I have a classic cars site/blog. It pretty much covers ##KEYWORD## related stuff.

Come and check it out if you get time

See Ya There!!!

Removal of human traits, mercy and compassion, is a Leftist ideology and fantasy, where they come up with “super soldiers” that end up killing the creators.

If you want to win a war, you must have Roman Virtues. Favor strength above beauty, favor steadiness over quick thinking, and favor honor over cowardice.

Gravitas.

These are the qualities of life to which every Citizen (and, ideally, everyone else) should aspire. They are the heart of the Via Romana — the Roman Way — and are thought to be those qualities which gave the Roman Republic the moral strength to conquer and civilize the world. Today, they are the rods against which we can measure our own behavior and character, and we can strive to better understand and practice them in our everyday lives.

Veritas: “Truthfulness” Honesty in dealing with others.

If you want your nation to win, start with resurrecting patriotism, and elevating strong and brave men over fashion models and pop/movie stars.

The rest will take care of itself.

Ok, ok, first and foremost I sincerely apologize, hope you can be receptive to that. I only had a two day weekend, so maybe I was jealous. On the other hand the sniping that often occurs from the left, and often by anonymous posters, produces a little shell shock on occasion, friendly (or semi-friendly?) fire is something I am admittedly guilty of at times. So again, an apology is offered, hope you can accept it. However, you’re wrongly typifying posters here, everyone else here is smarter, nicer and better looking than I am. In fact, I’ll visit to read but very shortly am no longer going to post here, for reasons entirely unrelated to you, be assurred.

To the issues, I believe the manner in which you typify the administration is also incorrect, would point to this, referencing a speech by John Lewis Gaddis, as one supportive example. I also disagree, very much so, that the jidadis don’t care who wins a presidential election here. They don’t care in the same sense we do, but they care for reasons of their own.

In terms of addressing the negatives of Iraq, that isn’t what he set out to do (and to quibble, neither is he pretentious). Not all the negatives in a war can be predetermined, and obviously any war will involve substantial negatives of a variety of types and kinds, that’s inherent in the very nature of the beast. You’re not exactly terribly precise yourself, which was but one of the reasons I was cautious concerning your motives. We are, after all, discussing politics during the most divisive time since we defaulted vis-a-vis Vietnam, or at least since Reagan invoked rhetoric such as “the evil empire” during the beginning of the end of the Cold War.

Concerning some type of long term committments. Yes, likely enough, as it variously has been with Japan, Western Europe, So. Korea, Taiwan, the Philippines and elsewhere. No one has a crystal ball, but long term commitments of some stripe or kind are likely. Concerning our allies and world opinion, the short answer is they have done more to alienate us than visa versa. Variously, given Kosovo, Rwanda, Darfur, Zimbabwe, Iraq, the UN’s insolvency and ineffectiveness on any number of fronts, other examples, they don’t reduce to your formulation. There are ideas writ large across the landscape which are being debated on any number of fronts and as a result of any number of motives, but the notion it reduces to us alienating them is simplistic and unrealistic given the themes being discussed and the concerns being addressed around the globe. On the other hand, that also hardly means people are telling you to simply “fall in line.” Given the reductionist propaganda from the Michael Moores, the MoveOns, concerning both domestic and international issues, people on all sides react at times, so it seems to me you might be a bit more charitable in this vein.

Concerning WMD per se. I see it, within Craddick’s overview, as essentially being addressed within the far ranging strategy. See here as well. If politically, socially, diplomatically, economically, even culturally, some basic things can be redressed and shaped as a result of that long term strategy, then that will serve to critically ameliorate the jihadist ideology as a fundamental societal level, creating, in the long run, more cooperation and amity than enmity, i.e., a systemic redressing that unfortunately cannot realistically be accomplished without at least some strategically significant military efforts. There remains a responsible place for force, thoughtfully and strategically applied, in the world.

Finally, no one has convinced me that others are providing, in lieu of our initiative in Afghanistan and Iraq, a viable counter strategy. The notions I’ve encountered in this vein have been difficult to take very seriously at all given all that is at risk. It’s one thing to critique the present set of strategies, it’s another entirely to take responsibility for a substantial alternative plan. In that vein, I at least can acknowledge your admission concerning the patience of the salafists, for example as pertains to WTC ’93.

And again, please do accept my sincere apology. Too, your judgement of others is, I believe, misplaced.

Unwilling to answer either yea or ney, hey? That may be telling in and of itself. An unwillingness to take a position, for example with WTC ’93, may reflect a desire to remain abstracted from the debate, a desire to be able to snipe or otherwise criticize from afar, from above the fray, while not committing so much as an opinion one’s self. This may not represent your own situation, but it’s a position that is very often encountered nonetheless.

And many people who write stuff like you wrote above have red hair and freckles. It may not be so in your case, but believe me, it is not outside the realm of possibility that someone who would write that could have those attributes.

I’m being ironic there, Michael, just in case you were wondering. Can you let somebody take a long weekend over the 4th of July without pidgeonholing them into another of your “leftist islamofascist treasonous snipers/whiners/complainers” catgories?

