OK...after careful thought and harsh editing:

 

 

"Liberals" aren't the only Americans who are opposed to the action in Iraq.

 

Aside from the truths/exaggerations of the original article, which should be debated for their merit or lack of merit separately, the author of the linked article and some of the ensuing replys intentionally attempt to misconstrue the issue of opposition to Operation Iraqi Freedom.

 

My problem with the article referenced and the replies alluded to above is that the authors of all paint those opposed as deficient in some way. The fact is that many highly intelligent people are opposed to the War in Iraq. The issue isn't as black and white as many would like to paint it.

 

The fact of the matter is even the facts stated in the original article above can be debated, and the validity of our (America's) actions during the course of the era leading up to WWII, as well as our actions in WWII can be debated. The situations are not as equally comparable as many would like us to believe.

 

The use of the term "narrow-minded" was probably poor word choice on my behalf, for which I apologize. Let me try and distill this down to its essence:

 

Radical Muslims want to kill you. They want you dead. They will do anything in their power to make you dead. They want your daughter dead, too. They will try and make you dead here, or they will try and make you dead somewhere else.

 

That's it, no more, no less. You either believe that, or you don't. I do. You may not, and that's O.K. with me, too. I still love you, just the same. I really do. I know what a nice lady you are just from reading your posts and from some private PM's, and I think you are an admirable person. And I truly respect your earnest and heartfelt disagreement with me on this War.

 

But I do think you are wrong. As are many others, both "liberal" and "conservative," and Pepper is right, the label doesn't matter. What matters is whether you believe the above, or don't.

 

You will never, ever, find me disputing your right to rail at the top of your lungs about how the War is wrong, that we were lied to, etc., nor will I ever speak out against your vote to pull us out of there, to spend your money on interest groups that advocate that, and I won't really even say anything when folks in the Democratic Party turn on the "spin" machine that inevitably starts with some comparison that begins "well what about the evangelical Christians . . ." I will never label you as being "against the troops" because you are against the War. I know better. I might agree with those who say that, tactically, American public opposition to our presence in Iraq strengthens the resolve of those fighting against our troops, and I can also agree with your statement that our presence there creates hatred of us by them and by other countries around the world. Like you and many, many others, I don't like the Patriot Act, because I would rather that I and my children die than to have our liberties incrementally taken from us because of the actions and cowardice of terrorists. I didn't like the wiretapping. I haven't like most of the decisions made by this Presidency that have been collateral to the military effort. I also happen to agree with Trinity Alum (in this instance:thumb: ), that we could probably fight a more EFFECTIVE war if we were not oil dependent. But I am not willing to wait for weaning ourselves off of that while radical Muslims exterminate Western culture.

 

But all of those, and all of the other arguments (There were no WMD's; Iraq has never been connected with Al Quaeda; We're really over there for oil, etc.) really do not change the primary fact that there are people who want me dead. So I will advocate for, vote for, spend money on, and generally support the use of our government's military, and the young soldiers who are dying, to kill or suppress as many radical Muslims as they can find. Might be Iraq, might be Iran, might be Syria, might be southeast Asia. I probably would not support a draft for that purpose, but only because I don't think drafted soldiers make very effective soldiers. And when the time comes, if my 3 little boys tell their daddy that they want to serve, fight, and are ready to die, I will cry, shake hands with them, and send them on. If I were 18 or 22, I feel certain that I would probably take a turn also.

 

My father, an old Naval fighter pilot, while we sharing a drink last night on a warm, breezy summer evening, was talking about the Naval battles of WWII. He gradually shifted into a discussion of Europe. He said something to me that really struck me. He told me that the continental Europeans aren't having children anymore. They have over-regulated themselves so badly, their population is simply dying out. He theorized that within a generation or two, that there would be no such thing as a traditional Italian, or as a traditional Spaniard. Those two countries will simply become Muslim.

 

Its us or them. I hate it that its like that, but that is the way that it is.

What is truly ironic about the piece and comparison to WWII is this

 

in WWII we fought against right-wing radicalism:

Nazi/Fascism ("we have the superior race, all others are inferior and should be eliminated or subjugated)

 

and in Iraq we are fighting against right-wing religion:

radical Islam ("we have the superior faith, all others are inferior and should be eliminated or subjugated)

 

Yet it is the liberals that "don't get it.":confused:

Rockmom, I would like to see this discussion continue on a productive course. Toward that end and to get past the the initial disagreement, what would you suggest we label the two sides? Would pro-war, anti-war be appropriate?

