The key take-away of the recent events in the middle east, for me, is that whatever we were trying to do in the Muslim world, it is now in shambles. Whether one wants to take the leftwing/Islamist view that Islam is angered by our wrongdoing or if one wishes to point out that Islam has been the aggressor for more than a thousand years is immaterial – whether it is war or the olive branch we were trying to bring to the Muslim world, both our war and peace policies have failed. We have no victorious war while also having no peace. However we go forward, we should go forward as a blank slate. The first thing for us to do, then, is to figure out what we want.
The Muslim world is a billion people sitting on a strategic crossroads and also containing a very large amount of the exceptionally valuable substance, oil. This reality is just there – it can’t be argued with. Whatever we might want, our policy has to take in to consideration that it is there and has to be dealt with. So, the first thing we can dispose of is any concept that we can just entirely walk away and pretend it doesn’t matter. For good or ill, the United States will be involved in the affairs of the Muslim world. That said, we still have to define what we want our involvement to be.
In my view, while we must remain involved, it is best that our involvement become as light as possible. As it stands right now, Islam seethes with anger at the United States (justified or not) and the more deeply involved we remain the more targets there are for this ire. Complete abandonment of the Muslim world is not possible, but we should make our footprint in the Muslim world as small as possible. Don’t have a lot of embassies and consulates; and what facilities we do have must be small, defensible and easy to evacuate. We should greatly restrict American travel to the Muslim world while also greatly reducing Muslim travel to the United States. What business we need to contract with the Muslim world – which mostly, after all, has to do with purchasing oil – can be done from stand-off positions. Aid we can still provide, but it should as far as possible not be delivered on the ground by Americans (there are plenty of NGOs around the world which maintain good relations with people and governments in the Muslim world who can be used as conduits for our aid while also keeping the amount of graft down to a minimum); and it must not ever be delivered directly to Muslim governments which have proven all too prone to siphoning it off for the enrichment of government and its cronies. Naturally, this change in policy entails a complete military withdrawal from the region – leave not one soldier, sailor, airman or Marine on the soil of a Muslim land, not even as part of a UN force.
We cannot, in the foreseeable future, count on a change of heart in the Muslim world towards the United States. Our fault, their fault, nobody’s fault, the deeds are done – the enmity is there and deeply ingrained. Only a withdrawal on our part can set the stage for, perhaps, a change of heart at a future date. It is to be hoped that this will come about. I don’t hold out much hope that it will, but I can’t see anything we can do on the ground in the Muslim world in the current conditions which will change anything except for the worse.
That said, we must also make it clear that our withdrawal does not mean our surrender. Whether its a majority of Islam or just a tiny minority, there is within the Muslim world a belief that we have lost all honor and courage and that Islamic efforts can bring about the total downfall of the United States. As we withdraw, we can expect that that part of Islam which dreams of our death will be encouraged. This is just in the nature of things. People who believe like that will attempt to act upon that belief, whether they are 99 out of 100 Muslims or just 1 out of 100. Given this, we must be prepared if challenged to respond vigorously.
This vigorous response should be carefully calculated to do the least possible harm to the average Muslim (most of whom are poor and have zero say in the making of policy) while still doing enough harm to the leadership of the offending Muslim nation to make them think twice about such a gamble. Without engaging ground forces and keeping air force personnel as far away as possible, it is within our technical capability to destroy major military targets, homes of the leadership – and the leaders, themselves, as targets present themselves (and we should make it clear that we won’t forget…that even if its years after the offense, if we find a leader of that offending nation in an environment we can target, we’ll do it…heck, just in the fact that a lot of Muslim leaders spend time in European fleshpots would give us plenty of such opportunities).
If there turns out to be another major terrorist attack upon the United States after we have withdrawn, then it will have to be a matter for major war. The thing to keep in mind here is that while we view Egypt and Syria and Turkey and Iran as different nations, the sort of people who attack us, don’t. They view the Muslim world as a single entity. Our great strategic mistake in the post-9/11 world was to forget this. So, we went in to Afghanistan and Iraq and fought there, while our enemies – who, once again, view the whole thing as a unity – were safe in Iran and Syria and able to supply and support those fighting us in Iraq and Afghanistan. Upon the morrow of another 9/11-style attack, the proper response would be to declare war upon every Muslim-majority nation in the world and then conquer the whole Muslim world. Remember, we got out – we were no longer in Muslim lands. We were no longer supporting any Muslim government good, bad or indifferent. We were hands-off and staying away. If in such a circumstance we are hit with a 9/11-style attack, it would be absolutely along the lines of the Pearl Harbor attack – an unprovoked attack upon a nation which was giving no offense worthy of war. And as in the aftermath of Pearl Harbor we resolved to so beat Japan that the Japanese would never resort to war with us again, so we would have to resolve regarding the Muslim world if they hit us again like that.
As for Israel, I know that as long as it exists there will be large numbers of people in the Muslim world who hate it, and hate us for its existence. The counsels to abandon Israel are not for me. Others may hold to such views, but I will never willingly be part of a second Holocaust. I will also never agree that a democratic State should be conquered by a non-democratic State. Israel, warts and all, is part of our world and if we were to cravenly allow her to be destroyed then it would show that we are done as a people and its only a matter of time before we are actually invaded and conquered and made in to slaves. I’ll have none of that. Short of putting US ground forces in to Israel, I want us to do everything we can to secure a lasting peace between Israel and her neighbors – but the bottom line on that is that peace can be made in an instant, if the Muslims who control things will it. No truer statement has been said that if Israel lays down her arms, it is the end of Israel while if the Muslims lay down theirs, it is peace in the middle east. No Israeli army will ever march in aggressive war on Damascus or Cairo – but we know that a Muslim army would aggressively march on Jerusalem and Tel Aviv if they thought for a moment they could take the places.
These are just my views and I fully admit that I might be mistaken – but I’m tired of dealing with the endless bloodshed and bestial cruelty of the place. I freely admit that at least a large number of Muslims hate us and want us to go away and I’m willing to oblige them. I’m still willing to help as we may the poor, suffering people of the Muslim world but outside of food and medical aid, there is not much I can see us successfully doing – we certainly have learned that even if we midwife a democratic system it will merely throw up something worse than before. My heart goes out to the Christian populations of the Muslim world so cruelly oppressed by Muslim fanatics. But short of war I cannot bring succor to them – I can only offer them asylum in the United States, if they want it. My solution proposed here is not perfect – but I believe it just and justified by events…and it sets a stage where either genuine peace can slowly grow between the United States and Islam, or the Muslim world, itself, will decide upon a suicidal attack upon us…in either case, the problem will eventually be solved.
We could send the muslim world all of our bozos, watsons, forkers, freethinkers, and bomber mitchs. To teach them love and tolerance that is.
They would have the muzzie world ship shape in no time, no time I say.
Excellent piece, Mark. Other than being ambivalent on Israel, I’m pretty much in agreement. While we’re at it, I’d come home from Japan, Germany and South Korea.
In a general sense, I don’t like having US ground forces forward deployed, at all – so, yes, get them back from everywhere.
Being as how we both have a navy background, would you be open to a modernized navy (floating bases, if you will) that would fill the void left by withdrawing ground forces from around the world?
Ground forces are a proven failure in the Muslim world. It costs too many American lives, and despite any success, the ingrateful Muslims still hate us. Atom bombs are quicker and much more effective.
The major problems I see in returning all forward military personnel and their family’s back to the US is first–what do we do with them as they cannot all be housed on the bases within the US. I cannot see adding them to the unemployment roles at this time. And second, even though we have the capability to rapidly deploy anywhere in the world–the supply chain would require stations worldwide to work effectively and in particular when one of “allies” do not give up permission to pass thru or over their country.
I want a much larger Navy.
I think we should revive the battleship – it would mostly be a heavy missile carrier, of course, but it should carry four 16 inch guns, as well, for heavy shore bombardment.
I think we should greatly expand the number of carriers we have – and we should provide Nimitz class carriers to Japan and India. We should have, I think, at least 20 carrier battle groups (carrier plus attendant cruisers/destroyers and support ships).
We should ensure that we have enough attack submarines to commence massive, unrestricted submarine warfare simultaneously in the Pacific, Atlantic and Indian oceans – upon the declaration of war, no enemy ship – naval or mercantile – on the high seas should be able to make it back to port.
As for bases to ensure we can project power – I favor islands. There are actually plenty of them in the right positions off of various coasts and in the middle of various oceans. We just grab them – if there are any locals and they don’t want to be in American territory, then they are free to leave (and will be forced to leave if they don’t settle down and become Americans). Sea power gives us complete command in such matters and, I’ll bet, most of the locals on any island we want won’t be too adverse to our being there (and, at any rate, we’d seek out places with little or no population to begin with).
“Other than being ambivalent on Israel…”
Can you expand on that? I am curious on your position here.
Sure, Canuck; see my comment from a few days ago here.
I see where you are coming from having read the links.
