|
Obama and the terror war
Share
Email
Print
CommentAugust 28th, 2008
August 22nd, 2008
August 15th, 2008
August 7th, 2008
July 28th, 2008
Barack Obama has come under withering criticism from John McCain and other Republicans for saying that he would talk to Ahmedinajad and other enemies of the United States.
Basically what this is about is the Republicans trying to out macho man the Democrats, a tactic that has worked in recent elections but is starting to wear pretty thin, especially seeing how Bush's manly foray into Iraq has gone.
Basically what this is about is the Republicans trying to out macho man the Democrats, a tactic that has worked in recent elections but is starting to wear pretty thin, especially seeing how Bush's manly foray into Iraq has gone.
It is also pretty thin when you realize that many Republicans have said much the same thing at times, you have to talk to your enemies. Even McCain himself has approached that in the past.
James Baker, former Republican Secretary of State, recently said you have to talk to your enemies and that talking to them is not appeasement, it is a way to avoid war. And long lists of other Republicans have said pretty much the same thing, even the current Secretary of Defense Robert Gates.
James Baker, former Republican Secretary of State, recently said you have to talk to your enemies and that talking to them is not appeasement, it is a way to avoid war. And long lists of other Republicans have said pretty much the same thing, even the current Secretary of Defense Robert Gates.
The Republicans have tried to say it shows Obama's lack of experience, but I think it shows his lack of experience in political spin more than anything. If he had simply said I think we should talk to Iran if certain preconditions are being met, which he is more or less now trying to add to what he said, their positions would be the nearly the same.
But the fact is that simply saying we need to focus on diplomacy and talking to our enemies instead of all the macho bluster is something Americans want to hear, whether parsed with appropriate qualifiers or not.
But the fact is that simply saying we need to focus on diplomacy and talking to our enemies instead of all the macho bluster is something Americans want to hear, whether parsed with appropriate qualifiers or not.
Sooner or later you have to talk to people. Even Petraeus has said that the ultimate solution in Iraq is not going to be military, it will be political -- is another way of saying that you have to talk to people.
The Republicans are on a macho trip with this, but if it really only works to go to war, then why not just use nuclear bombs? If it is never going to work to talk to people, we should either leave and stay out of it, or blow the Middle East off the map with nuclear weapons and be done with it.
The problem with both those approaches is that we can't just ignore them because they might attack us, and we can‚' just kill them all either. That leaves talking in one form or another.
In other words, ultimately war does not work. War is not working to solve most problems any more. War has worked in the past, but starting with Vietnam it has worked less and less, and the asymmetrical warfare that the terrorists have started have made conventional military engagement take a quantum leap down in effectiveness.
Obama correctly perceives that the public is ready to face this. He is right that we have to talk to our enemies, but he is on shakier ground when saying that Iran is not a threat to us.
He is arguing that Iran does not equal the Soviet threat, but the problem with that is that things are so different now, and Iran is the mother of worldwide terrorism. So it doesn’t mean all that much to compare them to the Soviet Union. Iran is a major threat, just of a different sort.
What we can really gather from all this is that we see the debate that is shaping up in the General election already, which again is like Obama vs. Hillary in the primaries, the old vs. the new. We need a new way of doing things, the world has changed substantially. Obama is correct in perceiving that the old macho warhorse that the Republicans are using to try to win the election won‚t work and people don‚t want it. He is also correct in reaching for something more diplomatic, finding a new way.
The question is, can Obama deliver? Can he find a way out of our dilemma? That is the key to watch out for in the unfolding election debate.
The Republicans are on a macho trip with this, but if it really only works to go to war, then why not just use nuclear bombs? If it is never going to work to talk to people, we should either leave and stay out of it, or blow the Middle East off the map with nuclear weapons and be done with it.
The problem with both those approaches is that we can't just ignore them because they might attack us, and we can‚' just kill them all either. That leaves talking in one form or another.
In other words, ultimately war does not work. War is not working to solve most problems any more. War has worked in the past, but starting with Vietnam it has worked less and less, and the asymmetrical warfare that the terrorists have started have made conventional military engagement take a quantum leap down in effectiveness.
Obama correctly perceives that the public is ready to face this. He is right that we have to talk to our enemies, but he is on shakier ground when saying that Iran is not a threat to us.
He is arguing that Iran does not equal the Soviet threat, but the problem with that is that things are so different now, and Iran is the mother of worldwide terrorism. So it doesn’t mean all that much to compare them to the Soviet Union. Iran is a major threat, just of a different sort.
