbite rhetoric. It is the mantra of the left.
Two weeks after the biggest terror attack in our history, 920,000 Americans gave the terrorists the finger and gathered in football stadiums? Fear? Fear this pal! We have LIVING to do!
Osama Bin Laden, the terrorist in chief is busy playing wack a mole afraid to stick his head out of a cave for more than a second or he risks getting pounded with a hammer, meanwhile, we are going to school, shopping, going to theatres, plays, parks, Disney Land for crying out loud.
Fear?
Please.
It isnt fear that drives the left...it is anger...hatred...blinding hatred that has consumed them since they lost the ring of power in 2000. Even the victory in the midterms hasnt helped them find peace and happiness. They are CONSUMED...they lost their precious.
Fear? Hate. Anger. And it dwells in the hearts of the left.
All shall be restored when the THIRD RING is returned from the hand of the evil one and the kingdoms shall once again be as one.
Your allusion, my denoument.
Hey lysis I sent you an important email could you check it out I need it by tomarrow.
Thanks
I hope we don't get into another "what does the meaning of the word mean" argument but if you truly believe that the term “war on terror” is “meaningless” “defining neither a geographic context nor our presumed enemies.” Then I can only conclude that you have blinded yourself either deliberately (or instinctively) to the already defined and obvious threat. It's obvious to anyone who can see it is obvious who George Bush means when he says “War on terror.” First he means the means Islamic radicals, in the Middle East. Terrorism is a war tactic and the terrorists are the ones who are using that tactic. However, the definition and the battle go beyond Islamic fascism. It is important that, by winning this war against Islamic fanatics, (who use terrorism), we send a message to other extremist groups that America can win a war against terrorist tactics.
I am studying in a coarse called "Problemas com Paz e Guerra"(Problems with peace and war" and all the literature I've read about war in the last half of the 20th century, is full of references to this "new warfare." The idea that war against terrorists cannot be won, is already dominate in war theory, and is growing dangerously out of control. So when Bush says we have a “war on terror” he means we must stop the Islamic extremists who use terrorism today, and thereby discourage terrorism from other groups in the future. The war on terror is an exact phrase identifying clearly the objective of the Bush administration, and operations in Iraq.
Secondly don’t you see that by fighting against the terrorists instead of saying we are helpless against them, Bush has created an atmosphere of empowerment not fear. Who says, “This is a war we can’t win?” Who counts the number of dead and fills prime time with images of terrorists brandishing arms, which creates, and feeds off of fear. Surely not Bush. Bushes plan is straightforward, “War on Terror” war against fear. What could be clearer?
Of all the silly sputters Flaccid cut and pasted in his attempt to prop himself up with, none is more ridiculous than the one he shows here. Let me quote the silliness for convenience.
“To justify the "war on terror," the administration has lately crafted a false historical narrative that could even become a self-fulfilling prophecy. By claiming that its war is similar to earlier U.S. struggles against Nazism and then Stalinism (while ignoring the fact that both Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia were first-rate military powers, a status al-Qaeda neither has nor can achieve), the administration could be preparing the case for war with Iran. Such war would then plunge America into a protracted conflict spanning Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and perhaps also Pakistan.”
What a shallow knowledge of history this statement demonstrates. As if Nation states, first rate or otherwise, are requisite to war. What does it take to be a first rate military power? Nuclear weapons? Saddam was eagerly lining up the facilities to build them, Iran is pushing for them, and Osama has sworn to use them.
Does it take a multitude of fanatic killers willing to murder and die for a cockamamie cause? Figuring a billion Muslims of whom a tenth might well be considered fanatic and another ten percent that are supportive of complicit puts us at war with an enemy two-hundred million strong.
To pretend that Al Qaeda is anything more than one of many heads of the hydra like monster bent on the destruction of the West shows the shallowness or the disingenuous nature of the talking points of those who would divide America and claim their power.
I am reminded of Hippias – the rejected tyrant of Athens - who was willing to lead the Persians onto the Acropolis and rule as a slave to Darius if the great king would give him the power the people had denied him.
The irrational attacks now launched against President Bush are similar at every level to the now obvious lies directed by the same mob against President Reagan.
Boy:
You have reveled the flatness of Flaccid other arguments. It is so silly to throw down definitions and then throw fits when conditions do not meet them.
When the terrorists are defeated and freedom, justice, and the American Way prevail, the world will unite in gratitude to those who are willing to fight the “War on Terror”. If this war is lost, there will not even be a memory of their efforts, nor of the freedoms, rights, privileges, and truths that will be lost.