However it is plausible that this awful incident was a result of the ‘fog of war’. In spite of the incident, I would still support Israel over 1 billion haters of the infidels. You are the infidel as well as the rest of us.
I disagree with you Mark in regards to their oil reserves. This fact should in no way influence our decision. We currently import more oil from Canada and Mexico than we do the ME, and if we were to be smart about our domestic reserves, the ME reserves would be a non issue. Secondly, I think we cut off monetary aid, but that will require a greater strength of will than I think the Congress currently has, and I think we should shut down our embassy’s. I also think we end this ridiculous notion that we are friends. I have never understood this bizarre need and desire by many of our “diplomats” to try and be friends with the Muslim world. We don’t need to be their friends and we shouldn’t try. If they want to cooperate and be peaceful with us, fine. If not, then Hiroshima and Nagasaki should be two historical references they should know about.
Oil independence is possible for us and we should pursue it – and, you’re right, if we do that then we have even less interest in the middle east.
Just curious if anyone here has done any research on whether or not there is any possibility of Islam going through a transformation like the Protestant Reformation, where the majority of Muslims make a conscious decision to join the modern community of man? That would seem to me to be the only way this planet ever gets on a road to relative peace and stability.
And I agree with Cluster that our becoming energy independent would be a major factor in defusing/defunding militant Islam.
Only in the same way nazism and fascism were transformed. Total humiliation and defeat in war. Until every imam, mullah, and ayatollah are convinced that their very existence is dependent on not preaching jihad against the infidel, nothing will change.
Spook: Just curious if anyone here has done any research on whether or not there is any possibility of Islam going through a transformation like the Protestant Reformation, where the majority of Muslims make a conscious decision to join the modern community of man?
Well, I certainly haven’t. But I do know that investigating the history of the future is frought with peril. It’s better to investigate the past for indications as to what the future may hold. In that regard I think it’s important to point out that the Protestant Reformation did not happen overnight. Rather, it caused strife throughout Europe (and in the New World) for hundreds of years. In fact, as some of us might recall, a major question JFK had to confront in his 1960 campaign was whether, and to what extent, he was answerable to the pope because he was Catholic. Likewise, Obama was similarly questioned during the 2008 campaign as to how closely he adhered to his pastor’s edicts. And I suspect Romney deals with similar issues, especially given that devout Mormons are required to view the head of their church as a direct prophet from God, and therefore even more infallible than the pope. Perhaps that question will eventually come up between now and election time, but so far it hasn’t. And I think the fact that it hasn’t is an indication of progress — progress being defined in my mind as the separation of church and state.
Somewhat tangential, but still related to that issue, Mark said the sort of people who attack us view the Muslim world as a single entity. I don’t believe that’s true. In fact, I believe that an emphasis on that belief is not only wrong, but frought with peril. More to the point, I believe that our major shortcoming has been just the opposite — to assume that the Muslim world really is a single entity rather than to recognize that it’s not, and to effectively play the various factions against each other. It’d take a book or two to explain in detail, but it doesn’t take much to recognize that there are several “sects” in Islam who bicker among themselves, especially if left to themselves. The most prominent, memorable example is the strife in Iraq between the Sunnis and Shiites post Iraqi Freedom, and the fact that the Kurds didn’t (and still don’t) align themselves with either. In short, much like the Judeo-Christian world, there are conflicts and divided loyalties within the Muslim world as well — and sometimes they are rooted in cultural differences as much or more than religious differences. So I disagree with Mark. Rather, I think we should have taken greater advantage of the very real schisms that exist in the Muslim world and played them against each other. Instead, at critical moments, we tended to think of it, too strenuously and too often, as a single entity. And a good part of that misinterpretation had to do with the Cold War. That reality made for some very strange bedfellows indeed.
That said, it is also true that those differences often conflate when confronted with an outside influence which is more different than any of their internal differences. To the extent that happens, the differences between sects, cultures, or whatever other striations exist, become less relevant. As the saying goes, “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” Recall that in the early years of the Protestant Reformation, Protestants and Catholics were at each other’s throats. But they both considered Jews as “Christ killers”, despite the fact that Christ was a Jew. And that attitude largely persisted into the mid-20th century. Actually, it persisted for a while after that, but the Holocaust and the inception of Israel changed things dramatically. At that point there became an outside challenge that was even more different: Islam. That challenge probably wouldn’t have been a big deal if it weren’t for the fact that considerable oil reserves had just been discovered under the Arabian Peninsula. It took a while to realize how vast they were, and a while longer for the newly-established countries involved to realize how to nationalize them, but that’s the reality we confront today.
Perhaps I am simplifying to the point of absurdity here (not an uncommon trait among the posters on this site, lol!), but I would say that we are now faced with two fundamental and largely diametrically opposed imperatives with regard to the Middle East. One is a moral imperative and the other is economic. The moral imperative is the continued existence of Israel. The economic imperative is the continued flow of oil from the Arabian Peninsula (and other Muslim-controlled states). And because they are diametrically opposed, one of those realities has to change if we really want lasting peace in the Middle East. I might also add that dropping “the big one” on Tehran, Demascus, Islamabad, Cairo, Tripoli, and elsewhere would only hurt the flow of oil. And whatever was left would remain economically contentious as long as both fundamental imperatives remain. So again, we need to change at least one of those imperatives if we really want peace in the Middle East. So let’s look at those…
On an economic plane, the elimination of Israel might be relatively easy to accomplish. But the idea itself is morally reprehensible. In contrast, the elimination of oil as a major transportation fuel would be difficult to accomplish, but there is no moral implications at all. So, which “road” do you want to take?
Thing is, Islam is a “Protestant reformation” – lost in all the shuffle is the fact (much more easily recognized by our medieval forebears) that Islam is a Christian heresy. Islam is in many respects similar to Calvin’s theology – though Calvin continued to recognize the divinity of Christ while Muhammed denied it.
Here’s the thing – Calvinism, as such, is dead – you can probably find some people in the West who claim to adhere to Calvin’s theology but, if pressed, I’ll bet they don’t fully subscribe to his predestination gloom. Muhammed did – and the Imams still do. Why, then, has adherence to that held true in Islam? Because Islam managed to sit still while Calvinism couldn’t – Islam had high, stout walls preventing deep European penetration until very late in the 19th century…Calvinist theology was from the start surrounded by people who disagreed and could make their disagreement stick. As Chesterton put it, the Muslim heresy stood fast by lying down and doing nothing. Islam cannot survive any other way – it is too anti-human, in the long run, to compete with any other ideal (even decent pagan ideals, let alone the best of Christianity). It must enforce conformity as far as possible and where it meets a hard rock of resistance to conformity it must enforce social, political and economic inferiority upon those who don’t conform.
What happened in Islam, once western penetration began, was a gigantic crisis in Muslim confidence. The high point of this was reached with Attaturk’s regime in Turkey which abolished the Caliphate and actively encouraged Muslim men and women to abandon the old ways. This had its imitators around the Muslim world – before it degenerated, Baathism was an Arab complement to Attaturk’s vision. While Islam always remained the overwhelmingly predominant religion, the fact is that the youth of Islam was rapidly falling away – and this caused a great deal of fright among the Muslim leadership. New men and new ideas were rising which had no use for musty decrees handed down by Imams. So, the Imams struck back – it took a long while (the first step of it turned out to be the stirring up of Muslim hatred for the Jews) but it has pretty much succeeded. Mark Steyn points out in one of his books the difference between a picture of the graduating class of Cairo University in the 1950’s and the early 2000s…in the 50’s the girls were indistinguishable in dress from any American or European girls…by 2000, hajibs were on every head.
What we have in Islam today is a forcible re-assertion of Muhammed’s heresy…a return to the “reformation” of religion decreed by Muhammed in the 7th century. How it will turn out in the long run remains to be seen…but if Islam is ever broken down to the point where non-Islamic ideals are allowed free play among Muslims, then Islam will eventually disappear – and I suspect those in charge know it, so they’ll do whatever they think necessary to prevent that from happening.
If there turns out to be another major terrorist attack upon the United States after we have withdrawn, then it will have to be a matter for major war
It should not be a matter for a major war. It should be a matter for several precisely located atom bombs that kill millions of Muslims, including leaders, and that decimate their civilization, resulting in them needing several decades just to get clean drinking water again. I would take out Tehran, Demascus, Islamabad, Cairo, and Tripoli on the first run.
And they need to know this, so hopefully the “moderates” might think twice. That’s assuming there are moderates.