What we can really gather from all this is that we see the debate that is shaping up in the General election already, which again is like Obama vs. Hillary in the primaries, the old vs. the new. We need a new way of doing things, the world has changed substantially. Obama is correct in perceiving that the old macho warhorse that the Republicans are using to try to win the election won‚t work and people don‚t want it. He is also correct in reaching for something more diplomatic, finding a new way.
The question is, can Obama deliver? Can he find a way out of our dilemma? That is the key to watch out for in the unfolding election debate.
Join the conversation
Comment guidelines
All comments will be screened and may take several hours to be posted.
• Keep comments clear, concise and focused on the topic in the story.
• Comments exceeding 300 words will not be posted.
• Refrain from personal attacks, degrading comments or remarks that do not add to a constructive dialogue.
• Comments implying suspects in crime-related stories are guilty before they have been proven so in a court of law will be deleted.
• Do not post e-mail addresses or links except for pages on Napavalleyregister.com or government Web sites.
• Comments will not be edited - they will be approved or declined.
• Comments may be used in the print edition of the newspaper.
• If you feel a posted comment has violated our guidelines, please contact dross@napanews.com or bkennedy@napanews.com
For further information on the comment guidelines, click here.
|
|
a teacher wrote on May 22, 2008 5:05 PM:
I'm curious about your thoughts here. "
kevin wrote on May 22, 2008 10:06 PM:
napablogger wrote on May 22, 2008 10:40 PM:
But that is what Iran specializes in, and that is the major threat that terrorism poses. Look at the psychological impact that 911 had, it was huge, it hurt the economy badly for three years or more. The psychological impact of a terror attack gives it huge leverage. It is a way to destroy us from within without killing us in a military sense, but taking over by taking over our psyches and our culture.
We have to buck up and get over it, but it takes time. Look at Israel and the impact living under constant terror has done to them. The whole world could turn into that. Can you imagine the impact if Iran were somehow able to set off a nuclear weapon in Israel, or worse in America?
Even though Iran could never defeat us militarily, they could eventually destroy our well being and freedom, which is pretty much the same thing.
The Soviet Union was just a different situation, it was a military stand off, with both sides playing the same game and with the same weapons.
We need a new approach to terrorism, part of it is changing our own psychology, but I don't think we can downplay the threat. The threat is psychological. "
a teacher wrote on May 23, 2008 9:02 AM:
That would change if we attacked them, of course.
"
kevin wrote on May 23, 2008 9:37 AM:
napablogger wrote on May 23, 2008 12:01 PM:
Some may feel that there is not a lot that they can do, but they have interfered with the Iraq war, they created and support Hizbollah and are targeting American and Israeli targets all over the world.
What they can do is what they have done in the past, not so secretly support Palestinian and Lebanese and other terrorists in blowing up the Marine barracks, capturing and sometimes murdering westerners like William Buckley, Terry Anderson, a long list.
Their stated goal is to destroy Israel, America and the west. They hate freedom and our moral depravity, and the way that women and homosexuals are free. They are attempting to get an atom bomb and have freely said they will launch it on Israel as soon as they have it. That was from Rafsanjani, supposedly the most liberal reformer in decades over there.
It would be foolish to think they don't really mean all that. They surely do and are as dangerous as Al Qaeda, in fact their goals and reading of history is identical to Al Qaeda. Bot want to restore the original Muslim Caliphate to rule the world.
They do not have our military might or ability to fight a war. But the key point is leverage through terror.
Are they as big a threat as the Soviet Union? Its one of those questions that is hard to answer because you are comparing apples and oranges. What matters is that they are a huge threat and we have to deal with it. "
a teacher wrote on May 23, 2008 1:58 PM:
Targeting American interests world wide? Which ones were those? How was Iran involved? I must have missed that.
Ahmadinejad is the muslim equivilent of the Rev. Wright and the Rev. Hagge. Useful idiots to the people who have the real power. I doubt that the people who are the real decision makers in Iran are suicidal, crazy or stupid.
I would think that if stopped rattling our sabres (it hasn't really worked to threaten them, has it) and sat down with them we might get some where. They have a legitimet interests in a stable Iraq and Afghanistan (both neighbors).
A serious, even handed approach to Israel and Palistine might also help.
However, world conquest? That's Dr. Evil/Austin Powers territory. I can't take that seriously.
