http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,351165,00.html

Just to be clear. I don’t know why you place such importance on your credibility, but it’s a weak point, that is worth investing in.

I know, I know. We should just let the Soviet army and Chinese and Indian oil companies dominate them and leave it at that. And if their leaders sponsor terrorism we should just turn the other cheek because to do otherwise is annoying and makes them hate us and creates recruitment windfalls for bin Laden. When will we ever learn that fighting terrorism only creates terrorism, eh?

We did support terrorists in Afghanistan. Except then, we called them Mujahedeen, and Reagan compared them to our Minutemen. We’re still trying to find all the Stingers we gave to them.

Gee, I thought the Mujahedeen were insurgents, not terrorists, who were fighting Soviet soldiers occupying Afghanistan. Ignorant ol’ me defines terrorism as an attack on civilians for the sake of murdering civilians. Although not an expert like Spanky I am actually aware of(and heartily approve of) US support of anti-Communist forces during the Soviet-Afghan War.

it’s also an excellent study of what happens when a counterinsurgency can defeat a rebellion militarily, uses a response that is both so massive and so indiscriminate that it loses anyway when it alienates the people it claimed to be trying to save.

Sounds like al-Zarqawi’s problem. Have you heard that Papa bin Laden is displeased with the feisty youngster’s indiscriminate bombing of Iraqi civilians? Talk about alienation. Apparently al Zarqawi has been demoted, or chastised or something. Awww, gee, and just when it was getting to be fun, too.

Thanks for the book recommendation. I’m presently very busy with a nasty brouhaha in the local Anti-freedom Warriors for Evil chapter. We’re trying to come up with a theme for next week’s meeting. I’m for “Rack Maintenance: A Messy But Necessary Task,” but some others favor “Shackles: The Prudent Anti-freedom Warrior’s Best Friend,” and the chapter, normally a very placid group, is sadly branded by the iron of controversy.

Oh, but you read a sci-fi book and it talked about this sort of thing, so now you know all about it, right?

Yammer, I checked out your webpage, and what did I find? Extended quotes from mass trade sci-fi novels used as evidence for various “analysis.” You know what could possible discredit you more? Maybe if you talked about having a little pink teddy bear as your senior policy advisor. Maybe.

Obviously if the stingers were still working, we’d have about 100-200 SF casualties in Afghanistan because they shot down the transport helis.

The mujahedeen are still freedom fighters. People like the Northern Alliance and Massoud and Karzai have fought for Afghanistan’s independence since long before the US knew Afghanistan existed.

Spank doesn’t have his history right, because it doesn’t benefit people to know that the same people we helped when the Soviets invaded, are working by our side in Afghanistan. The Northern Alliance kicked out the Soviets, were displaced by the Taliban, and now fight against Osama and the Taliban. What else is new in tribal politics. This kind of dynamic is obvious by just watching Survivor for god’s sake, it doesn’t take a lot of study to comprehend.

It also doesn’t benefit people to know about the stingers and what would have happened had they been still function in Afghanistan when we invaded.

Knowledge is power, and people with power are hard to displace.

I’m very weary of this, so I’m done here. I’ll just say two things:

We did support terrorists in Afghanistan. Except then, we called them Mujahedeen, and Reagan compared them to our Minutemen. We’re still trying to find all the Stingers we gave to them.

But what I really recommend is that you read, among other things, Davind Anderson’s “Histories of the Hanged.” Besides being a history of the Mau Mau rebellion against British rule in Kenya during the 1950s, it’s also an excellent study of what happens when a counterinsurgency can defeat a rebellion militarily, uses a response that is both so massive and so indiscriminate that it loses anyway when it alienates the people it claimed to be trying to save.

of course they do. They would be stupid not to. But that still annoys all the people whose countries wind up dominated by US military and oil comapnies. Try standing outside your stadium and seeing the world through the eyes of those for whom the US is an ogre. Then think about why you get terrorism. There is a link. Like it or not. Until Europe and the US wean themselves of oil there is going to be more of this dangerous stuff. That applies to China and India as well. try reading this

One of the things that is so interesting about the anti-warriors is that that if you close your eyes and imagine the US as an ogre their anti-warrior comments make a weird kind of sense. That the US is “deeply concerned about the oil supplies” sounds innocent enough. But the anti-warriors take this thought(that every President worth his salt also thinks) and they run completely out of the stadium with it. It’s always offered as a condemnation, never as praise. David, one of the duties of the President(and Congress) is to look out for the economic interests of the US. It’s a competitive world out there and I’m glad the US has had Presidents that have realized it. Well … maybe not the hapless Carter, a candidate I shamefacedly confess that I eagerly and righteously voted for. What in the world was I thinking?!!

