April 29, 2006

Show Me How

It's everywhere you turn this evening on the mainstream new sites. Fox. CBS. CNN:

Tens of thousands of anti-war protesters marched Saturday through Manhattan to demand an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq just hours after an American soldier died in a roadside explosion in Baghdad -- the 70th U.S. fighter killed in that country this month.

"End this war, bring the troops home," read one of the many signs lifted by marchers on a sunny afternoon three years after the war in Iraq began. The mother of a Marine killed two years ago in Iraq held a picture of her son, born in 1984 and killed 20 years later.

Cindy Sheehan, a vociferous critic of the war whose 24-year-old soldier son also died in Iraq, joined in the march, as did actress Susan Sarandon and the Rev. Jesse Jackson. One group marched under the banner "Veterans for Peace," while other marchers came from as far off as Maryland and Vermont.

You know what? I want this war over, too.

I want all the fighting to stop, for our troops to come home. I want to never again fear the sound of jet engines carried upon the wind under bright blue skies. I want to never again turn on the news to see that a suicide bomber in an Tel Aviv or Bali or London or Poughkeepsie made widows and widowers and orphans for his bloodthirsty god. I want to be able to do without these concerns.

Show me how.

Show me how to stop bin Laden's planes and Zarqawi's swords with Peace and Love and warm squishy visions of Equality and Justice. Show me how a hug can stop an IED. Explain how constantly apologizing for simply being who I am will stop their lust for killing me for simply wanting to exist.

Please do that. Find a solution. Go beyond your recycled rhetoric and show me how to co-exist with those who will murder the whole world for their thuggish god.

But that would be too hard, and it isn't really your goal, is it? You exist to complain, not resolve. Resolving is so... messy.

You can't bring your cute three year-old daughter to solve the real problems of the world. You can't even acknowledge the world is not a Benneton ad. There are people who want to murder that cute little girl simply because she is an American. Simply because she is a Christian, or a Jew, or a Wiccan. Simply because she wants to go to school, or chose her own fate, or grow up to think for herself, and not bend to their god's rigid dictums of what he says she must do and be and say.

So please, show me how wandering down well-guarded streets on a nice spring day wearing cake make-up, chanting and waving a fan, will keep planes from shattering glass and steel and bodies. Show me how your leisurely stroll stops Next Time from happening. Do that, and I'll be found waving the largest "Bush=Hitler" sign at the very next rally.

But that isn't how the world works is it?

Predator and prey relationships, the most basic of interactions in nature, are something that the followers of the Church of Darwin refuse to acknowledge could apply to themselves.

Show me how to reason with a zealot. In the split-second as his thumb drops on the plunger to detonate the bomb on his belt packed with hundreds of ball bearings, negotiate with him, infidel.

I'm waiting.

Show me how to stop Darwin. Show me how to stop their bloodlust.

Show me that your "peace and justice" aren't empty words muttered by empty heads. Show me how capitulation to their plans for world domination will stop the killing instead of intensify it.


I'm waiting.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at April 29, 2006 10:24 PM | TrackBack

Quite possibly your best post yet...

Posted by: WB at April 29, 2006 11:35 PM

I agree. Excellent post.

Posted by: Atticus_NC at April 30, 2006 04:11 AM

Please close the italics.

And I'm really ticked off that people in NYC do not get that "Peace, Love, and Understanding" only works with some people, and it generally doesn't work with people trying to kill you. The other option they seem to be going for is appeasement, which has =always= worked out so well in history. You don't even have to go that far back in history to check out the track record of appeasement.

I thought these were supposed to be the "educated" people, better than we hoi polloi who want to kill others before they kill us.

Posted by: meep at April 30, 2006 05:50 AM

Excellent post. I could not agree more.

Posted by: Pete at April 30, 2006 07:09 AM

CY, you're asking too much of the mindless followers.

That said, this is one great post! Thanks for articulating so well the thoughts and feelings of so many of us. Keep up the great work!

Posted by: Old Soldier at April 30, 2006 08:06 AM

Bravo, Bob, Bravo!!!!!

But you wil NEVER, EVER, recieve and actual answer from the Defeatocrats. And they will never like any answer from the GOP.

Posted by: William Teach at April 30, 2006 09:16 AM

Good article, but I'm not sure I get the Church of Darwin thing. I accept evolution on the (overwhelming) evidence, I don't believe it on faith. Meanwhile, there are lots of left-wing New Age moonbats who don't accept evolution. And there are Evangelical Christians who do.

So saying that the whole "antiwar" movement is made up of "Darwin followers" who are denying that evolutionary principles can still apply to relations between different groups of human beings doesn't make much sense.

