"Savage Nation"

[mousecrazy 2]

In personal relationships, I agree that kindness begets kindness. Most of the time. Yet, to be realistic, I have been very kind to individuals who have turned out to be users. Maybe that's only happened to me, but I doubt it. If there are people who will sock a ninety year old woman in the face to steal her purse, then the theory that kindness begets kindness just starts to fall apart. Still, I choose to demonstrate kind behavior. If someone steals my purse, though, I'm gonna smack them if I get the chance. If it seems that I am in a dangerous situation, I'm not going to stick out my hand, and hold my purse out; I'll adopt a more defensive posture, and be ready to defend myself. If that is considered "unkind", well, okay.

Sunta, you're in luck! There ARE plenty of left-wing websites the equivalent of Savage's (and even more extreme!)...all you have to do is scratch the surface of Google (which is slanted a little to the left in their search engine...not that many people would notice). Try searching "liberal blogs" or "left-wing blogs" or "radical left", etc. More than enough reading...and it should reassure you that plenty of counterpoint exists. Also, there was (is?) a station called Air America, that features only liberal talk show hosts. There are other liberal talk show hosts on cable radio like Lynn Samuels, or Ed Schulz (pardon the spelling if it is wrong).

The liberal radio shows do not do well commerically, so Air America went under, but I heard it was bought recently...? If that is not enough, just watching The Today Show or The View ought to help you out with finding a liberal point of view.

[BJean 16]

What we've been talking about here isn't about a little old lady getting robbed of her handbag and her smacking the perp back. We're not talking about defense. We've been talking about the lady looking at a guy across the street who she's decided is thinking about robbing her and she crosses the street and smacks him hard enough to break his nose.

[marjon9 6]

mousecrazy, you state that you "already addressed the fallacy in logic that Americans are creating terrorists." Here is what you said: "If you are of the mind that WE AMERICANS are creating jihadists...or more of them...I respectfully and firmly must disagree. America did not and does not create radical Islamic behavior anymore than you and your neighbor create gang crime."

To me this argument does not "address the fallacy of logic" at issue here. Frankly, it's a pretty weak and ridiculous comparison. We are sending our troops to knock down the front doors of Iraqi civilians, and engage in all manner of terrifying behavior in the civilian neighborhoods of Iraq. This does not compare in any way to gang violence. We are giving Iraqis, and virtually all other citizens of the Middle East, reason to hate us. This is exceedingly unwise if our goal is to protect ourselves from Islamic extremism.

I want to be clear that I am not arguing that George Bush, or Americans in general, created all Islamic extremists. That is not my point at all. My point is, by taking the path of arrogance and brute force in the neighborhoods of the undecided, we are providing them with the motivation to join up with the bad guys. If we took a different approach, one that demonstrated respect and understanding, and if we put our hundreds of billions of dollars toward activities that would tend to improve the lives of Iraqis and Palestinians, etc., we would have far fewer individuals who are inclined to join up with the Islamic extremists. How can you possibly deny this? How can you make that far-fetched comparison to gang violence?

As for the money part, of course I'm not advocating any sort of direct cash subsidies to individuals. I'm talking about engaging in business ventures that would make a profit for the U.S., and have a tendency to provide jobs and non-military technology where they are desparately needed. If families have the resources to prosper, why would they join up with militant extremists? Would you?

It is simply not rational to deny that our behavior in the Middle East creates more extremists who hate us and would die for the privilege of doing us harm. This is not just a friendly debate. The policies you support make it much more likely that I will die of a terrorist attack. I wish you would just take a step back and contemplate for a moment how you would feel if heavily armed soldiers from another land came to your neighborhood breaking down the front doors of you and your neighbors, terrorizing your children, taking prisoners for questioning. Add in the photos from Abu Ghraib, the stories of American soldiers who rape and murder. You really believe that this type of behavior would not have a tendency to encourage you toward "extremists" who are fighting against this? That is simply not rational.

[mousecrazy 2]

Still, I am wondering...do any of the liberal side wish to discuss the points specifically raised in Jack's posts?

