Tuesday, June 20, 2006

It's time to get Old Testament

My prayers go out to the families of these two brave young men. I can’t imagine the pain and suffering they endured. God bless you both, and thank you for laying your lives down on the altar of freedom.

I wonder how Dick Durbin feels about this? I wonder if Howard Dean is as appalled at this as he is at Gitmo? Where is Sean Penn now? Notice how no one is jumping to criticize and condemn? At least, not as fast as they would if something like this happened at Gitmo. I’m not saying these guys don’t have a problem with it. I’m just saying that they’re not as eager to criticize our foes as they are to criticize our soldiers.

What are the odds of someone actually coming out and saying that the deaths of these men are America’s fault? It’s a bet I won’t be taking. My guess is the bodies won’t make it back to American soil before someone on the Left makes such a remark.

"Well, we expect such behavior from terrorists"
"We’re better than them"
"We should be held to a higher standard"

I’m guessing this would be their way of rationalizing their criticism of American troops, and lack of criticism of terrorists.

"Just because they behave badly doesn’t mean we should"
"Two wrongs don’t make a right"

This is crap! If you want these wackos to cool it with this behavior, then it’s time to get Old Testament on them, it’s time to get Israeli on them. Eye for an eye my friend. If they want to execute prisoners, then so be it. They can call down that thunder and we’ll play too. Execute our troops, and we execute yours. We should be marching two men out of Gitmo and in front of a firing squad right now. That’s how General Patton would have handled this, and he had some pretty good results with it.

I can hear the collective gasp from all of you Lefties right now, so save your comments. I know what you’re gonna say, much of it is already in quotes above. I don’t care if you call me barbaric…I want to win this war! And if getting brutal will end this war that much quicker, then it’s time to get our hands dirty.

I’m tired of seeing Americans get beheaded. I don’t like it. So it’s time we make these idiots think the next time they raise their sword over the neck of an American.

We’re at war, and in war sometimes you have to kill enough of the enemy to convince them that keeping up the fight is not in their best interest. Sherman, Grant, Patton, Napoleon, Bradley and MacArthur all seemed to play by this strategy, and it seemed to work for them. So let’s apply it here. What have we got to lose?


Dan Trabue said...

Time to go Old Testament?

You know, even forgetting Jesus' teachings, that the OT teaching "an eye for an eye" was an attempt to downplay violence. In that world, oftentimes if village A killed a person in village B, village A might wipe out village B.

In telling Israel, "an eye for an eye," God was teaching them to reduce the violence and, at worst, to meet a violent act with a single violent act. (And, for us Christians and followers of Jesus, we believe we have a new and improved revelation: You have heard it said, an eye for an eye, but I tell you, Turn the other cheek.)

But go Old Testament on them? Well, that would mean we start killing fewer of the enemy, not more.

Now, if you want to go godless and lawless on them, feel free to say so.

Bushwack said...

Ok WE need to go Lawless and Godless on them. This is not a War in the normal or past wars, we are fighting an enemy whose religion is based on evil, they follow the murderer and pedophile Muhammad. Time to either finish it or Murtha it. I vote for Victory rather than defeat.
Murtha should learn how to wave the white flag properly MOVE TO FRANCE!

Dan Trabue said...

So, BW, you're advocating lawlessness? Then, according to your philosophy, the terrorists' are perfectly correct to try to kill us, IF no one need heed the laws? And even, IF I thought your way of thinking a threat to world safety or my safety, that I would be justified in trying to kill you and yours (keeping in mind that I'm a pacifist and you've nothing to fear from me as far as physical violence goes)?

Is that really the world you want to create?

And what if the majority of the US disagrees with your notion of how things ought to be done? Are you prepared to move to France yourself or should we all bow down to BW?

Anonymous said...

"I want to win this war." Didn't someone once say something like, nobody wins a war, it's just a matter of who loses less. But since we've lost ONLY around 2,500 (not counting injured) I guess some could say we're winning.

Dan Trabue said...

And you're referencing Sherman as a role model? The fella who Burned Dixie Down?

What have we got to lose? Our humanity? Our souls? The "war against terror"?

Think about it: If you were attacked by the enemy repeatedly, even with deaths to your family members, how soon would you simply decide you've had enough and give in to them?

Never, you say?

Dan Trabue said...