I don't "follow" Darwin, any more than I "follow" the originator of any proven scientific theory. In the end, WHO originated a scientific hypothesis is meaningless ... all that matters is, is the hypothesis supported by the evidence? The evolutionary hypothesis IS overwhelmingly supported by hard scientific evidence ... therefore, it is now a scientific THEORY, like the THEORY of Relativity, or the THEORY of gravity. (Theory, in scientific parlance, is not a "guess.")

Now, I will admit that quite a few folks in the "antiwar" camp appear to be secularists, atheists, Darwinists, what have you. I can't really explain this because I haven't done any research on it. It doesn't make much sense to me, since while quite a few Christians are hostile to atheists and "evolutionists," the overwhelming majority of Christians accept that atheists and evolutionists are equal under the law, have the same rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" as all Americans, and are free to believe or not believe as they wish. Whereas the Muslim aggressors who seek to bring the entire world under the control of a global Caliphate will kill atheists and evolutionists given half a chance, and will certainly not consider them "equal under Shari'a law."

On the other hand, some of the loudest and bravest voices speaking out on the "Cartoon Jihad" have been the Objectivists, students of Ayn Rand, who was an atheist and an evolutionist.

Bottom line ... it just doesn't make much sense to characterize the Moonbat Masses as "followers of Darwin" or assume that characterizing them as such makes much sense even to THEM. I doubt many of them really think that much about atheism, or evolution, or its implications for their antiwar philosophy.

Posted by: Gregg at April 30, 2006 09:28 AM

I grew up on the streets of Bensonhurst and was inculcated with the belief that street smarts were the best smarts and that they made New Yorkers the most reality aware people in the world. I haven't lived in New York for fifty years but held strong to this belief until New York City went for Hilary. What's happened to the acceptance of "no crap" from the City? Why those people who wouldn't stand for the BS now thrown at them have left in droves, just because they wouldn't stand for it. And so the likes of the media whores, Jackson, Sharpton, and the despicable Sindy (dancer on her sons grave for the MSM)get away with prancing and preening before the cameras, whereas many years ago they woud have been laughed off the streets.

Posted by: stats at April 30, 2006 09:44 AM

Greg, with all due respect, you have missed the entire point of Bob's post, while focussing strictly on minutia. Plus, you didn't show that you understood the actual reference.

Posted by: William Teach at April 30, 2006 09:45 AM

Found this post via a link from Michelle Malkin...really very thought-provoking and actually puts into words what my mind screams every time I see this people. Until now, though, I had only been able to sense a howling inside my mind, or a loud buzzing noise, no words & certainly no words as perfect as these. :) Thanks for putting this into words so I can watch the news without all the buzzing. :)

Posted by: Melinda at April 30, 2006 10:25 AM

I also found this post via Michelle Malkin. Very very moving, like a poem. The protesters are a useless worthless pack of fools being led by a den of snakes.

Posted by: Len at April 30, 2006 11:21 AM

I think that sign says it all. They are so deranged that they side with OBL. In New York, no less! Protesting is just the fashion trend du jour. They don't care about the troops at all. Please - look at the punks who vandalize the recruitment offices around the country and the UC Santa Cruz punks that violently threatened the recruiters off of their campus. I have no doubt that they clap and cheer every time a soldier gets killed. This is strictly about their trying to feel relevant or important in their otherwise meaningless and contribution-less lives. What does marching around holding a sign do? Who does that help? Do these people ever volunteer where it really counts? Think of what they could do if they each gave just $10 to a homeless shelter or soup kitchen or if they all got together and volunteered their time... clearly it's not about helping people - it's about getting their picture seen somewhere so they can clip it out, put it into their scrapbooks and say, "Look kids! See? Wasn't I cool? I marched against the Iraq war!"
Whenever some old 60's ex-hippie ever bragged to me about their "protests" of Viet Nam, I practically threw up in their face.

Posted by: RR at April 30, 2006 11:54 AM

Couldn't have made the point/asked the question in a better way.

The fatuousness of all this protesting makes sense only when you realize it's not about the war and it's not about the Iraqis, it's about the protesters feeling good about themselves.

Dissent for it's own sake is a way of making it look like you're a caring, selfless individual without doing a damn thing. Being against something means nothing unless you're for something else, meaning a viable alternative.

The sad fact is these people aren't interested in answering your questions, and have no intention of making a serious attempt. They're far too caught up in their own moral preening to get their hands dirty, or even support those who really are.

Posted by: MSD at April 30, 2006 02:29 PM

So... to this blog, the cries of the protestors are hollow, and to them, the cries of certain right-wingers are hollow (that includes this post). Some dilemma... considering how many books have been published in their favor, as opposed to those that favor this blog's point of view.

It is quite amazing to see how reactionary the right is about one day of protesting out of a year. FYI, most of the liberals mentioned, do donate and volunteer.