"
kevin wrote on May 23, 2008 8:46 PM:
Hear Ye wrote on May 24, 2008 1:25 AM:
Sandra wrote on May 24, 2008 9:07 AM:
napablogger wrote on May 24, 2008 10:41 AM:
I kind of already have said it, it is mostly a psychological threat. One terrorist act has tremendous leverage and can turn our world into a depressing place of government oppression, failing economies, and people hiding in the shadows. It can provide a big opportunity for government repression and control in order to combat it, which we have already seen. It can destroy us from within so to speak.
Also, Iran has clearly stated their intentions as to where they want to go. Radical Muslim, which originated with Iran and is still alive and well, views the west as decadent and unholy and wants to destroy us and our way of life. Whether they really have the capability now is another matter, but their intentions are clear.
I think part of this debate is that liberals feel that Bush has way overreacted, that our personal liberties have been too diminished, and that fear mongering has caused poor decisions like the Iraq war. I agree with that 100%, but I think we also have to be able to turn that around without diminishing the threat from Iran, whatever it is.
"
napablogger wrote on May 24, 2008 10:53 AM:
Let's not go from one extreme to the other. Minimizing Iran's threat seems like more of a political talking point than a reality to me. I think part of the liberal spin right now is to minimize Iran to justify rolling back Bush/Cheney militarism and civil liberties infringements. We should do that without minimizing the threat.
On the other hand, turning our country into a fear bound military state with eavesdropping on every phone call by the state is not the answer either.
We need the appropriate response to Iran and other terror forces, and the truth is we haven't found the answer to that yet. Obama is searching for it and I praise him for that. What Bush and Cheney have done is totally wrong.
The terrorist acts to disrupt you psychologically, and when you go into fear and oppression in response he has won. We have gone big time into that after 9/11.
We are really fighting a war of ideas and culture, the classic "hearts and minds", even in Iraq. We need to find a way to fight that effectively. Spying on phone calls and torturing people is not the answer, but minimizing the threat is not either. "
Bill wrote on May 24, 2008 11:24 AM:
Using the barrel of a gun as diplomacy instead of its implied use lessens its effective worth. We suffer from the misadventure of preemptive war yet would rush to commit the same error in essentially the same place. It represents a lack of learning from the most immediate past and plays to the cleverness of those states who wish us harm.
Our current situation allows for threats only and our enemies can thumb their noses and snicker at our bombast. It is a poor policy to adamantly preclude speaking with any body and fools only a fool. In any negotiation there are always non negotiable points that are then negotiated. To deny negotiation as the principal means of achieving policy goals is a clever ploy but a hollow strategy.
Much is made of Chamberlains negotiations at Munich and the following epithet of appeasement but the facts of history illustrate that he had next to nothing to threaten with and did not have a mandate from anyone to make threats. While we have much more we are presently crippled by current and past poor decisions by the existing leadership.
Events of history are useful when they are understood in the context of the reality that effected and caused them. Too many times they are used as props out of context to support a view that is not at all similar. Repeating an invented history maybe much worse than learning history’s lessons and realizing that talking maybe a greater asset than a bomb. "
a teacher wrote on May 24, 2008 11:51 AM:
Where I disagree with you is in your chacterization of their motivation. If you look at the history of US involvement in that area, you could see why the current leaders in Iran have little reason to trust our good intentions and to consider us enemies. They see Isreal is a western country usurping land that was Arab. Why wouldn't they do what they are doing? We've done the same under similar conditions (arming Afghanistani rebels against the USSR, Trainning and supporting the Contras, the whole Bay of Pigs thing).
We may not agree with thier position, but that doesn't mean that their position is invalid or crazy. Treating them as if they have no right to have a position is not helping.
If you want me to agree to war with Iran I require two things. A compelling argument to fight and the that all other means have been exhausted. War with Iran will be very messy.
This administration has destroyed American credibility in this area. It is difficult to believe them. "
kevin wrote on May 24, 2008 1:29 PM:
plasticpinkflamingo wrote on May 24, 2008 3:09 PM:
No, Iran can't send over and army to invade us. We were never in danger of Japan and Germany invading our country and splitting us in half between them. But they threatened all of Europe and Asia and controlled a good part of both before we came in. Had we left them alone, we would have ended up alone ourselves if Great Britain fell and Stalin signed a peace treaty with Hitler. All this because some politicians wanted to be nice to Hitler & friends, just talk nice to them and maybe send a sternly worded letter saying "don't do that again or we might get very angry with you".
You have to travel the world to know there is plenty of hatred for the US (and this goes back waaay before Bush so don't even think of starting that noise). We were hated decades ago. There are people that will happily sit down with Jimmy Carter and sing Kumbaya and the next day send out suicide bombers to our cities without a shred of guilt in their minds.
