Wednesday, June 21, 2006

Put up or shut up

I like it when my opponents prove my point for me.

My point: America's passive Left will be responsible if America falls

Yesterday, I posted on the death of two American soldiers. In response, I had 3 Lefties leave comments on my post. One valiantly came to Sean Penn's defense, one (for some reason) mentioned casualty numbers, and the other got preachy about the Geneva Convention.

NONE of them showed any sign of outrage or anger at the news of two American soldiers being captured, tortured and dismembered to the point that their bodies had to be identified by DNA. Are these 3 upset about the news? Probably, if they're human they should be. But for some reason these other remarks took precedence. Which brings me to the purpose of this post.

If you read this blog regularly, you know that I have low tolerance for people who criticize without offering any counter-solution, it wastes time and does nothing to solve the problem.

So, here's your chance. 2 questions. I'm looking for one simple answer and one proposal. This is NOT a chance to preach or debate the merits of the Iraq War. This is your chance to put up or shut up. Fail to answer the questions and you'll be exposed as whiny with no ideas of your own.

1) Do you want America to be victorious in Iraq? Yes or No. (Victorious meaning the defeat of the insurgency and instating a freely elected democratic government)

Yes or NO. Not preachy. If you answer yes, move to question #2. IF you answer no, then never mind. You've chosen your side and I group you in with the people who murdered those two troops.

2) You are now the Commander in Chief. How do YOU achieve victory in Iraq? I want your plan. We're there. We're at war. You WANT to win. How do you do it?

Take your time. Good luck.

(Conservatives should feel free to answer as well, it should be fun)


Debbie said...

Great questions and I notice you haven't gotten any replys yet. Figures. The left wants to complain but they don't have a 'plan' to win.

I have been waiting all day today and yesterday since the two soldiers were found, for just ONE lefty to come out and call al-Qaeda "cold blooded killers" line Murtha did our marines at Haditha.

I'm still waiting ...

Debbie said...

Oops, sorry for the typo. I hate it when I do that.

Dan Trabue said...

Debbie, he posted this a few hours ago, give people a chance here.

1. Herein lies the problem. You're assuming we CAN win an unjust war (or any war).

It's not a matter of wanting "us" to win or lose, there ain't no such thing except in your mind.

What does "win" mean? The defeat of the insurgency and a democratic gov't?

It could happen. I hope that those fighting on all sides do, in fact, quit fighting and that the people can be freely self-governing.

But my momma always taught me two wrongs don't make a right. If some good comes after this evil, that would be a fine. But what had transpired would still have been evil.

Disagree? It's your right. But from where I stand, every time that someone kills a child, blows off the arms of a mother, blows up an innocent bystander - whether on purpose or not - evil has been accomplished.

So understand that I want those things to happen, but America can not be victorious because we've already embraced evil. Your question is invalid.

2. I'm commander in chief. I try to salvage the situation (and accomplish the ends you suggested) by:

A. Arresting and holding the Bush administration on trial for war crimes.

B. Apologizing for US hubris in assuming we had the right to invade a sovreign nation unprovoked.

C. Asking the World Court to hold us and Britain and any others legally accountable and be willing to make any restitution they deem necessary (while ensuring that US soldiers aren't held accountable for following illegal orders, that only the decision makers are held accountable - including Dems and Reps in Congress, if a court finds that suitable).

All of this is absolutely critical to accomplish the desired goal of a free and safe Iraq. It will demonstrate that we are a nation that believes in Laws and don't think that some people are above the law. It will further show that we were wrong for assuming we could bomb our way to a good solution - that ends DON'T justify the means. This is highly critical.

D. Remove the troops today, while working humbly with the (admittedly flawed) UN to ensure as little bloodshed as possible.

There is an insurgency in Iraq because they are an occupied nation. Remove the occupying force and you remove the incentive and support for the insurgency.

E. Remove all western "operators" from the theater - all the corporate and freelance workers. Any assistance should return only at the request of the Iraqi people. We must release all holds we might have placed on their oil.

F. Exchange the hundreds of billions of dollars that we've been sending to Iraq to wage war for hundreds of billions of dollars in aid.