Posted by: D at April 30, 2006 02:45 PM

Mother Betty Mazur must be so proud of her daughter carrying a Bin Laden image to catch the eye of roaming photographers. This Fonda-esque vision, carried sweet Betty back to her younger days when sideburns were long, long dirty hair was the rage and Dan Rather did his prevarication from Viet Nam. During the days of flower power Betty turned many a head with her snappy beret and clenched fist above her head. Aaaah, such sweet memories of tear gas in the air.......

I wonder how both mother and daughter will react to wearing a burqua once their dream of idyllic Dhimmitude is realized. The very thought of a Taliban Panther aiming an AK-47 at the head of an outspoken woman must make this mother daughter duo smile!

Posted by: Duxx at April 30, 2006 02:58 PM

The left wing idiots try to destroy every institution and idea that this country was founded and flourished on for over 200 years. They give no thought to the future, and what they are letting their own children/grandchildren in for. They are as filled with hate as any of the so called members of the religion of peace (actually a group of murderer's worse than Hitler). Eventually their hate will destroy them and their families if it hasn't already. I don't see a happy person on the left. What a shame they have reduced themselves to the level of slime.

Posted by: Scrapiron at April 30, 2006 03:50 PM

Your rhetoric is unimpressive. The entire post presupposes the burden of proof is on the pacifists and that war will actually accomplish the goals you deride pacifism as being unable to achieve.

In the history of man, war begets war. Maybe a hug will not stop a suicide bomber, but a warhead may create ten more.

The history of Christian pacifism shows actual results, in contrast to the history of just war. The Roman Empire became Christian not through a battle, but by the blood of the martyrs. During the Protestant Reformation, Catholics killed Protestants and Protestants killed Catholics as countries and regions warred against one another. But one thing they held in common, they both killed the anabaptists... who were pacifists and did not kill any one. Today, evangelical churches most closely resemble the anabaptists. There was something compelling about their nonviolent faith. Today, they would be derided for not fighting back, as would the martyrs of the early church.

So you want to be shown how pacifism can stop the horrors of terrorism and strife in the middle east? Why don't you show how the war in Iraq has accomplished any of those things? Why don't you show how the U.S. military involvement has changed the bloody landscape of our day?

While I cannot prove that pacifism can always achieve the toppling of an empire, neither can you prove that it will not do so again. What can be proved? It can be effectively shown that war begets war and new soldiers are created from the battles waged, whether the cause be noble or not.

Posted by: Alan Hartung at April 30, 2006 04:17 PM

Alan, I believe there is a Protest Warrior shirt that addresses your particular question.

It begins "War never solved anything. . . ."

Posted by: Kustie the Klown at April 30, 2006 04:51 PM

Wow. Alan's drunk a LOT of Kook-Aid.

Alan, First, you must PROVE that we are creating many more terrorists than we are killing. You provide no proof, and without it most of your argument falls apart.

In any case, pacifism only works when the enemy one is, well, not fighting actually cares if you live. The opponent must have at least some standards of decency or morals. Failing that, the pacifists end up in a mass grave. Do you somehow imagine that pacifism would have stopped Nazi Germany? The Soviets? The Mongols?

When your opponent wants you DEAD, pacifism just makes the job easy. If you want to sacrifice your life that way, knock yourself out. Me, I'd rather fight back against these barbarians.

Posted by: Evil Otto at April 30, 2006 04:52 PM

Dammit, italics off!

Posted by: Evil Otto at April 30, 2006 04:53 PM

Never mind.

Oh, and I meant to write "Kool-Aid" above. I guess "Kook-Aid" works too.

Posted by: Evil Otto at April 30, 2006 05:03 PM

Damn! Great post. You nailed it.

Posted by: navypilot at April 30, 2006 05:50 PM

Amen Brother. Amen.

Posted by: Ralph L.Bougher at April 30, 2006 07:57 PM

Great post and there is now way any pacifist or democrat can show us how to accomplish this feat. It is a double edge sword isn't it. If we all of the sudden cave into the cindy shebitch theory and proclaim "enough" we bring all of our troops home.
2 years tops we get a nuke or bio weapon in the states. The first thing that will come out of their pie hole is "Why didn't we do something before this happened?"
Cant live with em, cant heard em like cattle into Mexico.

Posted by: Robert at April 30, 2006 09:50 PM


Posted by: johnny_yuma at April 30, 2006 10:03 PM

The insurgency in Iraq is a case in point. Do you think that all of these persons would be involved in the civilian bombing attacks were it not for the war? I thought removing Saddam was supposed to free all of the oppressed Iraqi people?

Pacifism must concede the possibility of becoming a martyr, or it fails. I have no doubt most of the antiwar protesters would not live up to such a costly standard. History does not show that those who are willing to lay down their lives for the sake of peace are simply letting the oppressors win.