The peculiar set of circumstances which made the nuclear attacks on Japan morally licit are not likely to repeat themselves. What we were confronted with in Japan were people determined to fight so hard that we’d eventually leave their internal social and political structure entirely intact – while on our side we knew that if we left that internal social and political structure intact then all we were doing is ensuring another bloody war at some future date. Japan had to be completely conquered. But the best military experts were certain of at least a million American casualties and we could only guess how many millions of Japanese would be killed in such a struggle. Along comes the atomic bomb which allows us to kill hundreds of thousands of Japanese without them having the ability to kill any of us. That was the key – the Japanese leadership had steeled its heart and was ready for millions of Japanese to die but only because they thought those millions could take at least hundreds of thousands of Americans with them. Now, they couldn’t – all the Japanese could do is die. Even under the weird logic of the Japanese leadership, it was time to throw up the sponge. Because of this, the 170,000 or so Japanese who died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not die in vain nor was our killing them morally wrong – millions of lives were saved by those to atomic bombs and we did manage sufficient changes to Japan’s internal structure that there is no conceivable set of circumstances which could cause a future war between the United States and Japan.
This is different from what the circumstance would have been had the bomb been ready in 1944 – we could have nuked one city after another in Germany and Hitler never would have quit. Unless we luckily managed to kill him in such a bombing attack, the war would go on until we physically captured Germany. We could have tactically used the nukes to kill German soldiers but the risk to our own in such a scenario outweighs whatever benefit we’d have obtained. Using an atomic bomb on Germany would have been pointless – the mere massacring of people (which, by the way, was what our “strategic” bombing of Germany and Japan during the war mostly amounted to – if anyone wishes to place moral censure on us for WWII it is in the fire bombing of Dresden and Tokyo you’ll find our guilt, not at Hiroshima and Nagasaki).
We can with our nuclear weapons massacre the Muslims. But to massacre is not to make war – it is just to massacre; and such massacres would not solve the problem: no matter how many we killed with atomic bombs there would still be Islam, internally unchanged and greatly patient in waiting for a chance to strike again. I won’t be party to that.
CAIRO — On the eve of his first trip to the United States as Egypt’s new Islamist president, Mohamed Morsi said the United States needed to fundamentally change its approach to the Arab world, showing greater respect for its values and helping build a Palestinian state, if it hoped to overcome decades of pent-up anger.
Oh I would definitely “fundamentally change” my approach but in much different ways than Mr Morsi wants.
Cluster said: “I would take out Tehran, Demascus, Islamabad, Cairo, and Tripoli on the first run.”
back in 2005, on another blog, i expressed almost the same sentiment. i only said, tehran and demascus, but i agree with the other cities you’ve mentioned as well.
the ME needs to know we mean business. it needs to be shown strength, not appeasement. and as far as peace in/from the ME, peace can only be gained through superior fire power. we have that power…they want that power. they wouldn’t hesitate to use it on us…
too bad, our political leaders, on both sides, don’t have the testicular fortitude.
FIRST and FOREMOST
dispose the POS muslim occupying the WH.
then take down iran, pull out of Germany, SK, Japan, etc.
STOP ALL $$$aid to the muslim world, build a massive missile defense and put them on notice the black rock their cult worships will be vaporized if they continue to F with the USA
put out a nekked moohaMAD movie weekly and let them kill each other and burn their citys to the ground ….
Cluster said: “I would take out Tehran, Demascus, Islamabad, Cairo, and Tripoli on the first run.”
If you do that, then I suggest adding Moscow and Beijing to the “first run” itinerary. Come on, let’s show some REAL testicular fortitude. And if we don’t attack Russia and China on the first run we’ll definitely have to deal with them for years afterwards.
try addressing the problem islam.
Excellent idea, Ricorun. Don’t forget Germany, Italy and Japan. They’ve been trouble makers in the past — best to just play it safe and nuke ’em all.
Oh of course Rico, because the Chinese and Russians care so much about the Muslims. Typical mindless liberal pap.
Awww. this is just rico being pweshuss. He and casper share the same juvenile concept of what is actual commentary, preferring the coy snicker followed by the smirk of assumed gotcha.
It is so much easier than actual political analysis—you know, evaluating the two opposing political systems we are being asked to choose between, looking at their foundational ideology, analyzing their records of successes and failures regarding economic prosperity and individual liberty for starters, that kind of thing they find so inconsequential.
Cluster: Oh of course Rico, because the Chinese and Russians care so much about the Muslims. Typical mindless liberal pap.
However you are inclined to define “typical mindless liberal pap”, if you don’t think Russia and China are paying attention, then YOU haven’t been paying attention. To be sure, the Chinese and Russians don’t care much about how “typical mindless liberal pap” is interpreted here in the 21st Century USA (ht to Amazona), but they very much DO care about world markets, and their influence on them. And that might be worth considering, however “pweshuss” in may seem coming from me.
First, we need to realize the bigger picture…..there is a large number of potentially violent muslims who will kill for their religion. That number can grow depending on their religious leaders, or it could shrink depending on their religious leaders. It is an interesting situation in that if you could pick out the few needles in the haystack you could dramatically moderate the situation.
We must infiltrate as many mosques as possible and create dossiers on their religious leaders and potential leaders. These are not just ‘religious’ leaders, they are in effect revolutionary leaders like our john adams’s and must be treated as such.
We must be prepared to use the philosophy of Rico and if any of their followers commit a violent crime in the name of their religion we must without prejudice destroy every last vestige of that crime family.
Why does that fall upon us? Because of the Monroe Doctrine. No longer is our sphere the western hemisphere – that makes sense for normal foreign military operations, but it does not make sense for economic or cultural attacks or religious or political attacks. No longer are our shores weeks away, but on those particular structures we are instantaneously connected to the rest of the world.
I can agree to removing bases, but quadrupling the offshore capababilities to destroy any radical Islamist threat anywhere at anytime.
I do believe that following a plan to pacify the radical Islamists by giving in to them will only lead to sharia law in this country. Our constitution will not protect us from this if our Will has already given up. It is easy to see that already has occured in the Middle East, Africa, and parts of the far east, it is occuring dramatically in Europe and will destroy the last vestiges of freedom there before setting it’s grasp upon us.
Let the radicals practice their religion, but if and when they commit the crime, show absolutely no mercy.
WE are ALREADY LOST
THIS IS who they are….
This video has plenty of faces clearly visible on it. Are the police in Dearborn investigating and filing charges? Children are throwing stones—are their parents being charged and the children removed from the homes? (Children taught at home to be pickpockets or shoplifters would be removed from a criminal home—how about children taught to commit battery?)
More to the point, is the FBI involved, as this is clearly a case of domestic terrorism?
We know about Muslims and their love of stoning people—let’s take a look at the law enforcement in Michigan.
Lots of news and blog articles when this happened in July.
We report — you decide.
We are told by the RRL that Muslims are insane because they are so poor, and therefore justifiably angry.
Look at the insane people in this video. Examine them for tell-tale signs of poverty and deprivation. They are well fed, well-dressed, and apparently quite healthy. So what is their justification for murderous rage?
The fact that other people have a different religious belief, one which supposedly shares belief in the same God but differs regarding the importance of some of His prophets.
And note that the Muslim terrorists—-and I consider every stone-thrower in this rabble and everyone who agrees with them or supports them in any way in this category—are not even attacking on the claim that someone has dissed a PROPHET in their religion.
Yes, this is what is glossed over in the Complicit Agenda Media when they bleat about Muslim rage. They are not acting like savages because anyone has criticized their GOD, you understand, but merely a human being who they believe to have been a prophet.
This is THEIR religion—-there is no God but Allah, and Mohammed IS HIS PROPHET. I am not putting words in their mouths or redefining their belief system.
In other words, they are committing blasphemy by elevating a human man to a position of near-divinity as the true representative of their religion. That would be like Catholics saying “We don’t care what you say about God, but if you insult Simon Peter we are going to kill you.”
Thanks, J.R. In the middle of the summer I don’t usually come into the house till it starts to get dark, and by then it is so late I don’t even turn on the TV, so I miss a lot of what goes on.
This strikes me as another example of a state deciding to overrule federal law—freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly—–as well as its own laws regarding assault and battery.
Hey, isn’t Michigan supposed to go for Obama this November?
Amazona: Thanks, J.R. In the middle of the summer I don’t usually come into the house till it starts to get dark, and by then it is so late I don’t even turn on the TV, so I miss a lot of what goes on.
And yet you’ve managed to throw up more words on this site than anyone else in the same time frame. Does that mean you are doing so more uninformed than anyone else, and more so than at any other time? If so, I for one haven’t noticed. Rather, it appears your adherence to your form of ideology has served you in good stead. Armed with it you don’t have to absorb, contemplate, and consolidate new thoughts and ideas, perhaps even changing your mind a little when facts warrant it, you just get to spew — call people childish names, resort to ad hominem arguments, and if that doesn’t work go after their relationships as well. In a sense, I admire your fidelity to your ideological cause. But your sense of humanity…
Oh, my HUMANITY!!!!
Time to change out of the Drama Queen duds, rico–they’re getting a little tattered.
Are you going to go back to what I posted this summer and point out where I was inaccurate? I’ll give you an advantage and let you just squeal about what you CLAIM I was wrong about, without having to prove it, OK?
Or are you just reaching back into your tighty whities for something to hurl?
