Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Thu 02/09/2006 View Wed 02/08/2006 View Tue 02/07/2006 View Mon 02/06/2006 View Sun 02/05/2006 View Sat 02/04/2006 View Fri 02/03/2006
1
2006-02-09 Iraq
VDH: What History Says About the Iraq War
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by tipper 2006-02-09 08:26|| || Front Page|| [11139 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 Does the author of this article work for the Bush-Cheney administration or the RNC? These talking points of Republican propaganda on Iraq have been repeated to the point of being nauseating.
Every Bushite knows them and can repeat them by rote. Maybe if they keep repeating them enough, even THEY will start to believe them.
Posted by Common Sense 2006-02-09 11:00||   2006-02-09 11:00|| Front Page Top

#2 And good morning to you too, Not Micheal Moore.
Posted by Secret Master 2006-02-09 11:11||   2006-02-09 11:11|| Front Page Top

#3 Common Loon, why won't you do even the most basic research for yourself, like clicking the author's "About" link?

VDH is no parrot of the Administration. Read some of his works, and learn.
Posted by Seafarious">Seafarious  2006-02-09 11:14||   2006-02-09 11:14|| Front Page Top

#4 VDH is a Democrat. The kind that used to make up the party before the Democrats decided to commit suicide and take the nation with them.
Posted by ed 2006-02-09 11:42||   2006-02-09 11:42|| Front Page Top

#5 Seafarious:

I really dont care who he is..all i know is the article he published is nothing more than bush-cheney-rnc "talking points on Iraq" that have been repeated a million times by people like you.
Posted by Common Sense 2006-02-09 11:44||   2006-02-09 11:44|| Front Page Top

#6 Common Sense:

Then don't ask questions you don't want the answers to.
Posted by Seafarious">Seafarious  2006-02-09 11:54||   2006-02-09 11:54|| Front Page Top

#7 CS:
Go to your local bookstore and buy a copy of VDH’s incredibly relevant A War Like No Other. The man is arguably our nation’s greatest living military historian. His comparisons between the current world situation (America vs. Islam) and the Second Peloponnesian War (Athens vs. Sparta) strike me as particularly valid.
Posted by Secret Master 2006-02-09 11:55||   2006-02-09 11:55|| Front Page Top

#8 CS adds nothing to any conversation here - just an immature DNC talking points fool.
Posted by Frank G 2006-02-09 12:01||   2006-02-09 12:01|| Front Page Top

#9 Secret Master:

Thanks for the suggestion, I'll check it out.

according to Wikipedia, VDH is a Democrat, however he has very conservative views on Iraq, etc.. He is a supporter of Bush on Iraq and it comes thru in his viewpoint the article used here.

If he is a democrat, I question his motives for doing something like this:

AT WAR: DOCUMENTARY
Victor Davis Hanson: "Why We Fight" is nothing more than leftist propaganda. 02/09 8:08 a.m.

from NRO MAGAZINE
Posted by Common Sense 2006-02-09 12:03||   2006-02-09 12:03|| Front Page Top

#10 Frank G.

I havent read anything from you in here that I have found to be particularly "profound"..

your definition of "immature", means one who isnt brainwashed by and parrots repub/con propaganda.
lol
Posted by Common Sense 2006-02-09 12:07||   2006-02-09 12:07|| Front Page Top

#11 This was posted yesterday on page 4 as "VDH on the War". I guess No Sense missed it because the short headline didn't hit either of his/her hot buttons: "Iraq" and "Bush".

When moderate democrats can't call leftist propaganda what it is, then No Sense will be our overlord and the cartoon page will be blank.
Posted by Darrell 2006-02-09 12:10||   2006-02-09 12:10|| Front Page Top

#12 ..bush-cheney-rnc "talking points on Iraq" that have been repeated a million times by people like you.

If someone can repeat talking points for a million times, then it's not all that hard to refute them for an equal number of times. Care to give it a whirl?
Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2006-02-09 12:43||   2006-02-09 12:43|| Front Page Top

#13 Fred, is there any way you could install a "Bozo filter", or at least put the name of the poster at the head of each response? It would save some of us time and attention.
Posted by Whutch Threth6418 2006-02-09 12:47||   2006-02-09 12:47|| Front Page Top

#14 Continued dominance of the country by the Republicans depends on having Dems like Common Sense around telling moderate Dems like VDH to go to hell and marginalizing them.

