Brad Wardell's views about technology, politics, religion, world affairs, and all sorts of politically incorrect topics.
There are real monsters out there
Published on March 14, 2004 By Draginol In Politics

The political season brings out the worst in both sides. Too many people treat real world politics as a game. Not as a computer game, but a game of intellectual exercise. What they forget is that there are monsters out there. And once in a great while, a monster gets loose.

In the 20th century, Hitler and his ilk were allowed to run amok across Europe and besides the 30 million or so who died in actual in the war, another 12 million were executed simply because they weren't the correct race or creed. In Rwanda, nearly a million people were slaughtered for not being of the right tribe. That was only a few years ago.

You would think given these examples and others that people would recognize the obvious - there are monsters out there, and once in awhile, a monster gets a hold of the means to do great harm. Al Qaeda is one such monster. But you wouldn't know that based on some of the things you hear. The bombing in Spain seems to have woken up some people in Europe finally. Which is ironic because what happened in Spain was trivial compared to 9/11.

Luckily, adults are in charge. The kids can go hang out on-line or protest somewhere but the adults are the ones making the real decisions. And for them, they understand what Al Qaeda and its ilk really is. So let me share with you what the goal of Bin Laden is: The complete and total transformation of all the world to Islam. Those who are willing to be subjugated to their laws (Islam's not just a religion, it's a form of government) will be spared. Those who resist will be killed. It's that simple. The United States was attacked because it represents the largest obstacle to that goal.

Some people will say "Well, the US had that base in Saudi Arabia and if we hadn't had that, maybe he wouldn't have attacked." And why were we in Saudi Arabia? Because we were asked to by the government of Saudi Arabia. Why? Because Iraq had recently invaded Kuwait and wanted US presence in the area "just in case". We weren't there as part of some sort of imperialistic crusade. We were there to help protect others. Just like we did in Korea (and South Korea was a rural society in 1949, so don't delude yourself into thinking that was about some natural resource). And it's irrelevant anyway. Sooner or later we would have been targeted. Lucky they had to strike sooner, before they had nuclear weapons, rather than later so that we can begin actively resisting them now.

Al Qaeda makes it clear that it will do anything, and I mean anything to bring about its goals. It will kill innocents wholesale.  We should take them very seriously. Seriously enough to consider how 9/11 might have been with chemical or biological or nuclear weapons. And then perhaps the kids who treat this all as some far off intellectual game might come to understand maybe why Saddam had to be removed from power rather than fixating on whether he had actual stockpiles on hand at the end.

I wasn't willing to gamble the life of my wife and children to placate some college student or some European intellectual in Belgium. I know, and continue to know, that Al Qaeda will use whatever it has to murder people in large numbers to reach its publicly stated goals. And if Iraq didn't have WMD on hand, I don't care, because I do know what his intent was and what it was in the long term. I have always known that which is why I supported the war regardless of whether stockpiles were found. I understood and continue to understand that Iraq was part of the war on terror.

But not everyone understands because to them, it's still just a game. But it's not a game to Al Qaeda. To them, it's serious. Deadly serious.

Consider Bin Laden's own statement to the American people:

The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam.

The religion of the Unification of God; of freedom from associating partners with Him, and rejection of this; of complete love of Him, the Exalted; of complete submission to His Laws; and of the discarding of all the opinions, orders, theories and religions which contradict with the religion He sent down to His Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). Islam is the religion of all the prophets, and makes no distinction between them - peace be upon them all.

It is to this religion that we call you; the seal of all the previous religions....

call you to be a people of manners, principles, honour, and purity; to reject the immoral acts of fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling's, and trading with interest...

You are the nation who, rather than ruling by the Shariah of Allah in its Constitution and Laws, choose to invent your own laws as you will and desire. You separate religion from your policies, contradicting the pure nature which affirms Absolute Authority to the Lord and your Creator...

You are the nation that permits Usury, which has been forbidden by all the religions. Yet you build your economy and investments on Usury. As a result of this, in all its different forms and guises, the Jews have taken control of your economy, through which they have then taken control of your media, and now control all aspects of your life making you their servants and achieving their aims at your expense; precisely what Benjamin Franklin warned you against...

The full text can be found here.