Don't ever think that Iran is so small and so far away that it can't whip up a firestorm for us all. "
Sandra wrote on May 24, 2008 4:52 PM:
a teacher wrote on May 24, 2008 11:05 PM:
I missed where Mr. Barack advocated talking to bin Laden. as that in the news today? Oh wait, he never has said that.
And I agree 100% with what NB says about the assault on our civil liberties. What is particularly annoying is that they are completely ineffectual. Shoe bombs, seriously? What happens if some one tries a clothing bomb? Do we all fly naked?
Osama bin Ladan must be laughing himself silly at us. "
napablogger wrote on May 24, 2008 11:24 PM:
I think that at one point or another the Muslim world is going to have to evolve or we are going to forever be locked in this conflict.
I think a lot of the average people at the bottom in these countries that end up as foot soldiers are people who have nothing, whose lives are so repressed that they experience only impotence, and that this gives them a way to have a sense of meaning.
A lot of the leaders like Bin Laden and the Khomeini's of the world are religious fanatics fueled by rage that they don't even know they have. Khomeini said he led the revolution against the Shah because the Shah was decadent, not because the US installed him. So for those guys, Kevin is right, it is about religion if you can call that a religion.
In the end though we can't shoot everyone, and we are going to have to find a way to influence their culture to change, to modernize, to reach out to moderate elements in the Muslim world and change them.
Even Daniel Pipes, a very conservative expert on the Muslim world says this. Radical Muslim is the problem, moderate Muslim is the answer is one of his pet sayings. "
Sandra wrote on May 25, 2008 9:15 AM:
a teacher wrote on May 25, 2008 5:31 PM:
I get concerned that we won't listen to legitimate concerns on their part because their point of view is decidedly non western (which does not invalidate it). You can't reach any kind of understanding by telling the other party that they are basically wrong.
Are you saying that the west has nothing to change in it's dealings with the Muslim world? "
Sandra wrote on May 25, 2008 6:10 PM:
"
kevin wrote on May 25, 2008 9:53 PM:
napablogger wrote on May 25, 2008 10:06 PM:
Do we have things to do? We are not perfect but in this conflict I will take our side in a hot second.
Things are not always balanced like that, and in this case I do not think that they are. They have an extremely oppressive and repressive culture, justified by religion, and our job is to make sure that out of fear we do not head from wherever we are in that direction.
It would be neater and easier to accept if I could say, well, we do this wrong and they do that wrong, but the balance is way stacked against them and I think it is important to tell the truth about that.
The Nazi's were just wrong too, even though the treaty at Versailles was mean spirited against them. The KKK was wrong to be racist even though they were disenfranchised poor southerners who saw some of their jobs and economy taken away by blacks who were becoming freer. Sometimes it just doesn't balance neatly. "
napablogger wrote on May 25, 2008 10:14 PM:
I am 100% in support of Israel, and we cannot let these bullies destroy them. They are like the big bullying kid at school who gets mistreated at home and goes and takes it out on all the kids on the playground. If you don't stand up to them they will run roughshod over everyone.
They are human beings, and they have desires to be happy and be free like everyone else, and we have to nurture that, we have to do whatever we can to help them find the better part of themselves, to encourage those amongst them that express that, and stand up and support them. But to really deal with a bully you always have to show that you are stronger and that you won't put up with it. They actually respect that and like you better when you do.
Remember what Kevin said about Osama, he lost respect for us and decided we were weak when we didn't stand up in Somalia and elsewhere. He is a bully. You have to knock them flat, then talk. "
a teacher wrote on May 26, 2008 12:08 PM:
My other problem is the double standard. Yes homosexuals are stoned and other wise brutally treated in SOME Muslim countries, but that NEVER happens here, right?
Yes, SOME of the Muslim leaders seem pretty unhinged, but no more than other petty dictators, some of whom we support (or have supported)out of necessity. Who's crazier Amadinejhad, or Seki Mobutu (the late and unlamented dictator of the Congo)?
AND, bear in mind that most of the Muslim countries were colonies of the West until the second half of the 20th century. They are a little behind, developmentally speaking. You mentioned the riots in Indonesia over Israel, but you can find similar examples in non Muslim countries (don't soccer riots in the UK make you wonder bout the sanity of the English?).