For starters.

Might there be civil war? More bloodshed? Wasted money?


We chose illegal and immoral means in starting this invasion and it's likely to be a mess. We made the mistake in going in and we made the mistake in supporting Saddam to begin with and unfortunately wrong actions have negative consequences.

But there will be deaths and bloodshed and maybe a civil war whether or not we stay there. With this approach, perhaps we stand a chance of a reasonable outcome.

John The Patriot said...

What you just described is appeasement, and I challenge you to provide one example from history in which appeasement achieved peace.

Neville Chamberlain tried it, and Hitler prospered.

Abraham Lincoln tried it.
Bill Clinton tried it.
Jimmy Carter tried it.

They all failed to achieve their objective.

If we implemented your plan, it would be open season on the US for decades. It would be perceived as weakness. These people don't respect negotiation. They don't respect reparations. They don't respect apologies. We'd be seen as cowards ripe for conquest.

Your ideas may be noble in theory, but they simply aren't practical. I think it illustrates your lack of insight regarding the enemy we face.

Dan, these people WON'T rest until we are all dead or worshipping their god. You must understand this. That is their goal. You can't reason with such insanity.

John The Patriot said...

By the way, I'm a little disappointed that you couldn't give a simple yes or no answer to the first question.

You can't bring yourself to hope for an American victory can you? And yet you think your plan is ideal for our country.

Dan Trabue said...

John, suppose I had a friend who took some buddies in to a bank and tried to rob it and got caught inside and were trapped with a hostage situation. Would it be appropriate to talk about a win/lose situation there? Of course not.

I'd hope my friend would be okay. I'd also hope that no one was hurt and that eventually everyone got out unharmed. But when crimes are being committed, it's not appropriate from an ethical or even a linguistic view to ask, "So, do you want your friend to win or lose?"!

It's a ridiculous question. What one hopes for in such a situation is 1. that everyone is safe and 2. that justice is done (and perhaps, 3. that my friend doesn't get himself in too much trouble, but it's a little late for that at that point).

Does that make it clearer why I can't give a yes/no answer? I think it likely that war crimes have been committed (that would be for a court to determine, of course). At the least, we have made a ghastly goof (We must invade because Iraq has WMD and will use them against us....tens of thousands of deaths later...whoops! my bad! no WMD. We were wrong... ummm...)

Dan Trabue said...

Here's my questions to you. A simple yes/no will be all I need.

Do you believe that we ought to be a nation of laws?

Ought those laws be followed?

Ought we be held accountable if we break laws?

Dan Trabue said...

No answers yet?

How about if I put it in the same format as you did:

Put up or shut up.

I need one answer and one proposal.

1. Ought our laws be followed? Yes/No.

If laws ought not be followed, then you've chosen your sides. But if you think laws ought to be followed, then tell me:

2. You're now president. What laws would you propose that everyone should follow that we're willing to follow as well? (ie, NO WMD means NO WMD, not some for us and none for them. No targeting children or innocent bystanders means no dropping bombs where bystanders are. Not us, not them.)

Take your time. These are important questions to answer.

John The Patriot said...

Yes, law should be followed

The second question is asked from a perspective in which the US should be accountable to international law. I don't believe that. I don't think the US should participate nor adhere to ANY international law, because usually those laws are not favorable for us.

Every free person on this planet is free because of America, we've NEVER been on the side of evil and that has earned us the right not to have our motives questionned.

Therefore, our law allows us to have WMDs for defensive purposes, even if using them aggressively amounts to national defense (as with Japan). The day we use WMDs aggressively and without reason is the day the world can impose their laws on us.

As President, I would revoke our participation in the Geneva Convention. It was set up with the foolish assumption that we can establish rules in war and that ALL sides would abide by them, how naive. We appear to be the only nation in history who has actually stayed true to this treaty. Second, I would withdraw from the UN. Once again, this is an international body with no vested interest in America's wellfare. It is no use to us. Remember, America first!

I'd make it clear that any American POW mistreatment would incur similar action against our own prisoners. I'd make it clear that any attack against us would be met with brutal retaliation.

I'd make it clear that our policy is not to deliberately target civilians unless our enemies did so first, then nothing would be off-limits.