 

 

I don't think there needs to be labels of any sort.

 

There is no dividing line on this. All who are pro-war aren't conservatives, all who are anti-war aren't liberals. I also feel there are more than two sides and that there are many people of all walks who disagree and don't understand Iraq.

What is truly ironic about the piece and comparison to WWII is this

 

in WWII we fought against right-wing radicalism:

Nazi/Fascism ("we have the superior race, all others are inferior and should be eliminated or subjugated)

 

and in Iraq we are fighting against right-wing religion:

radical Islam ("we have the superior faith, all others are inferior and should be eliminated or subjugated)

 

Yet it is the liberals that "don't get it.":confused:

 

Point taken, Ace. Now let's get on with finding the solution. Labels cause us to automatically pick a side because we identify with one group or the other. It slows the process.

The use of the term "narrow-minded" was probably poor word choice on my behalf, for which I apologize. Let me try and distill this down to its essence:

 

Radical Muslims want to kill you. They want you dead. They will do anything in their power to make you dead. They want your daughter dead, too. They will try and make you dead here, or they will try and make you dead somewhere else.

 

That's it, no more, no less. You either believe that, or you don't. I do. You may not, and that's O.K. with me, too. I still love you, just the same. I really do. I know what a nice lady you are just from reading your posts and from some private PM's, and I think you are an admirable person. And I truly respect your earnest and heartfelt disagreement with me on this War.

 

But I do think you are wrong. As are many others, both "liberal" and "conservative," and Pepper is right, the label doesn't matter. What matters is whether you believe the above, or don't.

 

You will never, ever, find me disputing your right to rail at the top of your lungs about how the War is wrong, that we were lied to, etc., nor will I ever speak out against your vote to pull us out of there, to spend your money on interest groups that advocate that, and I won't really even say anything when folks in the Democratic Party turn on the "spin" machine that inevitably starts with some comparison that begins "well what about the evangelical Christians . . ." I will never label you as being "against the troops" because you are against the War. I know better. I might agree with those who say that, tactically, American public opposition to our presence in Iraq strengthens the resolve of those fighting against our troops, and I can also agree with your statement that our presence there creates hatred of us by them and by other countries around the world. Like you and many, many others, I don't like the Patriot Act, because I would rather that I and my children die than to have our liberties incrementally taken from us because of the actions and cowardice of terrorists. I didn't like the wiretapping. I haven't like most of the decisions made by this Presidency that have been collateral to the military effort. I also happen to agree with Trinity Alum (in this instance:thumb: ), that we could probably fight a more EFFECTIVE war if we were not oil dependent. But I am not willing to wait for weaning ourselves off of that while radical Muslims exterminate Western culture.

 

But all of those, and all of the other arguments (There were no WMD's; Iraq has never been connected with Al Quaeda; We're really over there for oil, etc.) really do not change the primary fact that there are people who want me dead. So I will advocate for, vote for, spend money on, and generally support the use of our government's military, and the young soldiers who are dying, to kill or suppress as many radical Muslims as they can find. Might be Iraq, might be Iran, might be Syria, might be southeast Asia. I probably would not support a draft for that purpose, but only because I don't think drafted soldiers make very effective soldiers. And when the time comes, if my 3 little boys tell their daddy that they want to serve, fight, and are ready to die, I will cry, shake hands with them, and send them on. If I were 18 or 22, I feel certain that I would probably take a turn also.

 

My father, an old Naval fighter pilot, while we sharing a drink last night on a warm, breezy summer evening, was talking about the Naval battles of WWII. He gradually shifted into a discussion of Europe. He said something to me that really struck me. He told me that the continental Europeans aren't having children anymore. They have over-regulated themselves so badly, their population is simply dying out. He theorized that within a generation or two, that there would be no such thing as a traditional Italian, or as a traditional Spaniard. Those two countries will simply become Muslim.

 

Its us or them. I hate it that its like that, but that is the way that it is.

 

 

Hearsay, I understand what you're saying and why you feel the way you do. I do also respect what you say, and why you say it. But, like you, with all due respect, I think that you are wrong. But, I don't think you're wrong because you're "conservative". I think you're wrong because I believe that there are alternative routes to the war on terror and not one of them involve military force or an "us against them" mentality.

