Killing Them is Killing Us, by Robert Gore
“Live and let live,” is, in American mythology, a benevolent and almost uniquely American attitude. We destroyed Japan and Germany in World War II and then helped rebuild them. Live and let live goes down well with the living, the winners. However, it’s often nothing more than balm for an uneasy conscience, hand sanitizer for bloodstained hands. A century and a half later, many Southerners lack this “unique” American attitude towards their conquerers in the War of Northern Aggression.
This is an excerpt. For the complete article please click the above link.
This is an excerpt. For the complete article please click the above link.
However, yes, what you call the "ordinary human", I call the epitome of humanity can't imagine shooting another and if put in that position might very well feel guilty for shooting the enemy...realizing that the soldiers on the other side are perhaps just like us. Again, the fight is between the governments that make us fight each other.
Maybe, we should require everyone in governments; presidents, generals, congressmen that voted to fight and all the bureaucrats to do the fighting with the presidents leading the charge...maybe we wouldn't have so many wars...
But wait, there's more, History does show us that communist's want to take down capitalism, America in particular and rule the world, (The Enemy Within) . This effort is directed toward the entire world and all of America's enemies are either cooperating or have been ginned up as a distraction in this fight, (islam).
...so what are we supposed to do when the leaders of russia, china, islam and others have actively coerced us but not the people of these countries.
Ignoring the situation isn't going to make it go away...we might live and let live, but they won't.
Not so sure what was really up with the Spanish-America War, but every war waged by the USA since was motivated by self-defense. That would include the "police actions" in Korea and Vietnam due to a "domino theory" fear of a Communist world conquest.
Now we have Muslims (just the extremists?) out to do the same thing but as their High Most Holy Koran commands.
Just after the World Trade Center was Pearl Harbored, a guitar player at a televised memorial event started to sing "Let It Be."
Aurgh! 3,000 Americans murdered and this twit sings "Let It Be?"
Me dino got so mad I almost hurled something heavy at my expensive big HD screen. Fortunately $ka-ching$ tempered my wrath and I just turned the TV off and just growled for a while.
Now after years of bloody war, Obama's stupid too soon retreat, the rise of the ISIS depravity, endless jihad civilian massacres here and in Europe, a never ending stream of returning PTSD vets with a VA scandal later, me dino no longer knows what to think. Or maybe I do.
Perhaps the thing to do is seal our borders, let the savages kill each other in the Middle East and work on our anti-missile missile technology while we wait.
Wait for what?
It may take 20 years. It may take a hundred.
The Muslim dream of a worldwide caliphate will be coming in huge numbers to convert, enslave or murder us, just as their High Most Holy Koran commands.
Me dino is a huge advocate of self-defense. That's the only time kill or be killed is justified homicide.
William Randolph Hearst had a lot to do with getting the Spanish American war underway. If you look at the headlines of his papers at the time, they are a screaming example of jingoistic propaganda.
The U.S. helped the jihadis drive the Soviets out of Afghanistan. We stopped the Serbian slaughter of Muslims in Bosnia. We freed Kuwait from Saddam Hussein and prevented the seizure or destruction of the Muslim holy cities. In exchange we got 9/11.
Military action defending against radical Islam will be a generational war. The enduring threat, and our increasing reliance on technology reminds me of Starship Troopers (the Heinlein novel, not the movies), and we may find ourselves morphing into Heinlein's envisioned society to survive.
We got 9/11 because contrary to our assurances to the Saudi Arabian government, we did not disband our "temporary" military bases there after the first Iraq war and they became permanent. Osama bin Laden, formerly our ally in Afghanistan, was incensed by infidel military bases in Islam's holy land and became our enemy. And Saddam never threatened Islamic holy cities in Saudi Arabia, so we did nor prevent their seizure or destruction. All of which undercuts your neocon talking points, or propaganda.
Here is the real problem: Islam. It is a philosophy of coercion and aggression and has been since its inception somewhere around the eighth century AD. Islam has been at war nearly perpetually since that time, conquering Bedouins, Christians, Agnostics, sheikhs and sultans with no abandon and no mercy. After the schism of leadership which resulted in the sects of Shia and Sunni, they have as often been at war with themselves as they have outside forces, and today is no exception. One need only turn to the Iran-Iraq War to see the bloody results of nearly twenty years of war - including chemical attacks on civilians. Or one can view the carnage which resulted when the Shia of Iran overthrew the Sunni leadership in Iraq following the US invasion and occupation. Now we have a primarily religious group rather than a territorial group (ISIS/ISIL) running around causing havoc - albeit with the full support of both Iran and Syria. It should also be noted that of the FBI's terrorism watch list, more than 90% of the top 100 are Islamic groups, and with the peaceful disbanding of the IRA more than a decade ago, the entire top 10 holds Islamic ties.