He did some worthy research on radical Islamic jihadists...any response besides "be more kind to them"?

Or, if that is the response...could some elaborate on that? What does that look like? How would we do it? If our ship is blown up and our soldiers are killed (U.S.S. Cole), we should say, "Excuse me"? Or, you can choose from anythinig in the list in Jack's post, and explain a different response that would A.) have prevented that attack, or B.) our response would have prevented future attacks.

[gailannr 1]

In personal relationships, I agree that kindness begets kindness. Most of the time. Yet, to be realistic, I have been very kind to individuals who have turned out to be users. Maybe that's only happened to me, but I doubt it. If there are people who will sock a ninety year old woman in the face to steal her purse, then the theory that kindness begets kindness just starts to fall apart. Still, I choose to demonstrate kind behavior. If someone steals my purse, though, I'm gonna smack them if I get the chance. If it seems that I am in a dangerous situation, I'm not going to stick out my hand, and hold my purse out; I'll adopt a more defensive posture, and be ready to defend myself. If that is considered "unkind", well, okay.

Sunta, you're in luck! There ARE plenty of left-wing websites the equivalent of Savage's (and even more extreme!)...all you have to do is scratch the surface of Google (which is slanted a little to the left in their search engine...not that many people would notice). Try searching "liberal blogs" or "left-wing blogs" or "radical left", etc. More than enough reading...and it should reassure you that plenty of counterpoint exists. Also, there was (is?) a station called Air America, that features only liberal talk show hosts. There are other liberal talk show hosts on cable radio like Lynn Samuels, or Ed Schulz (pardon the spelling if it is wrong).

The liberal radio shows do not do well commerically, so Air America went under, but I heard it was bought recently...? If that is not enough, just watching The Today Show or The View ought to help you out with finding a liberal point of view.

Too Shay Mousecrazy! I was thinking the same thing. All she has to do is turn on any TV station except Fox News and sometimes she can even get it there i.e. Alan Combs and the extras that are allowed to speak so we get "fair and balanced" news! Now excuse me while I try to find the correct spelling of "Too Shay."

Ok, I found it! touché!

[BJean 16]

Do you really think that is what some of us are saying? That we should turn the other cheek? That's exactly what we are NOT saying.

The people who believe we are right in our actions in Iraq would never go for our using billions to help the Iraqi people with rebuilding and programs that help to re-establish some decent way of life for them as Mark suggested. We are making some effort in that direction but it doesn't take away from the fact that pro-war people do however, support spending billions on weapons systems and sending our military there to maintain control. They are willing to sacrifice huge sums of money and thousands of lives because they think what? That we're preventing Muslim invasion? That we're ridding the world of terrorists? Get real!

Everyone who is paying any attention at all knows that things have gotten much worse in Iraq, not better. And why is that? Well it sure isn't because we've won them over with our kindness or benevolent ways. There were many experts in Middle Eastern affairs who said before the war that this would be a likely scenario if we went to war there; things were bound to get worse and a civil war would ensue. The terrorists have become richer and better organized. You can bet your boots that while we're sitting here arguing over this, they are planning something even more spectacular and destructive than 9/11. We're too busy trying to make sure we have access and control of the oil in the region to bother with wiping out the the terrorists.

[BJean 16]

Not too surprising that anti-war discussions in the media make you very uncomfortable and unhappy.

The ones you mention could only dominate the news just so long if they were wrong. Fact is they are getting more vocal and obvious about it and to the point that even the little ladies on the view are chiming in. They're not doing it because it is an unpopular subject.

The protests against our participation in Viet Nam made lots of people uncomfortable too. But they were right!

[mousecrazy 2]

How is being in Iraq at the request of the Iraqi government, to be considered "arrogance and brute force"? In order to establish security in Baghdad, some force is realistically necessary.