"I know what you’re gonna say, much of it is already in quotes above. I don’t care if you call me barbaric"

Last comment. I wouldn't so much call you barbaric as a war criminal for advocating what you're advocating. It is against our own laws and the Geneva Convention (which we've signed and has the power of law for us) to do what you're suggesting. Do you really want to break our own laws and commit war crimes by OUR OWN definition? Will you support sending our soldiers who commit these crimes to jail for this treason, or will you hold our commander-in-chief responsible?

John The Patriot said...

You guys do a great job of illustrating the disconnect the Left has with the war we're fighting. If we followed your policies, and there's a good chance we may, we'll all be speaking Arabic and bowing down to Mecca within 20 years.

The fella who burned Dixie down also broke Dixie's back. War with a brutal enemy requires brutal measures. These people only know death and violence, so maybe we need to speak their language in order to get our message across.

You guys are pacifists, and how much respect do you think our enemies give pacifists? You'd probably be the first they chose to behead. So don't give me this "take the high ground" garbage. The sooner these people are eliminated from existence, the sooner the world can be a better place.

John The Patriot said...

I've said before: If America falls, it will not be because of a conquering enemy, but because of our passive attitude. You guys are part of that. You don't win wars with passivity, you just get your ass kicked

Dan Trabue said...

You do justice and reality a grave injustice when you confuse Just Peacemaking with passivity. You mention "God bless america" in your byline so I assume you believe in God.

Some of us who believe in God also believe in God's teachings. We believe that following God's teachings give us the best chance for a just world.

Will it be just? No, it's a fallen world.

Will it be scary? Sure. But we're all brave adults here, aren't we.

But setting aside faith-based action, you've just advocated committing war crimes and you think the LEFT will cause the fall of the US?! Do you comprehend how vastly wrong what you're suggesting is??

You are placing your hope in war crimes and lawlessness-as-solution. The very same answer the terrorists have offered.

Is that the side you wish to take?

John The Patriot said...

Dan, I am advocating victory. I personally don't give a damn in how it's achieved. The Geneva Convention does nothing but handcuff us. "War crimes" in your mind is simply necessary evil in mine.

I value American lives more than others. I'm tired of them dying because we don't have the guts to do what must be done.

The side I wish to take? America. Everyone else can stick it. America first...always.

Two wrongs don't make a right? I say 'fight fire with fire"

Dan Trabue said...

But are you advocating us breaking US laws?! Do you hear what you're saying?!

You're not choosing America's side in your choice, you're embracing the terrorists' philosophy!

Fire with fire? Tell me this: If the enemy attacks here and kills our friends and families, and keeps doing so, at what point will you say, "I've had enough. I give up."?

You won't EVER say that, will you? Neither would I.

Neither will they.

Fighting fire with fire? It only works with forest fires.

An eye for an eye leaves the world blind in the real world.

John The Patriot said...

"Neither would I"

You already are. You're entire policy is based on appeasement.

Tell me this:

Suppose a schoolyard bully shoves you down and demands your lunch money. Suppose you give it to him, hoping to avoid violence.

What do you think will happen tomorrow?

Now suppose you get up and kick the bully's ass.

Do you think he'll come back tomorrow and try the same thing?

Dan Trabue said...

Yes and with his buddies.

Violence is self-escalating and to refuse to acknowledge its spiraling nature is to be naive about human nature.

But no, I would not give money to a bully. You still aren't hearing what I'm saying. Pacifists aren't passive.

Non-violence is not the least about capitulation or appeasement, it is about standing up to evil aggressively but without embracing evil, which you are advocating.

Have you read the first word about Non-violent Direct Action or Pacifism?

You keep citing Chamberlain but he was not a pacifist! He believed in war, but was trying to avoid it by using appeasement. That is NOT pacifism.

Read a bit more John, before you talk about that which you don't know.

John The Patriot said...

Trying to avoid war?

That worked out well for him didn't it? Perhaps if Chamberlain had taken action against Hitler BEFORE it escalated then the entire war could have been avoided. Maybe. We'll never know.

What you are condoning is appeasement. We are already engaged in war, you're opposed to it, but we're in it nonetheless. So withdrawing under your terms: arresting our leaders, asking the world court to hold us accountable (ie admitting that WE are wrong and not THEM), apologizing to our enemy and offering reparations - THAT, my friend, is exactly what our enemies want us to do which, by definition, is appeasement.

I mentioned Chamberlain BECAUSE of his appeasement policy, I don't really care if he was a pacifist or not. I know he used appeasement, and THAT is a failed policy, which is why I refer to him. You are advocating appeasement, just like Chamberlain, which is why I drew the connection.

