July 16, 2006
What's happening in the Middle East, then, isn't just another chapter in the Arab-Israeli conflict. What's happening is an Islamist-Israeli war. You might even say this is part of the Islamist war on the West--but is India part of the West? Better to say that what's under attack is liberal democratic civilization, whose leading representative right now happens to be the United States.
Indeed, Kristol has it pegged exactly. Israel is fighting for its existence not against pan-Arabism but rather against an extremist ideology that feels emboldened not out any strategic or political calculations but out of a divine sense of mission. I leave it to the reader to decide which is more dangerous....This is clearly our war: this is a Authoritarianism vs. Liberal Democracy, the great war that has been in progress for the entire 20th (and 21st) centuries. Communism has been defeated. Fascism has been defeated. Islamism/Jihadism/Islamo-fascism is still alive and well and threatening the world. If the only superpower can not rouse itself to combat this evil, then we should admit our cowardice return to isolationism.This is Israel’s war. Great powers do not allow small powers to dictate when and where they expend their military might and the lives of their young men. If we must confront the Iranians, it will be at a time of our own choosing and for reasons having to do with our own national interest, not the interest of a small ally.
Yes, Israel is the primary target. Does that make a difference to our response? Hezbollah and Hamas have not announced total war against the US, so we should sit this one out and offer kind words of support to the Israeli citizenry? If so, when will it become our war? After Israel is facing Syria, Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas? After Israel suffers a major defeat? After Iran drops a nuke on Tel Aviv? We are going to fight at some point, the Islamists are not going to disappear without a convincing defeat.
My view is simple: the US provide all material support to Israel in their current fight. If Iran enters the war, the US should enter the war with the goal of completely destroying Syria, Iran and North Korea's military, military infrastructure and the ruling regimes. A tactical victory means nothing: destroying Hezbollah and Hamas is a battle in a much wider war. Terrorist groups can be reconstituted. Terrorist-supporting regimes cannot.
Rick says that the timing of our entrance into the war should not be dictated by one small country, that we have 1-2 years to deal with Iran. I see no reason to delay and give Iran more time to kill civilians, move closer to nukes, more time to terrorize dissidents, more time to strengthen their military. I don't think Rick believes that we must destroy Iran at some point, he doesn't disagree that a war is looming between Freedom and Authoritariansm. He says we don't have to go to war now; that is true. What do we gain from waiting? Nothing.
Time is not on our side.
More here.
Posted by: cbjohnson at
05:30 AM
| Comments (16)
| Add Comment
Post contains 520 words, total size 3 kb.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at July 16, 2006 09:29 AM (v3I+x)
Perhaps you'd like to rephrase your characterization of people who disagree with you as "cowards, idiots or traitors?"
And "crushing" a billion people would be an interesting exercise in mass murder. Unless you mean the radicals and their sympathizers (a considerably smaller portion of human beings thank goodness) in which case I agree.
But it is done according to our own timing and our own interests - not dictated by another country that has its own agenda and own interests to protect.
That should be clear even to ""cowards, idiots or traitors" like you.
Posted by: Rick Moran at July 16, 2006 09:59 AM (uy3W4)
Posted by: Falcon at July 16, 2006 11:26 AM (y0GfP)
Posted by: Falcon at July 16, 2006 11:40 AM (y0GfP)
Bombing fuel depots at Beirut airport?
Bombing gas stations in Beirut?
Get Hezbollah. By all means. Is Hezbollah in Beirut? I thought they were in Southern Lebanon. Why are people in Beirut being bombed and killed? Should Christians in Beirut be killed because of muslim dogs in the south of the country?
God damnit go after the friggin enemy. Destroying a highway in Beirut is not going after the enemy. Just making someone pay. Make the right guy pay.
Or is Israel attempting to punish Lebanon and force them to attack Hezbollah. An organization that may be stronger than the Lebanon Army. If the Lebanon army loses. What happens then?
Invade south Lebanon and run Hezbollah to Syria.
Then bomb Syria until they come to their senses.
Iran will self destruct.
Posted by: greyrooster at July 16, 2006 04:14 PM (EJPUn)
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at July 16, 2006 04:21 PM (v3I+x)
Posted by: greyrooster at July 16, 2006 04:26 PM (EJPUn)
Posted by: greyrooster at July 16, 2006 04:29 PM (EJPUn)
Posted by: rob at July 16, 2006 07:24 PM (jaQRE)
Posted by: heroyalwhyness at July 16, 2006 09:39 PM (MAPKL)
Let me explain for the less swift-minded among us: This is a war of conquest. It has been going on for about 1400 years. We didn't start it, but we do have to fight if we don't want to be conquered and enslaved. We are under attack. Our attackers are called "the enemy", and the enemy is comprised mostly of muslims. It is perfectly appropriate to kill "the enemy" before they kill us.
For all those limp-wristers who continuously champion the "peaceful muslims", who are supposed to only want to eat milk and honey with us and sing koombayah, I suppose, you should stick your finger in a light socket to wake yourself up and realize these are the same people who pack the mosques every Friday to listen to calls for jihad, and give money to support the worldwide terrorist networks. They support those who kill innocent people, and some, like Rusty, are deliberately ignoring this. They hate us, and many among us keep telling the rest of us to go back to sleep, it's only a bad dream. The goal of the worldwide muslim community, by their own words, is nothing less than global conquest by war and murder, and anyone who says otherwise is a liar. I beg those among us who are guilty, they know who they are, to stop lying to us. The muslims hate us and want us dead. All of them. They are all the enemy. Every time someone repeats the lie of peaceful muslims, they stain their hands with the blood of innocents.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at July 16, 2006 10:07 PM (v3I+x)
It is cultural and racial before religion. This gutter religion is merely a blanket to hide under.
Posted by: greyrooster at July 17, 2006 06:19 AM (XamQD)
Posted by: Falcon at July 17, 2006 07:42 AM (y0GfP)
Posted by: greyrooster at July 17, 2006 07:49 AM (XamQD)
Posted by: rob at July 17, 2006 11:23 AM (QpkBe)
I suggest that in discussions that Islam be referred to as a Cult.
Cults are Gangs, Mafia, and likened to Jim Jones, David Koresch,Heavens Gate and Charles Manson.
If you knew someone in these CULT's you would try with all your might to tell them to leave as trouble will eventually find them.
If you will be killed if you leave an organization this is a CULT characteristic.
If you marry outside of the organization you will be "Honor" killed by a family member. This is a CULT characteristic.
Islam is a CULT with these characteristics plus many many more all outlawed in our country.
I think we have a big job to educate our friends etc and I believe the CULT analogy is understandable and the quickest way to pull it off.
Posted by: Paul at July 18, 2006 07:12 PM (otyht)
34 queries taking 0.6729 seconds, 171 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