I reject your assertion that our soldiers are busting in the doors of "innocent citizens"...I believe these "citizens" are either part of militias or are harboring them...or stashes of weapons or ingredients for weapons. Have a few soldiers made some mistakes? Undoubtedly. There are over a million men and women in uniform. To characterize our efforts to help the Iraqis establish a democracy in the Middle East as "arrogance and brute force" is disingenuous.

Also, we ARE putting millions of dollars toward activites that improve the infrastructure of Iraq. We are providing the security for protecting the oil industry, which is what will provide the country with their economy (no, we are not stealing their oil). We are building schools, hospitals, government buildings...look at some military websites and see the pictures for yourself. You will not see them very often on the media. I know some guys who are serving in Iraq who we send school supplies to, so the Iraqi kids can have pencils and paper and stuff for their schools. Girls can GO TO SCHOOL. That wasn't happening before. In many parts of Iraq, away from Baghdad, especially in parts that are predominantly Kurd controlled, they are able to conduct business again, and are thankful for the intercession of the coalition and the fall of the Hussein regime. Of course, they are...they are not being gassed down and killed by flyovers of the old Iraqi Air Force dropping chemical weapons of them.

This belief that all was hunky dorey in Iraq before we busted in and pillaged the place is poppycock. I cannot imagine why thinking people believe such nonsense.

I thought my gang violence comparision was illustrative...exaggerated maybe, but illustrative of the idea that there is not a link between the two. One exists with or without the other. At least, that was the comparison I was attempting. If the United States did not exist whatsoever, radical Islamic jihadist terrorism would still exist. It would be directed at whoever or whatever was not bending to their will.

Your last paragraph: If I was living in a country ruled by Hussein, where several of my family had already been pulled out of my home and killed, usually in front of my eyes...or had gone to work and never come home...where hundreds of thousands of my countrymen were killed and buried in mass graves...where my daughers and sisters were taken to his son's and guard's rape and torture rooms...I would see American Marines and soldiers as the heroes they are. Those prisoners who were in Abu Ghraib had most likely done those things and much worse to their own countrymen under Saddam (not that I approve of it). What do you think the war crimes were that these men were tried for?

The cognitive dissonance seems to be that you see Iraq as a peaceful place with Saddam...I see it as hell. If I had lived there, I would pray for a Marine to come save me. It is irrational to believe that 99.9% of our best and bravest, selfless servicemen and women are rapists and plunderers. What nonsense.

[mousecrazy 2]

Anti-war discussion do not make me uncomfortable or unhappy; interesting that you were able to read that into my suggestions. I take notice of the fact that those venues express those views.

Newsflash: Bill O'Reilly on Fox News has the #1 most watched news show. Following your reasoning, then...why do you think that is?

[BJean 16]

If you lived in Iraq there's a good chance you'd be dead by now.

[BJean 16]

I didn't ever say that there weren't people who embrace the extreme right and people like Bill O'Reilly. Of course they have a strong, very vocal following. Someone complained that the media is too far left in their reporting. They were talking about the biggest portion of the MAINSTREAM media, I believe.

[marjon9 6]

Still, I am wondering...do any of the liberal side wish to discuss the points specifically raised in Jack's posts?

He did some worthy research on radical Islamic jihadists...any response besides "be more kind to them"?

Or, if that is the response...could some elaborate on that? What does that look like? How would we do it? If our ship is blown up and our soldiers are killed (U.S.S. Cole), we should say, "Excuse me"? Or, you can choose from anythinig in the list in Jack's post, and explain a different response that would A.) have prevented that attack, or B.) our response would have prevented future attacks.

Is that really the approach you are going to take here, to simply ignore the substance of what is said in people's posts and complain that no one is answering Jack? This approach gets you off the hook quickly but it makes for a boring discussion. I would be interested in debating some of these topics with you, but there is no point in having a debate if you don't want to respond to the substance of the arguments. On several occassions you have stated "I talked about that before, give me examples." When I respond with examples, you ignore the substance of the post. That is not a debate worth having.

[BJean 16]

I didn't accuse you, mouse, I think it was someone else who was complaining about all the news media being too far to the left.

I completely agree with you, Mark. This is plum ridiculous, as my dear father used to say.