You really are a mewling idiot, aren’t you? Are you still whimpering about that little comment that the honeymoon might be over as apparently the new Mrs.Rico is no longer pretending your long-windedness is darling so you have to return here to pontificate? Really? You call THAT “going after a relationship”???
My, what a fragile flower you are. No, rico, if there was any “going after” there it was just a little poke at your sudden return to pompous windbaggedness after you disappeared when you got married.
Yes, I know my comments forced you to try to defend being ideologically unmoored, drifting with whatever current, making decisions on the fly instead of having a coherent political philosophy, and I understand that you still need to try to frame consistency and a foundation in comprehensive political analysis as a negative. As it is the opposite of your own vacillating how could you do anything else?
But thanks for darting in like the blog equivalent of a farmyard dog chasing cars that go by, to volunteer your snide sniping. We expect nothing else from you.
Me: Armed with it you don’t have to absorb, contemplate, and consolidate new thoughts and ideas, perhaps even changing your mind a little when facts warrant it, you just get to spew — call people childish names, resort to ad hominem arguments, and if that doesn’t work go after their relationships as well.
And as if on cue, Amazona offered these gems:
Time to change out of the Drama Queen duds, rico…
Or are you just reaching back into your tighty whities for something to hurl?
You really are a mewling idiot, aren’t you?
My, what a fragile flower you are.
…apparently the new Mrs.Rico is no longer pretending your long-windedness is darling so you have to return here to pontificate?
You just can’t make this stuff up. And it’s just sheer logic to expect that the person with the least substance to offer is the one most inclined to hurl something from their panties, or tighty whities, or whatever. You have illustrated that over and over, but you really outdid yourself on this post. Well done, Amazona!
Allow me to offer you the following challenge: find the five most deprecating comments I have EVER made about you, and let’s see how they stand against the five you offered IN YOUR ONE SINGLE POST. Absent the time when my wife has been seriously ill (I knew that probably would happen when I married her, by the way), I have been here more or less regularly posting for years. So there’s lots and lots of archives you can search through. Let’s see what you come up with.
See, rico, you have to lie to make your “point”.
At least have the integrity to quote me accurately, in context.
What I said was, with your edited version in bold, Are you still whimpering about that little comment that the honeymoon might be over as apparently the new Mrs.Rico is no longer pretending your long-windedness is darling so you have to return here to pontificate? ”
Yes, rico, you have evidently learned that temper tantrums get you attention, but not from me. I find you tiresome, pompous and irrelevant. Add those to that list you keep in your undies drawer, or pencil them in right below “fragile flower” and you just keep stewing about it, OK? I was teasing you and true to form you, the drama queen par excellence, blew it up into a big meanie attack on you, the Mrs, your relationship, and for all I know marriage in general. Sheesh! Waaaa waaaa waaaaa.
And by the way, it stemmed from you picking up on an innocuous comment I made to someone else, which contained absolutely no insult or attack on anyone but merely a comment on why I spend less time paying attention to the news in the summer, and making an ad hominem attack on me. I guess you were so busy adjusting your Poor Me Victim Hat you forgot that little nugget of information.
It is ever so much easier for you to whine, and frantically try to make yourself the center of everything, than to actually understand political ideology and choose which of the two opposing systems you think is the better way to govern the nation. It is on a par with justifying a rudderless “political” philosophy by claiming that it is “pragmatic” to shift from one system to another depending on how you feel about any given personality on any given day.
I take that as a “no” to my challenge, Amazona.
You issued a “challenge”? Funny, all I heard was more mewling, interspersed with even more of your verbose pomposity.
And, sweetie, you are far too fragile a flower to be out in the world, if you freak out so about a gentle tease about the new Mrs not doing the Adoring Bride bit any more, driving you back here to emote and expound, and if you find terminology like “pompous” and “tiresome” VITRIOLIC.
I skim your self-congratulatory pronouncements sometimes, and that’s about it. As for allowing you to dictate any terms to me whatsoever, regarding whatever you want to call a “challenge”, let me add “irrelevant” to the list of descriptions of you that get your panties in a wad, so you can fret some more about my so-called “vitriol”
You know here we are wringing our hands wondering what to do with the Muslims. Rico is worried about what the Russians and Chinese will think, Mark seems to think that more ground troops and a protracted war would still be the best course of action, so this just proves that we, as a country, still don’t have the testicular fortitude to do what needs to be done. We need to be resolute, we need to be decisive, we need to be ruthless, and we need to overwhelm them and unless and until we do, we will continue to deal with this problem.
This is a no brainer. We pull out of the ME, develop our domestic energy resources so we don’t need theirs, and we let them, and the world know, exactly what we will do should they continue their little jihad games. And that is to drop a fairly large atom bomb on their towel covered heads.
How do we stop the bombs from harming these people? How do stop the bombs from killing the christians and jews who are hiding in these countries?
I would be in favor of doing the same thing to San Francisco except that you are condemning the innocent along with the guilty.
How much collateral damage are you all willing to accept?
Any and all collateral damage. By warning them ahead of time, the onus is on them. Then it is their problem and they have to figure out what to to do. And if they choose to fight, then collateral damage won’t even be a concern.
Churchill and FDR didn’t concern themselves with collateral damage, and neither should we.
I’ll only agree to further war if they attack us on our own soil – once again, the Pearl Harbor analogy. I fully expect that they will do it, but it still is only in the realm of the possible, not the certain.
I can’t agree to using nuclear weapons unless I can see it as a means of ultimately lessening the loss of life in war.
Lessening the loss of OUR lives in war is exactly what it would be. We need to put the onus on them, so they will need to worry about collateral damage and what step to take next. Why should we always wring our hands wondering what to do?
Again, if we make it very clear on the fact that we will use a limited nuclear strike next time they choose to attack, then the ball is in their court.
THEY DID on 9-11-2012
Cluster: Rico is worried about what the Russians and Chinese will think…
It would be more accurate to say that I’m concerned what they’ll do rather than what they’ll think. The latter is pretty much a no-brainer.
But I do agree wholeheartedly with your basic strategy, which is to say that we need to “develop our domestic energy resources so we don’t need theirs”. After all, their oil reserves power the whole engine. Without that income they’d be in some pretty serious straights. Perhaps where we differ is I don’t think an exclusive concentration on the “drill here, drill now” strategy is likely to work. We simply don’t have enough oil, and what we do have is considerably more expensive to extract than the reserves under the Arabian Peninsula, et. al. For that reason, among others, it’s not enough to hope that we could make a significant dent on our domestic consumption if we adopted the most aggressive drilling posture possible. Every little bit would help our trade imbalance, and while it might help a bit to stabilize oil prices (actually, I’m not so sure about that, but maybe), it’s very unlikely to affect the price of oil all that much, because oil is a world-wide, very fungible commodity. So if we don’t buy it, someone else will. Rather, I think a dedicated commitment to destroying the demand for oil world-wide is the way to go. It will take time and it will take money, but I dare say it would be cheaper, cleaner, and less corrosive to our national standing in the world community than full scale nuclear war. Granted, nuclear bombs are relatively cheap. It’s the clean-up that’s a bitch.
neutron bombs are the only way to go.
My, who is bloodthirsty now? Well, if you are going to use nukes you might as well get your target list right.
You might have a small problem with the third city down, it is after all, the capitol of Israel.
A thought here. You have read accounts of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the aftermath correct? There were survivors, not many mind you, but there were survivors.
If you allow even one imam, mullah, or ayatollah to survive the whole process will begin again. How do plan on disposing of the survivors? Do you just plan on throwing nukes around until you get them all? Plan on rounding them up and shooting them?
I would never target Jerusalem, and probably wouldn’t target Mecca or Medina. I also wouldn’t worry about survivors, that would be their problem. If they survive and choose to attack again, well then say hello to my little atom bomb friend again. We can build as many atom bombs as needed until they get it.
“We can build as many atom bombs as needed until they get it.”
How will they “get it” when you won’t target the top three holy sites of islam? You have left your enemy with three rallying points. Three reasons to continue the war.
Have you calculated how many warheads it will take to kill every single muslim on earth? Do you plan on nuking dearbornistan too?
That would be interesting to say the least.
Rico you are wasting your time with all of these folks, especially Ama. I was going to comment earlier today about how every single time someone makes an intelligent, well thought out and reasoned argument, if it counters the narrative on this site, the author is immediately attacked. I was enlightened by your comments about the middle east and I thank you for taking the time to write them. I know allot of people and I cannot think of anyone who is a miserable, defensive and vindictive as Amazona. I find it very difficult to believe that she actually has any friends for if I were to explode with such furious anger and raging hostility and express it with a boundless condescension…at the slightest provocation, I think I’d get punched in the face. Obviously this person has a problem and a hair trigger flip out switch. I interpret it as a fundamental weakness of this federalist ideology she waves around like a flag. I’ll bet she consults the constitution before she decides what to wear.