If you want to debate fine. But will you please stop this anti warriors nonsense. The term is meaningless. I am not censoring you but there is little point in debating if you refuse to address substantive points but keep arguing with these mythical anti-warriors.

Gee, I thought I had been addressing substantive anti-warrior points. Silly me. If it wouldn’t be too much to ask, would you care to provide a quote to the readers where I haven’t been addressing a point? Quotes are our friends; they demonstrate to our readers that what we say is not mere unfounded denunciation.

I really admire how David decries censorship, even hastening to add that he isn’t trying to censor my comments and then neatly segues into an attempt to try to censor me! It’s a common tactic for the anti-warriors. They’ll say something and then turn right around and whine that they didn’t say it! They are especially fond of asserting that fighting terrorism causes terrorism and then energetically and hurtfully claiming they don’t! It’s wonderful fun to observe these attempted justifications.

As for “fighting terrorism causes terrorism”, The substantive point is that interfering politically, militarily and economically in many countries around the world is bound to provoke a backlash. You may well feel justified in taking these actions, but you can hardly be surprised if it provokes a response.

I am never surprised when confronting the enemy provokes response or when you anti-warriors describe such clashes, as in Iraq, as interference. At various times I’m chagrined, amused, sickened and disgusted, but never, ever surprised at anti-warrior opinion.

And while we are on the subject let us not forget US support for “terrorists” in Ireland, Nicaragua and Afghanistan. It is a cliché but what you call terrorists are somebody else’s freedom fighters using asymmetrical warfare techniques against a far superior military force.

Does a US President try to keep unfriendly southern despots from importing communism to their neighbors? The anti-warriors will always call such a policy “support for terrorism.” Did an American President help prevent Russia from taking over Afghanistan? That is also labeled as “support for terrorism.” I will readily concede that David has a point about the IRA. It’s one of those things that the US should be ashamed of, this unofficial support of the bloody IRA. Great Britain has every right to be miffed. I hear Ted Kennedy doesn’t invite Gerry Adams to Hyannis Port anymore. See, David! A pro-warrior can criticize America!

Naming them “terrorists” is simply part of the battle.

Which side of the “battle” are you on, David? Ah yes, of course, I forgot; you are on the side that calls terrorists “insurgents.”

Well, I’m off to the local Anti-freedom Warriors for Evil(AWE) chapter meeting. This week we’re having a special Perpetual Hot-Iron Fire ceremony and I would really hate to miss it. Our motto is FEEL OUR AWE!

As for your argument about the law that is exactly what HTTP://WWW.GLOBALPOLICY.ORG/SECURITY/ISSUES/IRAQ/DOCUMENT/2003/0307ADVICE.HTM”>Blair thought here. If you don’t like the legal opinion you are given get another. Or just reject the concept of international law.

Grackle: it is this kind of nonsense I am so bored with

Anti-warriors frame this same basic argument in a lot of different ways. But then, you knew all this, right? Anyway, I thank you for the opportunity to explain this flaw in such a common anti-warrior rhetorical theme

If you want to debate fine. But will you please stop this anti warriors nonsense. The term is meaningless. I am not censoring you but there is little point in debating if you refuse to address substantive points but keep arguing with these mythical anti-warriors. As for “fighting terrorism causes terrorism”, The substantive point is that interfering politically, militarily and economically in many countries around the world is bound to provoke a backlash. You may well feel justified in taking these actions, but you can hardly be surprised if it provokes a response.

And while we are on the subject let us not forget US support for “terrorists” in Ireland, Nicaragua and Afghanistan. It is a cliché but what you call terrorists are somebody else’s freedom fighters using asymmetrical warfare techniques against a far superior military force. Naming them “terrorists” is simply part of the battle.