Did the Romans continue killing the pacifists of the early Christian era for all time? No. The sacrificial lives of the martyrs led to the Roman Empire actually becoming Christian. It was not until the Christians advocated just war that the empire then fell apart.

The pacifists of the 1500s not only survived the wars of the Reformation, but the fastest growing wing of the Church today (evangelicals) advocate the practices and more closely resemble the theology of the Anabaptists (those killed by both Protestant and Catholic but who did not fight back) than the other Reformers.

Be clear that you are advocating more killing in response to killing, and you believe the new killing will somehow stop future killing. You can couch it in whatever terms make you feel better about your position, but in ten or twenty years if your killing produces nothing but more killing will you feel even a tinge of remorse? Probably not, because you will not even consider the possibility that nonviolence can somehow triumph over the violent. You will simply believe your way was the only way, probably as you are supporting another war in another time, another war in which you will hope the killing will somehow reverse a trend through human history and that this time, somehow this time, the killing will stop future killing. It will not work in this war nor in the next or the one after that. But rest easy, because you can mock those who would advocate another way.

And a greater issue with this particular war is that one need not be a pacifist to see the multiple mistakes by an incompetent administration. You want to go to war to stop the Nazis... that's an entirely different situation than what we have. If we were truly waging war because of how a regime is acting towards its populace, then we would be in Darfur. There are degrees to pacifism, and some would say war can sometimes be acceptable but that in this case, in Iraq, we are waging a war which will yield disastrous consequences.

You can say prove it all you want. It does not change the fact that at best, the war will not eradicate terrorism (and it's a farce to say the war was originally about terrorism in the first place since al qaeda did not have ties to iraq prior to the war). The war will not succeed in answering any of the questions the author of this posts directs to pacifists and others who oppose this war but may not be pacifists. It is merely empty rhetoric for those who support the war to cheer on under the guise of having intellectual merit. It is neither profound nor poignant. Simply, this post is a weak attempt to paint pacifists as intellectually bankrupt. But when the rhetoric fails so miserably, it shows whose mental bank account is lacking funds.

Posted by: Alan Hartung at April 30, 2006 10:06 PM

Alan, I have but one simple question: how has pacifism faced up against Islam, at any point in history?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at April 30, 2006 10:12 PM

I am sure your "Current Affairs 101" Prof. will be very pleased with your posts, but in the real world you suffer from a number of logical flaws.
Most importantly of which is you fail to distinguish between your assumptions and an actual fact.
Secondarily and nearly as important is the assumption that your opponent has the same set of assumptions that you do.

If you wish to become a martyr, that is up to you.... in fact I would guess we could take up a collection and get you a ticket to Iraq..... but I'd rather fight the bastards than hide behind the US military (which is what you are doing).....

Ex-Physics Professor

Posted by: Edward at April 30, 2006 10:23 PM

Confederate Yankee -

How has war fared against Islam, in any point in history?

It is as fair a question as you asked me.

Edward -

If you want to enter into an argument about logic, you need to do more than just claim flaws. You may consider actually writing some substance with your accusations.

And the argument about hiding behind the military is hollow. I am very aware that I have a position of privilege because of the American military and being a U.S. citizen. But you use the fact as if it means we can't hold a contrary position simply because we have a powerful military. It certainly makes it easier to be a pacifist when your life is not in imminent danger, but simply stating that fact and saying we're hiding behind the military because of it lacks substance. The only thing you can prove is that my pacifism is largely untested. And I do concede that point.

Posted by: Alan Hartung at April 30, 2006 11:35 PM

incredible post

Posted by: ben at May 1, 2006 02:25 AM

It worked for Spain.

Posted by: Komplex at May 1, 2006 03:11 AM

I think ya'll are being a bit stubborn in discussing the issue. I mean what's wrong with advocating pacifism until its absolutely necessary to go to war? Let me explain in terms of Iraq: Do I think we should have gone to war? In retrospect with regards to Iraq... no, I don't. Do I think we should leave Iraq... no, I don't. Leaving Iraq now would just make the whole thing worse in my opinion.

Posted by: Ryan at May 1, 2006 04:16 AM

Same thing at the Save Darfur rally in DC.

Posted by: Yehudit at May 1, 2006 04:54 AM

"How has war fared against Islam, in any point in history?"

. . . . to the shores of Tripoli . . .

We ended white slavery, put a dent in black slavery, pushed the Muslims out of Europe several times . . . war works. The problem is they keep pushing.