Somewhere, in his bunker/dungeon, Karl Rove is chortling.
Posted by Abdominal Snowman 2006-02-09 12:48||   2006-02-09 12:48|| Front Page Top

#15 Melting Snowman:

Apparently you havent been looking at poll#s of
President Bush and the Republican led Congress lately..the majority of the country has a negative opinion of them. Republicans up for re-election are running away from Bush like he has the plague. Republican "dominance" of the government is hardly permanent..not in the least.
Posted by Common Sense 2006-02-09 12:58||   2006-02-09 12:58|| Front Page Top

#16 No Sense and Bill Clinton live by polls instead of principles.

Gallup: President Reagan, 42 percent approving in October 1982 poll. President Truman, 32 percent approving in 1946 poll.
Posted by Darrell 2006-02-09 13:09||   2006-02-09 13:09|| Front Page Top

#17 No sense, while you're talking polls, did you see the one on Hillary (I refuse to call her Hitlery, as the comparison to Hitler is WAY overused these days)? Seems that 43% of this country would vote AGAINST her now, but less than 27% would vote for her. Not that I (or most free-thinkers here) believe in governing by polls, as Clinton I did. I'm glad President Bush, for that matter, could care less about polls too.
Posted by BA 2006-02-09 13:14||   2006-02-09 13:14|| Front Page Top

#18 Course the the Rovian/Rethuglicans have GerryMandered the whole House of Representatives and Senate to such an extent that it's likely that the Real Americans for Love Peace and Bunnies will only regain 4 seats in the house and perhaps 1 Senate seat.

BTW I understand Karl Rove is considering a redistribution of Senate seats in selected States east of the Mississippi. Rhode Island will be represented by Dade County Florida and Delaware will revert to Lord De la Ware's family estate and be joined to Maryland. This is all hot news, but this is what the lizard people are talking about.

/Peace, love, freedom and crew manned weapons if the first two don't work.
Posted by 6 2006-02-09 13:16||   2006-02-09 13:16|| Front Page Top

#19 BA:

Yeah, I saw it..But I dont believe for one minute that Hillary Clinton is going to be the Democratic nominee for Prez in 2006. Republicans are frothing at the mouth at the prospect of that happening. Why give them what they want? I dont think she can win and there
are other viable candidates out there for the dems.
Posted by Common Sense 2006-02-09 13:20||   2006-02-09 13:20|| Front Page Top

#20 It's much tougher being a wartime president than being the Jerry Springer president. As for elections: As members gather for the second half of the 109th Congress, already attention is turning to the 110th. The Republicans have 55 seats in the U.S. Senate vs. 44 for the Democrats and one independent, who usually votes with the Democrats. In the House, there at 231 Republicans, 201 Democrats and an independent who also usually votes with the Democrats. The Washington Post reported Monday each party is targeting six Senate seats held by the opposition while in the House as few as 25 seats could be called into question.

In other words status quo, while at the same time the Democratic leadership refuses to take a position on the most important issue facing the USA: Nancy Pelosi says that the Democrats will have an "issue agenda" for next year's Congressional elections, but it will not include a position on Iraq: House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said yesterday that Democrats should not seek a unified position on an exit strategy in Iraq, calling the war a matter of individual conscience and saying differing positions within the caucus are a source of strength for the party.
Confirming the Democrats are spoiled children playing games with the fate of our nation.
Posted by ed 2006-02-09 13:22||   2006-02-09 13:22|| Front Page Top

#21 Well, Common Sense, I don't think anyone's running for Prez in 2006, lol!
Posted by BA 2006-02-09 13:30||   2006-02-09 13:30|| Front Page Top

#22 CS:

I would guess - and, let me reiterate that it is only a guess - that VDH is a Democrat largely because he is an agriculturalist. VDH is a working farmer (no ivory towers for him) as well as a historian and, in my experience, many farmers gravitate to the Democratic Party’s economic theories even if their social views are significantly different. Money talks, as they say.