Contrary to what you believe, sir, America is a peaceful nation. We believe in live and let live until someone decides to mess with us. Then, we should, indeed MUST, respond with extreme force.

You'd have our nation defer to the UN's laws. I'd NEVER let that happen. America, by God, is going to be ruled by Americans, not some Third World mafia in New York.

You'd appease people who dismember our soldiers and behead them. You'd give in to their demands. I'd visit that brutality back on them ten-fold. Eventually, they'd get the message and decide that it's not worth waging war with America.

We knew what was necessary to win in the 40s, and we did it. It wasn't pretty, but it was necessary. The ONLY way we survive our current conflict is to approach it with the same mentality. There is no other way.

Dan Trabue said...

John, you are saying that you'd have Iran (China, N. Korea, etc) abide by rules that you refuse to accept for the US? You wouldn't have the US pay a bit of attention to the UN or the Geneva Convention or the World Court, but if someone steps out of line (which you've drawn), we're free to do as we wish.

That's lawlessness. Either the rules apply for everyone or they apply for no one.

So you're asking the rest of the world to play by our rules and if they don't, then we may well decide they need a bit of pre-emptive invasion.

There's a reason that globally the US (for all our truly wonderful traits and genuine concern for peace) is perceived by the rest of the world to be the world's greatest threat to peace and you've just illustrated that perfectly.

Thankfully, the more peaceable amongst us still have a voice and your opinion is hopefully in the minority. Time will tell.

When the fall comes, it will come with a mighty crash and it will be our own sword that does us in.

John The Patriot said...

Actually, I don't care about other nations obtaining WMDs, so long as they do not use them aggressively or threaten to use them on us. The problem is that Iraq, Iran, NKorea and China don't meet any of these stipulations, so I feel we would be within our right of sovereign defense to disarm them.

But if Sweden or Portugal obtained nukes, so what. Just stay out of our business.

Dan Trabue said...

Iraq, Iran, N Korea nor China have threatened us anymore than we've threatened them. So, you're cool with them getting nukes?

But let me return to your previous reasoning. I think you're on to something. You said:

"we've NEVER been on the side of evil and that has earned us the right not to have our motives questioned."

So, as I understand it, you think that any nation that has never been on the side of evil has earned the right to not have their motives questioned? Those blameless nations can decide if and when and whom they need to bomb for whatever purposes.

Conversely, those nations that are not blameless/that HAVE been on the side of evil don't get to bomb when and whom they please? Is that a fair assessment?

If so, then who decides which nations are the blameless ones who've never been on the side of evil and which nations aren't? This is a good line of thinking you're on and I'm truly curious as to your answer.

Dan Trabue said...

No follow up? I think I know why.

There are too many logical difficulties with your reasoning. The feeling that we must make our own rules is fairly common in human nature, but it is a naive belief based on fear, emotions, immorality and inconsistency that is hard to justify if you are concerned about logic, courage and morality.

Once you've said that only blameless nations can choose to bomb others, two immediate problems pop up.

1. There are no blameless nations and it would be naive to think so. I love my country, think her Constitution and history are something to be proud of. But, God bless us, we have made mistakes. We have chosen to embrace evil at times when it seemed the best choice in a bad situation.

We have bombed cities of civilians (Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki).

We have supported terrorists (contras, the Salvadoran gov't) with weapons, money and training.

We have supported corrupt, murderous despots (Saddam, Pinochet, Somoza) and subverted democracy in other sovreign nations.

I fully understand that some who made these decisions did so thinking they were doing the best they could. But one who has killed whole cities of children and committed war crimes and supported terrorism CAN NOT claim to be blameless.

2. The second (and even larger) problem is, WHO decides who's blameless? Each nation itself? Does the US get to make the call for the rest of the sovreign nations in the world? Do we rely upon an outside source such as a World Court or UN?

Do you see the problem? If each nation itself is deciding what rules to create and obey and which ones not to, it'd be like each person in a city deciding unilaterally which laws they'll obey. You're talking anarchy, chaos. You're talking terrorism and hell on earth.