 

I'm not mad, by the way. I'm just constantly taken aback that people put their opinion out there (whether it be the media or personal) and immediately try to cloud the issue with a system of attacks on another philosophy. Sure, there may be facts involved, and good ones. However, it's the presentation of the facts that can be objectional, not the facts themselves. Those can be refuted/substantiated with additional facts. When you try to discuss facts while throwing implying attacks on a philosophical difference, it changes the whole realm. It's not a debate, then; it's an argument.

What is truly ironic about the piece and comparison to WWII is this

 

in WWII we fought against right-wing radicalism:

Nazi/Fascism ("we have the superior race, all others are inferior and should be eliminated or subjugated)

 

and in Iraq we are fighting against right-wing religion:

radical Islam ("we have the superior faith, all others are inferior and should be eliminated or subjugated)

 

Yet it is the liberals that "don't get it.":confused:

 

You fail to address what has come up in this discussion. You can blame the right to your heart's content or others on here can blame the left until the cows come home; the point that has arisen here is what sort of solutions?

 

Also, extremism(whether extreme left or right) always looks eerily similar. Take a look at the extreme left, like the Soviet Union.

What is truly ironic about the piece and comparison to WWII is this

 

in WWII we fought against right-wing radicalism:

Nazi/Fascism ("we have the superior race, all others are inferior and should be eliminated or subjugated)

 

and in Iraq we are fighting against right-wing religion:

radical Islam ("we have the superior faith, all others are inferior and should be eliminated or subjugated)

 

Yet it is the liberals that "don't get it.":confused:

 

But it is more the conservatives who are leading the fight against the far right radicals. I find that encouraging, don't you?

Hopefully you are also wise enough to know that "conservatives" do not hold the lock and keys to the "wisdom" supply. No one does.

 

Then let's debate those issues without painting the issue with lables like "liberal views" or "conservative views".

 

 

Again, something worthy of debate, but let's debate the issue and not paint each other's point of view as "liberal" or "conservative". Doing so merely serves to effectively cut off worthwhile dialogue by baiting one side or the other into feeling attacked, then defensive. Such feelings have no place in debate.

My dear friend, I cannot deny my own convictions which do tilt me considerably toward the "conservative" side of the fence, and I suppose that based upon my clearly expressed history along these lines you have fairly labeled me "conservative" thereby safely deducing my point.

 

I did not however, make one mention of conservative or liberal in the post to which you responded. Since that was my only post in this thread, I can only assume that you were using it as a basis to respond to others in this thread who have affixed such labels on others.

 

Even so, your response illustrates precisely the problem we have at this point in world history. We have too many individuals and groups far too concerned with labeling "the other guys" and trying to score political points instead of clearly identifying and attacking the problem so clearly before us.

 

Radical Muslims have made clear their intentions. Republicans are not the Liberals greatest enemy. Democrats are not the conservatives greatest enemy. But, while we are bickering with each other over meaningless points, our true self-expressed enemy is amassing numbers, weapons and power. They will strike again, and again, and again, and again until we either bow our knee to Mecca or die. They have said so, and so it will be unless some very wise people find a way to convince some very foolish people that there are some things worth fighting for together... and that includes our so-called allies in Europe and around the globe.

You fail to address what has come up in this discussion. You can blame the right to your heart's content or others on here can blame the left until the cows come home; the point that has arisen here is what sort of solutions?

 

Also, extremism(whether extreme left or right) always looks eerily similar. Take a look at the extreme left, like the Soviet Union.

 

It took me so long to decide to write it that while it was sitting on my screen we began the no labelling discussion. However, in view of the original post- there is definite irony.

 

The other ironic thing - now that you mentioned the communist - was that we fought primarily a cold war with them- a war of ideas. In the areas where it became "hot" we were not incredibly successful, i.e. VietNam and Cuba.

 

We are not going to destroy Islam, and as long as there is Islam there will be radicals - just like Christianity. We have to win the war of ideas, again!! As long as we are pointing a gun at someone, we are not going to win their hearts and minds. Culture wars are never won with tanks and planes, it takes much more than that.

 

Given our recent history, we have begun losing the battle of ideas. We have forfeited our seat as the MORAL leader of the world by splitting hairs about tenets of the Geneva Convention, by holding prisoners without trials, but eaves dropping on our own citizens, by denying science and not participating in the KYOTO treaty.

