|
Thyestean feast in Iraq? | by DesertRat66 | 2007-07-10 07:23:48 |
| Of course the answer is to just kill 'em all... |
by kelli217 |
2007-07-10 08:27:20 |
...right?
After all, the only proper response to the wrong of such savagery is to add more savagery to it, since two wrongs make a right.
That's what Martin Luther King did, that's what Gandhi did.
Oh wait.
It seems that what the aforementioned luminaries did was to SHOW THE WORLD the savagery that was being perpetrated against them, and eventually embarrass enough of the general public among their opponents about what was being done ostensibly in their name that they rose up and did something about it -- and ceased being opponents.
But the HARDEST thing to do is to NOT FIGHT BACK, and be peaceful, and passive.
Ah, but of course the danger is of being overrun by the barbarian hordes waiting just outside the gate, since apparently despite their borderline jingoist level of nationalism, many on the right nonetheless apparently believe the same thing as is often being discussed on the left: that the West in general, and the US in particular, are in the declining days of empire that tend to come after the glory days of republic.
So maybe there's a sympathetic ear to the right. Maybe they don't see imperialism as the BEST long-term course, but as the only feasible one given the modern-day Gauls, Huns, and Visigoths they perceive as lurking in every shadow. And given the tendency of the right to favor short-term solutions that have visceral appeal over long-term solutions that require thought and suppression of the reptilian instincts, empire seems the best solution to the immediate problem of safety of self and family.
I mean, I see it. It's the easy path. It's the immediate-response path. In some ways, it may even be a path that's the best for short-term safety. You meet a threat with immediate and overwhelming force, and they either cease to be a threat or cease to be, period. Right? Meeting them with open arms and being mowed down for your troubles just doesn't seem very appropriate as a way to safeguard your future. But yet it may be the best way, or even the only way, to secure your descendants' future.
And I'm not talking about dhimmitude, either. Not to roll over and cooperate, but to resist -- just non-violently. Passively.
A lot of what we (the West, and specifically the US) are doing right now in the Middle East is just proving that we're better at violence than they are. We have bigger and better weapons that allow us to kill more of them than they can kill of us. We can kill at a greater distance, and in larger numbers. We can go about it in a much more ruthless and calculating way. We can reduce it to an impersonal conflict, instead of the emotion and anger they feel. We can, in effect, be the cold, premeditated Murder One to their crime-of-passion Murder Two. The psycho killer who kills mechanically because he can, versus the enraged killer who kills personally because he must. And their torture of their enemies is sporadic, brief, and graphic, where we are systematic, protracted, and covert.
"It is a good thing that war is so terrible, else we should grow fond of it." And I wonder for whom the war is more terrible. Those who can kill with a cruise missile directed by a UAV, or those whose most remote form of killing is an IED which may actually detonate while being built or planted. A tank gunner or a suicide bomber.
I have other thoughts: The propaganda used to prop up this war of choice has so well established that we're fighting uncivilized irrational barbarian savages that whenever they do something that proves the propaganda, it's anticlimactic. Our considerably more pronounced outrage at our own excesses is because we're supposed to be better than that. And to some extent, our outrage is because history has shown that those excessive techniques, while perhaps faster at extracting information, are far less effective at extracting *useful and accurate* information than the basic "good cop" routine, and so we're squandering our reputation and our morality for no good reason.