Something else I want to point out. I have been posting on this blog for at least 8 yrs. I don’t care that my comments are dismissed out of hand and that I am called stupid or ignorant or what ever else. But up until today there has been some consistency in the opinions expressed here.
I disagree with everything Mark Noonan says. I disagree with everything he believes. I find his personality to be repugnant and I think he is a scared, frustrated little shrew of a man, but at least he followed a conservative trajectory that, although delusional, had some respect for the values of the country he claims to love so well. Up until today when he said; and I quote
“As for bases to ensure we can project power – I favor islands. There are actually plenty of them in the right positions off of various coasts and in the middle of various oceans. We just grab them – if there are any locals and they don’t want to be in American territory, then they are free to leave (and will be forced to leave if they don’t settle down and become Americans). Sea power gives us complete command in such matters and, I’ll bet, most of the locals on any island we want won’t be too adverse to our being there (and, at any rate, we’d seek out places with little or no population to begin with).”
We’ll just grab them. Hmmmmm. What do you mean by “if they don’t settle down and become Americans”? You mean, like the Indians and fight back against being invaded? Explain yourself sir. Do you expect them to take a citizenship test? What do you suggest we do if they just aren’t interested. Kill them? You are not an American. You are a hypocrite and by making such an outrageous statement are no different that any radical Muslim you so desperately want to nuke. This statement encapsulates why the fringe element of the right wing, which has destroyed the Republican party cannot be allowed to continue. We are not Rome Mr. Noonan. This is 2012 AD, not 300 BC and you are not Caesar. You have much more in common with Caligula and Nero.
YEAH, THAT’S SOMETHING THAT A NERO OR CALIGULA WOULD ADVOCATE. YOU’VE SURE GOT HIM PEGGED.
Moderator, yeah, but I’ll bet it sounded cool in Mitch’s mind at the time he wrote it.
Oh,mitche mitche mitche, you do carry on so.
“… every single time someone makes an intelligent, well thought out and reasoned argument, if it counters the narrative on this site, the author is immediately attacked.”
Nonsense. We keep looking for ” intelligent, well thought out and reasoned” arguments and never get them. Sure, you think that good vocabulary means what you say make sense, but it doesn’t. And the authors of such verbose nonsense are NOT “immediately attacked” nor are their posts removed. Do take off that silly Victim Hat and quit your sniveling.
If you are going along with rico that a mild tease about his bride being over the “oh, Honey, everything you say is so wonderful” stage, then you are just being silly.
I am seldom angered by any of the silliness I see here on the blog. It has happened only four or five times in my seven years or so on the blog. I think your problem is that when you encounter someone who does not suffer fools gladly you find yourself in the uncomfortable position of having to try to shift the focus from your own foolishness to a claim of some weakness or fault on the part of the other person.
But, as do most of you who post like this, you do inadvertently reveal the truth lying behind your bluster. In this case you do it with: ” I interpret it as a fundamental weakness of this federalist ideology she waves around like a flag.”
Your political illiteracy shows up, yet again, this time in your bizarre effort to link your invented litany of personality disorders with a political philosophy. How a “federalist ideology” could account for any of the claims you made is evidently clear only to you—-and can only be based on ignorance of what a “federalist ideology” really is.
Which is my whole point all along—you don’t understand the political system you support, you don’t understand the political system you attack, and you don’t really understand much of anything, and you mistakenly conflate your irrational hatreds and biases with actual political definitions.
And here you expose what really has you wound up. It is the fact that I have pointed out the purely emotional basis for what you consider a political opinion, and its total lack of anything actually political. For egos like yours, and rico’s, so ostentatiously put on display every time you get your thesauruses out to embark on yet other ponderous lectures, it has to sting to have it pointed out to you that your elaborately framed, polysyllabic, concoctions are actually nothing more than emoting and mental masturbation.
What is so funny about you two, who are so much alike you could be the same person, is your frantic effort to portray political knowledge and a political compass as negatives, and to hold up your unmoored, free-floating, emotion-based vacillation as somehow superior to it.
It’s not that I don’t understand why you need to do this. If yours were the kinds of minds inclined to study first and feel later, if you were the types to base your allegiances on careful study and evaluation, if you had the integrity/backbone to openly admit to believing in something as unpopular as the true ideology of the Left, your egos would not be bruised now by the observation that you lack all of these characteristics.
You are clearly too smart to fail to grasp the fact that this election is between two competing ideologies, not just two competing personalities. You are clearly too smart to fail to understand that one of these is the ideology of big government, government control, and big spending, and the other is that of small government, less government control, and reduced spending.
But you are also smart enough to know that standing up and admitting to your preference would put you in a very indefensible position. The core of this uncomfortable position would be that you would have to admit that you think we should discard, or at the very least subvert, the Constitution, and while your allegiance to a system that cannot function under Constitutional law is strong, you are not quite ready to admit that. The core of this uncomfortable position is that you would then be openly aligned with a political system that is indefensible on its merits, yet which you find so appealing on its surface.
So instead of standing back, evaluating the core ideologies in conflict here and choosing one based on what you see as its merits, and then defining it and defending it here in actual political discourse, you try to straddle the fence, not openly supporting the one system but just attacking the other, trying to avoid at all costs anything that would commit you to what you know, deep down, is an always-failed political model so sticking to the superficial window dressing it dons as a disguise, and of course trying to denigrate the very act of having a coherent political philosophy.
And this brings you to your second blurting out of this defensiveness on your part: ” I’ll bet she consults the constitution before she decides what to wear.”
I’m sure this struck you as quite witty when you typed it out, but even you have to admit, at least to yourself, that it is a tacit admission that you find consulting the Constitution to be foolish and unnecessary.
Yet rather than admit it, you merely allude to it by sneering at people who do, and engaging in a quite clumsy and silly effort at reductio ab adsurdum in the process.
The whiner whines about personal attacks—in a post that includes the following:
“I disagree with everything Mark Noonan says. I disagree with everything he believes. I find his personality to be repugnant and I think he is a scared, frustrated little shrew of a man”
“I cannot think of anyone who is a miserable, defensive and vindictive as Amazona. I find it very difficult to believe that she actually has any friends for if I were to explode with such furious anger and raging hostility and express it with a boundless condescension…at the slightest provocation, I think I’d get punched in the face. Obviously this person has a problem and a hair trigger flip out switch”
“You are not an American. You are a hypocrite”
“You have much more in common with Caligula and Nero.”
And the conclusion? “….the fringe element of the right wing, which has destroyed the Republican party cannot be allowed to continue. ”
This, by the way, from the guy who is upset that his “..intelligent, well thought out and reasoned arguments..” are not given the respect he thinks they deserve.
Let’s not even get into just what he thinks should be done to ensure that after he misrepresents (what we call ‘lies’ about) a political movement he doesn’t understand, it must not be “allowed to continue”.
A pathological dependency on brute force was nowhere among the founders’ ideals for America; they felt we should esentially mind our business and cultivate peace internationally. Cluster, who seems to feel a thermonuclear response is the ultimate solution to America’s external threats, would be viewed as a madman by Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison et al.
It really is too bad we’re a post-Christian nation. We’ve never been without reliable wisdom for dealing with both our enemies and our own people, but rarely is it used. We tried a small dose of practical Christian values after WW2 with the Marshall Plan. But how quickly we abandoned altruism in favor of foreign coups, Cold War intrigue and global hegemony. The materialism and hardness of heart evident in Ayn Rand’s books already had infected American values deeply by the time she was writing – even Eisenhower saw it and warned against it.
Of course a nation must respond when attacked, but how much better to reduce the sum of hatred and evil in the world by example. Mark, all your postulating, worrying and blustering are completely unnecessary. Here’s your solution: “Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: ‘It is mine to avenge; I will repay,’ says the Lord. On the contrary: If your enemy is hungry, feed him; he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head. Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.” Romans 12:17-21.
Clean water and sustainable food production for the whole planet are entirely feasible goals, but they would have to replace militarization and profiteering as priorities for the world’s preeminent super-power. The list of good things America could do for the world is endless, but it would require a set of national values foreign to the mindset of nearly every elected representative, every lobbyist and every moneyed interest in Washington.
You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. Matthew 5:43-45.
If you think the teachings above are meant only for pious individuals or religious organizations but not for “one nation under God,” you have no concept of Judeo-Christian values or their intent. If, on top of that, you still wish to bring religion into the public square and force “moral” behavior by legislative means, you are doubly deluded, a demagogue or both.
And if you just want to blow people up you feel threatened by, I don’t even know how to characterize that except as primitive. It is moral thought reduced to the level of lower animals that don’t even have a concept of good or evil.