I am not saying that I agree with the Muslim point of view. What I am saying is that I have a western point of view and that works for me. I am not arrogant enough to say that it will work for everyone or that they are wrong in all things. "
a teacher wrote on May 26, 2008 12:23 PM:
Then in the middle of the 20th century, the west forces what amounts to an alien culture into their midst. It would be a little hard to take, don't you think?
I don't begrudge Israel's right to exist. They are there and they've won their place. That's how history happens. However, if there is to be peace in the Mideast, the Arab/Muslim point of view has to be given the respect it is due from the West (mostly from the USA). "
glenroy wrote on May 26, 2008 3:00 PM:
Western moderate standards, such as the right to say what you wish, when you wish, is rarely tolerated in moderate Muslim societies. Rights we view given at birth, say the right to choose a supposed life mate, is rately tolerate in moderate Islam. The point here is not to bash Muslims they are decent and honorable people just completely different in many respects from us... a strong argument can be made that moderate Muslims have made better allies for our troops than many Americans.....the point is that anyone who shares this fantasy vision of this massive sea of moderation across Muslim dominated societies is simply ignorant of the religion, the culture and the threat facing this nation. Though, it is not all about their religion most Muslim societies are oriented towards tribal/honor traditions which plays more than a little part for some forms of intolerance.
Few facts to consider: There are as of today exactly 6 Muslim dominated societies with a republican form of government, none of these are toleratant in a western sense of other religions..not even Turkey allows the rebuilding of church destroyed by a riot or fire...the other couple dozen counties are even less tolerant though considered moderate... moderate by Muslim standards...not even close by western.
"
Sandra wrote on May 26, 2008 6:27 PM:
Skip M. wrote on May 27, 2008 10:10 AM:
napablogger wrote on May 27, 2008 1:52 PM:
That is why I threw in the examples of the KKK and the much overused Nazi's. Would you have said that I was only looking at the extreme Germans if I warned of the dangers of Hitler? There were plenty of 'good germans" during WWII, as has been documented, like Schindler. Mostly Germans are wonderful people which they have proven in spades since WWII.
But there is no doubt here that there is a major world wide terror problem that is being created by the Muslim culture, perhaps with a hijacked religion, but whatever, the threat is there and it is real.
All the examples you mentioned are not comparable. Soccer rioters are not trying to take over the world and convert everyone to... well anything, they are just yahoos.
The thing I agree with you on is that going to war and ignoring "diplomacy" whatever exactly that means at this point, is not the answer, but only a temporary band aid at times.
I think the mistake Obama and the Democrats are makinig is believing that in order to make the case against war they also have to diminish the threat, and that is not so. "
napablogger wrote on May 27, 2008 2:03 PM:
Prior to that for 2000 years plus these desert people were wandering tribes who had cities, but no real national boundaries like we in the west have. At the time Israel was created in 1948 there were more Jews living there than Arabs. Churchill and company also created Syria, Saudi Arabia, etc.
Anyway, it is all complicated, but the Arab position that you say we have to understand and try to give something to is so martyred and violent that it is difficult to find anything vaguely human to give. I fear that if we allow them to destroy Israel it won't stop there because that is really just an excuse toward world domination that they want to do. That is the point of what I mentioned about Indonesia.
This is something that humans have done since history began, one group trying to dominate and control another, and radical Muslim is just the latest version, although unique. It is unique in its fanaticism and level of terror, its oppression of women and also in its lack of a modern military capable of opposing those around them. Usually when the psycho dominators go for it, like Germany and Japan in WWII, they have the most sophisiticated and strongest military which emboldens them to take action. Right now the Muslim terror states do not have that but they are trying to get it, That is why we have to oppose that. "
napablogger wrote on May 27, 2008 2:09 PM:
At first I thought all this fear talk was, not really racist but let's say racial, based in part on his race. I think the fact that Obama is half black, has a liberal black history, much less a Muslim name is part of it. He seems to embody all the fears that white conservatives have of liberals in a nutshell.
When I view him as compared to Hillary she seems a lot more liberal than he does. He is not really a doctrinaire person as much as people fear, I don't think. But maybe I will get into that later in the week. "
napablogger wrote on May 27, 2008 2:16 PM:
To me it seems like, especially the Bush/Cheney/Rove' wing, the Republicans overinflate it and dwell on it for political reasons and reasoned debate taking all the factors into account have been lost.
They have gotten so much mileage out of scaring people and attacking people's patriotism if they think the Iraq war is a bad idea that it has distorted the debate. To counter that effecitive tactic the liberals have taken to denying there is any major problem at all.
