| Submit your comments on this article |
| International-UN-NGOs |
| Conflicted About Conflict |
| 2006-10-28 |
| One of the great divides in our country, and in the West in general, is between those people who believe that as bad as Islamic terrorism can be on a local scale, there is no way it can threaten our civilization, versus those who believe that our civilization is actually more fragile than people realize and that it could indeed be changed in irreversible and unfortunate ways; in other words, we could in fact lose this Long War. Europe may well be lost in the next 5-10-20 years, but ultimately, if the Islamic world refuses to join the Core and insists on maintaining their failed culture, we can just wall them off, develop new modes of energy production and basically ignore them. I suspect most Americans would be just fine with such a prescription. However, there is a catch. Actually there are two catches. One would be the failure of the West to stand up for itself and for America to go the way of Europe and submit. This failure from within is addressed by Dr. Sanity in ALICE IN WONDERLAND or DEMOCRATS IN DENIAL (the references are to Victor Davis Hanson, whose grasp of history can be challenged only by those too ignorant to know what they don't know, and Jonah Goldberg): As Hanson and Goldberg both clearly state, the all-encompassing hatred of the West that lies at the core of the Islamic totalitarian ideology is what we are fighting against; and one of the crucial fronts in this war is in Iraq. But, Iraq is also a key front on a philosophical war with today's postmodern political left, who seem to share with the Islamists that same all-encompassing hatred of the West and its values. Indeed, they share it with anyone who hates freedom and democracy (check out their attitudes toward Hugo, Fidel or Kim for validation of this, if you like). For both of those reasons, we must develop a strategy that will "finish the job and not leave a mess"--in other words, to defeat both the barbarians from without who violently threaten Western Civilization and seek a physical return to the Dark Ages; as well as the barbarians from within who seek to undermine and destroy Western Civilization with their smarmy politically correct ideology, whose words and dogmatically righteous platitudes effectively enable and encourage the evil that threatens us. My position is unequivocally that both ideologies must be defeated by the forces of good in Iraq and everywhere they have taken root. The second caveat is, if anything, more difficult to quantify and, at the same time, more troubling. Raymond S. Kraft offers a chilling "future history" of DECEMBER 7, 2008 in which our enemies are able to detonate a relatively small number of nuclear weapons over a small number of crucial nodes and essentially destroy America as we know it. [HT: Lt Col P at OpFor] His final comment: The failure of many Americans, including many of the leading Democrats in Congress, and some Republicans, to fully appreciate the persistent, long-term threat posed to America's liberties and survival, and to the future of Liberal Democracies everywhere, by an Islamic Resistance Movement that envisions a world dominated and defined by an Islamic Caliphate of religious totalitarianism, and which will fight any war, make any sacrifice, suffer any hardship, and pay any price to achieve it, may prove to be the kind of blunder upon which the fate of America turns, and falls. |
| Posted by:SR-71 |
| #31 It's good to see that the defense of what keeps America special is still so spirited. Agree that we cannot jump directly to extermination, but once Islamist nukes begin to explode, Islam will become forfeit. People on this site are serious, if not, they would be Kosturbating at DU and INDY Media. The MSM and the cultural Marxists are also serious and want to see the destruction of America. That is an issue that will have to be settled, one way or the other. |
| Posted by: SR-71 2006-10-28 21:05 |
| #30 nimble - what are you suggesting we do? You can't just wave a magic wand and have them all be gone. Have what all gone? The nukes, the Europeans or the muzzies? |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-10-28 20:36 |
| #29 Don't just throw mud at the wall, be specific. If I wasn't serious about today's world, I'd hang out at some silly jokester site, poking fun at everything. Pretending to be above it all. Like your comment, just askin. |
| Posted by: wxjames 2006-10-28 17:46 |
| #28 Civilization's serious meter is at about 9. Indeed. And not just from without, it would appear from your comments. |
| Posted by: just askin 2006-10-28 17:16 |
| #27 nimble - what are you suggesting we do? You can't just wave a magic wand and have them all be gone. |
| Posted by: anon 2006-10-28 17:11 |
