Nothing's fair about war.

[agentrosecotton]

"For every one that I kill, I create almost ten more."
--Army Lt. Gen. Peter Chiarelli, commander of multinational forces in Iraq, on Iraqi insurgentsThere

Comments

[agentrosecotton]

That's exactly my point--whether fighting with Iran or Iraq is not the issue I'm addressing. I refuse to believe that all of the terrorists we've encountered have been evil, Christian-hating, violence-obsessed freaks with enough nukes at the touch of a button to blow up the US. (The US has enough nukes at the touch of a button to blow up most of the rest of the world, but that's not the point--they're only wrong if they're in someone else's hands, right?) Certainly there are evil people at work in Iran, but the majority of the group is fueled by anger, hatred and dissatisfaction over--including but not neccessarily limited to--the American disrespect of innocent life. Why do you think they have so much power and support? How do terrorist groups even get started in the first place? Are they born evil?

I agree that it has been a problem for a long time that needed to be dealt with, and for the sake of this argument I'm not even saying that it could have been done peacefully (although I believe that). I'm just saying that there were bloody well other ways to handle this, and that the current policy is screwed the fuck up. That's all.

[ramblin_rosie]

the American disrespect of innocent life
Oh, I like that. People who turn their own children into bombs and desecrate the dead, including dead children, for propaganda points are mad because of our disrespect for innocent life? (I'm not disagreeing with the idea of the culture of death in America, btw. I am saying that the term applies equally well to Islamofascism.) And if it's all our fault, what accounts for the Muslim terror groups of the past, like the Assassins in the Middle Ages? There was no America then!
I believe terrorist leaders like OBL are born evil. They are able to exploit the features of Islam that lend themselves readily to the "kill the infidels" mentality to gain followers. Those followers then bring up their children to hate infidels, and on the cycle goes. (Little Green Footballs has a slide show called "Palestinian Child Abuse" that is relevant here.) Certainly there are converts who are already inclined to evil; the largest recruiting efforts in America are made by Muslim prison chaplains. But there's a reason Golda Meir said, "There will be no peace until they love their children more than they hate us."

[agentrosecotton]

Yes, I read that article by Golda Meir.

But, again, you're missing my point. You're lumping all Arabic people into one big category. I'm talking about the young Islamic men who look around and see death and destruction and seeming disregard for life--not only by Americans, but largely--and in their despair and anger against horrible injustice (caused more often by American indifference than by active warfare) are won over to the terrorist cause by people who (yes) are truly evil. It's the same pattern used by any cult or extremist faction when they want cannon fodder. The majority of suicide bombers do it because they sincerely think they are doing good. America is not helping, is what I mean. We are not fighting terrorism; we are helping it recreate itself, and the fight will never end. To quote Jim Wallis, "You cannot fight terrorism without also fighting poverty and injustice."

When the terrorists say "Americans hate you," and then next week America bombs your city, they are proven right. The only way to fight fire is not with fire, but with water.

See, I'm not denying that there are horrible, evil, disgusting, violent people at work. I'm just saying that not all of the people that Dubya labels as 'the enemy' are neccessarily going to be defeated through sheer brute force.

[ramblin_rosie]

Yes, but the same applied in Nazi Germany. I know this from discussions I had with a prof who was in her pre-teens and early teens during WWII. It was hard for them not to buy Goebbels' propaganda when the Allies were bombing Berlin. Could we have won the war any other way?
As to sheer brute force, I don't know of any cities in Iraq that looked like Dresden ca. 1945 when we laid off the shock and awe....

[agentrosecotton]

And Hitler came to power for some of the same reasons; poverty, injustice, neglect. My original point; I'm not talking specifically about Iraq, or Iran, or Israel, or Hezbollah, or Huissen. I'm talking about "the war on terrorism", which can't be fought with guns and bombs.

(Beware, angry sad bleeding-heart sarcasm ahead--

Not to mention that in WWII we didn't move in, take over a country, and increase the death rate by 10,000 percent. Oh, and, isn't it great how America only notices problems that have been destroying millions ::after:: they are attacked on their own soil? Maybe if those raping and killing women and children by the hundreds of thousands in Darfur attacked Camp David, or maybe if they just had a history with the Bush family--or (wait for it) oil, the US would spread democracy there, too! Gee, why hasn't someone thought of that?)

[ramblin_rosie]

*points back to comments about Islamist terror in the Middle Ages* I think it's several centuries too late to believe that aid and diplomacy alone can solve the problem.

Where do you get that figure? And I'm rather dubious as to the accuracy of that site, given the credentials of its owners.