It seems like we move from one extreme to the other all the time, and it is not very effective. "
a teacher wrote on May 27, 2008 10:32 PM:
I also find your comments on Muslim culture as viewed through a western bias. You can't judge Muslim cultures (or Chinese, or Indian) based on western values. When you say "there is a major problem" with their culture, two things come to mind. Based on what? The fact that they see things differently than Westerners? AND. The Muslim religion encompasses several vastly different cultures, from Europeans, to Africans to Asians You're judging a billion people based on Arab culture.
And where is this world domination thing coming from? How is that a fact? The rantings of madmen and fanatics don't add up to some grand plan for world domination. "
napablogger wrote on May 27, 2008 11:44 PM:
When a whole culture advocates the kind of oppression and depravity that the Muslim culture advoctaes, when you can't even make a cartoon criticizing Mohammed with getting killed, at that point I really don't care if the fact that I think women should be free and that speech should be free is a western value.
I am western and I have my values, and I like them and am willing to impose them. They sure aren't shy about imposing theirs! That is the problem, western values say live and live let, at least Americans are like that. The terrorist Muslims are determined to impose Sharia and their religion on the rest of the world. That doesn't mean all Muslims, but you apparently would be suprised how many of them feel that it is ok to violently force others into their religion. It is part of their religion. Christians at most will brow beat you. If a Muslim brow beats you your brow will actually be gone afterwards!
The way you talk I think you are only reading liberal sites about all this. Perhaps you could check out Daniel Pipes, Bernard Lewis, or read Steve Emerson's books, any of them, at least you would be aware of what is being said. "
a teacher wrote on May 28, 2008 6:41 AM:
Your analysis of Muslim history only tells half the story. You left out the Christian side, the history of the Crusades and the history of western conquest of what we now call the third world (much of which had religious reasons as well as economic ones).
The Europeans of the 16th, 17th, 18th and 19th century used spreading the word of God to justify the conquest and slaughter of millions of indigenous peoples throughout the world. Religion was used to justify the enslavement of Africans and Apartheid. Religion was used to justify the Holocaust. If I were to take the word of several prominent Christian leaders I would conclude that they were bent on converting the world to Christianity and destroying those who resist. If I were a Muslim, I might conclude the same thing you are concluding about them.
I doubt very much that Indonesia wants to conquer the world. Or Egypt or Sudan, or Turkey, or even Iran. I'm sure that there are Muslims who would like to see the worldwide spread of their religion, but how does that make them any different from the Pope or Pat Robertson? "
Sandra wrote on May 28, 2008 7:42 AM:
Sandra wrote on May 28, 2008 8:10 AM:
napablogger wrote on May 28, 2008 2:25 PM:
Christian extremists are making pronouncements, at most doing demonstrations with signs. Muslim terrorists are killing people.
Why did the Christians start the crusades? Because the Muslims had come and conquered their territory to begin with.
History is irrelevant anyway, in terms of this discussion. What matters is what are they doing today? Christians are not fighting a war for Christianity, Muslims are at war.
The sources I gave you are not extremist. Bernard Lewis is one of the foremost scholars on the Middle East in history.
What you should go by is your own eyes. Is murdering your daughter because your brothers raped her ok or not? Is murdering your daughter because she is not a virgin ok? What kind of mentality does that? Not a western one, true.
I think the western bias here is to not admit that other people are so numb and violent that they can peel the skin off someone's face for fun like you peel an orange.
That is the bias, that they will respond like first world Americans, they do not and will not. You want to see them as basically good people like we basically are, with our values and they will all come around somehow if we are nice to them enough.
I find it ironic that it is the liberals who want to pretend that terrorists are like us, then accuse people like me willing to recognize the differences as biased. "
napablogger wrote on May 28, 2008 2:27 PM:
a teacher wrote on May 28, 2008 3:47 PM:
Think about how many times you've read about some man murdering his children and then committing suicide because of some marital problem. It is reported disturbingly often. How do you think Columbine played over in Muslim countries, or the DC sniper, or Polly Klaas. How do you think our drug problems play over there? Or Mexico's current chaos caused by drug trafficking.
What do you think they make out of Gen. Boykin saying that it's my God against their God and my God is stronger?
I know how they see it. They see those headlines and they see no moral code, no respect, no justice, lawlessness. If all you saw of the USA was CNN headline news, you'd probably agree.
I think we see a very biased version of the Muslim world and it worries me that we make decisions based on that version.