| #26 I was not referring to a Hitler that was pushing His agenda forward, I was referring to a bastard who would use inhuman force to defend civilization against Islamic lunacy. I was referring to Hitler the speaker, the crowd inciter, the leader by speech. Hitler was, after all, the second best speaker known to man. He never managed to walk on water during one of his speeches. Civilization needs a man capable of inciting the masses into action, not half of the masses, while the other half shits on him in tomorrow's papers. When the man is so powerful that the presses are burned down the next day, then we will know him. Today, we still debate, have elections, and play with ourselves. Civilization's serious meter is at about 9. |
| Posted by: wxjames 2006-10-28 17:11 |
| #25 Thank you, anon. Praise from you is hard earnt, and doubly appreciated. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2006-10-28 17:10 |
| #24 What about their nukes? What do you suggest we do? Because the Euros can go muzzie/dhimmi without our permission. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-10-28 17:08 |
| #23 Look, there are four ways that civilizations can interact following contact, as I'm sure you know: o Amalgamation: 1st step to assimilation o Assimilation: immigrants to US o Accomodation: a temporary situation, but separation will either lead to assimilation (blacks in US) or extermination (Jews in Europe) o Extermination It is quite possible that we will be forced to exterminate Islam. But let's not jump straight there. We erased national socialism as a serious alternative by defeating in World War II the nations using it as an operating principle; we erased international socialism as a serious alternative by defeating the nations using it as an operating principle in the 30-year Cold War (Red China is, after all, de facto totalitarian capitalist, fwiw). The nations/societies using Islam, especially Jihadi Islam, as an operating principle are considerably more fragile than those operating under national and international socialism. Even as there are those in the West seduced by Islam, enough Muslims are either converting to Christianity or just quietly leaving the faith of their fathers to make the religious leaders feel seriously threatened... and if they are feeling seriously threatened, I suspect the numbers are seriously weighted in our direction, not theirs. We have been in the fight since 9/12/01. Everywhere we actually fight, we are beating them badly. We haven't won yet. But we haven't demonstrated that total extermination is our only option. And we certainly haven't demonstrated that only a Totalitarian Strongman can do what needs to be done. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2006-10-28 17:08 |
| #22 Um, lotp... Oh nevermind. I got the message. |
| Posted by: Shaviting Phinens9082 2006-10-28 16:58 |
| #21 That was in response to Nimble Spemble. |
| Posted by: just askin 2006-10-28 16:56 |
| #20 And their nukes??? |
| Posted by: just askin 2006-10-28 16:56 |
| #19 I'll keep the "Hitler" suggestion in mind the next time I want to see my country divided in two for fifty years and one-third of it handed over to people like the goddamn Soviet Union. (And if we ever fight an enemy as humanistic as the United States. I don't see one.) In the meantime, take your suggestions that we adopt the strategies of one of the big miserable fucking stupid failures of human history inside your own goddamn head. We aren't fighting the French, and we aren't gonna be able to kill a couple million Jewish civilians and pretend that makes us victorious while the army's being turned into dogfood on the eastern front. |
| Posted by: Abdominal Snowman 2006-10-28 16:56 |
| #18 This is the mistake Europe has made over and over again the past two centuries And there is no reason to believe they will not make it again as they have learned nothing. Europe does not even consider the alternative of classical liberalism. They are congenital sheeple. Europe going muzzie will not constitute a loss to the US. In fact, it will allow us to redirect our attention to the Pacific where it properly and productively belongs. The Euros should be welcomed as immigrants and refugees if they wish to become Americans. Otherwise they should be forgotten. We wouldn't be here had they not come before, but the same may be said for the Sumerians. Life goes on without their civilization also. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-10-28 16:54 |
| #17 beautifuly said, tw. |
| Posted by: anon 2006-10-28 16:50 |
| #16 wxjames, Hitlers never, ever stop with their first target group. Adolph went after not only the Jews, the homosexuals, and the handicapped, but Christians, artists, teachers, Slavs, Gypsies, the... Over 11 million people died in Nazi concentration camps, and only about half of them were Jews. Hitler was elected because people like you saw him as the answer to the threat of the Communists. But they were wrong: the answer to the violence of the Left is not the violence of the Right (although really Hitler's National Socialists were just as far to the left as Stalin's International Socialists). The real answer to the violence of the Right/Left is the united sense of the Reasonable Middle, standing up to defend civilization against totalitarianism. This is the mistake Europe has made over and over again the past two centuries, and looks likely to make again, damn them! |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2006-10-28 16:46 |