One of VDH’s unique strengths as a scholar of the ancient military world is his intimate understanding of how food production and rural populations effect history. It is his view that certain distinct patterns are discernable in the history of world conflict. For example, much like the ancient Athenians, we Americans are aggressively exporting Democracy. Our Islamic opponents belong to an eccentric, militant culture with deeply conservative views (I am not referring to the uniquely American conservative vs. liberal paradigm here) that trend toward oligarchy, in some ways like the ancient Spartans. In their pursuit of liberation the ancient Athenians often stumbled into acts of oppression, while the ancient Spartans occasionally fell into the roll of liberator even as they fought to protect oppressive oligarchy. Which doesn’t mean that the Athenians were completely wrong in their goals (nor are we), but that in reality the pursuit of such ideals are a messy, tricky business with many pitfalls and no guaranteed results.

I guess the real question, CS, is do you try to aggressively export democracy, whether into Iraq or the ancient Peloponnese, or do you leave the oligarchies alone? Is it worth the cost? Even if you leave them alone will they leave you alone? Sparta attacked Athens out of fear combined with a deep misunderstanding of the evolving warfare of the period. Sound familiar? Athens had been spreading social unrest (democracy) into Sparta’s sphere of influence. The two of them had been staging proxy wars between the minor Greek powers for years. Sparta had enormous contempt for the “soft” Athenians. They expected negotiation and humiliation to be the result of their military adventure, not 27 years of “world” war stretching from Italy to Asia Minor.

The past invariably shows us the future, or at least what the future might be.
Posted by Secret Master 2006-02-09 13:33||   2006-02-09 13:33|| Front Page Top

#23 Ed:

I dont buy it that democrats DONT have a unified postion on Iraq. I think what they are doing now is very smart politics.

If Bush is taking a negative hammering on Iraq by the american public,why take the focus of off that by giving an alternative that republicans would jump on like a piece of red meat at this time?

I dont think that the dems are playing with the fate of the country no moreso than Bush is.
He keeps making bad decisions that are causing more problems than they are solving.
Posted by Common Sense 2006-02-09 13:33||   2006-02-09 13:33|| Front Page Top

#24 typo error. sorry about that b.a...my bad..lol
Posted by Common Sense 2006-02-09 13:35||   2006-02-09 13:35|| Front Page Top

#25 House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.): said yesterday that Democrats should not seek a unified position on an exit strategy in Iraq

Common Sense: I dont buy it that democrats DONT have a unified postion on Iraq.

You just called Pelosi a liar. At least we can agree on that.
Posted by ed 2006-02-09 13:39||   2006-02-09 13:39|| Front Page Top

#26 Secret Master:

Let me ask you this:

Yesterday I sat down and read the a fatwa that Osama bin Laden wrote calling for a jihad against
the U.S. People are calling this person a madman, but I dont see him like that. I thought it was interesting.

I am not a expert on the history of the middle east, but there seems to be some historical precedent in what he is saying. In so many words he is saying that the U.S. is a "imperialistic interloper" in the middle east,using military force in representing the interest of Isreal and the U.S. alliance to attack the Muslim people and take over their holylands.

do you think there is any validity to that viewpoint?
Posted by Common Sense 2006-02-09 13:45||   2006-02-09 13:45|| Front Page Top

#27 ed:

I dont think Pelosi is a liar.

Let me rephrase my statement.

Lets put it like this. By the time midterm elections 2006 and prez election 2008 roll around.
The Democrats WILL have COALESCED into a unified position on Iraq. comprende?
Posted by Common Sense 2006-02-09 13:51||   2006-02-09 13:51|| Front Page Top

#28 US military interventions wrt muslims:
Spoiled British, French, Israeli occupation of Suez Canal
Supplied Afghans fighting Soviet invasion
Defended Arab shipping from Iranian attacks
Forestalled Iraqi invasion of Saudi Arabia, liberated Kuwait
Fed million of Somali starving
Rescued Bosnian muslims from certain defeat
Rescued Kosovo muslims from ethnic cleansing

Muslims were the beneficiaries of all theses actions, at the expense of our treasure and blood. And what was our reward, demonization, constant attacks, 3000 dead and southern Manhattan gutted. From now on, Sharia for the muslims, of course from our vantage point, they are the infidels.
Posted by ed 2006-02-09 13:56||   2006-02-09 13:56|| Front Page Top

#29 fracture and internecine warfare is the Donk future - get over it, losers don't make for good lecturers.
Posted by Frank G 2006-02-09 14:17||   2006-02-09 14:17|| Front Page Top

#30 Ed:

For republicans, arrogance and overconfidence can quite certainly lead to defeat.