 

The battle will be even tougher now that we have lost the respect of so many.

What is truly ironic about the piece and comparison to WWII is this

 

in WWII we fought against right-wing radicalism:

Nazi/Fascism ("we have the superior race, all others are inferior and should be eliminated or subjugated)

 

and in Iraq we are fighting against right-wing religion:

radical Islam ("we have the superior faith, all others are inferior and should be eliminated or subjugated)

 

Yet it is the liberals that "don't get it.":confused:

It takes one to know one eh?

 

Your apparently sincere comparison of American "right-wing" conservatives to so-called "right-wing" Islamic or Nazi extremists is very revealing. :thumb:

 

 

:lol: :lol: :lol:

My dear friend, I cannot deny my own convictions which do tilt me considerably toward the "conservative" side of the fence, and I suppose that based upon my clearly expressed history along these lines you have fairly labeled me "conservative" thereby safely deducing my point.

 

I did not however, make one mention of conservative or liberal in the post to which you responded. Since that was my only post in this thread, I can only assume that you were using it as a basis to respond to others in this thread who have affixed such labels on others.

 

Even so, your response illustrates precisely the problem we have at this point in world history. We have too many individuals and groups far too concerned with labeling "the other guys" and trying to score political points instead of clearly identifying and attacking the problem so clearly before us.

 

Radical Muslims have made clear their intentions. Republicans are not the Liberals greatest enemy. Democrats are not the conservatives greatest enemy. But, while we are bickering with each other over meaningless points, our true self-expressed enemy is amassing numbers, weapons and power. They will strike again, and again, and again, and again until we either bow our knee to Mecca or die. They have said so, and so it will be unless some very wise people find a way to convince some very foolish people that there are some things worth fighting for together... and that includes our so-called allies in Europe and around the globe.

 

FB, I wasn't trying to imply that you were "conservative" per se. I was trying to address the point that there is no one "group" who could be considered wiser than the other. I've read enough of your posts to know that while some may see you as "conservative", there are some "liberal" issues with which you may not necessarily disagree. I'll conceed I made my point poorly.

 

Anywho...much of what you say in the above post I can agree with to a degree. But, the part I bolded is especially truthful, insightful and the biggest issue facing our world today. In spite of the effort of "globalization", people of all philosophies and agendas seem to be factionalizing themselves to the point that we're all against each other.

 

My thoughts to ending the war on terror have to do with attacking root causes of extremism, and the economic, social and religious differences that contribute to those root causes; not to eradicate the people, cultures, & religions. This has to happen from all sides. It has to do with education, ending poverty, and common effort. Unfortunately, it's the hardest route, and the least likely to produce quick results.

It took me so long to decide to write it that while it was sitting on my screen we began the no labelling discussion. However, in view of the original post- there is definite irony.

 

The other ironic thing - now that you mentioned the communist - was that we fought primarily a cold war with them- a war of ideas. In the areas where it became "hot" we were not incredibly successful, i.e. VietNam and Cuba.

 

We are not going to destroy Islam, and as long as there is Islam there will be radicals - just like Christianity. We have to win the war of ideas, again!! As long as we are pointing a gun at someone, we are not going to win their hearts and minds. Culture wars are never won with tanks and planes, it takes much more than that.

 

Given our recent history, we have begun losing the battle of ideas. We have forfeited our seat as the MORAL leader of the world by splitting hairs about tenets of the Geneva Convention, by holding prisoners without trials, but eaves dropping on our own citizens, by denying science and not participating in the KYOTO treaty.

 

The battle will be even tougher now that we have lost the respect of so many.

 

Well there is always the possibility of destryoing it by eradicating those who follow it. Win the culture war by eliminating the other culture and absorbing and reeducation the few survivors. Wouldn't be the first time it happened in history. Janissaries come to mind there. Bear in mind that this is an extreme response that I would not condone unless there was no other option.

 

That said, we never were the Moral leader of the world, no point in pretending. We may like to think that, but it has never been so. Americna foreign policy throughout history has been among the more fickle things you'll find. Among the last "civilized" nations to stop the slave trade and slavery, putting profit ahead of all else in our dealings with many other countries throughout the years. We have never been "moral" in our foreign policy dealings until without self interest governing our actions. The Moral grounding in most cases was a candy coating for actions we felt were in the best interests of the country at the time.