Gee, Spanky, you anti-warriors sure do love to state the obvious. First someone whines about US “presence” in Iraq, because it makes the terrorists mad. I found that particular opinion very obvious and nonsensical also and was just trying to simplify the convoluted syntax to which anti-warriors invariably resort when they try to dress up this nonsense, but since you have difficulty living with that, we’ll go through the drill again:

The US presence in Iraq is an enormous recruiting tool for the insurgency and one of it main reasons for existence.

An enormous part of the problem is that a large part of the insurgency is fueled by hostility to the US presence[in Iraq] in the first place.

Call me reckless but to state this in an anti-war comment seems to be trying to make the point that the US is causing terrorism by fighting terrorism. Not true? What do you think the writer meant? Care to offer your own paraphrase?

The goal of the bulk of the insurgency is to get rid of the US.

Here we go with the obvious again.

Estimates place the number of foreign jihadis - the Saudis and the Syrians who commit the bulk of the suicide bombings and head choppings - at only about 10-15% of the total strength. The rest are just Iraqis.

Naw, Spanky, the rest are not “just Iraqis.” The rest are terrorists, busily murdering their fellow Iraqis. Part of the problem is that you anti-warriors always think terrorists are “just Iraqis,” or ‘just angry’,’ or ‘just misunderstood,’ or ‘just misguided.’

Do you think their[the terrorists in Iraq] recruiting slogan is “come be evil!” or “come save your homeland from foreign invaders!”

No, I think their slogan is “Reinstate Saddam Through Terrorism and Regain Your Former Power in His New Regime!” Well, I admit that’s kind of unwieldy – too long I guess. How about “Glory To The Coming Caliphate!”

Think back to the American Revolution. The goal of the Continental Army was to evict the British crown and army from the continent. Oh no! I compared our heroic revolutionaries to evil terrorists!

I know, I know, but you anti-warriors do that a lot – calling terrorists “insurgents,” instead of what they are, ascribing noble motives to them(and thereby implying ignoble motives for their opposition), putting the terrorists in the same category as the French Resistance or American revolutionaries, which are the comparisons of choice for most anti-warriors. You anti-warriors do this almost as often as you deny doing it, sort of like when you anti-warriors try to make the cockeyed point that “fighting terrorism causes terrorism” and then deny doing it.

You can’t have an army dedicated to driving America out of Iraq if America is out of Iraq.

Spanky, do you think if there were no terrorists in Iraq that the US would still be there? That if the country was busy voting, forming a parliament, training an army, rebuilding a police force and repairing infrastructures like power and water plants, with no terrorists trying to stop all that, that the US would still be there?

But Grackle, it’s also important to remember, with your accusations of “fighting terrorism causes terrorism,” is that we didn’t go into Iraq to fight terrorism.

Spanky, maybe you don’t equate toppling Saddam as a blow to terrorism, but many of us anti-warriors do.

We went into Iraq to topple its government, replace it with one we liked, and dismantle an imaginary Iraqi WMD program.

Topple Saddam, yes. Replace it with one we liked, no. Replace it with one that won’t foster terrorism like the previous one, yes. Dismantle a an imaginary Iraqi WMD program, no. To prevent reconstitution of the same WMD program that Saddam used to murder the Kurds, yes. You remember the gassing of the Kurds, don’t you? You might not want to go on too long about the “imaginary Iraqi WMD program” around any Iraqi Kurds. They might get cross with you.

In the course of this not-fighting-terrorism, an anti-US insurgency rose up among Iraqis. We weren’t even fighting terrorism when they started to fight us.

I get it! We had just toppled a monster and were hanging around attempting to repair the infrastructure but our soldiers got mean and went looking for trouble and the terrorists rose as one against the Evil Satan’s minions. Brilliant.

I can only imagine that in your head we went over there to fight this evil jihadi army, and that’s who we’re still fighting.

Is there an “army” in Iraq fighting the US? Thanks for the info, Spanky, because I hadn’t heard. Where does this “army” come from, anyway? What government sent this “army”? Whose uniforms do they wear? Why hasn’t this “army” been featured on CNN?

The insurgents in Iraq don’t have a coordinated program for religious violence and theocratic rule (the Shi’ite parties we managed to put into power have that covered).