Dont you think that it is quite odd that, republicans who control the white house, both houses of Congress and now the USSC are constantly on the DEFENSIVE and striking out from DEFENSIVE positions due to their policies?

Shouldnt it be the other way around?
Posted by Common Sense 2006-02-09 14:30||   2006-02-09 14:30|| Front Page Top

#31 Someone is living in a cream dream.
Posted by Sock Puppet O´ Doom 2006-02-09 14:51||   2006-02-09 14:51|| Front Page Top

#32 Wrong CS. While the Republicans have a hostile press (94% of the Washing DC press corps voted Democratic), the administration is controlling the board. Having a hostile press does not equate to defensiveness. All the Democrats and press corps can do is complain, while the White House implements Defence, intelligence, diplomatic, health, legal and trade policies.

Who is deciding the end game for Iraq? Not the Dems (No Position Pelosi) or the press.
Who is locking up and trying terrorists? Same again.
Who is tracking terrorists and blowing them away?
Who is preparing the next battlefield?
Who is remaking the military?
Who is sweeping out the intelligence agency deadwood?
Who is reorganizing the diplomatic corps?
Who is appointing judical nominations?

What are the Democrats policies? What do they propose? Nothing, because the Republicans have the votes and they are on the offensive in all fronts. Sure Dems can piss and moan, but just like Bagdhad Bob, having a loud microphone does not mean you are winning the war. Watch the hands, not the mouth. What is the Democratic vision to protect America and how do they propose to do it? "Im against doing anything and I can be better at it." don't cut it.
Posted by ed 2006-02-09 14:59||   2006-02-09 14:59|| Front Page Top

#33 Ed:

Bush and the Republican Party are on the defensive because of the failure of their
policies. Sure they are implementing their policies and yet a majority of the american people are against them. It has nothing to
do with the press or msm as so many on the right would have you believe.

Why should dems implement any alternatives while
this is happening...its smart politics to just let the repubs twist in the wind of their incompetence. lol

btw: Bush's State of the Union Speech was just one long DEFENSE of his failed policies...
Posted by Common Sense 2006-02-09 15:16||   2006-02-09 15:16|| Front Page Top

#34 On the contrary. Bush is implementing his policies and Democrats and the press cannot stop them. The democrats wish they could be in that position (and twisting according to you). Complaining is not a solution or defense. Remember the press boasting that their partisanship was worth 15 points for the Democratic candidate? And guess what, he still lost. As was posted earlier, both Senate and House seats should stay as current levels after the midterm election. You claim gloom and doom, but political watchers are claiming staus quo, i.e. complete Republican domination. Get ready for another two years of total republican domination, then President Rice, just in time for Justices Ginsburg, Souter and Kennedy to retire.

Posted by ed 2006-02-09 15:41||   2006-02-09 15:41|| Front Page Top

#35 EM>Yesterday I sat down and read the a fatwa that Osama bin Laden wrote calling for a jihad against the U.S. People are calling this person a madman, but I dont see him like that. I thought it was interesting.

Oh, I never thought that Bin Laden was insane. He’s something of an egomaniac but, hey, so is your average B-grade Hollywood movie star. Being an egomaniac is neither “insane” nor does it inherently make one inherently wrong in ones beliefs. I don’t have the text of his “call to Jihad” in front of me but I think I remember a couple of his points. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

1) The West has meddled in Arab affairs for far to long and should now be thrown out. This has some validity to it, at least in the sense that Western powers have exercised considerable influence in the region since the post-WWI fall of the Ottoman Empire. While this initially was a “spoils of war” situation, it rather quickly developed (or devolved, depending on your prospective) into an “oil” situation. We Americans are less guilty of meddling than most in that our meddling is considerably more recent, as the dubious mantle of “Leader of the Free World” was dumped on us by fate (or the British and French) a little more than 50 years ago. It could fairly be said that we have stuck by Israel through good and bad; a definite sore point with most Arabs. But any superpower that doesn’t stick by its allies doesn’t stay one for very long.

At this point in history, CS, large oil corporations that are really beholden to no particular nation-state exercise the single largest single influence over the Middle East. Often they are at least partially owned by non-Westerners and Muslims. As a son of oil wealth privilege Bin Laden knows this very well, but usually ignores it as ideologically inconvenient.