Posted by: Yehudit at May 1, 2006 04:56 AM

Allen, the last great Peacful Man was Ghandi, if I am not mistaken he was a Pacifist and he was killed by a Muslim. What you are not getting thru your "Liberal lets all hold hands and sing we are the world" college ed. is the PACIFIST WERE KILLED... They are dead... there still dead... I for one would rather go out fighting trying to keep my family alive than just stand by and be slaughtered. What the MSM and most college professors want to pump out is not what is going on over there. We are doing pretty well, kids are in school and women have a voice in Gov't. What you see on the news is the Hollywood version, ratings hype.. When they get to a million or two civilians killed, then they can say we are more evil than Saddam. I will gladly buy you a ticket to the Middle East so you can join the Pacifist crowd. Remember the christian Peace group. Didn't work out so well for them..Did it!!!

Posted by: Faithful Patriot at May 1, 2006 07:48 AM

Awesome... great post Bob. Clear, passionate and purposeful. Can't get much better than that. Thanks.

Posted by: Chris at May 1, 2006 08:21 AM

Alan, you have forfeited any authority to speak about any issue by pushing the same old liberal theme of "al qaeda did not have ties to iraq prior to the war". Ties have been proven time and again. Further, documents are being translated every day that prove these ties. As long as you and liberals like you refuse to be honest about the facts, you can never expect, let alone march around and demand, that anyone take you seriously.

Posted by: D-Hoggs at May 1, 2006 10:43 AM

Faithful Patriot -

Many more Iraqi civilians have been killed than died in the 9/11 attacks. In fact, more Americans have now been killed in Iraq than died in 9/11. The Christian Peacemaker Teams have done an incredible work, and they were working before the war in Iraq. They have lost an incredibly small number of persons in proportion to the good they have done. You seem to want to count lives lost due to pacifism ten-fold, because they did not have a gun in their hands. They died without being able or willing to strike back.

D-Hoggs -

Then I guess you forfeit any right to talk about the issue by believing the conservative propaganda machine manufacturing ties to Iraq. You probably even believe there actually were wmd's, even though the Bush administration has admitted that intelligence was faulty. It's been admitted, yet I still hear constantly from conservatives that they really had them... Beyond the ones we sold to them before Saddam fell out of grace with the U.S. (remember we installed him as the leader over there), they did not have the facilities we were led to believe they had. They did not have the weapons we were led to believe they had. Basically the majority of the reasons we were given for going into Iraq was based on faulty intelligence.

This administration has no problem lying to the American public as long as they believe they're really doing the right thing. A case in point is the wiretaps. Whether it is illegal or not, which I'm sure many of you here have no problem signing off your civil rights and trusting this administration, he did lie about it. In 2004, while bolstering support for the Patriot Act renewal, Bush clearly stated that "when we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order to do so... constitutional guarantees are in place, because we value the constitution." The president, flat out lying about wiretaps. You can watch the whole thing here:

That was two years after they have admitted starting the NSA program of warrantless wiretapping. Whether you think it's illegal or not, this is Bush lying about his controversial program. And not only is he lying about it, he's lying about it in the context of bolstering support for legislation. This is appalling, and if it had been done by a democrat, conservatives would not let this go until impeachment. One president lies about moral infidelity (and for the record I thought Clinton's lies under oath was an impeachable offense), and one lies about a potentially (and very likely) illegal program wiretapping American citizens. What's really worse for a president to do? Come on, people.

I am not a democrat. I'm still a registered Republican, because I couldn't take the hypocrisy any more. I once believed the rhetoric about the liberal propaganda machine. Wake up! Business controls our media. If the liberal slant was really as powerful as suggested by the right-wing believe anything Bush says crowd, Bush would be impeached. He's committed the acts. The American public doesn't know about much of it. Even with the President's abysmally low ratings and important mid-term elections about to happen, the media is leaving many damaging issues to the President alone.

Posted by: Alan Hartung at May 1, 2006 12:09 PM

And everyone, I've talked mostly about pacifism in regards to the antiwar movement in this country, but the truth is most of the antiwar protesters are not pacifists. They are citizens who believe there are times for war, but they do not believe this to be a just war. This war is wrong in particular. The U.S. will not win this war in any tangible sense. When we are gone, they will elect a government hostile to the U.S. within the first decade of our being gone. We have wasted valuable resources, both human and military, which have weakened our nation. Soon, there will be military action in Iran further limiting our ability to act in other parts of the world. The number of Sudanese killed, raped, and tortured, exceeds the number of those Saddam's being accused of (you can look the numbers up, and please do so before accusing me of liberal rhetoric). But we are not there? Why? This administration is not interested in shifting the focus of the war in Iraq and the potential war in Iran.

People are disgusted with this war not because of liberal propaganda, but in spite of the lack of reporting on many of the details from the intelligence and decisions prior to the war. You don't have to be a pacifist to see that this war is not good for the United States and has created an environment in Iraq less stable than prior to the war. As awful and terrible as Saddam was while in power, what has replaced him in Iraq?