I know, I know, the terrorists in Iraq are nice guys. No violence or ruling for them. It’s the Eskimos. Yes, the Eskimos have craftily sneaked down from the Arctic and it is they, the Eskimos, that are setting off the roadside bombs, doing the sniping & suicide bombing. Us? Well, we’re making the Eskimos very angry, what with all the infrastructure repairing, school building, military and police force training, elections and parliament-forming. And these noble Eskimos are understandably trying to kick us out for doing all these horrible things.

Sometimes heavy-handed responses to terrorism will convince people to become terrorists.

Sigh. More “Fighting Terrorism Causes Terrorism.” Looks like my work will never be done, responding to these “Fighting Terrorism Causes Terrorism” comments. They seem to slip out of the anti-warriors more and more frequently these days.

How do you know they aren’t there, when you’re not there either?

Besides, there’s still the Kurds to fight.

The above sounds to me like the “They have WMDs because I’m here in Washington” statements.

Grackle, the goal of the insurgency isn’t to be evil, or to commit terrorism. The goal of the bulk of the insurgency is to get rid of the US. Estimates place the number of foreign jihadis - the Saudis and the Syrians who commit the bulk of the suicide bombings and head choppings - at only about 10-15% of the total strength. The rest are just Iraqis. Every month we claim to kill or capture thousands of insurgents, and every month the strength of the insurgency remains the same. They have to be making up the losses somehow. Do you think their recruiting slogan is “come be evil!” or “come save your homeland from foreign invaders!”

Which do you think has a more effective ring to it?

Think back to the American Revolution. The goal of the Continental Army was to evict the British crown and army from the continent. Do you think the Continental Army recruited by a) saying “come kill British people, it’s fun!” or “come and save your country from a foreign occupying army!” ?

Oh no! I compared our heroic revolutionaries to evil terrorists! Except no, I compared too insurgencies whose goal it was to remove a foreign occupying power. The Iraqi insurgents perceive us as a foreign occupying power. They recruit thousands of Iraqis every month. Thousands upon thousands of Iraqis aren’t crazed jihadi terrorists - they’re people who think their country is occupied by a foreign invader. You can’t have an army dedicated to driving America out of Iraq if America is out of Iraq.

But Grackle, it’s also important to remember, with your accusations of “fighting terrorism causes terrorism,” is that we didn’t go into Iraq to fight terrorism. We went into Iraq to topple its government, replace it with one we liked, and dismantle an imaginary Iraqi WMD program. In the course of this not-fighting-terrorism, an anti-US insurgency rose up among Iraqis. We weren’t even fighting terrorism when they started to fight us.

I can only imagine that in your head we went over there to fight this evil jihadi army, and that’s who we’re still fighting. But we didn’t. There was no evil jihadi army, and except for an estimated 3,000 foreign fighters, there still is no evil jihadi army. I know, I know, they’re Muslims and they’re fighting - how could they not be evil jihadis? But just as Americans can go to war and not be crazed Christian Crusaders, Muslims can go to war without being crazed jihadis with religious goals in mind.

The Iraqi insurgency is a nationalist force. I realize that somewhere along the lines you Righties got it into your heads that “nationalist” means “righteous” in the eyes of Lefties, but what you don’t seem to realize is that it is a neutral description of fact. The insurgents in Iraq don’t have a coordinated program for religious violence and theocratic rule (the Shi’ite parties we managed to put into power have that covered). The insurgents in Iraq, like most other nationalist movements, perceive that their nation is under threat or is being done wrong in some way, and are fighting to rectify that perception.

Just as the American Revolution was a nationalist movement to win independence for an American nation that was perceived to be oppressed by the British. Just as the Kurdish peshmerga is a nationalist movement to defend the Kurdish people. Just like the LTTE perceive the Tamils to be oppressed and are fighting for independence from Sri Lanka. Just like Mau Mau fought to kick the British out of Kenya. Just like…

And on and on and on. Sometimes these movements have legitimate goals and sometimes they don’t, but the only thing that matters to them is that they perceive they have legitimate goals. Just because we think the insurgency in Iraq doesn’t have legitimate goals doesn’t mean they’re suddenly going to stop fighting. Most of them (not all, but most) will stop fighting once they have achieved their goal of the US out of Iraq, or if they no longer perceive that their nation is under attack (Sunni inclusion in the political process), or if we kill all the Sunnis.