I don't think that terrorists are nice guys or even that they have a just cause. Most of them are evil, ruthless people and need to be eradicated. But, they are not the whole Muslim world.
It's not a liberal thing for me. My kids will be the ones fighting and if we're going to send them off, I don't want it based on a cartoon characterization.
I'm not looking to minimalize this, you haven't made the case. "
Sandra wrote on May 28, 2008 7:29 PM:
a teacher wrote on May 29, 2008 9:34 AM:
I don't think we can win a war if we don't have a correct understanding of the enemy. You would probably agree with that statement.
If I take your statements at face value, I would have to conclude that we are at war with Islam. You seem to be saying that Islam's central values are so different than ours that they are irreconcilable. That coupled with an evangelical streak virtually garuntees conflict with the west.
I see three problems. One is the rise of Radical Islam, typified by Osma Bin Laden. They reject all things western. They seek to push western influences out of Moslem societies. They see themselves in armed conflict with the west and lacking a large and powerful military, they engage us in asymetrical warfare.
I don't think they are any more than a small minority of Muslims. I do think that some of their message resonates with many Muslims, but in general it doesn't seem to me that the majority wants conflict with the west, but rather admires aspects of western life.
I think most Muslim leadersdon't care for these guys, for one thing they threaten the rulers directly (look what happened to Sadat). However, they are not above using people like Bin Laden to further their own political ends. If nothing else, to focus their energies else where (what would bin laden do if he didn't have the Americans and Israelis to attack?).
(cont) "
a teacher wrote on May 29, 2008 10:34 AM:
And we tend to focus on the most sensational, worst examples of behavior from the other side. I would bet that every example of horrible behavior from one side could be matched with horrible behavior from the other. It's hard to lose a bet on bad behavior.
I spent 2 and half years living in Kenya and spent lots of time with Muslims on the coast. The had quite a few mispreceptions of us, but in general, they liked Americans and admired America (although they took issue with our government). They were generous and kind people who were curious about me and where I came from. From what I read, that is the general Muslim consensus, they like Americans individually, but not our government.
I find it hard to believe that we can't get along. "
a teacher wrote on May 29, 2008 10:56 AM:
Finally, I think that our current wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and our unconditional support of Israel are doing us more damage than good.
I think that our initial entrance into both Afghanistan and Iraq were welcomed by the people there. However, we dropped the ball in both cases. As a result both Saddam and the Taliban are begininng to look better than the curent chaos that exists in both countries. Instead of liberators, we've become occupiers.
As for Israel, I don't think that Muslim countries expect us to stop supporting Israel. I think that they would like to see a more even handed approach. Consider for example Iran's nuclear policy. We have a problem with that, but we are silent about Israel's massive nuclear stockpile. What price did Israel pay for defying the non-proliferation ban? Surely they didn't pay what Pakistan and India paid.
I think that Israel deserves some criticism, for instance the settlement building issue. Israel wants secure boarders, but whose expense, the Palistinians? How does that foster a lasting peace? There are issues where the Arabs have a valid point and our refusal to acknowledge that causes us to lose much support in the Muslim world. "
napablogger wrote on May 29, 2008 1:13 PM:
I accept that. As you mention, it is a little hard to do in these 300 word sound bite only boxes.
And I hope you are right, anyway. Sooner or later you will be right, or we will really be in deep trouble. I just don't think we are there yet. "
napablogger wrote on May 29, 2008 1:19 PM:
And teacher, I didn't mean all of Islam, I meant the radical version. I just think it is a lot bigger in thier culture than you do, apparently.
Where I would challenge conservatives though is in the method of confronting it. It is clear to me that the war in Iraq has made things worse, not better. I think Afghanistan is a better situation, although we are blowing it by not having enough troops over there.
And this thing with Rachel Ray and doughnuts? Are right wingers bound and determined to prove liberals correct that Republicans are hysterical over reactors to terrorism? Michelle Malkin is losing my respect fast. "
napablogger wrote on May 29, 2008 1:28 PM:
Where we disagree is in terms of the terrorist threat, and the numbers of them in the general population. Most people follow the leader, most people don't know what to do or even who they are. And I think the terrorist leadership provids an avenue of identity for far too many people.