Anon...
except your "logical" conclusion assumes Gollum lost the ring of power to the Dark Lord.
But come now...be honest...do not the shrill, hate filled, feeble minded fools polluting the streets during their 'support the troops' rallies burning soldiers in effigy and screaming their hatred remind you of the contortions of Gollum?
Not sure what role you would play...after all, your stance has us negotiating with savages that rape and slaughter children, and then tucking tail and running because the war is too hard to be fought. Oh...wait...what am I saying WHAT war...
Fight it or bow to it...take your pick.
Ooops again...third option...sit back, let others fight it, then whine and moan about those that fight it for you.
Interesting idea about fighting terrorism.
There is no way, in my opinion, to 'win' (in the old sense), a war on terrorism. It is a tactic, it will continue to be used by cowards and the desparate. (this grouping can include major nations at times).
What constitutes victory against terrorism is standing up against it. When the people of Iraq stand up as a people and refuse to bow to terrorist attacks, that is vicotory. When muslims across the world, whether they like or agree with the U.S. or not, stand in opposition to the tactics used by their brethren (in name only), that is victory.
When we refuse to let our country use such tactics, even in the face of an enemy clearly willing to use any and all tactics, that is victory.
We will never be sitting across a table with a terrorist group coming to some sort of accord, we will not have 'victory' in the way you can teach in a class "on such and such a day, in 1945.....".
I hear from my friend in Iraq, and I hear of victory. Victory is fighting against terrorism. This attitude is often shunned and pushed aside as blind patriotism refusing to see the flaws. It is not. We continue to err, and thus we must continually look to ourselves to make sure that our actions are right. But, we must never, never surrender.
Churchill told us that, and it is no less true, and no less vital when fighting a tactic used by desperate despicable people, then it was when fighting an organized nation bent on world domination.
Standing against terror, and being willing to fight it, wherever it is used, is victory.
Dan...
We need more men like Churchill. During Churchill's time Ghandi insisted that the way to defeat Hitler was to lay down for him...let him take England, let him take England's women and children, Let Hitler drive England's men to the cliffs and then let England's men leap off those cliffs rather than fight Hitler. Anything but fight.
So, who won the fight against the spread of the Nazi war machine? And who will win the fight against terrorists?
And WHERE will they fight that war against terrorists?
I actually have hope...
While at dinner last night a long time liberal, college professsor, doctor of literature, etc made this comment (unsolicited) that brought that hope.
"I find myself become more and more conservative, much to my own dismay. It is just so hard to stay liberal when there are so few ideas being promoted and so MANY liberals saying so MANY stupid things"
He went on to point out that he doesnt understand why people cant see the common thread in violence throughout the world. Mind you...he doents LIKE Bush and I suspect he would wrap himself in leberalism once again if there was but one liberal LEADER that would take a stand for something other than party and power.
But it does bring hope.
Wormtongue.
Anon...
Not surprising that in the allegory you pick the US as representative of the growing evil and not Muslim extremism as the hordes of Mordor.
Less than a month after the 2001 attacks, Congress rushed through a $15 billion bounty of subsidies and loan guarantees for U.S. carriers. Fear of flying post 9/11 created a drop in demand that most carriers could not cope with and most filed for bankruptcy.
Delta Airlines, whose Western hub is in Salt Lake City, Utah, is still in bankruptcy protection.
(Despite massive expansion of military spending and military efforts - instruments necessary for the "War on Terror" - the cargo on the thousands of U.S. daily flights - the instruments used in the attacks against the U.S. on 9/11 - goes unchecked. The bi-partisan 9/11 Commission recomended this be changed to prevent future terrorist attacks in the U.S.)
At his final news conference in Baghdad on March 26, Zalmay Khalilzad - the U.S. Envoy to Iraq - confirmed reports that US embassy and military staff had met representatives of insurgent-linked groups on several occasions. He acknowledged the process is ongoing. He is the first American official to publicly acknowledge holding such talks.
Ambassador Khalilzad, first held talks last year with men he believed represented major insurgent groups in a drive to bring a political accord with militant Sunni Arabs responsible for many of the daily civillian bombings. Mr. Khalilzad said Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the top American commander in Iraq at the time, was also engaged in talks
Mr. Khalilzad’s willingness even to approach rebel groups seemed at odds with the public position of some Bush administration officials that the United States does not negotiate with insurgents.