And you know what? Sometimes heavy-handed responses to terrorism will convince people to become terrorists. When the Nazis rolled into the Soviet Union, they were greeted as liberators. During the war something like a million Soviet citizens fought in German uniform. But the Germans were so convinced of Slavic inferiority that they didn’t think they would need any help defeating the Soviet Union, and they found help from the Slavs distasteful. So they went about their Nazi business, and in the end the Germans ended up facing a massive partisan resistance movement. They missed a tremendous opportunity for collaboration with the Soviet peoples who hated Stalin, but eventually came to hate Hitler more.

This is a pattern repeated over and over again. A national movement rises up against a perceived enemy. The enemy responds with violence of its own. That violence alienates some members of the nation, who then start fighting too. It happened in America with the Boston Massacre. It happened in Kenya with the concentration camps. It happened in the Ukraine under the Nazis. It is the curse of the counterinsurgency: the tremendous difficulty faced with trying to fight against an insurgency without alienating the neutral population when the insurgency blends in with the population.

So we have to understand that the more overwhelming our violence is, the more insurgents we’re going to kill - and the more neutral people we’re going to hurt, and the more readily the insurgency will be able to recruit from former fence sitters.

I’m sorry, this isn’t anti-American or pro-terrorist. This is a simple statement of historical fact.

““No war for oil, especially if it is ours,” is indeed the attitude of Europe.

Furthermore, if Iraq is being taken to war for purely economic concerns, why has America failed to call for “regime change” in Venezuela, which accounts for nearly 7% of the world’s oil supply, whose strikes at state-owned oil fields have certainly contributed to rising gas prices? And instead of stationing 5000 American soldiers to protect the House of Saud, why has the United States chosen not to simply topple Saudi Arabia, the spoils of war being 256 billion barrels of oil, 22% of the world’s supply? And rather than expend such effort in assembling a “coalition of the willing” to disarm Iraq, why not simply take over the oil wells of the United Arab Emirates, a small nation whose leadership will not be missed, if replaced? One can only assume that if America were amoral enough to wage a war for oil, its leadership would at least minimize risk, and the aforementioned are surely less risky, relative to Iraq. The commonality between the aforementioned oil nations continues: none have attempted the assassination of an American president, none have signed and summarily broken armistice agreements, and none have been willing to live with crippling sanctions, preferring instead to build bombs. Iraq has done all of this, and more.”

From:
http://www.michiganreview.com/article.php?id=1163

An enormous part of the problem is that a large part of the insurgency is fueled by hostility to the US presence in the first place.

Here’s the grackle response: Anti-warrior meme =“Terrorism is caused by fighting terrorism.”. This ever popular theme is repeated with only slight variation by all the anti-warriors sooner or later.

David adds: therefore you are -anti warrior you don’t understand terrorism and i don’t have to think about it

will that do grackle?

Not really, David. Although “anti-warrior” was used as a term in my terse critique, it was not used to “dismiss” the statements.

The dismissal came with my more direct paraphrase (“Terrorism is caused by fighting terrorism”) of the offending statements. The implication of the 2 statements is that the US ‘causes’ terrorism(“US presence in Iraq is an enormous recruiting tool”) and that the US is the ‘cause’ of the terrorism(a large part of the insurgency is fueled by hostility to the US presence).

How does the US cause terrorism? Why, the US causes terrorism by fighting terrorism - in Iraq!

When all this convoluted syntax is parsed to it’s essence, the message is really just “Terrorism is caused by fighting terrorism.” In my more direct paraphrase the message is revealed as illogical nonsense.

Anti-warriors frame this same basic argument in a lot of different ways. But then, you knew all this, right? Anyway, I thank you for the opportunity to explain this flaw in such a common anti-warrior rhetorical theme.

I was thinking: It might be a good idea if you could you ask me again 2 or 3 days from now so new readers will get the benefit of the more detailed treatment. Some anti-warrior is bound to post the same argument and I’ll come in with The Paraphrase and you can be puzzled and I’ll explain it again. That way I won’t seem unnecessarily ‘wordy’; it would be just be me patiently clarifying things, you know, like we’ve done with ‘anti-warrior’.

I don’t think the UN is a monarchy. Kofi’s is entitled to his opinion, but ‘legally’ binding it isn’t.

…and many legal experts now describe the US-UK attack as an act of aggression, violating international law.

