Here I should pose the question: why should we not have a war on Islamic Fundamentalism, or rather its most extreme sects, and their cult of death that lives only in order to kill? Do you really think Osama bin Laden's objectives are merely local and merely political? That if we entirely left the Middle East, became an absolute non-presence there, he would stop flying planes into buildings?
I am not saying that we should leave the Middle East. Never have I advocated such a thing. The United States cannot turn isolationist because it would leave such a power vaccuum that only chaos would be left.
Instead of taking a unilateralist approach in an attempt to reform Islam through bombs, we might consider an approach in conjunction with a world community, in an attempt to build a New World Order that the first President Bush mused about when the Cold War was ended.
Why is it that we must meet violence with violence always? It does nothing but ensure that there will be future violence. At what point do people understand that?
The goal of Islamic fundamentalists of the bin Laden variety is not so quaint as to destroy our "way of life", as many politicians at both ends of the political spectrum have put it. It is, in fact, much simpler: the total annihilation of every man, woman and child who does not subscribe to their particular (and particularly insane) brand of Muslim theology.
There have been many wars that were wastes of American lives, because we could have exercised the options you list here. (Vietnam comes to mind - Ho Chi Minh was one of the most reasonable "enemies of the state" we've ever combatted. But then, the Kennedies fucked that up.) This is not one of them. This is a new enemy, one that cannot be sated by accords, and summits and "approaches in conjunction with a world community", whatever the fuck that means.
There is a word for these people, people who have an innate desire to kill and thus cannot be stopped by any kind of reasoning: sociopaths. What we do with our own domestic sociopaths is lock them away. If we could find
( ... )
You're assuming that we can get rid of them by doing the things that pissed them off in the first place.
How, exactly, is giving them more excuses to recruit disaffected youths fighting terrorism?
I'm also amused by your assumption that you know what bin Laden thinks. I don't think you have him right. I think you've bought too much into the propaganda spewed forth regarding the 'War on Terror.'
Libertarians are idiots. No offense, but your philosophy has so many gaping holes its amusing.
What could possibly prevent disaffected youths from joining the jihadists? Giving them money and food? They don't want our filthy goods - in fact, the intimation that they even need our help would be fundamentally insulting to them. Leaving the Middle East? Not good enough - they won't be happy until we leave this universeHow about changing genocidal dictatorships into self-regulated democracies? Oh wait, we're already doing that. Who is the radical here
( ... )
I'm a socialist? Since when? I'm no socialist, chief. Nor am I your garden variety liberal either. Liberalism has too many holes that need to be plugged - in particular is the discourse of power, nonexistant in liberalism. Until you create a space that allows you to see the abuse of power, you can't begin to see where the fix needs to come from
( ... )
I'm not necessarily supporting the war in Iraq. I was against it when it was being proposed, but only mildly. Saddam Hussein was a threat we would have to deal with eventually, either in the form of WMDs he was well on the way to acquiring, or in the form of his eventual death which would seriously destabilize the country and therefore the entire region. Perhaps the best way to deal with it was not to despose him suddenly and violently and forcibly institute a democracy, but when you add in the atrocious human rights offenses of his dictatorship, I can see the argument
( ... )
I think bin Laden especially is super sane. By that, I mean he understands so perfectly what must be done (from his POV) and the reaction it will provoke. The man may not be reasonable, but he is sure as hell rational
( ... )
Anyone who, by definition, seeks the eradication of an entire race of people - all people, in fact, that are not exactly the same as himself - is, by my definition, insane. The fact that he is totally rational about achieving these ends only makes bin Laden more terrifying.
I have to disagree about the whole WMD thing. No, Saddam didn't have any - yet. But there are increasing amounts of evidence that with one iota less pressure from the UN - something, by the way, the UN was about ready to do until the US stepped in unilaterally - Saddam could easily have completed a nuclear bomb, or even a nuclear missile. You should read The Bomb in My Garden by Saddam's chief nuclear physicist. The title is misleading; the thing in his garden was actually a fully prepared nuclear centrifuge, meant to refine uranium into weapons-grade material. It is by far the most intricate and complex part of creating a nuclear weapon, and it was all but finished. It was hidden in a barrel in the scientist's garden to wait for the whole weapons
( ... )
Reply
How do we intend to bring peace with bombs?
I am not saying that we should leave the Middle East. Never have I advocated such a thing. The United States cannot turn isolationist because it would leave such a power vaccuum that only chaos would be left.
Instead of taking a unilateralist approach in an attempt to reform Islam through bombs, we might consider an approach in conjunction with a world community, in an attempt to build a New World Order that the first President Bush mused about when the Cold War was ended.
Why is it that we must meet violence with violence always? It does nothing but ensure that there will be future violence. At what point do people understand that?
Reply
There have been many wars that were wastes of American lives, because we could have exercised the options you list here. (Vietnam comes to mind - Ho Chi Minh was one of the most reasonable "enemies of the state" we've ever combatted. But then, the Kennedies fucked that up.) This is not one of them. This is a new enemy, one that cannot be sated by accords, and summits and "approaches in conjunction with a world community", whatever the fuck that means.
There is a word for these people, people who have an innate desire to kill and thus cannot be stopped by any kind of reasoning: sociopaths. What we do with our own domestic sociopaths is lock them away. If we could find ( ... )
Reply
How, exactly, is giving them more excuses to recruit disaffected youths fighting terrorism?
I'm also amused by your assumption that you know what bin Laden thinks. I don't think you have him right. I think you've bought too much into the propaganda spewed forth regarding the 'War on Terror.'
Libertarians are idiots. No offense, but your philosophy has so many gaping holes its amusing.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
I have to disagree about the whole WMD thing. No, Saddam didn't have any - yet. But there are increasing amounts of evidence that with one iota less pressure from the UN - something, by the way, the UN was about ready to do until the US stepped in unilaterally - Saddam could easily have completed a nuclear bomb, or even a nuclear missile. You should read The Bomb in My Garden by Saddam's chief nuclear physicist. The title is misleading; the thing in his garden was actually a fully prepared nuclear centrifuge, meant to refine uranium into weapons-grade material. It is by far the most intricate and complex part of creating a nuclear weapon, and it was all but finished. It was hidden in a barrel in the scientist's garden to wait for the whole weapons ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment