Pulix Delendum Est; Part II
Still back in ancient times (October of 2001)
The first Bitch SlappingIt is a question of world view.
I've pretty much sat out the debate which "inspired" you to this
<sarc> height of reasoning and logic </sarc>. I don't find the
proposal to be appealing. I do, however, find that it passes the reality
test.
It's always amusing to watch reality bitch slap an ivory tower
pseudo-intellectual, and the outraged bellowing which then issues from the
appropriately slapped idiot makes for high quality entertainment.
Especially when the bellowing twit has no concrete counterproposal.
Do you see the world as it is, and craft solutions which do not require an
overnight change in human nature, or do you squander blood and treasure on
a utopian goal... No, even worse, you damn any and all but propose no
solution of your own.
A Sand Flea opined:
There are a number of people on this board who hold positions I
passionately disagree with. It is possible that I misunderstand what their
positions are, so I hope they will correct me if I have them wrong.
There are people who claim that the US should overthrow certain
governments and take no steps to install or aid a new government beyond
overthrowing the new government if the US doesn't like it.
This solution, while suboptimal, has several benefits. First, it is
achievable. Second, the cost in blood and treasure is calculable based on
the first iteration. Since the goal is to eliminate threats to the United
States, anarchy and or squalor will work in furtherance of that goal.
These people don't want to rebuild Iraq or Afghanistan with US dollars,
they don't want to protect the new government, they just want to hold it
responsible for everything that happens in their country!
That is a supportable restatement. But you overlook the question of their
own wealth in the form of oil. Why should we spend our own treasure on
these neo-barbarians when we can spend their own wealth to their benefit?
I think that is a foolish policy in _many_ _many_ ways. For one thing,
International opinion would be against overthrowing a new government that
hasn't had the history that Saddam did.
International opinion will never be satisfied when it comes to dealing
with the neo-barbarians of the middle east. International opinion, above
all else, doesn't want there to be effective international force. Even
worse is the possibility that the sole superpower will tell them to sod
off and go about defending itself and policing terrorist regimes as it
sees fit.
These people I mentioned say, "Screw international opinion, what
can they do?" Well, maybe by about the third time the US
knocked off a government because it didn't obey the US fast enough the
rest of the world would start shifting alliances. Perhaps Europe would
even start to militarize.
If Europe realigned and started militarizing right now it would take them
two or more decades to catch up to where the United States is NOW. Nor
does the EU have the economic power to catch and surpass should the United
States notice and care enough to match the percentage of GDP the EUnics
were spending.
I don't want to live in a WMD armed country that engages in wars of
aggression and that is what we would be if we followed that policy.
I'll gladly pay your one way ticket to the nation (outside of the
Americas) of your choice, as long as you sign a renunciation of
citizenship...
There are those who claim that the Iraqis have been indoctrinated into
hating the US, and that it would be impossible to change them. Well, Japan
was an even more alien culture, whose people hated, feared and despised
our nation and our race, and we re-wrote their Constitution. Further, the
Japanese had a stronger military tradition, had fanatic soldiers, and
_still_ they were subdued.
Are you willing to occupy, and when
necessary suppress/oppress Iraq for the next fifty years or more? That's
what it took in the Philippines, and they are a far better template than
Imperial Japan. How much American blood are you willing to spend in such
an endeavor? Will YOU contract to send YOUR children to Baghdad as part of
the occupation forces?
Oh, but that might cost too much, some people say.
I'm less concerned with the treasure than the blood. Especially if we use
their oil in place of our treasure. But if you think world opinion has its
panties in a twist now, imagine the howls of rage when we actually occupy,
pacify, and rebuild Iraq in the image of a western secular society.
Well, get out of this country you cowardly vomitous piece of filth.
Yeah right, it might be cheaper to invade a country every two years or so,
destroy its infrastructure and civil institutions and leave them to
warlordism and the tender mercies of UN relief agencies.
It's always cheaper to destroy. An impoverished and fragmented nation is
not a threat to us. That's just a fact of human nature repeated time and
again in history.
Yeah, it is much cheaper to destroy than to build. To be feared rather
than respected.