Then there are also legal experts who think otherwise. Which legal experts shall I believe? The easy answer is those who fit my worldview. I need more depth to be convinced.

Iraq has the second largest oil reserves

Reserves are nice, but production is what matters in the world economy. It ain’t worth much in the ground.

…and the US economy, and military strength is heavily dependent on oil.

Not as much as the middle easts…

…Saddam was increasingly anti-US and looked mad and bad enoughto influence neighbours to prevent supplies reaching US.

Really? Which neighbors (with oil) would he be persuasive to? The Kuwaiti’s, Saudi’s or Iranian’s with whom he’d recently invaded or attempted to?
Also, the US get’s relatively little oil from the ME. Most ME production goes to Japan and Europe, and increasingly China and India. Not to say that the effects of supply troubles wouldn’t affect the US… but not exactly as you portray.

…Therefore occam’s razor woul dsuggest that the principle reason for the invasion was the oil.

I don’t think we’re there yet.
Keep trying, David, I’m enjoying this.

..course if you had a team sponsor it would be texaco

Spanky, I would no more try to censor you than I would let you censor me. Write whatever you wish, use whatever words you desire. But remember: Profanity is the product of a weak mind. Me? I’m off to the torture chambers with the rest of the Anti-freedom Warriors for Evil. You oughta come down sometime; we have a female chapter, the Evil Warriorettes, and throw a hellofa good party. Next month is the national convention. There’s going to be seminars on journalist-bagging, racial epithets, gender insults, genocide-ignoring, harmless despot toppling and my favorite: conflagration pimping.

At 7:24 PM, April 22, 2006, grackle said…
The US presence in Iraq is an enormous recruiting tool for the insurgency and one of it main reasons for existence.

Anti-warrior meme = Terrorism is caused by fighting terrorism. This ever popular theme is repeated with only slight variation by all the anti-warriors sooner or later.

therefore you are -anti warrior you don’t understand terrorism and i don’t hav eto thin k about it

will that do grackle?

I think you guys make some great anti-freedom warrior for evil arguments about Iraq and terrorism. Keep up the good work, anti-freedom warriors for evil!

BTW, we are still waiting for those quotes where I dismiss arguments by hurling that dreaded charge “anti-warrior” at them, as per your last unfounded accusation.

1. Have a read of this Shortly before the outbreak of hostilities, UN Secretary General stated that the use of force without Council endorsement would “not be in conformity with the Charter”

2. Iraq has the second largest oil reserves and the US economy, and military strength is heavily dependent on oil. Saddam was increasingly anti-US and looked mad and bad enoughto influence neighbours to prevent supplies reaching US. Therefore occam’s razor woul dsuggest that the principle reason for the invasion was the oil.

Which is what we have argued about before.

But at least it is a proper argument, and it is possible for you to now produce evidence that may show I am wrong.

As for oil, it was much more easily had, and cheaper, by leaving Saddam in place…

For example “the war is illegal and was fought for the oil.” cannot be contradicted by making the accusation that i am anti war. That i am anti war is clear, but i am not anti-soldier.

To debate this point you have to show that the war is legal and for some purpose other than the oil.

Using the term anti-war is fair enough as in the current on going debate it is usually implicit that you are referring to the Iraq war.

However ascribing characteristics such as cowardice et. to all those who are anti-war is still unfounded so you are probably best off sticking to debating with substantive points rather than waving these terms around.

For example “the war is illegal and was fought for the oil.” cannot be argued against because i am anti war. That is clear from the position i have taken

To debate this point you have to show that the war is legal and for some purpose other than the war

Terrible, but true, and the times may eventually be more grim than we can imagine. The on-going carnage, the really massive carnage that may be in the offing. The world has always guaranteed a bloody existence but the potential is so much greater than before. This is my real concern, that a great slaughter will occur, with those who will die the most blindly hastening that day. I hope that does not occur but when I think about it the steps that would seem to lead to it seem so plausible, so possible, so chillingly inevitable unless events get off the track they seem to be on.

Ok, so maybe I was a little too grim. “Anti-warrior” is still assinine, though. “Anti-warrior” implies that one is against warriors.