On the other hand, should the US decide for everyone else? It'd be ridiculous to think thusly. One of the core tenets of conservatism (and democracy) is self-determination. I don't WANT to make your decisions for you. I sure as hell don't want you to make my decisions for me. One nation making the calls is the ultimate in Big Gov't and could only lead to despotism.

And that leaves us with only one possible solution: an international source for justice (in conjunction with local laws). That leaves us with the terrible task of coming together and agreeing that some things are just wrong and struggling to find just ways to oppose the worst of human behavior and yet allow for local sovreignty at the same time.

Yes, this is problematic, too. What if despots or terrorists have the majority at the UN? What if a world court finds some group guilty of crimes they didn't commit? I think this approach is a horrible, horrible solution.

It's only redeeming factor is that it is better than the despotism of One Nation/Big Brother rule or the lawless hell on earth of Every nation for itself/Might makes right.

Of the three alternatives, it is the one with the best hope for finding a semblance of justice and peace and working out real solutions to the oppression and genocide that plagues our nature. It is the only one that can be logically justified. Working together internationally will without a doubt fail, but you must remember that so will the other solutions.

Again, I offer the local example. I can't unilaterally decide that murder is okay for me if I think someone is offensive. The local gov't ought to intervene and stop me if I tried. A local gov't can't decide they want to hang all Lefthanded people. A state gov't ought to step in and intervene if it tried. A state can't take the homes of all brown-eyed people, sell them and split the proceeds amongst the blue-eyes. A federal gov't ought to intervene if it tried.

The rule ought to always be local sovreignty and personal liberty. But when that nasty old human nature gets ahold of us and the individual or locality begins making oppressive decisions, we need to come together to create larger rules. It's how we operate as a nation (in theory) and it's the only way that makes rational sense as a world.

John The Patriot said...

I did not reply because I thought we agreed that we had reached an impasse. And when that happens, I don't see the need to continue the debate. You believe firmly in your points and clearly will not be swayed by any logic that I produce and vice versa. Next topic.

Dan Trabue said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dan Trabue said...

But this topic is a different one. Yes, we disagree on whether the violence in Iraq is a "legitimate" war or an illegal invasion.

But here you've raised the specter of whether we ought to have any reverence for international laws. You've taken the position that we ought not. I've pointed out that this is a position not supported by logic.

{I'd further suggest that it is not a position to be found within our constitution or by our nation's founders.

"When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which compel them to the separation." -T. Jefferson)

It's a different issue. And an important one.

chuck said...

Question 1) Yes
Question 2) In my mind there are really two wars, the actual conflict in Iraq with the terrorists and the war at home with the left wing, liberals and passivists who oppose the war agaist terror so it is a dynamic thing to "Win" both sides, because you have to break a few eggs to bake a cake. Some things people at home are just not going to like but they are essential for winning this war on terror and as you said, establishing a solid and stable governement in Iraq. So having said that:

Im the commander in cheif, the first thing I do is ban all media from their tainted views of the conflict, i am not apposed to reporting facts but journalism has gotten out of control. I would stop it. War is not pretty and if the american people want a peek into it in their "living vicariously through others lives" then by God, they can join an armed service and see for themselves and quit feeding their sick desires that have evolved in this era or "reality TV"
Second thing I would do is highten the awareness of the threat, make more of the knowledge public that we are finding about foiled attempts of terrorism, people today are nieve about the real threat as they live day to day in their candy coated, spoiled lives. They no nthing of the threats to go on every day right under their noses. The common person today has all but forgotten the feeling they had on 9/11. And what is worse, they have lost their spine on the issues that they once stood firm in belief. What a pity. I bet if those same peole had a relative or friend who perished in those attacks, or any of the many other attacts carried out, they would fell and act differently. Ask the wife of the man who was behedded how she feels, that is how every person in the free world should feel, because if we dont get this under control, it could happen to me, you or anyone in the world. Then, it will be too late for you to have made an impact.
Next, i empower the military, shoot to kill, enough of this politicially correct war fare, it an oxymoron, we are acting like a bunch of sissies on the battlefield and it is getting our guys killed. Its the fourth quarter and we are sending out our B-team tactics to try and finish the game. Shock and awe their A**, the next time we have a roadside bomb, blitz their buildings, we have the recon, the manpower and could have the intel if we just applied ourselves a bit more. Empower the military to seek out and destroy the terrorists and any who sight allegiance to them. The only good snake is a dead snake! There are houndreds of thousands of good willed Iraqi people who are tired of living in fear of the next attack or the next bomb. There are millions of people with similar fears around the world.