Respect is great. Fear is acceptable. The current situation is not
acceptable.
You Stalinist pieces of shit. Take your jingoistic fascism somewhere
else you amoral armchair mass murderers.
Remarkable. Give Slick Willy a pass on all his debauchery, but lash out in
terms of morality against those who propose a historically effective means
of removing a threat to the United States and its citizens. Thou
hypocrite!
History is replete with the ugly wars between societies/empires and the
barbarians which surrounded them. Those who have read and learned from
those histories know two things:
1. For the societies/empires, victory is the ONLY option. Barbarians which
are neither conquered and civilized nor destroyed will rise to try again.
2. Half measures don't work.
Barbarians only respect strength. Compassion is for them a dirty word.
Measured response is a position of weakness, as is negotiation. Reasoning
with them from our perspective is like reasoning with a wolf. It doesn't
work. Enforcing the law of the pack on the wolf does. Domesticating
subsequent generations works.
It's not pretty. It's not nice. It's not genteel. It's one of the only
things which has a historical track record of success.
No, I take it back, you aren't cowards, just fundamentally _lazy_. Too
lazy to think up a way to rebuild the region into a form acceptable to the
US but which preserves their traditions. Too _stupid_ to come up with
something like what MacArthur did, in allowing the Japanese to keep their
Emperor as a figurehead. And worse still, absolutely confident that their
cowardice, lazyness and stupidity are _justified_, and that people who
seek a better solution are misguided at best and unpatriotic at worst.
So where is YOUR solution? What do YOU propose? How will YOU solve this
problem without offending your sensibilities?
I, for one, will pay attention to your rants on this matter when you
contractually oblige your progeny to the occupation and rebuilding you
seem to espouse now. I strongly suspect you lack the stomach for anything
but half measures.
As I said above, I am probably misinterpreting some peoples' positions.
Certainly no _reasonable_ person would support that kind of morally
excreble filth. Noone would so cheerfully destroy the moral reputation of
the United States for some illusionary safety.
Wake up and smell the blood. Our oceans no longer serve as adequate
barriers to the barbarians. You have claimed that making our enemies weak
and fearful of us is distasteful to you. That leaves two choices, Empire
and destruction. If you find Empire equally repugnant, then you are
advocating our destruction at the hands of the barbarians.
I say again: I would support war with Iraq _if_ I felt that there was
the commitment to do it _right_, and not let it slide into another savage
Afghanistan.
Who cares what you "feel" when you ignore the lessons of
history?
And those _fools_ who think that regions which fall into barbarism
aren't a threat to us... Where the warlords and drug lords rule,
terrorists will find recruits, havens, money and weapons.
How many of the September 11th terrorists were from Afghanistan? How many
were from Columbia (the country, not the university)? How many were from
the areas controlled by the Palestinian Authority?
The majority were from Saudi Arabia.
Their funding came from Saudi Arabia and from Islamicists in developed or
developing countries.
Do you really believe there is a rich pool of recruits in Afghanistan who
could be successfully infiltrated into the United States to act as part of
a terrorist cell or active operations unit? Do you really think there is
enough disposable income in Afghanistan to fund a global terrorist
infrastructure?
Afghanistan made itself a target by being a safe harbor and base of
operations.
At best, a howling wilderness could provide a safe haven. But only to the
extent that we decline to treat such howling wilderness' as free fire
zones.
If the law can't go there, then US armed troops would have to go there.
And your point would be?
So instead of _occupying_ the territory and at least pretending to
protect it you would advocate the US _repeatedly_ invade it. So, the same
level of commitment, only it is less likely to work, will look worse to
the rest of the world, and will expose our troops to the same level of
risk. Gee, win-win all around.
Not my first choice, but one of two approaches which can reduce or
eliminate the threat.
Choose one:
Create a desert and call it peace.
Ave George, Imperator.
Class of 1987
Si vis pacem, paret bellum.
Your Host
"It's not the years,
it's the mileage."
Less Peaceful than it
appears
Ut wisi enim ad minim
veniam, quis nostrud exerci taion