The ambassador reiterated in the interview his position that the American and Iraqi governments had to consider granting amnesty to insurgents. “This is something that we and Iraqis, the government, will do together, and there are various types of amnesties,” he said. “But the fundamental point, is the goal of bringing the war to an end.” Khalilzad's hope for successful talks with insurgents was to bring an end to the daily violence grinding the country to dust. Ultimately, he hopes for an accord with the insurgents that will be celebrated.
"One may dislike Hitler’s system and yet admire his patriotic achievement. If our country were defeated, I hope we should find a champion as admirable to restore our courage and lead us back to our place among the nations."
"Great Contemporaries" - Winston Churchill
Anonymous;
Good point. It is encouraging to see that the terrorists – once so intransigent in their determination to destroy the Iraqi government and then get on about annihilating the West are now forced to the table to talk peace.
Remember WWII? In 1938, Chamberlain met to talk peace with Hitler, he appeased and pulled a Jimmy Carter – the result was the death of 75 million people. In 1945 Douglas Macarthur met with representatives of the Emperor of Japan to talk peace. He showed nobility and power on the deck of a battleship, he pulled a George W. Bush – the result lasting peace and freedom. The lessons of history at least are on the side of right.
Anon...
1-Name a year that a major US air carrier has NOT been in bankruptcy, pre OR post 9-11.
2-Just once I would LOVE to see you actually have the guts to state your OWN position. Dont worry...I'm not holding my breath.
Would YOU negotiate with terrorists? Would YOU trust terrorists? Do YOU believe the 'insurgents' (it makes me not a little bit ill to see all the people that legitimize terrorists by calling them insurgents...) are NOT strengthened by seeing the democrats push for a pullout date?
Interesting historical note...
The CIA and Iranian governments ALSO worked with "insurgent groups" in Iran. As long as the Imams were paid off they werent calling for death and destruction. As soon as Carter pulled US support from the Shah, look what happened.
Negotiate with these groups for some form of leverage if you will, but anyone that thinks they are going to stop TERRORISTS (not 'insurgents') by negotiating is foolish and sadly mistaken.
Or I guess maybe you think people that chant prasie to Allah whill sawing a mans head off, or gang rape and behead children in front of their parents are reasonable and trustworthy and can be negotiated with. OR should be ran away from in cawardice.
Because they'll STOP once we leave.
Right...
Anon...your quote on Hitler is typical of all your responses...just enough to try to make a point...but without content.
Churchills comment was made years before Englands war with Germany. It was made in response to Hitlers dynamic leadership approach...a style which has been historically lauded. Historians point to the fact that Hitler DID in fact inspire countrymen from the post WW1 depression. That does not make him a great MAN...but a leader? Undeniable.
So the point/ churchill simply hoped that if ever England were as devastated as Germany was that there would be a leader strong enough to return them to prominence.
Cant carry a debate? Post snippets fo other peoples words.
Anon...you didnt by any chance go to East High School did you?
Your debate 'tactics' are eerily simlar. And equally ineffective.
The "hand" of the "evil one" of whom I spoke was not personified as the United States nor the Dark Lord.
MY denoument -- Not yours, not Lysis' not Tolkein's -- your denoument is not a victorious one. Your denoument is ALWAYS . John's vision of the Apocolypse and the truth that is won in complete immolation.
But why squander in continued disunity what soon will be rejoiced in reunification and peace throughout the kingdoms.
50-48 is a precursor, as a compass points to the direction and the future.
Amen Anonymous.
Now the Anonomy are praying to each other?
Better to "pray to" . . . "than prey on".
So your answer is yes?
"Good Better Best . . . BESTED!"
Perhaps Quiet Listener, to brighten his dreary life, will inform us of the source of this appropriate declension?
Perhaps in the "Church of Divine Jupiter" Amen signifies one is praying to the speaker.
But, perversions aside, Amen expresses joyful affirmation of content, not supplication to and worship of the speaker.
Most religious people understand these things.
Oh, I agree -- life is not dreary!
To PRIORITIZE "plagarized" blog postings you find with your search engine OVER the care of a dear relative, school work, or even the thrill of a spin on the new bike, or an absolute infinity of better choices . . . THAT is mind numbing dreariness.
I wish you found pusilanimous bull shit as offensive as you find all the great ideas you IGNORE and choose to burn at the stake because you conveniently find that they're "plagaized".
Good God, (no reason to say amen) IT'S A BLOG -- busy yourself with correcting Lysis' spelling and grammar and with his OWN citation shortcomings, and I'll have some reason to believe that you're something more than a fawning sycophant.
So now you are saying no?