I will relieve ya'll from having to work so hard at dissing the things I believe and you won't have to worry about me dissing you.

I's like to suggest is that we all calm down and Visualize Whirrled Peas.

[mousecrazy 2]

Mark, what part of your post did I not address? I do enjoy the discussion; otherwise I would not participate. Even when I enjoy it, I sometimes do not participate, because I do need to do housekeeping things from time to time, and run the family's errands.

I brought up Jack's stuff again, because I thought it was good stuff. Worthy of discussion...it was getting buried in all these other posts and I didn't want it to be overlooked.

[marjon9 6]

How is being in Iraq at the request of the Iraqi government, to be considered "arrogance and brute force"? In order to establish security in Baghdad, some force is realistically necessary.

I reject your assertion that our soldiers are busting in the doors of "innocent citizens"...I believe these "citizens" are either part of militias or are harboring them...or stashes of weapons or ingredients for weapons. Have a few soldiers made some mistakes? Undoubtedly. There are over a million men and women in uniform. To characterize our efforts to help the Iraqis establish a democracy in the Middle East as "arrogance and brute force" is disingenuous.

Also, we ARE putting millions of dollars toward activites that improve the infrastructure of Iraq. We are providing the security for protecting the oil industry, which is what will provide the country with their economy (no, we are not stealing their oil). We are building schools, hospitals, government buildings...look at some military websites and see the pictures for yourself. You will not see them very often on the media. I know some guys who are serving in Iraq who we send school supplies to, so the Iraqi kids can have pencils and paper and stuff for their schools. Girls can GO TO SCHOOL. That wasn't happening before. In many parts of Iraq, away from Baghdad, especially in parts that are predominantly Kurd controlled, they are able to conduct business again, and are thankful for the intercession of the coalition and the fall of the Hussein regime. Of course, they are...they are not being gassed down and killed by flyovers of the old Iraqi Air Force dropping chemical weapons of them.

This belief that all was hunky dorey in Iraq before we busted in and pillaged the place is poppycock. I cannot imagine why thinking people believe such nonsense.

I thought my gang violence comparision was illustrative...exaggerated maybe, but illustrative of the idea that there is not a link between the two. One exists with or without the other. At least, that was the comparison I was attempting. If the United States did not exist whatsoever, radical Islamic jihadist terrorism would still exist. It would be directed at whoever or whatever was not bending to their will.

Your last paragraph: If I was living in a country ruled by Hussein, where several of my family had already been pulled out of my home and killed, usually in front of my eyes...or had gone to work and never come home...where hundreds of thousands of my countrymen were killed and buried in mass graves...where my daughers and sisters were taken to his son's and guard's rape and torture rooms...I would see American Marines and soldiers as the heroes they are. Those prisoners who were in Abu Ghraib had most likely done those things and much worse to their own countrymen under Saddam (not that I approve of it). What do you think the war crimes were that these men were tried for?

The cognitive dissonance seems to be that you see Iraq as a peaceful place with Saddam...I see it as hell. If I had lived there, I would pray for a Marine to come save me. It is irrational to believe that 99.9% of our best and bravest, selfless servicemen and women are rapists and plunderers. What nonsense.

The issue here is not whether Saddam was a bad guy, or whether most of our American troops are good people. That is not the issue. It is a red herring to mention these things. The issue is, what is in the best interest of the United States today. Our actions in Iraq today are not in the best interest of the United States. The Iraqis hate us. The overwhelming majority of Iraqi's believe it is perfectly acceptable to kill an American. That is an indisputable fact. What we are doing there makes us less safe. Feel free to set up your Cheney-esque arguments that "we are in Iraq at the request of the Iraqi government." Please. I'd be embarrassed to utter such a statement. If they didn't invite us, we'd just set up an "Iraqi government" that would.

But in any event, that's pretty irrelevant. What matters is today and the future. Our actions today encourage Islamic extremism, and make us less safe. This is true notwithstanding the fact that Saddam was a bad guy, and most American troops are good people.