It’s no wonder people with opposing viewpoints don’t hang around long in this echo chamber. Sure this place attracts alot of trolls, people who come in yelling rubbish and then disappear. But for the most part you guys love it, and are already too busy shaking your heads and chuckling to yourselves about Tom Hayden, Jane Fonda, the trolls and other irrelevant liberal kooks, and then holding them up as some sort of “prime examples” of liberal thinking, as if they say anything at all about the many good, intelligent *American citizens* opposed to the war in Iraq to engage in a serious exchange of ideas and who deserve to have their legitimate concerns addressed much better than this administration has done with their smug dismissals of any dissent. Rather than address *their* (and once in awhile they do chime in around here) concerns, they are systematically ridiculed as cowardly dupes of the liberal MSM, aiding the enemy, etc, etc. There is so much sloganeering and mindless adherence to ideology, a 110% unwavering and uncritical commitment to the cause, it’s like trying to talk to a bunch of maoists during a cultural revolution book burning party.

That said, I thank you for pointing me to Craddick’s site. The level of discourse there is generally on a much higher plane than here, and I will probably be hanging around there more and less here.

Anyway, for what it’s worth, to the extent I understand your question correctly, I do agree that WTC 93 was a “prominent event” and of course I acknowledge the jihadi’s patience. But I would go further. 8.5 years is nothing to them. They are willing to wait 8.5 centuries if that’s what it takes. If anything, I think neocons underestimate that patience when they argue that all these terrorists that would be planning attacks on US soil are now flocking to blow themselves up in Iraq. Those are just the stooges. The real dangerous terrorists are out their taking their time. They don’t care who wins some presidential election here.

As for Craddick’s apologia, I have to say that, while at times a bit pretentious, it makes a great case for Iraq as a tremendous problem for the US in light of the 9-11 attacks. It’s too bad Bush and company couldn’t come up with that on their own. They are too busy treaing us like the ten-year olds they take us for, I guess. Craddick is not too charitable towards the administration’s efforts to make the case for the war either.

What his essay doesn’t do very well for me is tell us why invasion and occupation was the *best possible response* to the problem and address the possible negative consequences of the war. He lists two arguments which are basically the same about the lack of finding WMDs. What about the implications of the commitment of enormous military resources for years to come for this one aspect of the war? What about compromising our military’s ability to fight two major operations at the same time? What about our unfinished business in Afghanistan? What about alienating our major allies and world opinion, how will that help us in the war on terror? Maybe to you these are the concerns of a hand-wringing, panty-waisted sissy, but I think they are worth addressing, and I haven’t seen it done yet. I’ve basically been told to fall in line quick or be considered one of the enemy.

And finally, Craddick’s essay doesn’t do one other thing, and that is specifically address my original question: How has the invasion done anything significant to keep WMD out of the hands of jihadis?

yours,
Anon 353

Unwilling to answer either yea or ney, hey? That may be telling in and of itself. An unwillingness to take a position, for example with WTC ’93, may reflect a desire to remain abstracted from the debate, a desire to be able to snipe or otherwise criticize from afar, from above the fray, while not committing so much as an opinion one’s self. This may not represent your own situation, but it’s a position that is very often encountered nonetheless.

Thankfully, Paul Craddick at Fragmenta Philosophica has recently posted on this topic. Since his perspective virtually mirrors my own with regard to this matter, I’ll let his post stand in for a detailed response of my own. He articulates all the details better than I would have, so that’s an added bonus.

Enjoy the holiday weekend..

I am begining to believe invading Iraq was a deliberate blunder of gargantuan proportions, but I wholly supported Afghanistan (though I think that the prosecution of that effort was also a massive blunder).

I am just saying that if I am wrong and Iraq really does play a vital role in the defense of this nation then we should absolutely have no hesitation whatsoever to call up the necessary resources, from additional tax dollars to personnel.

That is what America does, always has done, in times of war and national emergency. And citizens have always risen to the occasion.

Brie eating Euro trash can participate in compulsory service, but tough Americans cannot, interesting…….

And yes, I do think that instituting the draft will separate the foreign policy wheat from the foreign policy chaff.

Americans will fight when the country needs them, when the world needs them. But they will not fight long when they see no obvious necessity.

When you are against the draft you are tacitly admitting that Iraq was not a national emergency, a serious threat, nor a necessity. You are admitting that you do not like the draft because, by involving the citizens, generally, in wars of choice based on the designs of the rich and well positioned and the theories of their cynical ivory tower hand-maidens that you might get have a rebellion.

Folks, this is our country, not Bush’s. Invest the citizens and they’ll make the right choices.

The request is it would be nice, for the sake of continuity, if you posted under something other than an anonymous title (e.g., are you the same anonymous as the 10:44 and 5:27 Anon?). It would also help affirm you’re asking out of sincerity and not merely out of glibness or a less sincere interest.

How has our invasion and occupation of Iraq done anything significant to hinder the jihadist’s ability to aquire WMD?