I'll just stop now. It's probably all on deaf ears anyway. |
|
[ Reply ] |
|
I couldn't read it all. | by RetiQlum2 | 2007-07-10 08:42:53 |
|
PFB | by altordwm | 2007-07-10 08:48:15 |
|
What a load of ..... | by DesertRat66 | 2007-07-10 08:54:29 |
|
So they're the worst people ever to exist? | by kelli217 | 2007-07-10 08:58:10 |
|
Now you'll have to back that up | by DesertRat66 | 2007-07-10 09:07:29 |
|
You mean to tell me... | by kelli217 | 2007-07-10 09:14:54 |
|
And? | by DesertRat66 | 2007-07-10 09:24:48 |
|
I'll let that response speak for itself. (n/t) | by kelli217 | 2007-07-10 09:56:03 |
|
Were in the heck | by lheggland | 2007-07-10 09:09:32 |
|
Not talking about leadership, talking about rabble | by kelli217 | 2007-07-10 09:49:45 |
|
I just don't see isolationism as the solution. (n/t) | by Classic_jon | 2007-07-10 09:55:29 |
|
Where do you see isolationism? | by kelli217 | 2007-07-10 10:04:58 |
|
What you proposed sounded very much like the | by Classic_jon | 2007-07-10 10:15:06 |
|
I refer you to the mention of NATO above. | by kelli217 | 2007-07-10 10:18:53 |
|
Right, but NATO is not considered a "governing | by Classic_jon | 2007-07-10 10:24:21 |
|
Like in Bosnia? (n/t) | by CynicalRyan | 2007-07-10 10:32:51 |
|
You make my point for me there. | by Classic_jon | 2007-07-10 10:49:10 |
|
Ups, wrong war in the Balkans. | by CynicalRyan | 2007-07-10 10:57:00 |
|
And there is still debate about it, although | by Classic_jon | 2007-07-10 12:03:06 |
|
NATO is not a world policeman like the UN. | by kelli217 | 2007-07-10 10:50:19 |
|
May I direct your attention | by CynicalRyan | 2007-07-10 11:00:50 |
|
Cold war is over time to stand down... | by DesertRat66 | 2007-07-10 10:25:03 |
|
And pulling out of the NATO countries | by CynicalRyan | 2007-07-10 10:38:48 |
|
Maybe even quite unpopular | by DesertRat66 | 2007-07-10 10:43:24 |
|
Depends. | by CynicalRyan | 2007-07-10 10:45:29 |
|
Nope, sorry, nice try. | by kelli217 | 2007-07-10 10:46:27 |
|
Those bases have advantages to all members | by DesertRat66 | 2007-07-10 11:10:06 |
|
What works is to appeal instead to the population | by DesertRat66 | 2007-07-10 09:59:49 |
|
In A), you paint with too wide a brush. | by kelli217 | 2007-07-10 10:11:15 |
|
Really? | by DesertRat66 | 2007-07-10 10:23:12 |
|
There was, and is, an anti-Taliban underground. | by kelli217 | 2007-07-10 10:47:23 |
|
Where was I in the 90s?! | by DesertRat66 | 2007-07-10 11:02:07 |
|
Pre-WWII style isolationism. | by lheggland | 2007-07-10 10:22:16 |
|
There is one MAJOR flaw in your fourth paragraph: | by SouthpawPL | 2007-07-10 11:17:49 |
|
sometimes you just need to speak the language | by robertltux | 2007-07-10 10:01:54 |
|
Hard core criminals make lousy troops. | by Illiad | 2007-07-10 10:25:20 |
|
But they do make good mine sweepers. ;-) (n/t) | by lheggland | 2007-07-10 10:34:14 |
|
Tell that to General Wellington | by tkirk | 2007-07-10 12:43:57 |
|
Huge difference. | by Illiad | 2007-07-10 17:36:27 |
|
Gandhi | by chrisP | 2007-07-10 09:18:39 |
|
The West does "bring democracy" | by Illiad | 2007-07-10 09:26:33 |
|
Who was it that defined 'democracy' and 'liberty' | by theanomaly | 2007-07-10 09:29:19 |
|
To para-quote a very eloquent man, | by krikkert | 2007-07-10 09:37:14 |
|
Well said. | by lheggland | 2007-07-10 09:32:54 |
|
See? | by chrisP | 2007-07-10 09:39:48 |
|
Advocating rebellion, eh? | by werehatrack | 2007-07-10 10:59:10 |
|
You have a very interesting view of | by lheggland | 2007-07-10 11:04:39 |
|
*coughcough* | by chrisP | 2007-07-10 11:07:22 |
|
It is all on deaf ears after all. | by kelli217 | 2007-07-10 13:03:12 |