Posted by: Alan Hartung at May 1, 2006 12:16 PM

Pardon me, Alan, if I need something a bit more concrete than links to your site as evidence of anything.

You have thus far refused to answer what pacifism has bought in the fact if Islam, and you instead desperately seek to change to subject. If I were you, I would as well. Pacifists only by a grave in the fact of Islam, just as have those who have been to week to counter it. Did you know that Islam is the only religion so bloody that it named a landform after its greatest genocide? The mountain range than runs through Afghanistan and Pakistan is called the Hindu Kush. It comes the invader’s word “kushar” which means slaughter or kill. Think about that the next time you look at a map, and while you are looking at that map, look at the fires on the edges of Islamic territory. Everywhere Islam touches there is war, and that has been a constant for almost the entire 1,400 year history of the religion. There is only Dar al Islam and Dar al Harb, which translated are the house of submission and the house of war.

And what has war against Dar al Islam bought us? The Renaissance. Equal rights. Opera. A man on the moon. Virtually every modern communication and convenience at your fingertips today is due to the fact that a Pole stood strong outside the gates of Vienna in 1683. In all likelihood, if Jan III Sobieski had not stood firm on 12 September, you would be vehemently calling for jihad against the infidel right now with the same degree of misguided, misinformed passion.

As for WMDs, I’m simply relate you to Ray Robinson, formerly of the Iraq Survey Group of the Defense Intelligence Agency. He saw captured Iraqi documents as they were captured and catalogued, and is one of many currently having these documents translated and explained. At the very least, we’ve found that Bush didn’t lie as much as Saddam lied to him and everyone else. You seem almost eager to discount that George Tenet said that Iraq’s WMDs were a ”slam dunk” and that Saddam had used such weapons, and did his best to make it look like he still maintained them.

As for the NSA, you are in well over your head. IT is not illegal nor wiretapping, nor targeting American citizens. Career lawyers (meaning they were here before Bush, and will be there long after) at the NSA and Justice Department, so far the only lawyers to have seen the Bush Executive Order (instead of Glenn Greenwald simply and erroneously guessing at what they might contain), cleared it as being legal. The FISA Court of Review in IN RE Sealed Case (2002), and those current FISA judges who stated that the President was acting within his authority, at which the media largely lost interest in the story.

In Darfur, depending on who you want to cite, more than 100,000 up to a half million have been killed or displaced. Saddam was responsible for the Iran-Iraq was which killed and estimated 800,000-1 million all total, was responsible for the 1991 Gulf war which killed tens of thousands more, forced his nation into sanctions that some say resulted in more than a few hundred thousand people dying, not to mention the 100,000-400,000 he is accused of killing in his own country. Saddam’s “peace” was so brutal that fewer civilians have died on average each year under our war, and you are welcome to look that up, as well.

State-sponsored Islamic terrorism is something that has to be tamped out, state by state. Geographically, it ran on a constant, unbroken arc from Lebanon through Syria into Iran and terminating in Iran, with Lybia and Sudan thrown in for good measure. The arc is now shattered, with Afghanistan and Iraq isolating Iran and Syria, and Syrian support in Lebanon wavering. When Iran collapses (and it may of its own accord), Syria will fall, having few resources of its won. The state sponsorship of Islamic terror could be toppled across the Middle East for fewer lives than we lost in single days in prior wars, and you consider that a failure?

You would promote the stability of domestic terrorism, torture, gang rape and genocide in Iraq under a “stable” Saddam-led dictatorship that ended more than a 1.5 million lives, instead of allowing the Iraqi people even a chance to be free. You sicken me.

Be gone from my site, and do not darken it again.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at May 1, 2006 01:26 PM

Wow! What an open minded group of people!

Posted by: Brian Smith at May 1, 2006 04:56 PM

Seems like you are not very interested in a conversation. I guess shutting down the other side by banning them is appropriate to your camp.

Posted by: Shifter at May 1, 2006 05:56 PM

Well, golly gee, Brian, I didn't know that being "open minded' meant we had to unquestioningly accept ever horseshit argument that came down the pipeline.

Posted by: Evil Otto at May 1, 2006 07:42 PM

Brian, Shifter:

I am more than willing to have a rational discussion, but I'm not going to listen to a Saddam apologist trying to tell me things were better under Hussein's rule for anyone other than Sunnni Baathists.

Nor am I going to listen to a petulent child tell me war has never solved anything, when for better or ill, it is among the most drastic and sudden of agents of change.

Nor am I going to long suffer his ducking of legitimate counter-questions, his refusal to provide support for the majority of his bold statements, etc.

He came to preach, not have a legitimate back-and forth. But yeah, apologizing for Saddam regime by implying we've done nothing better... that was the final straw.