How on earth in reading my article and comments can you get the assumption that I want to blow anyone up? But, then again, maybe I’m not being as clear as I think I am – you’re not the first person this past two weeks who has challenged me on my Christianity over my views about dealing with the Muslim world and that person, too, argued from a position that I had stated I wanted to blow Muslims up. So, perhaps it is my fault. If so, allow me to clarify:
1. Whatever it is we have been trying to do in the Muslim world isn’t working. This is not a critique of Obama’s policies. Not a critique of Bush’s policies. It is a critique of everything we’ve done in the Muslim world since we first took an interest in it during World War Two. Its all gone wrong. Our fault, their fault, nobody’s fault – doesn’t matter. The thing isn’t working.
2. We have to remain at least somewhat involved because Muslims constitute a billion people in a strategic location sitting on a valuable, global commodity.
3. Given the intense hatred routinely expressed against us in the Muslim world whatever involvement we have should be as light as possible. This is true whether one thinks it is most Muslims we have a problem with or if its just a relative few Muslims we have a problem with – the fact remains is that we have a very big problem with a section (large or small) of the Muslim population and this population deliberately targets us for a variety of reasons. Let’s give them as few targets as possible. Provide aid, indeed, but don’t go give it directly from American hand to Muslim hand because, in the end, even an American aid worker is a target…a handy target for kidnapping and/or murder for any of those Muslims who do use hatred of us a pawn in the intra-Muslim political chess game. It is to be hoped that our now-light presence will allow Muslim hatred to cool and eventually allow a more friendly and open relationship between Islam and the United States.
4. If after we have made our footprint very small and we are no longer doing anything which can actually give offense to the Muslim world then if our small, remaining facilities and personnel are attacked then we must respond vigorously but as we respond the targets must be the regimes causing offense – meaning major military targets and the regime leaders, themselves. We must do this to demonstrate to such regime leaders that directly attacking Americans is fraught with the gravest risk to the regime’s ability to militarily maintain itself as well as the very lives of the regime leaders. Whatever actions we choose in response to attacks on Americans in the Muslim world must be calculated to do little or no damage to the lives and property of average, every day Muslims.
5. If, however, some group of Muslims determines to carry out an attack upon us within United States territory then merely blowing up a few military assets or killing a few regime leaders won’t be sufficient response. Such an attack – in the style of 9/11 – is a deliberate act of war. War, if it is to be entered upon, is something unlimited in nature. What has crippled our war-making since World War Two has been our unwillingness to fight a war in the traditions of American military history – applying unlimited force for however long proves necessary to secure the unconditional surrender of the enemy. That is just the way we fight wars since we emerged as a Great Power; it the only way we can successfully fight because American’s can never be long convinced to fight for halves. It is all, or nothing. No other sort of war can be politically sustained in the long term. While one can quibble and say that if another 9/11 attack occurs it is not the fault of all Islam, the fact of the matter is that any person or group which does launch a 9/11 style attack upon us will be of the opinion that the various nations of the Muslim world are legal fictions – legal fictions, furthermore, foisted upon the Muslim world by outsiders to keep Islam down. As I said, while we might think of Syria and Iran as separate nations, the people who attacked us on 9/11 didn’t – nor would anyone who attacks us like that at a future date. It would be a fool’s errand on our part if we merely went after the particular group which attacked and/or the particular nation which served as a launching pad – as our enemies would view it as the entirety of Islam attacking us, we are required by the merest strategic common sense to agree to the premise and thus treat the entirety of the Muslim world as engaged in military hostilities against us. It would be harsh and difficult, but there would be no other way to put a permanent end to the conflict – any fight which still allowed the sort of Muslims who attacked to find safe refuge from our power would merely ensure that at some later date yet another 9/11 style attack is launched against us. If those within Islam wish to try conclusions again, then we may as well give them what they asked for. We’ll treat all Islam as a unity, war upon all of it at once, crush it utterly as a unit, bring about its unconditional surrender and then re-order it as we see fit as we re-ordered Germany and Japan in the post-WWII era to fit our needs.
Peace can be had in an instant – all the Muslims need do is lay down their arms. In my plan, we’ll even give them an excellent reason for doing so – we will have left. They can even make it out that it was their prowess which got us to leave. Doesn’t matter, in the end, how peace is arrived at as long as it is a real peace – a set of circumstances where a resumption of hostilities is completely un-looked-for in the foreseeable future. Once peace is secured then we can be free and flowing with the aid. But peace comes first – we have learned that we can’t bring aid to places where a segment of the population views our people bringing aid as targets.
The basic premise of my argument is to get out and then see if we can re-cast our relationship. I hope it would work out that way. I am highly doubtful that it will. But if it does come to peace, then I am delighted. If, on the other hand, war is chosen then I want it abundantly clear just who chose war and what sort of war we’re going to wage if forced to it.
there IS good and evil in this world and always will be.
“you will know them by their fruits”
islam = murder, mayhem, hate, = EVIL IE rotten fruit.
a Satanic cult
AGAIN you prove to be a WOLF in sheep’s clothing.
The materialism and hardness of heart evident in Ayn Rand’s books already had infected American values deeply by the time she was writing – even Eisenhower saw it and warned against it.
— snip —
Clean water and sustainable food production for the whole planet are entirely feasible goals
I’m a little surprised at those two statements coming in the same post from a Progressive. With the Eisenhower comment, I suspect you’re referring to his warning about the military/industrial complex, but in the same speech he also said this:
Study after study has shown that clean drinking water and sustainable food production, along with disease control, are always at or near the top of the list of global priorities, while concerns such as global warming/climate change are at or near the bottom. And yet the Progressive Left has it’s priorities upside down. I have always suspected that it’s more about control than actually helping people.
I would be merciful to the Muslims of the middle east and destroy the entire region with a few Tsar Bomba. Perhaps 10 – 12 of them. The ground would not grow anything for hundreds of years. Terrorist attacks would be non-existent. Then the blood of those murdered by Islam will have been avenged for.
In my opinion, most of you just don’t get it. I don’t want to bomb them back into oblivion, but that is the only response left. We have been dealing with jihad since the 1972 Munich Olymipcs and since then, we have tried every response, including everyone’s ideas here on this blog. We have tried small footprints, large footprints, ground forces, apologizing, trying to be their friends, sending them money, etc, etc. And still all of you can only come up with the same old failed ideas, trying to figure out what do we do next. That’s the wrong question.
The right question is what do THEY do next. Like I said, I hope we don’t have to unleash hell on them but that is their choice and we need to make that clear to them and everyone else in the world. If THEY choose peace, there will be peace. If THEY choose conflict, there life will be hell, literally.
That is how you deal with Muslims.
And now I read Dennis advocates sustainable food and clean water production?????
You are simply out of your mind. So being a better parent to them is the key? Being a better Christian is the key? You do know that they abhor Christianity right?
Every thing you mentioned Dennis has been done, and has failed.
We have been dealing with jihad since the 1972 Munich Olymipcs and since then, we have tried every response, including everyone’s ideas here on this blog.
Cluster, I’m reminded of a parody a number of years ago, on Rush’s show, IIRC. It involved a conversation between a jihadist and his captive, and went something like this:
Jihadist: You must die infidel, in the name of Allah. I am going to cut off your head.
Prisoner: That doesn’t sound pleasant at all. How about if we compromise, and you just trim my hair.
Jihadist: No, idiot; I’m going to lop your head off.
Prisoner: OK, how about this: just cut my hand off — you guys do that all the time, right?
Jihadist: Fool! No, off with your head.
Prisoner: Seriously, couldn’t you just settle for an arm?
Jihadist: You don’t understand. Allah demands I cut off your head.
Prisoner: You’re really not being very reasonable about this. Perhaps you could just stab me in the leg.
Jihadist: I’m growing impatient with your insolence. Allahu Akbar!! Whack!!
AHMADINEJAD: “I have spoken about this topic at length, previously. We generally speaking do not take very seriously the issue of the Zionists and the possible dangers emanating from them. Of course they would love to find a way for their own salvation by making a lot of noise and to raise stakes in order to save themselves. But I do not believe they will succeed. Iran is also a very well recognized country and her defensive powers are very clear.”
PRESIDENT OBAMA: “When it comes to our national security decisions—any pressure that I feel is simply to do what’s right for the American people. And I am going to block out—any noise that’s out there. Now I feel an obligation, not pressure but obligation, to make sure that we’re in close consultation with the Israelis—on these issues. Because it affects them deeply. They’re one of our closest allies in the region. And we’ve got an Iranian regime that has said horrible things that directly threaten Israel’s existence.”
What we have here is a failure to communicate.
What we have here is a failure to communicate.
Rooted in the fact that one side has a belief system that is incompatible with modern civilization.
Exactly, and we are not going to change that fact in our lifetime. We literally don’t need anything from them, and our mere presence in their life infuriates them, so let’s let them fester in their own dysfunction alone, but let them know if they become a negative presence in our life, then they can expect a very painful end.
Exactly, and we are not going to change that fact in our lifetime.
What’s really puzzling to me is that Islam has largely resisted progress for 14 centuries, and yet it’s largely Progressives who apologize for them and want to be their friend. Talk about a total disconnect.