Flaccid;
How limp - nothing but talking point responses and criticism of grammar and spelling. I would appreciate any pointers on spelling or grammar. You correct my spelling; I’ll correct your thinking; sounds fair. You do what you can, I’ll do my best and we will both be improved.
All we want is a legitimate comment on anything. Reciting the mantras of your “sacred masters” add nothing to the discussion. They are hollow words built to be recited without thought but, as we all have observed, neither their words nor yours can and up on their own.
Lysis you are right on about with the Chamberlin analogy, apeasement ha!!!
Quiet listener, isn't it funny that Anonymous goes on a blog and posts about how dreary your life must be to be posting on a blog.
I guess it's the same as violently protesting against violence. Hmmm...
Oh and spelling please, I'm reading Moby Dick a great American literary work right? but if I were to go through with the standards of grammar and spelling I learned in school Mellville would not pass. Spelling is based on the way people spell, in a few hundred years when english no longer exists, Lysis will still be right about apeasement.
Policing the Aegean stables of Lysis' spelling and grammar is a labour only for Herakles -- I have NEVER, NEVER, NEVER sought to correct even one offending cow-chip.
However, The "rearing up" of neckdeep bull-chip isn't just from Lysis gradeschool spelling inadequacies, but also from a panorama of dysfunctional mental processes that the multiple spelling errors merely typify.
Next posting from Doctor Anon, will be entitled, "I'd rather be limp than Imp." The true story of how a young Republican learned to fight for freedom with the "heroic" 50 and became a REAL patriot.
Do you really find the 50 to be heroic?
I wonder what about their actions you find heroic?
You denounce the blind partisanship you see in Lysis, but if proclaiming hero status for a bunch of legislators trying to tweak the nose of a president they hate isn't flat out blind partisanship, it has never existed.
Fight for freedom? Whose freedom did the House and Senate fight for when they voted to retreat from Iraq?
I finally understand why Anon refuses to choose a name.
Here it is.
Flaccid;
Rather than sitting back to enjoy the view of my mind, why not present a single argument in defense of the Senators who, hiding behind George Bush’s courageous stand, play politics by voting for a surrender they know neither the President nor the military will accept. These unpatriotic 50, these Benedict Arnolds, did not even taking a chance that their poltroonish vote for surrender would ever go anywhere. It is a nonbinding resolution! What cowards – they didn’t even have the courage to take a real stand. Or perhaps, like you Flaccid, they can’t! All they have done is give aid and comfort to the enemies of America. All they have done is give hope to the terrorists that the “Jimmy Carter appeasement program” is on its way back to Washington.
What is most amazing to me is that when Carter tried to play nice the Iranian religious fanatics they were worse to us than they had ever been before. When Clinton cut and ran from Somalia, the terrorists didn’t reward America with peace and respect; they set about murdering us into submitting. Thank God, and the wisdom of the Constitution and the electorate, for George Bush – the one force for good that the terrorists didn’t count on – the one real man that the Democrats are counting on to cover their cowardly tails. Let us also praise the heroic 48 for standing along with the President.
Dan;
You can rest assured that I am not for any party – I am for what is right. I am eager for Flaccid or anyone else to show otherwise.
Cameron;
Thanks for the link. It explains so many things. I’m sure the Democrats in the Senate are reading it for instructions even now.
I said that 'he' sees in you, not me.
Dan;
Thank you. I did say anyone, not you.
What is particularly vexing about the Democrat Party’s betrayal of America for power over Americans is that it relies on the ignorance of the people; particularly their complete ignorance of history. The idea that we can play nice with the enemies of freedom in exchange for peace is a proven folly.
As I have already demonstrated, Jimmy Carter led us down this path before. Bill Clinton did it as well, not just in Mogadishu, but in Iraq. Remember that it was Clinton who deserted those in Iraq who sought to overthrow Saddam. They trusted in American, in the world, to support them in their effort to free themselves from tyranny – from Clinton they got lip service and then nothing – from Saddam they got death. It is ironic that Saddam was hung for his atrocities against these patriots. What will be Clinton’s reward? Like Hippias, he longs for the Persians to return him to power, or at least to the East Wing of the White House.
The story of Hippias seems particularly applicable to our present state of affairs. Hippias was the Athenian tyrant who was overthrown by the people. He then went to Persia and allied himself with Darius, a murdering tyrant and religious trickster who had designs on world domination. Through bribes and promises of power, Hippias built up a faction in Athens while making a deal with his country’s enemies. He even led the Persians to the landing at Marathon. His deal with Darius was to betray the Athenian democracy to the Persian conquerors and then accept the rule of the city from the hands of his Persian master. The citizens of Athens risked everything in a battle to save themselves from slavery. They preferred to die fighting than to succumb to terror and political deceit. Their courage enabled the birth of Western culture.
