Comments on: The definition of “success” in war: Part II (colonialism and occupation) http://neoneocon.com/2006/12/12/definition-of-success-in-war-part-ii/ Thu, 09 Feb 2012 21:56:23 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3 By: Ymarsakar http://neoneocon.com/2006/12/12/definition-of-success-in-war-part-ii/#comment-23106 Ymarsakar Fri, 15 Dec 2006 19:00:24 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/2006/12/definition-of-success-in-war-part-ii.html#comment-23106 <B>social democratic</b> SDP all the way, pave the way for another tyrant. Social democracy "is" a derogatory term, dontcha know. social democratic

SDP all the way, pave the way for another tyrant.

Social democracy “is” a derogatory term, dontcha know.

]]> By: tiddles http://neoneocon.com/2006/12/12/definition-of-success-in-war-part-ii/#comment-23105 tiddles Fri, 15 Dec 2006 05:12:34 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/2006/12/definition-of-success-in-war-part-ii.html#comment-23105 It's a group of Islamic Arabs pledging allegiance to a National Socialist State above all else--that IS fascism! Gray | 12.13.06 - 3:36 pm | # No, they were secular arabs who embraced a social democratic pan arab vision. That is clearly NOT fascism nor sectarian islamist. And, even radical islamism a la Salafists is not akin to fascism. If you are going to throw labels as derogatory grenades, at least get your terminology correct. It’s a group of Islamic Arabs pledging allegiance to a National Socialist State above all else–that IS fascism!
Gray | 12.13.06 – 3:36 pm | #

No, they were secular arabs who embraced a social democratic pan arab vision. That is clearly NOT fascism nor sectarian islamist.

And, even radical islamism a la Salafists is not akin to fascism.

If you are going to throw labels as derogatory grenades, at least get your terminology correct.

]]> By: Ymarsakar http://neoneocon.com/2006/12/12/definition-of-success-in-war-part-ii/#comment-23104 Ymarsakar Thu, 14 Dec 2006 09:44:21 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/2006/12/definition-of-success-in-war-part-ii.html#comment-23104 This is the real zoo by the way. <a href="http://www.operationdoubles.com/zoo-blog/2006/12/what-is-nationalism.html">Operation Doubles</a> This is the real zoo by the way.

Operation Doubles

]]> By: Ymarsakar http://neoneocon.com/2006/12/12/definition-of-success-in-war-part-ii/#comment-23103 Ymarsakar Thu, 14 Dec 2006 09:03:37 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/2006/12/definition-of-success-in-war-part-ii.html#comment-23103 I never heard an alternative in 2003, that I could use to compare to the so called "insufficient war plan". In point of fact, the only criticisms I heard was something about not enough troops, and that was it. That was IT. They said nothing about the looting, except "more troops". They said nothing about the IEDs and the unarmored cars and the terrorists except, "more troops". Compared to that, I am supposed to join up on this "alternative plan" that didn't exist except in some General's madly ambitious brain? I never heard an alternative in 2003, that I could use to compare to the so called “insufficient war plan”. In point of fact, the only criticisms I heard was something about not enough troops, and that was it. That was IT. They said nothing about the looting, except “more troops”. They said nothing about the IEDs and the unarmored cars and the terrorists except, “more troops”. Compared to that, I am supposed to join up on this “alternative plan” that didn’t exist except in some General’s madly ambitious brain?

]]> By: Steve http://neoneocon.com/2006/12/12/definition-of-success-in-war-part-ii/#comment-23102 Steve Thu, 14 Dec 2006 02:17:21 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/2006/12/definition-of-success-in-war-part-ii.html#comment-23102 <i>Arabs are another story, they have genetically ingrained psychology of nomadic conquerors and robbers, so the only possible solution is to fence them, as Palestinians, and impose strict technological embargo to deny them any access to modern weaponry. </i> I guess that would be one hell of a zoo. Free admission? Arabs are another story, they have genetically ingrained psychology of nomadic conquerors and robbers, so the only possible solution is to fence them, as Palestinians, and impose strict technological embargo to deny them any access to modern weaponry.

I guess that would be one hell of a zoo. Free admission?

]]> By: Gray http://neoneocon.com/2006/12/12/definition-of-success-in-war-part-ii/#comment-23101 Gray Thu, 14 Dec 2006 01:31:10 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/2006/12/definition-of-success-in-war-part-ii.html#comment-23101 //But it was explicitly a secular non-Islamic party.// Just like the NSDAP was explicitly a secular non-Christian party: Gott mitt Uns! That in itself is symptomatic of fascism. OF COURSE it says it is 'secular and non-Islamic'! It's a group of Islamic Arabs pledging allegiance to a National Socialist State above all else--that IS fascism! //But it was explicitly a secular non-Islamic party.//

Just like the NSDAP was explicitly a secular non-Christian party: Gott mitt Uns!

That in itself is symptomatic of fascism.

OF COURSE it says it is ‘secular and non-Islamic’!

It’s a group of Islamic Arabs pledging allegiance to a National Socialist State above all else–that IS fascism!