| #15 on more thought on the nazi's - it took a war to rid us of them. I don't know the history of the KKK well enough to argue - but I'm guessing they never had 5,000 in one spot and most of them were ashamed enough of their views to hide their face. As you mention - we are headed to all out war. At what point do quit calling enemy funded propaganda "free speech" and reign it in so that we can win the war? |
| Posted by: anon 2006-10-28 16:42 |
| #14 But neo-Nazis, Islamofascists and others of their ilk can be exposed to daylight and ridiculed when speech is free. I'm no longer sure how I feel about this. I would have completely agreed with you a year ago. And I want to believe it now. But when you have someone preaching to a cheering audience of 5,000 about uncovered meat and a coinciding problem of increased rapes I have to really wonder if we are not stuck in a mindset that is badly in need of a rethink - like the British walking down the lanes in red coats. A greatest strenth is always a greatest weakness. We can't afford to lose this war. |
| Posted by: anon 2006-10-28 16:38 |
| #13 "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." "Islam doesn't attack and kill innocent people, some Muslims attack and kill innocent people." So too will the US fail, because we can't beat them 'legally'. We can't beat them until we adopt their tactics. I disagree that we need to adopt their tactics, although I agree that the violence must be opposed, with violence as need be, where it can be effective. As a practical matter, we are going to see soon, I fear, that Islam is only one of many sources of terror attacks. The MS-13 network is ruthless and has targeted US police for assasinations in a number of countries, as an example. Our boy Hugo is itching for similar effect on the US, but every time he gets close to fomenting something we send a warship cruising through the southern Carribean. His connections with FARC, who learned their explosives from the IRA, don't bode well for us, however, any more than the fact that he is sucking up to Ahmadinajad. |
| Posted by: lotp 2006-10-28 16:27 |
| #12 lotp, I like people and I get along with everyone fine. However, I have no tolerance for Islam attacking and beheading innocent people, be it here, Iraq, Nigeria, India, Thailand, or Somalia. The left here and in Europe do not see a problem. It's been with us for centuries, and it will continue until we are overrun and forced into dhimmitude. Not because we want it. Europe doesn't want dhimmitude, but there will be nothing but old people to fight against it, and they will fail. So too will the US fail, because we can't beat them 'legally'. We can't beat them until we adopt their tactics. What we must do is force Islam to change by tossing out all of their violence. Is it by chance that not one single leader has spoken such words ? No, nobody in power intends to force Islam to do anything. Especially Olmert. It's catch 22, in order to assume power, one must appear rational, and rational people don't see forcing a quarter of the world's population to make changes as an option, yet it's the best option. Rational people would rather the nuclear option. But, what example does that set for the future ? Frankly, I'm praying for the bird flu to do the dirty work. I know we won't, and this kind of discussion will stay at Rantburg unless and until a right wing nut grabs leadership and forces Islam to change. |
| Posted by: wxjames 2006-10-28 16:16 |
| #11 So open speech can be inconvenient? Yes. It can. But neo-Nazis, Islamofascists and others of their ilk can be exposed to daylight and ridiculed when speech is free. Others can see them for what they are spit and respond. For instance, with the above wxjames exposes something that has been lurking just beneath the surface of a lot of his comments. Now that it's out there, the rest of the readers here can keep that in mind re: other comments he makes. Under political correctness, some group gets to decide what everyone else is allowed to say. No thanks! Note again, that's free speech. Actions are quite a different matter. The state quite appropriately acts to prevent and/or punish actions. JMNSHO ;-) |
| Posted by: lotp 2006-10-28 15:09 |
| #10 Don't keep us waiting ... You didn't have to wait long. |
| Posted by: Shaviting Phinens9082 2006-10-28 15:06 |