The failure in this article is the attribution of the "live and let live" mantra to Islam. It ignores the 1300 years of bloody history of this philosophy and attempts to blame other parties - namely the United States - for their militarism. This is patently false. Islam has always been militaristic because it is a vital part of their philosophy. It is one of the great failures of policy to think that their nations have any desire for negotiated settlements and peace talks such as those hosted by various presidents from Carter to Reagan to Bush to Clinton. There will be no peace in the Middle East until Islam no longer exists - or no other philosophy does. One has only to look at the late Yassar Arafat's actions following the Oslo Peace Accords to see that Islam doesn't bargain in good faith - something the Israelis can attest to all too readily.
Several of the author's other articles have been stirring and poignant. This one just leaves me shaking my head at the author's ignorance.
That's an easy and woefully wrong cop out to say that the problems of the Middle East all stem from the violent tenets of the Islamic religion, but ignore the fact that we are over there, making war, have engaged in regime change, have failed completely in the stated goal of instituting democracy in the Middle East, and have killed, wounded, and displaced millions of people who had no connection at all to terrorism. The Middle East 16 years after 9/11 looks very much like Vietnam after the US's intervention there, and there are few Muslims in Vietnam. Nothing we have done in the Middle East since 9/11 has enhanced the safety of anyone living in the US, and accounting for the blowback of terrorism and refugee flows, it has in fact gone the other way. We have turned al-Qaeda from a few hundred jihadists in Afghanistan's caves into a potent force throughout the Middle East and North Africa. If any good had come of our interventions since 9/11 your argument would make some sense, but nothing has so they don't
We gave the Taliban government of Afghanistan a chance to hand over the perpetrators of 9/11. They refused, and we decided to act to stop the terrorists. The invasion was necessary. The assault on Libya was foolish and unnecessary, particularly when negotiations between the government and opposition were making progress. Syria's rebellion is a self-inflicted wound, and unfortunate, since it's one country where the various sects of Islam had experienced relative comity alongside Christians.
Our intervention in the Middle East has prevented more large scale attacks like 9/11, with the terrorists reduced to small attacks by individuals. You may disagree with that statement, but your claim that nothing we've done has made us safer is without foundation. OBL had more big plans, including biological and chemical attacks that could have killed more thousands of Americans.
Labels mean little. The names Al Qaeda, ISIS, Al Nusra are just titles for what has existed in the Muslim ummah since the beginning, fanatic violent believers. We didn't create them, and doing nothing in the hope we can live in peace with them hasn't worked since the theocracy's founding. About 10% of the Muslim faithful share the most extreme beliefs of the faith, which means there are only about 120 million Muslims that think all infidels should die. We are fortunate, for now, that most of these are ignorant and primitive, without the means to carry out their goals.
Libya. Let's see. You had a military regime leftover from WW II when the Italians invaded that bombed a civilian passenger plane (Lockerbie) and who in turn was utterly crushed by Reagan. We should have left Qaddafi alone. This one can absolutely be chalked up to unnecessary intervention by an utterly incompetent - or Islamic as one sees fit - US President (Obama). Overthrowing the military regime led to the ideological base taking over and turning that country into a hotbed for Islamic terrorists. Again, ideology comes to the forefront.
Syria. Syria has a few more issues, but the US never effected regime change there, and the "rebellion" we "fomented" turned out to be the Islamic radicals known as Al Qaeda. I'm not saying Bashir Assad is a great guy, but the Russians had this one right as opposed to - again - our incompetent Barack Hussein Obama.
"What has the US accomplished by supporting autocratic, corrupt and repressive governments in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States?"
So first you complain when we intercede and now you complain because we don't overthrow some of the governments? Pick a foreign policy strategy and stick with it.
"What would be accomplished were we to ... invade Iran?"