America is now called on to make the same choice. “Hippias’ faction” has already cast their votes in the House and Senate. We cannot see the future, and we can only take hope from the past if our nation is wise enough to learn from it.
Lysis it was actually G.H.W. Bush that abandoned the kurds when they tried to free themselves. The administration did establish a no fly zone and some other safeguards but far to late. Clinton just followed the "containment" policy enacted by the previous admin. Since the Clinton era was lacking in experience in the department of world affairs it seemed like a wise idea just to sit on your hands. Just look what happened when Clinton did stir the pot. With the talent Clinton had at the time I don't think you can call the Clinton policy on Iraq a failure. There are enough Clinton failures around the world where you don't have to take things out of context to prove a point.
For Iran and Jimmy Carter; I don't think you can put the sole blame on him. I think we were choosing the lesser of two evils (or what we thought were the lesser) at the time. I blame a lot of short sightedness on the CIA for the Iran affair. But I would say that with the talent that Carter had you could conclude that Carter's Iran policy was a failure. Jimmy Carter was a pretty nice guy, but he was a lousy POTUS. I also think that his diplomatic acomplishments are less than stellar.
You know the last time we had a hostiage situation like this it took someone that this blog in general has no repsect for to get the hostages back; Jesse Jackson.
RFB...
I agree with your analysis of Clinton and Bush...I served under both and there were times when I was tempted to do so one handed as the other was busy holding my nose from the stench.
I do think it interesting though that Bush can be accused of failings heldover from the Clinton administration while Clinton recieves a pass by 'inheriting' past policy. Bad policy is bad policy...it can and should be changed.
As for Carter in Iran, that really wasnt the lesser of two evils...there was no comparison. US foreign policy had us in Iran to stem the south and westward flo of communism towards the middle eastern oil fields. We needed a land base. We had an ally in the Shah.
Iran was indeed well on its way to being very prosperous and westernized. The Shah's policies were implemented to establish a full blown democracy by the year 2000. The universities were stellar. The vision was dramatic. I served with many people stationed in Iran and to a one, I never knew one that wouldnt have loved to stay there. (which isnt to say there werent some that may not have liked it there...I just never met any).
Was the Shah brutal in bringing about change in Iran? Occasionally, but no more so than any leader in any middle eastern country has had to be to resist the extremist chants of the mullahs.
Keep in mind...muslim extremism isnt new. It was very present in the 60's and 70's. Those pictures Lysis posted show a very committed future Iranian president practicing extremist policies during the time of the Carter administration. The Shah knew that if Iran was to see progress they would need to be held in check and made the fringe, not the norm. So did we. And to the mullahs discredit, they eagerly took money for their silence...some commitment, huh?
When Carter withdrew support from the Shah it set in motion a domino effect that destroyed work done by presidents as far back as Ike. We were forced to look elsewhere for a land base against Soviet expansion and found it in the most uncomfortable of bedfellows...Saddam.
I suppose we could have just pulled out when the Shah left and Iran reverted back to the rule of the Ayatollah and the extremist minority. I suppose the Soviets would have stopped in the middle eastern garden spot of Afghanistan. I'm sure they wouldnt have continued on to control the worlds oil fields. And even if they had done so...no big deal right? What would be so bad about a world with the Soviet Union in charge of the worlds oil after all?
Big picture policy vs postage stamp policy.
Realfruitbeverage and Mindmechanic;
I am willing to accept your criticism of Bush 1st. Though the reality of the disaster in the south of Iraq became obvious under Clinton, but then Bill was too busy saving the people of Rwanda from Genocide wasn’t he. (Sarcasm alert for Flaccid)
The lesson of history is the same – when a people fail to do the difficult things within their power, they are often confronted with worse thing – beyond their power. It was wrong to desert the Shah, it was wrong to allow the mass murder in Rwanda, it was wrong to desert the Iraqis willing to fight against Saddam; it was a mistake to choose the easy road to maintain popularity in the American media. What is important now is to realize that it would be wrong to hand Iraq over to Al Qaeda and the Iranians. Tehran in charge of world oil is hardly less threatening than turning it over to the USSR. Al Qaeda with WMD is even more dangerous than the Soviets with the bomb.