We have to stand up to that resolutely or it will get worse. But war is the worst choice, least effective, I think that has now been proven. "
Skip M. wrote on May 29, 2008 2:21 PM:
a teacher wrote on May 29, 2008 5:30 PM:
I've never been fond of writing. That's why I teach math. "
kevin wrote on Jun 2, 2008 10:32 AM:
a teacher wrote on Jun 2, 2008 1:20 PM:
But, if you want to play, how many civilian casualties have been caused by the militaries of the Colalition Forces or IDF since our War on Terror? I'll bet that the difference between terrorist and military delivery of death and destruction seems small when you're on the receiving end. "
kevin wrote on Jun 2, 2008 9:11 PM:
savetycoon wrote on Jun 3, 2008 8:57 AM:
every one who is going to vote for him, says they are votin because they want change, well what exactly is he going to change. EVERY president promises and promises, but the citizens still see nothing. so really what does he have to offer that John doesnt'. DEMOCRATS SHOULD NOT BE IN OFFICE, they are dreamers.
Republicans actually stop day dreaming, and get up and try to do what they can then and there. democrats always want to have a tea party it seems like , and talk things over.. uhhh.. Just vote for the republicans! "
glenroy wrote on Jun 3, 2008 10:58 AM:
Clinton also ran on the ambiguous call for more ‘change’ gutting what we left of our intelligence agencies. Clinton ‘changed’ our combat readiness by reducing it by 40%, and ‘changed’ terrorism as act of war to merely another criminal act. This ‘change’ was the difference between reactive and proactive. His administration ‘changed’ the rules of fighting terrorism making it a Federal Crime for our foreign intelligence agencies to communicate with our domestic law enforcement. This was the ‘change’ above all other ‘change’ that led to 9/11. He ‘changed’ the federal governments focus from national defense to fighting what his leftist advisors viewed as the greater threat called Microsoft. Clinton even ‘changed’ the Carter ‘change’ to block a bipartisan bill to drill for the oil in ANWAR... On the lighter side, and by far the least destructive in terms of national interests, Clinton was our first President known for ‘change’ in the accepted method of humidifying cigars...peculiar though it may be.
Now comes along a former admitted pot smoker and crackhead running on the ambiguous call for yet more ‘change’...who certainly ‘changed’ the definition of Christianity as a kind and accepting religion.
The question that each voter needs to ask...is how much more ‘change’ can you afford?... because history teaches ‘change’ for the sake of ‘change’ has a price. "
freeport56 wrote on Jun 3, 2008 11:19 AM:
Add a nulear warhead to those rockets and could control the enbtire middle east. Whose to say they would not sell those weapons to Al Qeda? A weapon of that magnitude in the hands of facist muslims is not an option.
I am all for the use of Bunker-Busters, MOABs, and some convention 500 pounders laced with some U235 to keep the Iranians from ever getting their hands on "The Bomb". "
Hear Ye wrote on Jun 3, 2008 1:58 PM:
Once again, Bush served less time in Political office than Obama. What's your point?
Also, you ask what he is going to change? You'll never know if you don't look or pay attention. Try his website for where he stands on the issues and his plans for change. Also Google will net many results if you search.
GlenRoy,
Really, you feel comfortable reducing Obama to a former pothead/crackhead? His honesty about his brief experimenting with drugs as a youth is a positive to me. You probably don't refer to Bush as the former cokehead, do you?
Lastly, How do you figure Obama has changed the definition of Christianity? Was it his years of faith, community outreach to the homeless and less fortunate? Oh no thats right, you're taking some sound bites of a wacky pastor and attributing them to Obama while ignoring that his entire life has contradicted those divisive statements "
reader wrote on Jun 9, 2008 1:56 PM:
kevin wrote on Jun 9, 2008 5:42 PM:
glenroy wrote on Jun 9, 2008 6:04 PM:
Obama is a former crack head…there are 4 or 5 of his former entourage of crack heads who’ve documented they smoked crack with Obama numerous times over a two year period. You may think 2 years is merely experimentation…I thinks it boarders on addiction and when I listen to Obama speak in a conversational situation or when asked an unrehearsed question, granted rarely, his spontaneous response sounds like a crack head trying to speak before think……
Whether Bush is a former drunk or a recovering alcoholic depends on whether you’re a Republican or Democrat…I consider him a recovering alcoholic and I consider Obama a former crack head so I might not be a Democrat. "
a teacher wrote on Jun 9, 2008 7:32 PM:
It's completely outrageous and unverifiable (what, we're taking the word of self styled CRACKHEADS). It directly undercuts Obama's strengths - is decent upright image.
AND the kicker is, it's so completely racist. It's perfect. Did Karl Rove tell you this one. "
coigue wrote on Jun 20, 2008 1:31 PM:
McCain want to continue trying to "democratize the world"
Talk about imperial hubris. "