It is my site, and no there are certain things I won't tolerate.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at May 1, 2006 07:46 PM


Keep it PG, please.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at May 1, 2006 07:47 PM

Sorry, CY. Horsepoop? ;-)

Anyway, I didn't want to eat up your blog's bandwidth or space, so I've fisked part of Alan's comments on my blog.

Posted by: Evil Otto at May 1, 2006 08:13 PM

Interesting perspective. I appreciated Alan's addition to the conversation. However, when I just learned he was banned from commenting here. Can I ask why?


Posted by: Jamie Arpin-Ricci at May 1, 2006 10:00 PM

Addressed above, Jamie.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at May 1, 2006 10:09 PM

Ok, but this whole post relies on the idea that somehow a war in Iraq is effective againt domestic terrorism - which is a patently fallacious assumption. Show me how toppling a relatively stable and secular - if bloodthirsty and detestable dictatorship keeps "next time" from happening? Oh, wait, that was accepted prima facie, sorry, I'm not being patriotic.

Posted by: Alex at May 2, 2006 12:00 AM

What the "Lets just give them a big hug" crowd do not understand or refuse to aknowledge is, that most Iraqi civillians are being killed by their own people and by insurgents. Now before the "It wouldn't be like that if we had not invaded" group jumps on the bandwagon. Saddam was killing his own people by the thousands or tens of thousands. He was a direct threat to the security of this nation. He has and even boasted about funding Islamic terrorist. Providing money to the families of suicide bombers. Alex, I would rather kill them there than try to track them down after they destroy an American city. There is absolutely no way to 100% secure this nation, it is too large and every time we get tough, groups like the ACLU and Arab American groups claim racial profiling or this waiting and sreening process is just to damn hard and I should not have to be inconvienced. Now the left wants to make all the illegal aliens U.S. citizens. Remember this, any religion that advocates the killing of innocent people, advocates and awards suicide attacks and the total domination of the world under one religion should be delt with. Again, obviously you have seen the destruction and bloodshed on TV wait till you see it up close then you will realize that its better to take it to them than set and wait.

Posted by: Faithful Patriot at May 2, 2006 07:20 AM

Did we have a problem with Saddam while he was killing people? I remember Donald Rumsfeld shaking his hand.

Sure Saddam Is/Was Evil but you have to realize that this war has turned Iraq into chaos. They are in a civil war. Think about the family of a child that gets hit by a stray bullet or bomb. Do you think the mothers and fathers are going to say "hey this was all for a good cause" or are they going to want revenge and take up arms against our troops? We are creating more terrorists.

Posted by: Frank at May 2, 2006 09:35 AM

Frank, do you suffer from glaucoma? Is the treatment working? Lets think for a moment, if they don't shoot at us, we won't shoot back!
What about all the innocent men, women and children in this country? You and your fellow glaucoma suffer's need to start being more concerned about is our wellbeing more than what some jihadist thinks. Iraqi insurgents are killing civillians 100 time more than a stray U.S. bullit or arrant bomb strike.

Posted by: Faithful Patriot at May 2, 2006 10:31 AM

Some of us beleivers in Evolution (followers of Darwin?) are also believers in driving back and defeating the Jihad, and the philosophical sewer from which it crawled up.

And some of us believers in Evolution have no problem believing in Evolution AND God. It's not a fair either/or choice. After all, do you believe that bread comes into existence through scientific principles, or do you believe all that stuff about heat, carbon dioxide, moisture and yeast is a bunch of hooey, because bread is made by Bakers?

Posted by: Ben at May 2, 2006 07:29 PM

To answer Evil Otto's comment, being open minded does not mean you have to accept every argument that comes down the pipeline. But to shut down someone who was making a coherent argument that has at least arguable validity is not impressive, IMHO.

The situation in Iraq is complex. The war (thus far) certainly has not led to a more stable situation for the common Iraqi and I don't see how it's improved my security at all. To discuss possible alternatives is reasonable. I didn't see Alan making a blanket argument that pacificism is always the way to go, just that war hasn't solved all of the problems that we supposedly went to Iraq to solve.

Posted by: Brian Smith at May 2, 2006 07:31 PM

Alan, you want to know why we are not in Sudan?

There's an old American saying, heard a million times a day throughout this land, and it goes like this:

"Please Stay on the Line. Your Call is important to us, and will be answered in the order in which it was received."

You don't think it's just luck that the USA has been terror free since the invasion of Iraq, do you? Do you know how easy it would be to get a bomb into a crowded shopping mall in this country? Think about it: the bad guys have the will, the desire, the means, and they definitely have the manpower, what's stopping them? Don't you think Achmed Jehadi would rather bomb Boston than get pasted in Ramadi? But... they know that the war for Iraq is vital. Iraq is this war's Guadalcanal. (where we lost 1600 taking one crappy island, btw) It's a hellish grinder that neither side can afford to lose. The bombs are not going off HERE because the enemy is forced to commit all they've got to fight is THERE.