Darfur is not only beside the point, it's something that I agree should have been taken care of a long time ago (why Bosnia and not Sudan, I don't know). It's only one example. And I too am appalled at the number of people who don't care what goes on outside our borders. But we can't fix everything at once, and considering that we have both Iran and North Korea, with the probable backing of both China and Russia, making threats against us, we need to look to our own defenses before getting involved in other conflicts.
It's Arda Marred. What more can I say?

[agentrosecotton]

*points back to comments about Islamist terror in the Middle Ages* I think it's several centuries too late to believe that aid and diplomacy alone can solve the problem.

And because our (or at least my) several-times-removed ancestors stormed Jerusalem at least twice and indiscriminately killed every Muslim man, woman, and child within the gates, and justified this all by the Bible, that means that I'm more prone to mass slaughter simply by being Christian, right? There is centuries--millenia rather--of bad blood between the Middle East and Europe, and between Christianity and Islam, and believe it or not, not all of that is Islam's fault. I find it extremely hard to believe that because Islam has some bad history, that makes the entire religion prone to thoughtless, violent terrorism. I had a gentleman attempt to convince me once that Christianity was a religion of violence, hatred, and discrimination, and he had an alarming number of extremely solid facts to back up his position.

If I may, I'll also make the point that the Hashashiyyin were widely considered to be heretics to Islam and had little to no popular support, and also that most of their terror was politically motivated and directed against the Abbasid, the ruling power at the time, which had been--note--deliberately persecuting them. Not to mention that their heretical status often drove them so far from their own faith that they allied themselves with Christians against the rest of the Muslims. I really don't see the connection between them and this.

I didn't mean to suggest that it's all America's fault, by the way. It isn't, not at all. I merely intended to intimate that we are not helping. No, our wrong deeds don't justify their actions, not by anyone's reckoning. But, then, by that same statement, their wrong deeds don't justify our actions.

Where do you get that figure? And I'm rather dubious as to the accuracy of that site, given the credentials of its owners.

Saddam Huissen was killing about a hundred of his people a year. We're killing ten thousand in the same time frame. As for the site, it's got a much lower estimate than some of its more popular counterparts; I opted for accuracy rather than hyperbole. Why don't you go to the US military website and--

--wait. The US is refusing to count civillian deaths.

But we can't fix everything at once ... It's Arda Marred. What more can I say?

That doesn't excuse us of blame, or give us the right to ignore what's happening. And it doesn't explain why the places we're "fixing" are not the ones with the most horrible human-rights atrocities, but rather the ones with the most oil, geopolitical significance, and personal insults on the roster against our dearest Commander-in-Chief. Two and two make four, nadi, and I still can't believe they're actually claiming this is about spreading democracy.

[ramblin_rosie]

While I'm drawing WWII parallels, I'm reminded of one of the few war stories my grandfather told before he died. It's well documented that the majority of the people in West Germany were relieved to be conquered by the Western Allies because the Soviets were more brutal than the Nazis had been. However, there were some young men--a lot of them in the SS--who had been so thoroughly brainwashed that they kept fighting even when it would have made more sense to surrender. Grampa's unit came across one such young man and captured him, but he was so violent that they finally had to drown him.
Aid is good, yes. And from what I've heard from people in theater (especially through milblogs), the majority of Iraqis genuinely understand and appreciate what we've done and what we're doing. But no matter how we try to show our goodwill, no matter how much restraint we use, no matter how we try to reason with them, the cult members will *still* hate us because... well, is party line, comrade.

[agentrosecotton]

And from what I've heard from people in theater (especially through milblogs), the majority of Iraqis genuinely understand and appreciate what we've done and what we're doing.

Really? You're reading different milblogs than I am, then. Maybe from a parallel universe....

But no matter how we try to show our goodwill, no matter how much restraint we use, no matter how we try to reason with them, the cult members will *still* hate us because... well, is party line, comrade.

You know, I wonder sometimes how many people on the other side are told that....

People get brainwashed, by other people, who are evil. And it happens on both sides. I've met some Americans who'd fit that description, who are so blindly devoted to something that they'd kill, or be killed, for it in a second.

I just...am too much of a fucking bleeding heart to believe that they can't be saved, or that military occupations promote peace and democracy, or that none of this couldn't have been done peacefully. And those people who will "always hate us"--please, tell me, why? Because we're Americans? Because we're a Christian nation? Because we're infidels? No one is that simplistic, not even the people on the other side.

Original point, that I keep saying over and over--a war on terrorism can't be fought with violence. A war on specific terrorists can, although it's messy and not worth the damage it causes, and a war on a country can, although it'd be nice to have the support of the UN first, but a war on terrorism needs to be fought by searching out the disease, not the symptoms. If we are fighting Iraq, or fighting terrorists, we should say so.