And if your definition of Pacifist is accurate, then it doesn't describe you because you aren't advocating "standing up to evil aggressively". If you are, then your entire plan for Iraq contradicts that.

Since we're handing out homework, maybe you should brush up on your history, specifically the events leading up the World War II. Maybe then you'd see that appeasement is a failed policy.

Dan Trabue said...

"Perhaps if Chamberlain had taken action against Hitler BEFORE it escalated then the entire war could have been avoided."

And perhaps if we had employed NVDA methods prior to WWII, we could have avoided the war that cost some 30 + million lives! Hard to say because we never have had a NVDA leader in power to take those positions.

But I AM NOT talking about appeasement. Just because you call my approach appeasement does not make it so.

I believe we can define appeasement as giving in to the demands of a bully to try to avoid unpleasantness, correct?

In our case, the US was the aggressor, the bully. Iraq had done nothing to threaten us and we invaded their country on trumped up charges that turned out to be wrong. Iraq was not connected to 9/11.

One does not appease the victim state. One appeases the aggressor state (if one is appeasing, that is).

In the case of the killers in Iraq, we'd encourage the people of Iraq to stop their crimes. Why? Because Iraq is a sovreign nation! We can't invade their country, have some of them resent it and shoot back, and then demand that they solve things the way we want.

We remove ourselves from the aggressor status first off. Apologize for being the aggressor. And encourage Iraq to take this chance to make something great of their nation. But it's up to them.

Flip the situation around. Say that Iraq did invade the US. We didn't like it and shot back. How arrogant would it be for Iraq to try to establish an occupying force in the US until such time that we get our violence problem under control?

Are we talking about the same word, appeasement?

Dan Trabue said...

But of course, the difference is that you see us as being involved in a war and I see us being involved in an invasion.

If Iraq were a legitimate war, then you'd be correct in assuming I'm suggesting appeasement for suggesting that the defenders be charged with crimes.

HOWEVER, IF Iraq is indeed an illegal invasion, then it is not appeasement, it is personal responsibility. So then, would I be correct in stating that it all comes down to whether or not Iraq is a legitimate war?

John The Patriot said...

You are correct in that assessment, which brings us to an impasse. And therefore this entire debate has been for naught.

Dan Trabue said...

Discussion is never for naught.

You know that I'm acting not because I hate Bush nor in an effort to destroy our country nor support terrorists, but because I'm acting to save our country by my way of thinking.

chuck said...

dan, i think part of your argument is valiant, and do have respect forpast leaders like Ghandi, but you have to remember that the situation in Iraq is one hwere we are liberating a country from the evil of a dictator and the majority of the people there lived under his tyrany. It is not as if we went over there to just take over a country, let alone risk thousands of lives. The facts are clear, there was association with things like WMD, we may not have been able to find all of the pieces but as a microbiogist, i can tell you that there may still be things there that we dont even know about or fully comprehend that someone like Saddam, who executes his own people on a whim, could use against us or some other country to further advance his own gain. Sound like Hitler? Similar, just a different time and maybe a little different circumstance. But non the less, we acted on the notion of WMD and in conjuction to other factors that have been long overdue and should have been taken care of many years ago, our past leaders "appeasement" can be tied to this. What John is saying is that if we dont stand up and FIGHT for what we believe in, be it a town cousel meeting, a govenors election, our presidential election or Life, liberty and justice for all, then we will be squashed just like every other time in history. Non violence has its place, but not when you are dealing with terrorists anc factions who are representation of a people that know no laws or simblance or governemnt, people who are at the extreme end of a religion with no room for free will or freedom or eqaulity. We in the US believe that every person has "Inalliable" rights, the people we are fighting are not the Iraqi govenment or Iraq the country, but fascists, evil terrorists with only one thing on their mind, Kill anyone who doesnt worship allah.....PERIOD. Even the muslim religion dispises this mentality and a true muslim may have similar beliefs but doesnt impose them unilaterally.

In a Utopian world, your ideas might have some traction but waht you have to realize is that we are far from that, and the conflict we are dealing with is one that will not respond favorably to non violence and in truth will only hurt us more by showing the weaker cheek as you put it. You dont show up to a boxing match with a tap dancer. You need Cascious Clay, or Joe Frazier if you want to win. Sending in Ghandi to fight that battle will only secure your dimise and while you might be the "Better man" for not fighting, you will lose. I have room in my mind for non violence but this is neither the area nor the apponent to play that card.