2) The West has grown corrupt. I agree with Bin Laden. You probably agree with Bin Laden. Unfortunately, I doubt that the words “corrupt” means exactly the same thing to me, you, and Bin Laden! In the end our society will always be “corrupt” to men like Bin Laden precisely because it embodies the various traditions that you and I (as conservative and liberal) both presumably value. Freedom of expression, for example, is unacceptable to much of the Muslim world.

I am not a expert on the history of the middle east, but there seems to be some historical precedent in what he is saying. In so many words he is saying that the U.S. is a "imperialistic interloper" in the middle east,using military force in representing the interest of Isreal and the U.S. alliance to attack the Muslim people and take over their holy lands.

do you think there is any validity to that viewpoint?

Well, it depends on how you define words like “imperialistic.” In my opinion the word probably needs to be either redefined or abandoned. Traditionally, imperialism implied the aggressive creation of some sort of land empire in which the economics are based on the mercantile model of colonies creating raw materials for the mother country, which supplied finished products in return. That is defiantly not us. Now, if you consider Israel to be a colony (and Bin Laden does) of the West in general, and us the leader of the West (an arguable notion), then that idea gets a definite maybe. On the whole, I think that we are looking our for our economic and military interests which may, or may not, coincide with those of the Arab world at any given time. Again, the sticking point here is Israel, which has military value but little comparative economic value. It also has a great deal of symbolic value for everyone involved, a situation which Bin Laden is attempting to exploit.

Honestly, almost nobody wants to “attack the Muslim people and take over their holy lands.” We want them to A) stop trying to kill the Jews, B) evolve from oligarchies into democracies, C) reform their antiquated 7th Century religion a little, and D) sell us a lot of the black crap that you pump out of the ground. Now, this is a pretty tall order (except for D it appears), especially considering that the Muslims (or Radical Muslims if you prefer) are another “imperialist” power who would like to conquer the world, or at least dominate it. Well, this is what they have been telling anybody who is willing to listen, anyhow.

Here’s the real problem: the world has gotten mighty small. Some would say uncomfortably small. In a cultural sense we can’t avoid one another anymore. The real problem that most Muslims have with America is that they can’t avoid our culture anymore. Nor apparently can we avoid theirs. Our cultures are mutually incompatible: one is going to win, the other is going to loose. I would like to make sure that the guys who chop homosexuals heads off don’t win.

Which is why this thread started. VDH is a Democrat who sees that the long-term gains of exporting liberal democracy outweigh the short term pains.




Posted by Secret Master 2006-02-09 15:47||   2006-02-09 15:47|| Front Page Top

#36 Absolutely not. We did not invade Saudia
Arabia, we were invited...and the same with any other place that was blessed with our presence.
Osama Ben Laden is a skinny little spoiled rich boy [and if he REALLY believes the religious garbage he spouts then he is not only dangerous, but stupid as well. I think he just manipulate those brainwashed into giving more or their hard earned to cons[or is it khans?].
The real argument is will or will not the suppression and oppression of women be...THAT IS WHAT IS REALLY GOING ON...
Posted by Jaiger Glamp5093 2006-02-09 15:59||   2006-02-09 15:59|| Front Page Top

#37 Secret Master:

Thanks for you response. You know its funny but when 9-11-01 first happened, the first thing that went thru my mind is WHY did they do this?

I think a lot of americans, particularly those on the right, have not examined those reasons. They believe that the U.S. is consistently on the right side of every issue and that our actions dont have any consequences of negativity, particularly in the middle east. What I am finding out as i research these matters is that a lot of these underdeveloped nations do view the U.S. negatively as a "Imperialistic Interloper".

In that viewpoint 9-11-01 was a retaliatory action cause by U.S. malfeasance toward the Muslim world as explained by bin laden.

I'm not saying that I agree with it, but I think there is validity to the argument.

this is from wikipedia:

Motive

According to official US Government sources, the September 11th attacks were consistent with the mission statement of Al-Qaeda. The group's involvement in the bombing of American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania is widely suspected, and Al-Qaeda had declared responsibility for the 2000 USS Cole attack in Yemen.