Well, we do have to consider the fact that the use of the term “progressive” for a completely regressive political model is also a disconnect with reality.
Remember the guy who decided you could live in peace with grizzly bears if you just respected them, and their ways?
Of course, the last we ever heard from him, or his girlfriend, was their screams of fear and then agony as the respected bears tore them apart and ate them.
Or, more recently, the aptly named Progressive insurance company has a radio ad in which Flo, the dingbat spokesperson, loves badgers and wants to hug them. When told “you can’t hug a badger” her response is “not yet”.
Muslim, anti American protests are erupting all over the world this morning from Greece to Syria, to Lebanon, and we are still thinking that clean drinking water and a smaller foot print will bring peace?
We don’t need any presence in the ME, we don’t need to be their friends, and we certainly don’t need their oil. What we do need is peace, and to put all the pressure on them to bring about that peace.
OT, but there’s some really funny stuff in the Daily Caller DC Morning email this morning:
And there are some on this blog who think this guy is winning. A-f’ing-mazing!
And there are a lot of people everywhere that think he is smart. I think he is a complete idiot.
And there is no connection between the number of regulations and the nature of regulations. It’s as if every regulation is, by some magical calculation, going to have the same impact on the economy as any other regulation.
By this reasoning, the lengthy moratorium on drilling in the Gulf, followed by new regulations on drilling there, would be of no more economic importance than, say, a regulation on the wording of bank statements.
This dishonesty, coupled with the contradictions inherent on the effort to blame Bush for everything (“he rolled back regulations”) while dodging responsibility for his own actions (“I haven’t passed nearly as many regulations as BUSH did!!) makes it clear that we are not dealing with an honest man.
A question—-and I don’t know the answer to this, it just popped into my mind reading Obama’s dithering—-are both comments about Bush true? That is, did he roll back SOME regulations and then replace them with other, BETTER, regulations, thereby setting up the contradictions in Obama’s comments and still ending up with fewer damaging regulations in the end?
And is Obama taking credit only for official, legislative regulations, or including his Executive Orders?
For example, by Executive Fiat he gave the EPA unlimited power to first determine what is and what is not a “pollutant” and then to do what it want to do, to address the problem it has just identified. This was not a legislative regulatory process, yet it has resulted in regulations by the EPA.
Sorry if I sound cynical, but when I learned that Obama had complied with his promise to keep lobbyists out of the White House by merely meeting with them in a different building so their visits would not show up on the WH visitor log, I started to see a pattern of obfuscation and deception.
IF what obAMATER is true, that is not the argument. What is most important is the nature of the REGULATIONS. While the total number of new regulations may be few their scope are excessive!
Under obAMATEUR, the cost of complying with HIS regulations have reached $488 BILLION. What burden does this place on employers and the effect on the economic recovery? And in less than FOUR years no less!
This is just more of obAMATEUR’s parsing of words…. in short they are lies! The problem is the ignorant drones will regurgitate the “fewer regulations” line like the mindless lemmings that they are! Velma, denny, watty, mitchie, casper are you paying attention?
tired, I’m not sure just how anyone can really assess the costs of regulations.
For example, a local radio station has a weekly financial show, hosted by a man who lives in New York. This week he said he sold his house for $1.6 million, to a man who has a great and stable job, excellent income, a credit rating of 780, and wanted to put down $600,000—and the bank demanded half down. Fortunately, this man could come up with the additional $200,000 but this is an example of the chilling effect of over-regulation on the economy.
As I have said before, when my brothers and I were starting our company, every bank we went to agreed that our business plan was stellar, that there was no doubt we would make money, a couple had clients in the same business who were extremely profitable, and the only complaint was that our projections were too conservative.
(Note: the use of the word “conservative” is not in the political sense, but the literal sense—-a concept that confuses the PL trolls who post here.)
We were repeatedly accepted only to have the rug pulled out from under us before we could close, because of new regulations that had just come in, tightening up credit to the point where, as one banker told us in frustration, they could only loan money to people who did not need it.
How can you tally the cost to the economy in companies that did not get off the ground, companies that could not expand, jobs that were not created? It is impossible.
We ended up doing a real estate loan, before that avenue got throttled back, and now we support 14 families, in just over a full year of operation, plus providing so much business to another business that it has expanded and hired more workers. We are, at the beginning of Year 2, where our business plan projected we would be at the end of Year 3, so there is no way to accurately assess the loss to the economy if I had not had real estate to put up as collateral, to allow us to proceed.
And we have not yet assessed the cost to us of additional regulations that cost us money we would otherwise be spending on new equipment and new employees.
This is one small company—extrapolate this across the nation, apply it to start-ups that might, in a year or two, employ 4 people, or 40. This is the heartbeat of our nation, and this is what is being stifled by regulation.
None of our banks wanted to loan money to people who could not pay it back. In spite of the economic illiterates who clutter the blogosphere yammering about “predatory lending” , prudent lending practices have made money for lenders for centuries and would, still, if allowed to proceed.
And of course we have non-financial regulation, such as the regs shutting down offshore drilling along the Atlantic Coast from Florida to Delaware, cutting off oil and gas exploration on federal and state lands, and the savage attacks on the coal industry.
Not only is the Muslim world in flames, but, in spite of all bail-out efforts, most of Europe is on the verge of financial implosion. So where is President Obama going? ON THE VIEW! You gotta be sh*ting me.
we got what we PAID for with OPM….an inept,lying usurper, muzzi.
POLL: ROMNEY TAKES 14-PT LEAD AMONG MIDDLE CLASS
IE the tax PAYING 53%
Slipping away? Obama campaign manager now says DON’T PAY ATTENTION TO ‘NATIONAL’ POLLS…
Hmmm, lil obama on The View? What a good place for a talking head perched on top of an empty suit to be on, a proggie echo chamber.
For starters … Drill Here. Drill Now.
Mark, I never said you advocated blowing them all up – that was cluster, as I made clear in my first paragraph above (and Jeremiah, of course – B4V’s resident fundamentalist). Still you seem just as determined to ignore basic Christian values in favor of worldly goals and the means to attain them. You speak of others’ heresies, but you fear those others because your own heart is in rebellion. “Great peace have they which love your law: and nothing shall offend them,” Psalm 119:165, AKJ. “But the wicked are like the tossing sea, which cannot rest, whose waves cast up mire and mud” Isaiah 57:20
For all the lip service to religious values, I see nobody here taking Christ’s teachings seriously. Not a single one among the defenders of Conservatism on this blog. Religion for most on the evangelical right is an excuse for accumulating wealth, for discriminating against certain classes of people, for killing enemies and criminalizing ever more kinds of personal behavior. People like Neocon cite imprecatory Bible passages against the president. The accuser of the brethren has many helpers here. For precious few are the Scriptures actually searched to discover the will and the ways of God.
For the record Spook, there’s no fundamental difference between primitive head-lopping and killing by M-14 except technology. A dead person is just as dead whether they’re blown up by a suicide bomb or a Hellfire missile. Killing people never has been a solution to the problems of humanity; it is succumbing to evil, and war is institutionalized moral failure writ large. Or for the secularist, I would call war evolution in reverse – it makes beasts of men. Also for the record, my argument is not about political parties or ideologies – only a change of heart and submission to God’s will can solve humanity’s problems, either individually or en masse.
The whole purpose of Christ’s incarnation was to reveal the character and values of God to humanity, to elevate the race from its futile dependance on selfish ends and means. Completely forgotten, if not mocked and ridiculed, is the fact that Christ became a servant to his whole creation and commanded his followers to do likewise. Cluster, most of humanity abhors Christianity for one of two reasons: 1.) for those who should know better, Christ rebukes their selfishness and arrogance; 2.) for those who don’t know any better, what they hate is the manifestation of religion by people who call themselves Christians but deny everything Christ ever taught.
The Great Commandment in God’s law is to love; it is not about the will to power. Jesus’ whole life was about submission and the service of love, not the will to power. It is more than passing ironic that the two nations who claim the highest moral ground, who lay the greatest claim to a Judeo-Christian heritage (so-called Christian America and the state of Israel) both are determined to arm themselves to be so powerful that nobody dare think of challenging them.
Listen to this, O house of Jacob, you who are called by the name of Israel and come from the line of Judah, you who take oaths in the name of the Lord and invoke the God of Israel – but not in truth or righteousness: you who call yourselves citizens of the holy city and claim to rely on the God of Israel:
…This is what the Lord says – your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel: “I am the Lord your God, who teaches you what is best for you, who directs you in the way you should go. If only you had paid attention to my commands, your peace would have been like a river, your righteousness like the waves of the sea. Your descendants would have been like the sand, your children like its numberless grains; their name would never be cut off nor destroyed from before me.”
“There is no peace,” says my God, “for the wicked.” Isaiah 48:1, 17-19, 22
dennis, otherwise known as The Only True Christian, is not only back to lecturing us on the real meaning of Christianity but showing off his insanity as well.