Pull out of the UN, until there is a better representation of equality there it is of no use to us and has had little (if any can be documented)positive effect for the US.

Kill Bin Laden, i dont hink i have to elaborate on that.

Empower a military force in Iraq, train them to be as good as we are, equip them with the resources and technical expertise to maintain their security and empower the poeple of Iraq to take accountability and ownership of their country. We cant do it forever and at some point we will leave. They need to take responsibility or suffer the consequences, without this, we can not be totally successful in our mission. We may reduce if not ellimate the terrorist threat, but in time something else or someone else will rise up if they are not capable of defeating them.

Obviously, there are MANY dynamics of winning this war on terror, and i think I have discussed several fundamental foundations that are imperative for success but there any countless others that I think could help but in the end, we have to roll our sleves up, shut the whiners up and motivate the people of the land (both US and Iraq)if we are going to get the job done. God willing.

to all the others out there with negative opinions of this war on terror or gripes but no posts or thoughts on how to win, I hear france is accepting applications for appeasement counselors. Shut up and support your country, your president, your brothers and sisters overseas fighting this conflict so you can sit your ass at home and get fat eating doritos and watching cable TV without having to worry about some radical blowing up your building, your school, your train, plane, or car or cutting the heads off of your children becasue they dont worship allah. So if you dont support us then you are one of them and in my book that makes you a traitor and you should be stripped of your "Freedoms and luxuries" that you enjoy at our expense. MOVE,leave the country, we dont need you and your opinions, apethy, apeasement,Non violence atitude, political correctness, and overall lazieness. It makes me sick to know that my father,brother, grandfathers and many, many more in the generations of my family, and millions of others have served, sacrificed and gave of themselves for you and our beloved country just so you could have the right to bitch about something you have idea about or the gravity of the situation. It makes me sick to know that right now, you are safe at home, able to sleep sound at night, enjoy all of the luxuries that our wonderful country has afforded you and the thanks you repay is treason. You should be ashamed and embarrased you coward, you spineless jackass.

chuck said...

dan, i only have one question for you. Have you ever been afraid? I mean really fearfull of your life. Has anyone ever held a sword to your throat or gun to your head and you knew that in a moment, your life would be ended, your blood sprayed across the wall? Do you have any loved ones that have been in a similar situation. What would you do if they were in one right now. What if their car was bombed by some terrorist, or the building they worked in was a target of an attack. or the train they were riding in was destroyed? The truht is that only the law abiding citizens like you and me and people of the world obey the laws, the terrorists and radicals could care less. How can you win a battle, war, conflict, skirmish, call it what ever you want, how can you overcome an adversary who doesnt respect anything but their own radical (and absolutely rejected by the free,respectable, sane, law abiding world)views.

I wonder if you would still fight fire with apeasement if at any point in your life, you have felt real terror. These poeple do not have the cognitive ability to "reason" with you, they will cut your head off just because you dont agree with them, let alone if you show them that they can get away with it. And then you will show them you are week and have no dignity, no spine, no conviction. Non violence may have a place in world peace, but not when we are dealing with radicals, terrorists, gangsters, or people of little if any intelligence or ability to reason. They do not want peace, they only want total world domination, nothing less and they will kill anything that opposes them.

I have a better idea, why dont we elect you president then you can go and try and appease them, after they are through laughing at you, they will cut your head off and televise it to the entire world to show what the US has become. Not the solution for this issue, maybe some others but not this one.