The motivation for this campaign was set out in a 1998 fatwa [16] issued by bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, Abu-Yasir Rifa'i Ahmad Taha, Shaykh Mir Hamzah, and Fazlur Rahman. The fatwa states that the United States:

Plunders the resources of the Arabian Peninsula.
Dictates policy to the rulers of those countries.
Supports abusive regimes and monarchies in the Middle East, thereby oppressing their people.
Has military bases and installations upon the Arabian Peninsula, which violates the Muslim holy land, in order to threaten neighboring Muslim countries.
Intends thereby to create disunion between Muslim states, thus weakening them as a political force.
Supports Israel, and wishes to divert international attention from (and tacitly maintain) the occupation of Palestine.
The Gulf War and the ensuing sanctions against and bombing of Iraq by the United States, were cited, in 1998, as further proof of these allegations. To the disapproval of moderate Muslims, the fatwa uses Islamic texts to explain violent action against American military and citizenry until the alleged grievances are reversed: stating "ulema have throughout Islamic history unanimously agreed that the jihad is an individual duty if the enemy destroys the Muslim countries".

Statements of Al-Qaeda recorded after 9/11 are suggested to add weight to this speculation. In a 2004 video, apparently acknowledging responsibility for the attacks, bin Laden stated that he was motivated to "restore freedom to our nation", to "punish the aggressor in kind", and to inflict economic damage on America. He declared that a continuing objective of his holy war was to "[bleed] America to the point of bankruptcy". [17]

The 9/11 Commission Report determined that the animosity towards the United States felt by Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the so-called "principal architect" of the 9/11 attacks, stemmed "by his own account ... from his violent disagreement with U.S. foreign policy favoring Israel." The same motivation has been imputed to the two pilots who flew into the WTC: Mohamed Atta was described by one Ralph Bodenstein - who traveled, worked and talked with him - as "most imbued actually about... US protection of these Israeli politics in the region." Marwan al-Shehhi is said to have explained his humorless demeanor with the words: "How can you laugh when people are dying in Palestine?" However, bin Laden's 1998 fatwa against the United States (see above) was issued during the highpoint of the Israel-Palestine Oslo agreement era, when all parties believed the conflict was rapidly vanishing.

Posted by Common Sense 2006-02-09 16:12||   2006-02-09 16:12|| Front Page Top

#38 So on 9-11-2001 your initial reaction was to try an understand why someone would fly planes into buildings and kill 3000 of our fellow citizens?

I started cleaning my rifle.....

Which is why your Dems will never be in power again...
Posted by TomAnon 2006-02-09 16:30||   2006-02-09 16:30|| Front Page Top

#39 tom anon:

Oh dems will be in power again because we think before we act.
Posted by Common Sense 2006-02-09 16:38||   2006-02-09 16:38|| Front Page Top

#40 CS, refer to post 28:
US military interventions wrt muslims:
Spoiled British, French, Israeli occupation of Suez Canal
Supplied Afghans fighting Soviet invasion
Defended Arab shipping from Iranian attacks
Forestalled Iraqi invasion of Saudi Arabia, liberated Kuwait
Fed million of Somali starving
Rescued Bosnian muslims from certain defeat
Rescued Kosovo muslims from ethnic cleansing

Muslims have been the number one beneficiary of American largess in the last 30 years. Both in diplomatic, military and economic transfers. Not even Europe has benefitted so much. Yet, by virtue of not being muslim, we can never do enough for them or be equal. Face it, Islam is a Arabian Superiority ideology thinly disguised as a religion. Peace, as defined in the west, does not exist under islam. Your choices are dhimmitude, death or fight. I choose to fight and place them under Sharia. Don't think they will like it so much when they are on the receiving end of it.

Oh dems will be in power again because we think before we act.
That's some mighty powerful thinking Dems must be doing. Us bubbas ain't seen no action yet. Democrats had 8 years of terrorists attacks to respond. Nada. Zip. Only emboldened muslims to mass murder in New York and Washington DC.
Posted by ed 2006-02-09 17:00||   2006-02-09 17:00|| Front Page Top

#41 Thanks for you response. You know its funny but when 9-11-01 first happened, the first thing that went thru my mind is WHY did they do this?

I think a lot of americans, particularly those on the right, have not examined those reasons. They believe that the U.S. is consistently on the right side of every issue and that our actions dont have any consequences of negativity, particularly in the middle east. What I am finding out as i research these matters is that a lot of these underdeveloped nations do view the U.S. negatively as a "Imperialistic Interloper".