]]> By: gcotharn http://neoneocon.com/2006/12/12/definition-of-success-in-war-part-ii/#comment-23100 gcotharn Thu, 14 Dec 2006 01:15:58 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/2006/12/definition-of-success-in-war-part-ii.html#comment-23100 Troutsky raises the issue of political will. If Iraq does not succeed as we hope, it WILL BE b/c America was not unified behind making the necessary effort. I believe such a failure - caused by waging war with partial effort - would be clarifying for the electorate. In future, when the fascist threat rises against us in greater strength, I believe the American electorate will be more prepared to support decisive, large-scale action. Troutsky, and many leftists, complain that America ought not have undertaken OIF w/o greater national consensus, and greater national support. A couple of points: 1) We are a republic, not a democracy, exactly in anticipation of situations such as this. 2) OIF is a moral effort, both for self-defense reasons, and for humanitarian reasons. While it is immoral to waste lives in a losing effort, OIF has already accomplished great things for us, and for the world, as enumerated above. Therefore, whether or not popular support existed for achieving large scale democratic victory, I believe Pres. Bush made the correct moral call in launching OIF. Even if larger scope victory is not achieved, events have vindicated his decision. 3) As stated above, I believe OIF has prepared(has steeled) the American electorate for circumstances which may arise in the near future. As warfare goes on(and the WOT WILL go on), things which used to horrify us begin to horrify us less. We begin to accept the necessity of certain violences, of certain deprivations, of certain sacrifices. This current conflict may be a training ground for the American public. Finally, the complaint that we didn't have a large enough pre-invasion conversation is sometimes a mere complaint that the conversation didn't stop Pres. Bush from launching OIF. I remember much pre-invasion conversation. Maybe a different politician could've rallied more public support to his side. Pres. Bush did rally as much public support as he believed he was able to, then he acted. I appreciate him for that. Troutsky raises the issue of political will. If Iraq does not succeed as we hope, it WILL BE b/c America was not unified behind making the necessary effort. I believe such a failure – caused by waging war with partial effort – would be clarifying for the electorate. In future, when the fascist threat rises against us in greater strength, I believe the American electorate will be more prepared to support decisive, large-scale action.

Troutsky, and many leftists, complain that America ought not have undertaken OIF w/o greater national consensus, and greater national support. A couple of points:
1) We are a republic, not a democracy, exactly in anticipation of situations such as this.
2) OIF is a moral effort, both for self-defense reasons, and for humanitarian reasons. While it is immoral to waste lives in a losing effort, OIF has already accomplished great things for us, and for the world, as enumerated above. Therefore, whether or not popular support existed for achieving large scale democratic victory, I believe Pres. Bush made the correct moral call in launching OIF. Even if larger scope victory is not achieved, events have vindicated his decision.
3) As stated above, I believe OIF has prepared(has steeled) the American electorate for circumstances which may arise in the near future. As warfare goes on(and the WOT WILL go on), things which used to horrify us begin to horrify us less. We begin to accept the necessity of certain violences, of certain deprivations, of certain sacrifices. This current conflict may be a training ground for the American public.

Finally, the complaint that we didn’t have a large enough pre-invasion conversation is sometimes a mere complaint that the conversation didn’t stop Pres. Bush from launching OIF. I remember much pre-invasion conversation. Maybe a different politician could’ve rallied more public support to his side. Pres. Bush did rally as much public support as he believed he was able to, then he acted. I appreciate him for that.

]]> By: Sergey http://neoneocon.com/2006/12/12/definition-of-success-in-war-part-ii/#comment-23099 Sergey Thu, 14 Dec 2006 00:04:45 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/2006/12/definition-of-success-in-war-part-ii.html#comment-23099 For me colonialism and imperialism are not nefarious words, they are tools of progress and modernization that have not exhausted yet their positive role. There were no democratic traditions in India before British colonial rule, there was not even India herself, only dosen of medieval absolutist principalities. Persia in no way is culturally backward in comparizon to India and had the same problems with Muslim occupation and ruthless suppression by it of her ancient idigenious culture, so 30-40 years of Western colonial rule can make her as prosperous and democratic as India now. Arabs are another story, they have genetically ingrained psychology of nomadic conquerors and robbers, so the only possible solution is to fence them, as Palestinians, and impose strict technological embargo to deny them any access to modern weaponry. I believe that this combination of liberation and democratization of Kurds and Persians with apartheid of Arabs and Pushtuns is the best long-term goal in GWOT. For me colonialism and imperialism are not nefarious words, they are tools of progress and modernization that have not exhausted yet their positive role. There were no democratic traditions in India before British colonial rule, there was not even India herself, only dosen of medieval absolutist principalities. Persia in no way is culturally backward in comparizon to India and had the same problems with Muslim occupation and ruthless suppression by it of her ancient idigenious culture, so 30-40 years of Western colonial rule can make her as prosperous and democratic as India now.
Arabs are another story, they have genetically ingrained psychology of nomadic conquerors and robbers, so the only possible solution is to fence them, as Palestinians, and impose strict technological embargo to deny them any access to modern weaponry.
I believe that this combination of liberation and democratization of Kurds and Persians with apartheid of Arabs and Pushtuns is the best long-term goal in GWOT.

]]> By: grackle http://neoneocon.com/2006/12/12/definition-of-success-in-war-part-ii/#comment-23098 grackle Thu, 14 Dec 2006 00:02:38 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/2006/12/definition-of-success-in-war-part-ii.html#comment-23098 <I>But it[the Ba’ath Party] was explicitly a secular non-Islamic party.</I> Sure, it was “non-Islamic.” That’s why 99% of the membership was Islamic. Yeah, right.   But it[the Ba’ath Party] was explicitly a secular non-Islamic party.

Sure, it was “non-Islamic.” That’s why 99% of the membership was Islamic. Yeah, right.
 

]]> By: neo-neocon http://neoneocon.com/2006/12/12/definition-of-success-in-war-part-ii/#comment-23097 neo-neocon Wed, 13 Dec 2006 23:56:16 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/2006/12/definition-of-success-in-war-part-ii.html#comment-23097 I changed the error in the author's name: it was Shelby Steele who wrote the quoted article, not Shelby Smith. I changed the error in the author’s name: it was Shelby Steele who wrote the quoted article, not Shelby Smith.

]]>