| #9 Read what I wrote, wxjames. I did not advocate deporting a native born citizen for speaking hate, atlhough I think we are justified in doing this with someone who is naturalized. I did advocate coming down hard on anyone who commits violence based on that hate or who foments such violence. Yup, I did. even the US will not take the right action unless and until a leader emerges with a hate filled attack line similar to Hitler, but aimed at Islam. Raise up a new Fuhrer and I will be one of the armed American citizens who will fight your and your jackbooted friends. I'll be damned if I'll let the far right hijack this country without a fight any more than I'll let the the far left do that. And I have a whole lot of friends, some still active duty, some retired, who I suspect will be fighting right alongside me. |
| Posted by: lotp 2006-10-28 15:05 |
| #8 People like me...you would throw me out of my country because you don't approve of my hate toward mother Islam. What you may be overlooking is that even the US will not take the right action unless and until a leader emerges with a hate filled attack line similar to Hitler, but aimed at Islam. And, why one foreign language ? We are all human, why not all speak the same language, especially in times of instant communications ? |
| Posted by: wxjames 2006-10-28 14:58 |
| #7 Don't keep us waiting ... |
| Posted by: lotp 2006-10-28 14:40 |
| #6 Let idiots rant and rave from mimbahs and pulpits. Publicize their crap to all and sundry. Prosecute the first idiot that tries to act on their hatefilled ideas. And the second, and the third and anyone else stupid enough to buy in. Sounds good but I take it you wouldn't be interested in applying this equally to all? Because I foresee one tiny little problem... |
| Posted by: Shaviting Phinens9082 2006-10-28 14:17 |
| #5 An alternative to the present system of schooling needs to be developed, from top to bottom There is an alternative, although it is not practical for everyone: homeschooling. Done well, it is excellent. |
| Posted by: lotp 2006-10-28 13:51 |
| #4 An alternative to the present system of schooling needs to be developed, from top to bottom. Every child should learn a foreign language starting in 1st grade. Most children (especially girls) should learn a martial art. These suggestions just for starters. I don't know how to teach people to love the place & culture they inhabit & benefit from, this was just drummed in to me so thoroughly from day 1. |
| Posted by: Slaviger Angomong7708 2006-10-28 13:48 |
| #3 I think we need a sensible middle ground (which is not the same thing as PC wishy-washy crap). a) Restore critical thinking skills to our culture. Teach science, math, facts from history. Acknowledge the role of interpretation in establishing and choosing salient facts - i.e. a spectrum. At one end is consensus reality, my 17 thermometers register the same temperature reading to 3 decimal places. At the other end is political interpretation of social trends etc. 2. Restore sanity re: church vs. state. Congress shall establish no religion, but neither shall it be hostile to it. Let local communities decide whether they want to display menorahs, creche scenes, build mosques etc. Let idiots rant and rave from mimbahs and pulpits. Publicize their crap to all and sundry. Prosecute the first idiot that tries to act on their hatefilled ideas. And the second, and the third and anyone else stupid enough to buy in. Deport hate preachers who are not citizens. Revoke the citizenship of any naturalized citizens who incite to violence and civil disorder. Off the top of my head. Critiques welcome, as I've been intending to refine this thought for some time. |
| Posted by: lotp 2006-10-28 13:41 |
| #2 I think anon has an excellent point. I am often struck listening to Mark Steyn that his diagnosis of the West's loss of faith - and the consequences of that loss for the war - are essentially correct. But what I do not hear is a prescription for addressing the situation. (Not that it is Steyn's job to have all the answers...) Are we meant to somehow engage in a great Christian revival in Europe (Pope Benedict's long-term goal) or must we, as I would prefer, revive our commitment to the Enlightenment? That latter task will be difficult given the abandonment of Truth, science, technological progress, economic growth by academia and with it generations of students who have been taught a curriculum of nothing. |
| Posted by: Flea 2006-10-28 13:34 |
| #1 in other words, to defeat both the barbarians from without who violently threaten Western Civilization and seek a physical return to the Dark Ages; as well as the barbarians from within who seek to undermine and destroy Western Civilization with their smarmy politically correct ideology, whose words and dogmatically righteous platitudes effectively enable and encourage the evil that threatens us. I hope we can do it. Sometimes I think those of us fighting to win western civilization are like the democrats fighting for this years congress. We have only a negative platform - rid ourselves of these negative, self-destructive ideologies. Ok, but replace them with what? Much as we'd like to believe it, we aren't united on exactly what it is that we are working towards. |
| Posted by: anon 2006-10-28 11:08 |