Here at least we have both a military and a moral case. Obama missed a huge chance during the student uprising - which without Western recognition was summarily and brutally suppressed. Iran is a known sponsor of terror around the globe and is a belligerent State currently pursuing the use of nuclear weapons against "Zionist" regimes. And believe it or not, they consider Israel a vassal State to the United States. We are the "Great Satan". I'm not arguing that we should invade, but I don't think twenty years will pass without a major armed conflict with these ideologically-driven lunatics. (And lest we forget, we're going to be fighting ourselves thanks again to President Obama's release of billions of dollars of quarantined funds.) Even other Islamic nations like Saudi Arabia support military action against Iran because Iran even threatens their well-being with their missile batteries along the coast which can shut down all shipping in the Persian Gulf.
"That's an easy and woefully wrong cop out to say that the problems of the Middle East all stem from the violent tenets of the Islamic religion"
If one studies the Qu'ran and what it advocates, one finds that the "radicalism" isn't really radical at all - it's actually mainstream Islamic doctrine. And having had personal conversations with an ex-PLO member who admitted this fact, I'll just tell you that no, it really isn't a cop out at all - it's recognition of reality for these people. They teach it to their children and their children grow up learning to hate and accepting that violence against non-believers is part of life. It is a mindset most Westerners simply are in denial about. Having lived in the region for two years, talked with many people about ideology - especially refugees but also some candid believers - I speak from personal experience in this area.
"The Middle East 16 years after 9/11 looks very much like Vietnam after the US's intervention there..."
And I agree, but the problems are very different. In Vietnam, we were fighting an invading foreign force which was pushing an ideology backed by coercive force. In Vietnam, the people themselves were basically peaceful and wanted to be left alone. They appealed to the US for protection and the US bungled its response. In Iraq, we were intervening in a civil war between two factions of a violent ideology. Iraq was majority Shiite (like neighboring Iran) but was being run by the Sunni. And Iraq was only a few years removed from having its military dictator deposed and executed (justifiably) who had waged a twenty-year-long war against Iran before turning to invade neighbor Kuwait. The biggest foreign policy mistake we made was in trying to mix two opposing ideologies into their new government: Islam and natural law. They are opposing ideologies like oil and water.
The truth is that you are trying to pin the problems caused by the ideology of Islam on the US and that conclusion belies your ignorance of the region and its history. I'm not saying that US foreign policy decisions have been perfect, but to attribute the violence in the region to them is giving the US more power than it really has and totally ignoring the violent philosophy which has dominated that region for 1200+ years.
Your economic pieces have some great insights. Your foreign policy understanding, unfortunately, is neither astute nor accurate. I'd strongly recommend more study.
As AR might note, "Be aware when you are practicing sanction of the victim."
Can you say...Kakistocracy?
States Rights had to be destroyed for the federal aristocracy to gain full control as Hamilton had intended.
How dare the south oppose such a plan designed for the greater good?
The devisive result of the two parties differences
will make the imprisonment of US citizens ok by about half the population.
But what the founders of our Great Country tried to give us was the very best human institution to assure it didn't happen here, and be the example for the rest of the world. Have we slipped? We are human, and that is not a justification, but I still believe we are the best available institution. Kill others so my family, friends, community, way of life is preserved? Yeah, I'll do that again and I'll face my God when the time comes.
Can't be done you say?..that's why, "We the People" fight, regardless of what the Kakistcracy's want.
And Yes! it's a hard thing for us to do and live with...they call us... Conscious Humans.
Kissinger is a sociopath and he attended dozens of these ceremonies.
I have had this same thought at the outrage when raw video of the military using its weapons is leaked: What did people think we were doing with these weapons if not using them? But I think the gov't "controls the narrative". People are willing to accept things like "air support acting in anti-personnel capacity", but cannot accept it when they see video of it in action.
http://www.ohsorare.com/WhenHonorWas Earned.avi
I'm hoping that if N. Korean crazy-man launches a missile towards the US that it will be shot down; will be the end of it? Of course there is the scenario that when the missile is on the way Kimmy boy could launch a assault on the DMZ. Then what happens?
Look what just happen in the Senate these politicians went against the people of the US by plunging the world into another Cold War. Russia, Russia, Russia that's all that these idiots have on their/in their brains. If we had a trade program with Russia then they would be more at our mercy. They need us more than we need them, Besides the US government has to stop playing politics with our country's security Cyber-wise and other.