Maybe this country is just not the best fit for people who are not willing to fight for their freedoms and convictions, after all, it was founded SOLEY by that type of person. Mybe that is the problem with the US today, there are too many people who are fat on the tit of America and really do not understand what it cost to get us to this point. We didnt just wake up one day and say, "hey, lets be the greatest country on earth" and snap our fingers to make it happen. Alot of blood has been shed and much more will have to be shed to keep it this way. I dont like that fact, but it is a fact and i accept it as a cost of doing business. Its more than blood, its HONOR, and some people just dont get that. As much as I would hate it, if my son served our county and if by some chance he should be taken from me and this world in that capacity, he would have done so in HONOR, fighting for our country, our beliefs, our way of life, and for the poeple like you who sit on the sidelines and watch and criticise our leaders and servicement for defending that HONOR. And you know what, if i dont accept that risk, then i am free (actually encouracged) to leave, to go to another place where i will fit in and live the life that is provided in that country. You cant have your cake and eat it too.

John The Patriot said...

Well said, Chuck.

We can't negotiate with these people because their only demand will be "...all of your people must convert to Islam and worship allah. Do this, and we will end our hostilities."

Who among us is willing to give in to that demand in order to achieve world peace?

Dan Trabue said...

"Have you ever been afraid? I mean really fearfull of your life. Has anyone ever held a sword to your throat"

Have I been afraid? Sure, I suppose. But I try not to let my fear control me, make me make bad decisions.

Have I had a knife to my throat? Yes. I've confronted bullies and thugs and did so with a soft-spoken but firm word that told them they must quit what they were doing. And they did.

I'm on vacation now and don't have time to address this fully but will be back this weekend and will try to further respond. Just know that I hope that I would never embrace evil to fight evil, no matter how scared I might be.


chuck said...

"Have I been afraid? Sure, I suppose. But I try not to let my fear control me, make me make bad decisions"

I suppose...??? Dan, if that is your reply then you have never felt fear or real terror, you didnt feel fear or terror when 9/11 happened, you dont feel fear or terror when (of if you could even watch) the beheadings, you dont feel fear or terror when you see the reality that is just around the corner,and I am afraid that you suffer from the same codition that 99% of the other apethetic people in this country suffer from who are eating away little by litte like a concer in our country. You suffer from the spoiled, well fed, well sheltered, and idealistic view point condition where you think that these things could not possibly happen to you or that if you just ignore them they will work themsoeves out or that if you just be nice and set a good example that the animals will follow your valiant attitude. You WILL be sadly and rudely awakened one day if people do not change, if they do not wake up a see the real possibility of what is happening, the reality will bitch slap you in the face and all of your idealistic views and opinions will not mean crap when some terrorist has just blown up another building or train that you commute on or your friend or neighbor or worse, family member dies as a result of some terrorists actions.

Dan, if you only "suppose" you have felt fear then i can say without a doubt that you sir have not EVER seen the true face of death or experianced real fear and your ignorance in that capacity (while you might be intelligent otherwise) will be an extremely tough lesson learned. I will pray for you.

You go ahead and enjoy your vacation, your life of ryan, your restful sleep, your basking in the sunshine, your endless list of luxuries just like the rest of your kind, enjoy them while you can and while your fellow brothers in america are fighting overseas agains terrorism and fighting your battles and keeping terrorism away from you, keeping you safe at home while you sleep, go ahead and take advantage of those things while you can, and go ahead an keep thinking that your non violent way of life will be the end of all of these issues like terrorism, enjoy life as you know it now because if people like you do not WAKE UP! then none of us will be able to do those things. Sweet dreams darling, let the good old USA and Uncle Sam tuck you in, would you like a galss of warm milk darling?

oh yeah, almost forgot, when you get good and ready, and have had your fun and relaxation and enjoyed all of those luxuries, go ahead and post your response that you so promised. I eagerly await.

Dan Trabue said...

So, are you saying, Chuck, that you let fear guide your decision-making? If so, do you think that wise?

And you have a problem with a brother going on vacation? Do you not take vacations? If you do, then just back off a bit, your fear and anger are doing no one any good.

I suppose I have fear, as anyone does. When someone put a knife to my throat, when someone chased me on a dark street at night, sure. But the Bible has told us, "For God didn't give us a spirit of fear, but of power, love, and self-control."

I know it's not easy, Brother Chuck, but get yourself under control. Fearmongering is not the American way. Not MY America.