[ramblin_rosie]

Start here. (There's been some debate there over whether you can wage a war against a tactic, btw. I'm not sure there's been a conclusion, but it goes in part to your point about the semantics of it all.)

And those people who will "always hate us"--please, tell me, why? Because we're Americans? Because we're a Christian nation? Because we're infidels? No one is that simplistic, not even the people on the other side.
That's exactly why. And people are indeed that simplistic--just wait until I start venting about my students' essays. You and I know how to think, but far too many people don't, and it's not always a product of brainwashing. We just happen to be above average, and we actually care.

I can't remember who it was, but someone wise once said that if you're not a liberal by 20, you have no heart, and if you're not a conservative by 30, you have no brains. :)

[ramblin_rosie]

I've just remembered an example of the very simplistic thinking you mentioned, although in a different context.
Fall 2000, I'm walking back to my dorm when I come across a former classmate, who happened to be black, and a friend of hers waiting for some of their friends to show up so that they could go do whatever they were planning to do. I'm wearing a Bush 2000 shirt, but my acquaintance misreads it and asks what I had rushed (i.e., what sorority I had joined). I explain, and her friend promptly asks me why I want to vote for Bush. I start down my laundry list. She quibbles a bit, then states that she's voting for Gore because she likes Clinton. I press her for reasons, and while I'm surprised at the lack of depth to her reasons, at least she has some.
Then friends start showing up. To a woman, they say, "I don't really know where they stand on the issues. I just know I'm voting for Gore."
These are college sophomores, mind.
The conversation continues for a while, and finally the following exchange occurs:
Girl 1: The fact is, whites vote for Bush, blacks vote for Gore.
Girl 2: Except Colin Powell.
Girl 1: He doesn't count.
And it goes downhill from there.

I don't remember how I made my escape. I am very glad the one girl knew me and managed to give the others subtle hints that I was not their stereotypical eeeeeeevil racistsexistbigothomophobe Republican. But I was stunned that these otherwise intelligent-sounding people would buy the argument that "Whites vote for Bush; blacks vote for Gore; I am black; therefore, I vote for Gore."
But then, people believe Louis Farrakhan was actually taken by a UFO to a mothership on which he met Elijah Mohammed, so....

[agentrosecotton]

There's been some debate there over whether you can wage a war against a tactic, btw. I'm not sure there's been a conclusion, but it goes in part to your point about the semantics of it all.

Whether you can or not, our war isn't working, considering the upsurge in terrorist attacks since we declared it.

That's exactly why.

So, do most Americans hate Iraqis because they're Islamic? I haven't noticed that, and I might be thought to have a bias in that direction. :)

And people are indeed that simplistic--just wait until I start venting about my students' essays. You and I know how to think, but far too many people don't, and it's not always a product of brainwashing. We just happen to be above average, and we actually care.

No, I'm sorry, I refuse to believe that. Maybe you hang out with a different crowd of people than I do, but the vast majority of the people I know, while they may seem simple and driven by one badly-thought-out motive on the surface, are in fact much more complicated, although they may not be able to put it into words and may not even realize it themselves. And any--any--human conflict that seems black and white when viewed from one angle goes impossibly multifaceted if you dig a little deeper. So...no, I don't agree. Sorry. :)

I can't remember who it was, but someone wise once said that if you're not a liberal by 20, you have no heart, and if you're not a conservative by 30, you have no brains. :)

It was Winston Churchill, and it was actually 'liberal--20, conservative--40'. Two things I'd like to say about that:
a) I have never, ever understood the psychology of people who say that to me and expect me to take it as a compliment. Do you have any idea whatsoever how patronizing it sounds? "Oh, sure, you have all these grand ideas now, but eventually you'll come around. You'll grow out of it." And whether or not it's true (we'll see how the next twenty years go), being told it again and again is very irritating and not particularly likely to speed the process along. Just so you know.
b) Interesting point: My dad, one of the wisest people I know, was a crazy hippie liberal at 20 (he marched in Vietnam War protests and was very heavily involved in the Civil Rights movement, even going to a MLK speech, despite being very Caucasian and raised to be a Catholic priest) and a straightlaced conservative at 40 (both socially and politically, the sort you would have probably very much approved of), with valid reasons and life experience to back up both. Now he's 60, and he's...a liberal, only slightly milder than I am. Not to draw any conclusions or anything, but it's something to think about.

[ramblin_rosie]

Oh, and they didn't need nukes on 9/11.

[agentrosecotton]

Okay, now you're just slinging around buzzwords that have nothing to do with the topic at hand.

[ramblin_rosie]

*You* mentioned nukes. *I* was pointing out that they don't have anything to do with the topic of terrorism.

[agentrosecotton]

Sorry, you're right. ::tries to lay off the mudslinging::

You know, we really need to avoid talking politics.... =)