You say “asinine,” I say ‘apt.’ Before, maybe you had an excuse because you claim you didn’t know what the terms meant. But now I’ve been forced to define them. I suppose “anti-warrior” could be taken as implying that one is “against warriors” if the term was used without explanation in a discussion of, say, the American West, re: pro-warrior, anti-miner, pro-rancher, anti-squatter, etc. But in a discussion of war in the Middle East? Oh, I guess we could be referring to that Sioux settlement just outside Baghdad(Note to self: Email request for an application to Jon Stewart).

And no, I wasn’t calling you gay. My best man is gay. It was a metaphor within the context of rhetorical overcompensation for self-doubt. You silly billy.

Yeah, suuuure you wasn’t(snicker, wink). But don’t worry, I don’t hold it against you. I said a couple of mean things. I’m inspired by Neo’s admonishment and will try to keep my own blows sharp but clean.

You know, Spanky, you actually changed my mind about the cult hero thing. It just doesn’t hold water for me anymore – I’ve pulled that particular thread from the tapestry. You did that with a kind of teasing, needling style of approach. Not just the response to my comment but all your comments had me laughing out loud several times at your sheer cheekiness and that made me more amenable to your reasoning. The Robin Williams Method of Persuasion.

There’s doubt now, you rascal, so it’s shelved unless I start getting “Ain’t Bin Laden Great!” emails co-signed by Cindy Sheehan and Michael Moore. I tell you this only in the hope that it will allow you yourself to entertain the notion that you may be wrong.

Now, back to the center of the ring with guards up! Defend yourself at all times.

Ok, so maybe I was a little too grim. “Anti-warrior” is still assinine, though. “Anti-warrior” implies that one is against warriors.

And no, I wasn’t calling you gay. My best man is gay. It was a metaphor within the context of rhetorical overcompensation for self-doubt. You silly billy.

You could only be insulted by these terms if you would also be insulted by being described as ‘anti-war’ or ‘pro-war,’ universally accepted terms that are neither complimentary nor insulting. Or if you are trying hard to find something to be insulted about. Playing the ‘insult card’?

I’m pro-war, but pro-war is an attitude. I’m not an attitude, I’m a human being, a pro-warrior. I know Spanky’s intelligent; he writes very well; so he must know what a pun is. I understand now that some won’t ‘get it,’ but I figured Spanky would. The fact of the pun is not important, it’s just a happy accident, except that realizing the pun defines the terms. The thing I like about the terminology is its efficiency, there’s no political side issues like abortion, tax policy, social problems, etc. dragged into the exchange. The “moonbat/wingnut” duo is of limited value because they are not narrow enough; they imply a spectrum of political attitudes not germane to discussions of the war and are mildly insulting to boot.

I started using this terminology when I realized that ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ were inadequate terms when discussing the war, re: liberal = against the war – conservative = for the war. Someone says, “Yeah, all you liberals think that way,” and someone else replies, “I’m not a liberal, I’m a conservative but I’m just against the war.” In discussions about the war, all that really matters is whether you think the war is justified or not, your opinions on that, not your opinion on abortion. When I think someone is mistaken about the war I want to address them about that, the war, not about where they might stand on other issues precious to the right and left.

And because of this Spanky implies I’m a homosexual, obviously intending I should be offended. The interesting fact that Spanky thinks homosexuality would be something to which offense should be taken, and begin the comment with it, sort of tells us all where Spanky stands on the subject. It also tells us what’s foremost in his mind. Careful, Spanky, one’s choice of insults says volumes. Lord, what a little innocent, original terminology, as free of bias as ‘up’ and ‘down,’ but just a bit different than has been heard before, will cause people to key on a blog.

But what I just said was probably no more offensive to Grackle than what Grackle says every time he calls someone who disagrees with him, within the framework of masculinity and patriotism as it exists in the US, a weak coward who hates the brave fightin’ men and women of the US Armed Forces.

When I read this I was stunned. Where’s the old fun-loving, light-hearted Spanky? The Spanky who could actually kid around and be very funny. Really. Spanky’s wasted in DoD, he ought to be making big dough writing zingers for The Daily Show. But here he’s so … grim. I don’t think anyone’s a coward, couldn’t care less about issues of “masculinity” and shouldn’t even be having to say so. Hey, and with nary a quote, either. Just a flat statement of fact. And I stood up for Spanky, complimented him. Wow.

I am not trying to censor you; I simply want to stop you dismissing everything I argue as anti warrior. It is meaningless and you are not giving proper thought to arguments against yours.