 

Idealism is pointless in a world where the competing ideas are irreconcialable. Pragmatism is what we need.

 

 

 

That said I largely agree with what Trinity Alum has posted in this thread.

It took me so long to decide to write it that while it was sitting on my screen we began the no labelling discussion. However, in view of the original post- there is definite irony.

 

The other ironic thing - now that you mentioned the communist - was that we fought primarily a cold war with them- a war of ideas. In the areas where it became "hot" we were not incredibly successful, i.e. VietNam and Cuba.

 

We are not going to destroy Islam, and as long as there is Islam there will be radicals - just like Christianity. We have to win the war of ideas, again!! As long as we are pointing a gun at someone, we are not going to win their hearts and minds. Culture wars are never won with tanks and planes, it takes much more than that.

 

Given our recent history, we have begun losing the battle of ideas. We have forfeited our seat as the MORAL leader of the world by splitting hairs about tenets of the Geneva Convention, by holding prisoners without trials, but eaves dropping on our own citizens, by denying science and not participating in the KYOTO treaty.

 

The battle will be even tougher now that we have lost the respect of so many.

OK I'll bite

 

How do you reason with a group that is willing to hijack airplanes full of innocent people and fly those planes into buildings populated by more innocent people?

 

How do you reason with people that believe it is noble to strap bombs on women and children and then explode those bombs in "combat areas" like resturants and funerals?

 

How many people that they disagree with are a "reasonable" number that they can kill while we try to win the war of ideas.

 

I very firmly believe that had we not taken the action that we have there would have been another attack on American soil. Call me selfish but I would much rather fight the extremists in their back yard. I grieve the loss of every American life in Iraq but I do believe that their sacrafices have kept us safer. I also unfortunately believe that another attack on American soil WILL happen and that the more we can disrupt them at the source the less effective that attack will be.

There are indeed people that want to kill us and all that we hold dear. The question is, how best to stop them. It wasn't and isn't Iraq. That is the real problem with the war. Sadaam was a nasty guy that deserved all he got and more. He wasn't radical Islam. He wasn't even a big supporter of radical Islam. He was a petty thug with only one interest - himself. How do we handle radical Islam? Three choices, kill them, let them kill us or render them impotent. We can't kill them all because they hide among a vital resource that we sre addicted to, middle eastern oil. We won't allow them to kill all of us. We'll fight as much as we are force to, but it is long, expensive and ultimately self defeating because we won't tolerate the loss of 100 of our best every month forever. That leaves rendering them impotent. How do we do that? First, it IS a law enforcement function. How many terror plots have been stopped by military action? I don't know the answer, but I don't think any have been made public, if there are any. How many have been stopped by effective law enforcement? Several. Second, we could win in WWII because we were not under any obligation to do anything but win. Much has been made of the notion that we lack the will to do what is necessary to win a war against the terrorists. I don't believe that. I submit that at present we lack the means. Ask yourself the question, Would the United States have used a nuclear weapon against Hiroshima if the US economy had been totally dependent on some product produced in Hiroshima and that despite the war we were still paying the Japanese for with huge amounts of ready cash? The idea that we would have continued to buy something from the Japanese all through the war and giving them the cash to pay for the war against the United States is so ridiculous as to be silly, but it is exactly what we do every day in the war against radical Islam.

I don't know what will happen when we leave Iraq. I suspect that it won't be good. My guess is that there is a good chance that even more of the world's oil supply will be placed in the hands of the radicals that run Iran. We may be back fighting to protect Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. That will be one effect of this war and the best reason we never should have started it. If we are truly dedicated to winning the war against the terrorists we need to render them impotent and economically unimportant. Then, if they still insist on fighting us we will kill them without great loss of American lives or treasure. Until then, we stop them with law enforcement and retaliation when necessary. We fight them where we can, but we do not throw our best into a killing field that does not serve to protect our country and over time weakens our ability to fight them.

One of the biggest problems of the extremists is that they get them while they're young. So here's an idea...

 

Air drop millions of copies of Playboy Magazine and millions (well, thousands... gotta save some for ourselves) of 6 packs of beer into the primary terrorist points and let the youth be nice and "corrupted" by American culture.

 

No violence ensues, and everybody is happy!