In that viewpoint 9-11-01 was a retaliatory action cause by U.S. malfeasance toward the Muslim world as explained by bin laden.

You are mistaken - but I do not blame you, as the concepts behind what Bin Laden does are both complex as well as alien to the American mind. 9-11 was, first an foremost, “performance art” enacted for the benefit of the Muslim Street (as it is known). There is nothing at this juncture in history that the American public could do, short of mass conversion to fundamentalist Sunni Islam, that would have prevented 9-11. We were props in Bin Laden’s drama, not actors. His message was not intended for us but for the Muslim world, which he hopes (or hoped, at this point) to rally behind his banner.

Many of us here have examined the reasons behind 9-11. Some of us simply don’t care: the hated enemy is the hated enemy. The “right” is an awful large and diverse bunch at this point, so please don’t generalize. Very few of us think that the United States is “always” correct. I would say that our nation is “usually” correct, with the occasional tendency to be extremely wrong. Imperialist? Mainly, we just want to sell you stuff.


Posted by Secret Master 2006-02-09 17:02||   2006-02-09 17:02|| Front Page Top

#42 TomAnon, Word! I had retired just 13 months earlier and my first reaction was "Can I lose the 20 pounds I gained and get back into my uniform?" Fortunately for me and the country my services were not asked for or needed. Trust me I would have gone in a second if I was asked.
Posted by Cyber Sarge 2006-02-09 17:08||   2006-02-09 17:08|| Front Page Top

#43 ed, you are absolutely correct with respect to the dem's 8-years of navel gazing while Clinton was president.

CS, don't forget that 9/11 was not the first time that the twin towers were targeted by muslim fanatics. And there were a whole string of other attacks during Bill's presidency. Yet there was no credible response.

If you call that thinking before acting, then I am curious what your definition of action is.

But your reaction to 9/11 is telling. You seem like a college cub who has been trained by lots of lib professors to have a reflexive "America Wrong" position. Something happens and the response is "what did WE do wrong". That reflects a lack of critical thinking. It is nothing to brag about.

Wise up. People like Bin Laden and his ilk want you dead or converted. They don't give a rats ass how sensitive you are to their feelings. They don't give a rats ass about the Palestinians other than to use them to scapegoat the Israelis. They want nothing less than world domination.

Time you got some common sense.
Posted by remoteman 2006-02-09 17:28||   2006-02-09 17:28|| Front Page Top

#44 "Why should dems implement any alternatives while
this is happening...its smart politics to just let the repubs twist in the wind of their incompetence."

However,as an U.S. citizen I would hope that in Time of war both parties would act together. Each offering ideas and tactics that work for MY safety. Not just playing politics because its easier.

As a Citizen I can vote any way I want and I vote for whomever offers the best plan of defense. Therefore if the dems had any plan I might listen. But they don't:( They just have an army of moonbat trolls to spread dissent and lies.
Same fate as the whigs! I say
Posted by SCpatriot 2006-02-09 18:03||   2006-02-09 18:03|| Front Page Top

#45 
"...VDH is a Democrat, however he has very conservative views on Iraq, etc.."

His views are those of a Patriot that accepts the reality of the world as it actually is. Not some whining Leftoid dreaming of a non-existent Utopia.

You bring no value to any of the discussions you participate in. In fact, your arguments are nothing more than verbose representations of the school yard classic: "Nuh uh!".

Go away!

FS3190
Posted by Flaitle Snomong3190 2006-02-09 18:21||   2006-02-09 18:21|| Front Page Top

#46 I am not a expert on the history

you aren't an expert on anything. But please, keep it up you. We look forward to the day that your party will achieve the power and influence of Air America - not viable anywhere.
Posted by 2b 2006-02-10 00:00||   2006-02-10 00:00|| Front Page Top

00:00 2b
23:57 Frank G
23:48 2b
23:47 2b
23:39 2b
23:38 Bomb-a-rama
23:37 Frank G
23:37 2b
23:33 2b
23:31 Sock Puppet O´ Doom
23:30 Damn_Proud_American
23:27 Robert Crawford
23:23 Charles
23:19 phil_b
23:16 2b
23:16 Frank G
23:12 2b
23:10 JosephMendiola
23:07 Jules
23:04 JosephMendiola
23:04 FOTSGreg
23:00 tipper
22:59 JosephMendiola
22:56 JosephMendiola









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com