Iraq is priority #1, if for no other reason than the enemy considers it worth dying for. I can think of many other reasons, so can you, be creative.

Other priorities... later.

If Sudan is that vital, call the Chinese. Big army, and they're not very busy right now. Think they'll care?


Posted by: Ben at May 2, 2006 07:40 PM


I differ in your opinion that the common Iraqi is no better off. My Nephew and my Brother in Law just returned from Iraq. They spoke to the common Iraqi citizen on a daily basis and the truth (from what they gathered, not listening to the news) is they want us there to keep the country stable. There are no longer secret police making people disappear, goon squads, or power hungry local politicians (well, they may still be there but with the U.S. presence, they don't do what they used to do, unless they joined the terrorists and work it that way).

My point is, I really see that we are helping the common Iraqi there, they seem to see it that way too.

Posted by: Retired Navy at May 3, 2006 05:24 AM

Retired Navy,

Fair enough. I guess opinions differ among the Iraqis. Some say things were more stable under Saddam. Some say things are better now. I guess the truth is it is a mixed bag. There's no debating that there is more random violence in Iraq now. But, there are not targeted attacks by secret police or goons squads. Just kidnappings and bombings by "insurgents".

Posted by: Brian Smith at May 3, 2006 06:35 AM

One thing I do understand from when I was in that area, most of the people over ther (including the average muslim) just want to live their lives and provide for their families.

It's the extreme end of the spectrum that we have to curtail. That includes the ones we have here in the States as well.

Muslem Jihadist
Nazi Skinheads
Black Panthers

the list goes on.

Until all hate is removed from this world, there will be violence. It's up to all the rest of us to limit what that violence is.

Posted by: Retired Navy at May 3, 2006 07:35 AM

Posted on behalf of Alan Hartung because I was enjoying the reasonable debate you took offense at:

"For the first time, someone tries to actually present evidence for their support of the war (I’m talking about you), and then you end it by shutting off dialogue. Nice. I see these issues as very complex, and I was responding initially to your unfair portrayal of pacifism. Finally you present a post with some information worth talking about and discussing, but then you close it with telling me to be gone.

And by the way, the link to my site was to a video. You don’t have to take my words, you can watch Bush say it.

Some are willing to talk and engage those who think differently about difficult issues. You are evidently only willing to talk with those who already agree with you. Enjoy your pats on the back. I’ll let you talk amongst yourselves and ridicule the position which is now held by the majority of this country and you won’t have to fear any opposing voices coming in and disrupting your love of war-fest.

Banning a dissenting voice is very a propos for the camp you represent."

If you delete this post I won't be surprised . . . it is your site, after all. But if you leave it on, I'll appreciate it, since arguments aren't won simply by one party squishing the other party's mouth shut.

Posted by: mark at May 4, 2006 11:01 AM

Oh yes, Alan. I see you have found his whining blog post at being banned.

But did you ever consider why?

I wrote this to one person who asked (Jamie, above) in an email, but I guess others want to know why as well.

Alan came in being combative and making false accusations, which is not a smart way to begin at someone else's blog. He made broad, sweeping generalizations that were inaccurate. He supported few, if any of his charges with facts, and some of his claims were patently false. He argues other areas that show historical and cultural ignorance.

When called by readers for his falsehoods and ignorant comments, he insults both me (which I'm used to) and my readers, and asserts a condescending holier-than-thou attitude instead of providing a legitimate answer. In short, he became a classic web "troll."

The final straw was when he had the gall to assert that Saddam Hussein's genocidal dictatorship was somehow better than the current messy attempt at democracy. Apologists for genocide, rape and torture are banned on my site rather quickly.

I welcome other viewpoints on my site, have several regular liberal commenters (several which I actively encourage), and in some instances, have actually allowed them far more latitude in their behavior than I would for my normal posters [note: "Fat Bastard" for those of you who remember him, was a case in point, until his vile language and empty threats became too extreme]. But I do have certain standards, and limits to my patience, and someone who is such a horrible guest has little reason to complain when he is disinvited.

Please note that even the last post from Mark where he posts Alan's comments, Alan is making misrepresentations. I never once mentioned pacifists; I spoke of the NY anti-war crowd in general. Quite frankly, Alan is the kind of troll that I can do without.

Don't just take my work for it, however. Read the comments on this threat from start to end, and decide for yourself.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at May 4, 2006 11:34 AM

thanks for responding . . . that was a much clearer representation of your reason for banning him than i'd seen previously and i appreciate your time.

Posted by: mark at May 4, 2006 11:40 AM