The first thing Al Qaeda wants is the full conversion to Islam. He makes that clear. This isn't US propaganda. This isn't George Bush trying to scare you. This is what Al Qaeda specifically wants. This is what all the killing has been about. 

You can tell it's a game to some people because the same people who argue against US resistance to Al Qaeda are the people who would suffer the most under the rule of Islam.  The same people who can jump from one discussion supporting gay marriage or telling everyone that was unhappy about Janet Jackson's breast exposure should "get a life" are the ones who will then go on and say that he has a lot of good points.  Huh? They'll post how capital punishment is a "human rights violation" while pretending to understand that to be gay under Islam is to be executed? That usury (that's borrowing with interest) would be banned? You have a mortgage? A car payment? A credit card bill? Forget it.  In Iran, for instance, Janet Jackson would have been executed by the government, if she were lucky. Stoned to death if she were not. But some people will put Al Qaeda and the US on morally equal grounds? Clearly, these are unserious people arguing about serious things.

And don't forget that paranoid Jew hating thrown in there, just to make sure that there's no mistake about the would-be Fuhrer's intentions are.

But some people see all this is just another playing card in their game of philosophical objection to the United States or its leaders. So soft and so naive that they write from their places of luxury as if there really are no monsters out there. To them, George Bush is "the monster" even though they have no understanding of what real monsters would do to them.  They think it's all part of some quest for oil or <insert natural resource X here>. Or imperialism or whatever. It's not. It's about our way of life. Our existence outrages them.

These people want to eliminate our way of life. They find our way of life appalling.  They find it immoral and dishonorable. And they plan to make us change it either by voluntarily converting ourselves to their way or by killing every man, woman, or child that resists or may resist them. We're not just fighting some ideology or some far away concept. We're fighting for our lives.

You can't negotiate with a side whose primary demand is that you cease to exist. You can't ignore people who are working towards gaining the means to kill increasing numbers of people. You can't wait until it's a mushroom cloud over your city to act. Al Qaeda and its ilk were not created by the CIA or some American group as some smug yet ignorant people seem to think. I say smug because it demonstrates an arrogance -- that other peoples are incapable of putting together such a movement and such an organization on their own. They believe in what they're doing. They believe they're doing God's work and the only way they'll be stopped is if someone stops them.

Thankfully, the adults are in charge. Regardless of who wins in November, don't kid yourself that the US will change its course. Both candidates, luckily, know that there are monsters out there that have to be dealt with.


Comments (Page 7)
9 PagesFirst 5 6 7 8 9 
on Mar 16, 2004
Like what? I guess I didn't think of any other option as realistic, given Hussein's total control of the country. Feel free to try to convince me though.


Well, I'm not an expert, so I'm not sure I'll be able to convince you--just as I wouldn't expect war supporters to be able to give me a detailed invasion plan. But, many a government has been toppled by non-violent resistance. Gandhi was successful, as were others. Some examples include:


1. Poland (1980), workers went on strike to win the right to organize trade unions and insist on fuller rights, and when Walesa's Solidarity took power, no one was killed.
2. South Africa (1980), blacks used boycotts and strikes until apartheid lost outside business support which compelled the president to negotiate
3. Serbia (2000), the military refused the orders to the dictator after a nonviolent protest.

Also, Jack Duvail writes (in Soujourner Magazine) that:
In 2002, an Iraqi opponent of Saddam said he liked nonviolent resistance, but that Saddam was like Stalin—therefore it wasn’t possible. He was asked what would happen if 5,000 people demonstrated in Baghdad. He said they’d all be shot. What if 20,000 should demonstrate? Same result, though much bloodier, he said. But what if 100,000 Iraqis should protest, demanding that Saddam go? He hesitated. Well, if that happened, he said, then things might go differently. Why? Because if that many Iraqis were determined to resist, the dictator’s defenders would realize that fear as an instrument of power no longer worked—that Saddam had lost control of the country. Suddenly an impervious regime had been reduced in this Iraqi’s mind to a strategic problem.

I'm not saying that a nonviolent overthrow would be easy, it most certainly would not. But I think a nonviolent overthrow would reap benefits in the post-Saddam era. Jack DuVail goes on to say "When nonviolent movements mobilize people to use strikes, boycotts, civil disobedience, and other disruptive tactics—through a strategy to subvert an unjust regime’s power—democracy ensues more often than when violence is used. If we disregard the costs of regime change through terror or war, by not comparing them to the risks and opportunities of nonviolent conflict, then we are issuing a blank check to the belief that liberation is always violent."