It was interesting to me to read reviews on 300 begrudgingly recognize its American success but angrily predict that it just wouldn’t fly in foreign markets. Surely the more sophisticated flock in Europe and Asia would not enjoy “George Bush” trashing all those Persians, especially with Tony Blair was doing his best Jimmy Carter imitation right now.
From Box Office Mojo:
“Dominating the foreign box office, 300 posted $48.3 million from 33 markets over the weekend for a $79.6 million total. The computer-generated battle picture was unleashed in 20 new markets, conquering nearly all of them.
300's strongest debut was he United Kingdom with $9.2 million from 369 screens. It topped Troy's start there by six percent, while, in France, it bested Troy by 30 percent with $5.6 million from 485 screens. Spain's $6.7 million from 536 screens and Mexico's $2.6 million from 526 screens ranked as the second highest 18-rated openings of all time, and another near record occurred in Russia where 300's $5 million from 417 prints ranked as distributor Warner Bros.' second largest start ever. It also opened atop Italy with $4.7 million from 486 prints.” (end quote)
It is interesting watch these spinsters spin; comforting when they fail. Mean while the Media is all stirred up over the handsome boy who is dominating American Idol. I am proud to say I have never watched the show but I have heard from both CNBN and FOX NEWS that the fellow in charge is livid that the “Voters” are being influenced by media spinsters. Where has he been? Seems that voting for empty spin has become the American standard as of late. I am still optimistic that in important matters Americans are still able to think.
Lysis, your allegory to Hipias is a good one; however, I would suggest that the Peloponnesian War would be more appropriate for the situation we discuss; a democracy fighting an unpopular war. As you know, the Athenian democracy stopped supporting the army, ending in the Sicilian campaign and the fall of Athens. You know more about this than I so I will leave any necessary elaboration to the more knowledgeable.
Anonymous seems to have some skill in the great art of debating. He seems to understand that when one cannot make a cogent argument, personal attacks are the best way to persuade others. Did I catch him condemning Lysis for incorrect citations when him failed to as much as attempt to give credit to those who supplied him with his own arguments?
On the issue of the terror state, Truth to Power and Mind Mechanic give good arguments against it and I have but one more thought to add: as one of them state, we were flying three days after the attacks. I would like to suggest (please give any constructive criticism, I’d appreciate intelligent opinions on my thoughts) that the American public has gone the exact opposite way. We are becoming complacent. Airline security has relaxed since 9/11, (a few new regulations have been passed, however, it is taken less seriously than it was shortly after the attacks) and Americans no longer consider flying to be a danger. When I last flew, I never thought about the terrorists the security checks may have been preventing to board, only about how much of a pain the seemingly year-long lines to board my flight seemed to be.
When the war is condemned as unnecessary and pointless, this is not the sign of a people afraid; it is the sign of people who do not see the need for the war. They do not consider themselves in any danger. They seek appeasement because it is believed that the struggle is not worth our lives and that it is a distant concern. If the terrorists don’t follow through, who cares? We’re safe and snug at home. When Bush is condemned for his efforts to fight terrorism, he is condemned because they are seen as unnecessary (I myself do not agree with some of his actions). This is not fear. This is complacence. Fearful people would embrace the Patriot Act because they would believe that surrendering their freedoms would keep the terrorists from attacking them. This is why people would embrace Nazism or Stalinism or any other of the deadly isms. For example, communism only took control in states which were poor. In which the people were afraid for their lives and there was no economic stability. When one is afraid, the first instinct is to turn and run. Fear is not the reason one stands and fights as Bush is intent on doing.
This is the Peloponnesian War all over again. If there was fear, the reasons for withdrawal would more likely be the belief that if we failed to appease the ‘insurgents’ we would be struck again. The liberals seem to seek appeasement to end what they deem to be an unnecessary conflict (as well as power mongering, but that’s a whole other debate). When Cindy Sheehan held protests outside of Bush’s ranch, it was not for fear of her own wellbeing, as would be probable in a terror state; it was it was to protest what she saw to be the pointless and unnecessary death of her son. She couldn’t see that he was protecting her; she couldn’t see that his death meant anything. I do not suggest that each death in Iraq is not a tragedy however if America had truly become a terror state the needlessness of the death would not have been the tragedy protested. People would have feared our actions in Iraq would cause retaliation. Again, when one is first gripped by fear, the first instinct is never to stand and fight as we have been doing these past few years.
I apologize for my late entrance into the fray and I hope interest in this debate has not yet waned in wake of Lysis’ other recent posting.
Post a Comment