If that’s the case, why do we let al-Sistani have major influence, even though he can be somewhat anti-American? Why do we continue to let al-Sadr run around even though he has fought both U.S. and Iraqi troops? Why did we allow the people to elect a PM who gives an anti-Israeli speech before Congress? The reason, of course, is that we DO want Iraq to be free to choose their own government because that’s the only long term way to solve the problems in the Middle East. Democratization combined with respect for the rule of law. France is anti-American, yet its government does not give tacit support to terrorists. Pakistan’s government is pro-American, yet terrorists come out of the country, many with the support of the government. Liberal republics are inherently stabilizing; dictatorships and other authoritarian governments are not.

“ironically, i find it pathetic (laughable even) that you believe these conflicts can be won using our current models of war.”

It can’t. Which is why we have troops and other government officials stationed all over the world in Muslim areas building wells, providing medical care, and otherwise showing that Americans aren’t evil. Which is why we’re having to learn how to fight a decentralized war. Which is why we’re having to play catch up and get into 4GW.

“have we even attempted to find out, on an official level, why the muslim radicals want us all destroyed?”

Read Osama’s fatwas against the West from the mid to late ’90s. They provide a laundry list. But the funny thing is that when one of his reasons is taken away (like when we withdrew all troops from Saudi Arabia) that doesn’t seem to pacify him any. I wonder why that is?

iraq, afghanistan, sudan, northern ireland, chechnya. these are wars that cannot (could not) be won by capturing the flag.

and i don’t buy carte blanche that the US and Israel are “good” and that they are solely fighting for liberty, freedom, and the rule of law. these conflicts that we are a part of right now reek of economic interest, personal grudges, ego, and fear under the guise of reform and altruism.

and come now, you don’t really believe that we altruistically want iraq to be free? we just want them to look like us. they can have free elections so long as they elect the right people…i.e., OUR people. we really don’t want the world to be free to choose their own governments, we actually want them to buy our coca cola, computers, bombs, movies, etc. we want global expansion because it expands our markets. and, with global expansion (and the tenuous “peace” established by us), we can rape the world and use whatever resources we want.

and really, israel is hardly “good,” or least any better than anyone else in that area. what they are doing in lebanon is totally within their foreign policy. while they say they “regret” the error, they don’t really. it is business as usual for them, it is policy to strike back this way. better the lebonese children than their own.

ironically, i find it pathetic (laughable even) that you believe these conflicts can be won using our current models of war.

and i also find it amusing that you crack on my reading of your comments, yet you seem to have the persistent monolithic belief that non-violence is doing nothing. even ghandi believed that violence was necessary once in a while. but violence should never be the first resort, and violence should never be used without continued conversation and negotiation.

have we even attempted to find out, on an official level, why the muslim radicals want us all destroyed? i doubt W and his cronies have the first clue. all they know is that those fighters will fight to the death and won’t give up even in the face of supreme world dominating military might. they were neither shocked nor awed. yet something keeps them going and it isn’t just wanting us destroyed. it is deeper and if we are to have any success, we need to try, at the highest levels, to understand it and work toward peace.

finally, for the record, calling someone “naïve” is another one of those internet clichés. you can’t possibly presume that everyone must arrive at your particular view point, can you? just because I don’t believe like you doesn’t mean that I have missed pertinent information or failed to achieve a higher level of sophistication of thought as you have. this is your website and so you have a reasonable right to expect conformity to a certain extent. just because we don’t agree doesn’t make one of us uniformly right and the other uniformly wrong…it is possible we are partly right, or even non-exclusively right. but to believe that I am “naïve” or flawed in my understanding of some absolute truth that somehow you have, is elitist and narcissistic. It is at the core of the problems around the world today.

Carthage. Waterloo. Hitler. Communism.

Oh, and someday I’m going to write a book about people on the internet with no reading comprehension skills. I guess I’ll spell it out for you a little clearer. Ghandi and MLK Jr. got to use nonviolent means because they were “fighting” against people who largely restrained themselves. Nonviolent principles do not work when applied to those who have no regard to human life. Just ask the Jews…they tried nonviolence with Hitler. Just go along, don’t fight, it’ll all be okay in the end, etc. And 7 million ended up dead.

And in case you didn’t get it, the U.S. and Israel are “good” because we are fighting for things like liberty, freedom, the rule of law, etc. Hezbollah and their ilk are “bad” because they are fighting to kill all the Jews and reestablish an Islamic caliphate under Sharia law, where women like yourself get to wear the veil and have no rights.