Is it a perfect plan, no...I'm sure there would be bugs as with any plan, but in my opinion it beats war every time.
on Mar 16, 2004
Why would we believe we needed to deal with Iraq now if it weren't an 'imminent' threat?


And yet, no answer to this question is given.


The practical effect of the anti-war people was that they were pro-Saddam.


Normally, you're at least intelligent-sounding when you write this drivel, but this one is too much. This is stupid.


Maybe not imminently but at some point.


So the inspectors could have stayed a bit longer and it wouldn't have hurt us (because the threat was not imminent, by your own admission).


So after Afghanistan it made sense to deal with Saddam before Al Qaeda could effectively regroup. And so we did.


You're right. It's a good thing we rushed into Iraq and took care of al-Qaeda. They'll never be able to bomb Spain now! Oh, wait...


The arguments, if they can be called that, to remove Saddam were always incredibly weak in my opinion.


Agreed! But I think you made a typo...


And the results already justified the action. Saddam is captured.


No, the results are the results; if you didn't want Iraq invaded, you didn't want Saddam captured.


By Boulbushead's argument the legitimate government of Iraq is controlled by the United States. And it was all done with only a few hundred casualties total. Simply amazing.


How is this amazing? The United States of America, richest and most powerful country in the world, home of the most advanced technologies and the best-trained military forces, vs. Iraq? Was there any possible outcome except total victory for the US? No one is impressed by the American ability to topple governments on a whim.


But the anti-war people are so lame that they fixate that we didn't find stockpiles of chemical weapons. Big deal.


I wouldn't have minded not finding the weapons if I hadn't been promised by the President that they were there.


Better to deal with Saddam now while we had a reasonably good excuse to do so than later when it would be politically more difficult.


How could it be any more politically difficult than it was this time around? It divided sharply a nation that was more united than ever (thanks to September 11), and it seriously strained our relations with just about all of the rest of the world.
on Mar 16, 2004
Brad:

I would love to debate with you, but I'm not going to allow you to be-little me or insinuate that I am a stupid child who needs to be lead by you. If you are a leader, you should know better than to resort to childish name calling. You are in fact 100% wrong when you say that antiwar is the same as pro-Saddam. Being anti-war doesn't mean you are not for anything. I was pro- UN action to remove Saddam, preferably by non-violent means, and pro-ICC trial of Sadam for human rights violations. In my opinion, war is the easy way out, people resort to violence when they can't think of any other solutions. Like I've said before, feel free to discuss the issue, but you need to understand that other people are not going to agree with you all of the time.

on Mar 16, 2004
a non-violent overthrow of Iraq would not have been possible. One of Hussein's aids said that during an economic meeting in the mid-eighties, Hussein looked up and asked what the population of the country was. When they answered, he said something to the effect of "I think we could get by with about half that much".

This is someone win no qualms about killing hundreds of thousands of people at a time, possibly millions if need be. He got where he was by killing dozens of his friends. You don't need WMDs to put down a non-violent revolution, all you need is a political machine willing to commit mass murder. Hussein certainly had that. Had there been a means of non-violent change in Iraq, the revolutionaries wouldn't have been hiding in the US and Europe. They knew full well that once you were known to be in opposition, you were dealt with.
on Mar 16, 2004
This is someone win no qualms about killing hundreds of thousands of people at a time, possibly millions if need be. He got where he was by killing dozens of his friends.


Exactly the same goes for Kim in North Korea, and he does have WMD. Why wasn't he the priority?
on Mar 16, 2004

 If you are a leader, you should know better than to resort to childish name calling

You mean like calling someone childish? Isn't that what your complaint was? That I implied that the anti-war people weren't adults? And yet you explicitly label those who oppose you as behaving "childishly"?

Frankly, I don't really care whether you want to debate with me or not. Who says that you're worth my effort? What concrete points have you added to this discussion? What alternatives have you presented? What courses of action have you sugested?

I am uninterested in whether people agree with me or not. By their very nature, those who are anti-action don't really matter because they're not proposing anything.