I always have more to say than that; there are always counter-arguments with loads of meaning in my comments. David, leave the room for ‘time out’ and don’t come back without a quote in your hand that demonstrates where I dismiss any argument merely as “anti-warrior!!” Quotes are our friends; quotes let readers know what we assert is the truth and not mere unfounded accusation. BTW, I agree with 1 thru 4. It’s 5 and 6 where we part company. I recognize fully that someone may have a pro-military attitude yet be an anti-warrior. Since you asked, you do indeed have an anti-war attitude and therefore are, sadly, an anti-warrior.

Spanky, David and anyone else who doesn’t like my terms – too bad. I won’t be censored because of political correctness made up on the spur of the moment.

I will briefly explain my position on the military.

1. Democracies need armies. They have to be prepared to use extreme violence and kill.
2. This process should be subject to democratic control and should not be engaged in lightly.
3. Government should not take action that will lead to the maiming and death of their troops without a very good reason.
4. Anybody who is over enthusiastic about putting our troops into danger does not have their best interests at heart. They are arguably anti-soldier.
5. In my opinion the war in Iraq is illegal and potentially endless. It has lead to many deaths of US and UK military and will lead to many more.
6. Arguably Bush and Blair do not have their best interests at heart.

So do you think you can describe this position as pro/anti-warrior? Or is it actually something more complex?

The pro/anti-warrior bit is predicated on notions that the Right has about gender, masculinity, manliness, patriotism, etc.

Why do you think that hostility to gays is a good indicator of homosexuality?

The Right has set itself up as the “Daddy” party, the tough guys, the hawks, the biggest swinging dicks in the room, while liberals are denigrated as effeminate, weak, cowardly, etc.

It’s indicative, I think, that people like Grackle aren’t “warriors,” but rather “pro-warrior.” They acknowledge that they’re not actually doing manly things like being warriors, so it’s necessary for the Right to promote the idea of being a warrior, and to associate themselves with that idea.

Grackle might never do a thing in his life to actually support “warriors,” but he’ll still use the term “pro-warrior” to describe himself, because for so many Righties it’s a necessary component to their self-image and their notions about masculinity.

It’s all so very hyperreal. Stick a flag on your car, you’re supporting the troops. Advocate bringing the troops home from a war they can’t win, you hate the troops. And so forth.

Or maybe not. But what I just said was probably no more offensive to Grackle than what Grackle says every time he calls someone who disagrees with him, within the framework of masculinity and patriotism as it exists in the US, a weak coward who hates the brave fightin’ men and women of the US Armed Forces.

Full disclosure: I work on a military post. I work with representatives from Joint every day. But I think Iraq was a mistake. Little do my co-workers know that I am anti-them.

Part of david’s charge that anti-warrior is meaningless because it has too many definitions undefined.

In the end, david probably feels that saying an argument is anti-warrior or in any relation, is inferior to saying why the argument is anti-warrior.

“ … run the risk of changing your mind … ” David, I’m having a difficult time figuring out what you mean with this phrase.

Anti-warrior/pro-warrior is simply neutral terminology, somewhat like the terms liberal/conservative and is neither pejorative nor eulogistic. I’ve never based any argument on terminology; fact and opinion are my methods(and a pinch of satire).

Read my comments carefully and come up with a quote where I’ve dismissed anyone’s comment because I perceived them to be a pro-warrior or anti-warrior.

After you fail in that endeavor come back and explain to me why I should allow anyone to censor my comments, as long as they fall within Neo’s guidelines.

This is not Harvard or Berkeley, where you anti-warriors can dictate what people say and do. Try censoring someone else; it won’t work on me.

Why warriors instead of soldiers, military or military action?

Why do you have to be pro or anti?

This childish black and white view of things is simply not good enough to cover the range of opinions that exist.

To dismiss opinions that differ with yours as “anti-warrior” means you don’t address the arguments offered, you don’t think about it, and you do not have to run the risk of changing your mind.

Group hug?

I hope Hogan doesn’t cause harm with his misinformation about AIDS. Other than that I don’t have any feelings about Hogan one way or the other. If he believes the Holocaust didn’t happen, he’s not a very good historian & I found it strange that he would be quoted in order to make a historical point. Whether Hogan is anti-war or pro-war doesn’t interest me.