Case in point: ” Religion for most on the evangelical right is an excuse for accumulating wealth, for discriminating against certain classes of people, for killing enemies and criminalizing ever more kinds of personal behavior. ”
Crazy as hell, and damned proud of it—-that’s our denny, emoting his bizarre hybrid of Christianity and Leftism as if any of it makes sense.
” For precious few are the Scriptures actually searched to discover the will and the ways of God.”
But why bother? We have dennis to explain the will and the ways of God, ad nauseum, from his very special vantage point.
Which he does, and does, and does, and does, so smugly.
dennis, I suggest that you print this out and put it where you will see it several times a day—perhaps in the mirror where you admire yourself praying.
He spoke also this parable to certain people who were convinced of their own righteousness, and who despised all others. “Two men went up into the temple to pray; one was a Pharisee, and the other was a tax collector. The Pharisee stood and prayed to himself like this: ‘God, I thank you, that I am not like the rest of men, extortioners, unrighteous, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week. I give tithes of all that I get.’ But the tax collector, standing far away, wouldn’t even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, a sinner!’ I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted.”
— Luke 18:9-14
“…everyone who exalts himself shall be humbled..” Pretty scary words for such as dennis, eh?
Amazona, for the record I don’t apply labels to myself, as you do. Nor do I insult or call others derogatory names as you do freely here (which is a kind of self-exaltation by proxy). I do not pretend that my human worth or my intelligence is superior to yours or anyone else’s. I certainly don’t feel qualified to unleash hell on other human beings, or wipe out large portions of humanity, as two other people on this thread have suggested doing. I believe that would be a prerogative belonging to God alone.
Lest you not get my point, I’m under no illusions; I’m no authority. I’m only here to point your attention to the authority. Because I pay attention to things taught in the Bible, to the teachings of Christ, and I’ve had the audacity to bring them into the conversation here, I am represented by you as sanctimonious, as a hypocrite and am insulted in all sorts of ways. Realize this: it doesn’t matter one iota what you think of me. It does matter what you think about his teachings.
It’s your self righteousness that is most bothersome to me. You pick and choose Biblical quotes to support your pacifist feelings, and sanctimony towards others you deem not worthy of being Christian. To me that’s detestable. I have always despised people like Jimmy Bakker, and other televangelists that would do the same thing you do every Sunday morning. You are the Tammy Faye Bakker of this blog as you continue to pass judgement:
Not a single one among the defenders of Conservatism on this blog. Religion for most on the evangelical right is an excuse for accumulating wealth, for discriminating against certain classes of people, for killing enemies and criminalizing ever more kinds of personal behavior. – dennis
What a pathetic comment, but it does reveal who you are. For the record, my position on the ME is to put the burden on the Muslims to determine their own fate. You take that as my wanting to kill them, which is predictable because you have never once been honest about much of anything.
Cluster: “It should be a matter for several precisely located atom bombs that kill millions of Muslims, including leaders, and that decimate their civilization, resulting in them needing several decades just to get clean drinking water again. I would take out Tehran, Demascus, Islamabad, Cairo, and Tripoli on the first run.”
Are you righteous enough in your own eyes to leave yourself alive in this scenario? Some people might think it takes immense self-righteousness, even moral arrogance, to be able to consign millions of human beings to their deaths. For surely out of those millions, the majority of them would be innocent of any wrongdoing against you.
Contrast your words with Jesus’ teachings in the Sermon on the Mount, widely considered to be a summation of his whole ministry. Contrast them with his body of teachings on forgiveness and compassion. Contrast your words with the apostle Paul, who was citing both Moses and the wise king Solomon when he wrote, “Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: ‘It is mine to avenge; I will repay,’ says the Lord. On the contrary: If your enemy is hungry, feed him; he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head. Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.” Romans 12:17-21.
This is the Judeo-Christian prescription for overcoming hatred; I didn’t make it up. There’s no reconciliation between your prescription and these teachings. I’m far from living up perfectly to any of them, but I recognize them as authoritative for Christians. It boils down to plain definitions – what does it mean to be a Christian? I’ve asked this question of evangelical right wingers for over a decade now and most have sidestepped it. Almost nobody gives the logical answer: To be a Christian means to be a follower of Christ, to accept his atonement and live by his teachings. They all want to be “saved”, they love to talk about their social and political values, but seem very uncomfortable talking about Jesus’ teachings.
You presume a great deal about me. I don’t recall ever judging your character or accusing you of anything except what you yourself have written. I’ve made empirical observations about things said on this blog and the larger world that make you uncomfortable, and for these you have judged my character harshly. It might be more useful to ask yourself why these observations make you so uncomfortable. Rest assured they do the same for me, which is why I rarely visit here. I recoil from the attitudes expressed in this venue. But the truth is worth speaking for its own sake, wherever one is.
I don’t recall ever judging your character or accusing you of anything except what you yourself have written. – Dennis
You must not read your own posts. You sit in judgement of everyone, all the time, and lecture everyone on your interpretation of the Bible all the time. you remind me of Jimmy Swaggert, Jimmy Bakker, and every other faux televangelist of whom I despise.
And I find it terribly ironic that you excuse Ahmadinejad for wanting to “wipe the Zionist regime off the face of the earth”, but yet lecture me for wanting to put the burden on the Muslims to decide their own fate. You are a religious fraud and should apologize to all people of Faith.
Thank you for the new IP address.
For surely out of those millions, the majority of them would be innocent of any wrongdoing against you.
The only innocent Muslims, IMO, are the ones who have denounced Jihad and the actions of those engaged in Jihad. Care to guess what percentage of Islam falls into that category?
Cluster, I don’t “lecture everyone on [my] interpretation of the Bible all the time.” For one thing I’m rarely here. For another, I generally try to let the Bible speak for itself – you evidently feel judged by it, but that’s your conscience judging you, not me. As far as I’m concerned we’ere both sinners under the law, equally condemned but offered equal salvation in Christ. The Christian faith allows for no superiority or inferiority that I can see. The truth, whatever it is, remains whether I speak it or not, whether anyone acknowledges it or not.
I’ve never excused Ahmadinejad for anything, but I have made the point that his words should be quoted and their meaning parsed with more precision. It’s a concept I learned a long time ago working as an editor. You put words in people’s mouths that they’ve never said quite often here, and even more often make uncritical inferences about what they mean. (An uncritical inference is a kind of logical fallacy.) These are bad journalistic habits, and I make this observation as a former editor, not as a moral judgment on your character.
I don’t lecture you for wanting to put the burden on Muslims for deciding their own fate. That would be a reasonable concept. What I find inconsistent is that you also think it would be acceptable in the case of another terror attack on the United States to drop “atom bombs that kill millions of Muslims, including leaders, and that decimate their civilization, resulting in them needing several decades just to get clean drinking water again” on Tehran, Demascus, Islamabad, Cairo, and Tripoli. As if all those killed could possibly be guilty of the actions of a few.
I further point out the inconsistency of this with Judeo-Christian values, and then you compare me with televangelists who are far more likely to agree with you than with me. Perhaps not regarding the atom bombs, but in fact most evangelicals I’ve heard on the radio for quite a few years now are hardcore right wingers who share most if not all of your political views, and very few of mine. Try American Family Radio sometime, they’re one of the biggest religous broadcasters out there.
You disregard history with your approach to the Muslim world, and completely ignore the fact that every solution you advocate has been tried and failed. You then proceed to cast a negative Christian light on anyone who supports more dramatic measures, so again, you sit in judgement.
I disregard people like you, televangelists, and essentially anyone who constantly resorts to Biblical passages to make their point. In my opinion, people like that give religion a bad name, and are usually frauds – you are no exception.
dennistooge the wolf in sheeps clothing………….YET YOU kneepad for a man and a party who hangs with terrorists, mobsters, racists, murderers,those who HATE Christians and Jews………..Ill say to you dennis GET THEE BEHIND ME Satan!!
where is your LOVE for the little ones in the womb which YOUR party has SLAUGHTERED MORE than 55 MILLION of since RVW?
to separate the “wheat from the chaff”
the faithful from the non
Matt 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
36 And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.
37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
Luke 3:17 “His winnowing fork is in His hand to thoroughly clear His threshing floor, and to gather the wheat into His barn; but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.”
I rather like this blog. Smarter than the average and the replies are, for the most part, intelligently thoughtful and well expressed. Not just because I agree with many of them either.
Welcome, baileyoski…..I hope you can get into brisk discussions without getting too wound up. The conservatives here like to mix it up sometimes, not being into lockstep or goosestep, and we think we learn a lot by doing so, but the Libs tend to be pretty hostile.
Love your avatar, by the way. When a friend said he has liked every Czech he has met, I said that it’s my 1/4 Czech that makes me so lovable, the Irish that makes me like to drink, the German that has the discipline to make me not drink very much, and the Russian for the cheekbones and the slight, very slight, little-bit-around-the-edges tendency to bossiness.
More of a Balvenie drinker, myself………..
Keep joining in…………