Robin said: i don’t see how, using your logic, you can possibly argue that what hezbollah or al qaeda are doing is wrong.

So, Robin, you feel that targeting civilians without restraint is morally equivalent to targeting armed enemies with as much restraint to try and avoid civilians as possible? Because that is what you are arguing.

I have no particular moral issue with fighting for “your side”, per se. I have serious moral issues with those who deliberately target civilian non-combatants. I also have serious moral issues with those whose stated goal is genocide.

You, apparently, do not.

Don’t use the same tired arguments over and over again, maybe you’ll get a different response.

so, i guess that means i get the last word.

i would just recommend both of you to re-read you last couple of posts. i don’t see how, using your logic, you can possibly argue that what hezbollah or al qaeda are doing is wrong. afterall, they are trying to destroy those enemies that are trying to destroy them.

the only way to win this thing is to be the last man standing. who’s right and who’s wrong doesn’t matter in the end. to us, we’re right. to them, they’re right. and the rightness and wrongness will only be decided by who gives up or gets completely annhilated first.

that has worked in the past with conventional warfare…but this isn’t conventional. you can tell because we aren’t fighting sovereign nations any more, and two, we invade sovereign nations at our own pleasure. neither is conventional.

so, given your “destroy them” mentality, i can see why living on this earth is such a dubious endeavor. and it will only get worse.

if you fail to understand that your idea of destruction itself has failed to this point, then i too am wasting my time. ;)

Don’t try and rewrite history to imply that Israel restrained itself out of altruism. They didn’t attack because they were bought off with the fighters and the threat of much cooler relations with the U.S. if they joined the war.

Same goes for MLK Jr. He was fighting against a system that while evil and wrong, generally used water hoses and attack dogs, unlike the rockets and rat-poison laced ball-bearing bombs that Hezbollah uses.

In any case, I’m wasting my time here because you fail to understand the difference between the U.S. and Hezbollah. One side fights for “good” and one side fights for “bad.” Fortunately for this country, most people here are not like you. If we were, the U.S. and its dreams and ideals would have been consigned to the dustbin of history a long time ago.

if you think “destroying the enemy” is the answer, then don’t be surprised if the “enemy’s” goal is to destroy you.

i just returned from a trip that included a tour of the westward expansion museum in st. louis. there is this quote on the wall:

“If civilization is to survive, we must cultivate the science
of human relationships–the ability of all people of all kinds,
to live together and work together in the same world, at peace.”

it is a quote from someone who knew all about war and retaliation…i suppose he, too, was naive to think that we could live and work together in peace.

it is a quote from a speech that was to be given april 13th, 1945. the day after he was found dead.

we, here in the US, are cocooned from the violence in lebanon, iraq, india, pakistan, the sudan, afghanistan, chechnya, etc. it is easy, from the comfort of our EZ-chairs in the interior of our country to spout platitudes and ideologies.

but my original point (to eric) was that so long as we americans initiate and thereby perpetuate the violence, no matter how “civil” we are in preparing for war, we are no less barbaric than those who choose terrorism as their technology of choice in war.

someone has to step out of the cycle or we’ll all die.

With all due respect, I think you are being incredibly naive here.

Nonviolence will not work when you’re facing an enemy made up of people willing to strap bombs to their chests, walk into a crowded pizza parlor, and blow themselves up. It won’t work with a so-called army that aims most of its missiles at civilian rather than military target. And it won’t work with people willing to fly airplanes into skyscrapers.

I don’t like the world we’re living in much either, but I’m not going to sit back and advocate a nonviolent approach to a situation that can only be solved by destroying the enemy.

equally so.

was ghandi a coward? or did he (and mlk, jr) show supreme courage in taking a non-violent approach? neither shied away from confrontation, but both understood that violence begets violence.

maybe we are asking israel to show the same courage it did in 1991 when it refrained from retaliating against iraq as hussein lobbed scud after scud into israel.

we know they are capable of it…why won’t they do it?

Any one other question — why should Israel restrain itself when its enemies show no inclination to do so ?

Why is an obviously mistaken bombing run, which is no question a tragedy, an example of “savagery”, while the fact that Hezbollah has been operating from within civilian neighborhoods and thus endangering civilian populatiosn is denounced by nobody ?

Yes, people die in wars. And its a tragedy when innocent civilians die. But the villans here are the terrorists of Hezbollah (who, I will remind you are also responsible for the death of hundreds of Americans and countless thousands of Lebanese), not the State of Israel.