Let me use an analogy: There's a starving person. 3 people are offering advice. The first person says "Go to this restraunt and buy a meal." The other says "Go to your refrigerator and make yourself a sandwich." and the third person says "You shouldn't waste your money on that restraunt and your refrigerator's food isn't good enough either." Which person is irrelevant in that discussion?

The people proposing the real possible actions are the ones who matter. The person just saying they shouldn't do those actions is ultimately pointless.

 

on Mar 16, 2004

Exactly the same goes for Kim in North Korea, and he does have WMD. Why wasn't he the priority?

So what course of action do you propose?

on Mar 16, 2004

1. Poland (1980), workers went on strike to win the right to organize trade unions and insist on fuller rights, and when Walesa's Solidarity took power, no one was killed.
2. South Africa (1980), blacks used boycotts and strikes until apartheid lost outside business support which compelled the president to negotiate
3. Serbia (2000), the military refused the orders to the dictator after a nonviolent protest.

It is ironic that you chose 3 examples that actually demonstrate that without US involvement those things would have been pointless. Do you think that Apartheid was lifted due to protests? Really? Do you really think the military refused orders purely on protests? Or maybe, just maybe, it had something to do with US military action?

Hey, while you're at it, throw in Libya giving up its WMD plans and claim that was due to peaceful negotiations and not because of US action. Do you really believe what you write or are you just trying to see if we know our history?

on Mar 16, 2004
Frankly, I don't really care whether you want to debate with me or not. Who says that you're worth my effort? What concrete points have you added to this discussion? What alternatives have you presented? What courses of action have you sugested?


I have suggested other courses of action, but you are clearly not listening to them. The name calling I was referring to was calling anti-war people pro-saddam. Apparently, I've hit a nerve with you. You can dismiss my arguments, but you can't say that I haven't made any. What concrete points have you added? Give me a break Brad. You really believe that you are better than other people here, don't you. Clearly, I'm wasting my time, and I have finished trying to have a civilized discussion with you. I hope that someday you realized that there are other opinions that you could learn from...the sound of your own voice must get lonely sometimes!
on Mar 16, 2004
You mean like calling someone childish? Isn't that what your complaint was? That I implied that the anti-war people weren't adults? And yet you explicitly label those who oppose you as behaving "childishly"?


oh yea...just for the record...in the construction of that sentence, the childish refers to the name-calling , not you...but one would suppose that you already knew that.
on Mar 16, 2004
Bulboushead, if you don't think that Saddam is a terrorist, I don't see reasoning with you as an option. He paid Palestinians to act as suicide bombers. You don't consider that terrorism? I guess that is "legitimate government". Wow!
on Mar 16, 2004
So what course of action do you propose?


I could ask Mr. Bush the same thing. Here's President Bulbous's plan:

1. I would not distract the country with Iraq while North Korea dances giddily through fields of uranium. I would focus on communicating to the nation and to the rest of the world that a nuclear North Korea, possibly with aspirations to sell weapons to God-knows-who, is the greatest threat to global security.

2A. China is the only country that seems to have any influence on North Korea. They like to see us squirm, so they let North Korea make noise and stomp around. Their greatest fear is a powerful Japan. Tell China that in light of the danger that a nuclear North Korea poses to the region, we will allow and encourage Japan and South Korea to build up armies and nuclear arsenals of their own unless China helps get North Korea under control.

or (and?):

2B. Commission a CIA mission to assassinate Kim.
on Mar 16, 2004
I have suggested other courses of action, but you are clearly not listening to them.

Every argument I've seen from you has been essentially why we shouldn't do anything. I've yet to see a suggested course of action from you. And hate to break it to you but opposing liberating Iraq is, as a practical matter, being pro-Saddam. It's not name calling. It's just reality.

Give me a break Brad. You really believe that you are better than other people here, don't you?

No, mainly just you and those people who are unable to put forth a concrete position.

I hope that someday you realized that there are other opinions that you could learn from.

Most of my opinions come from listening to other people and learning from them and then coming to my own conclusions. It is something you may want to try someday.

on Mar 16, 2004
I guess that is "legitimate government". Wow!


Then define for me, if you will, "legitimate government." Did Saddam have power over Iraq? Did he control the armed forces? Did he make laws for the nation? He was running the country. That is a government. It doesn't mean that that government was very nice or likeable, but a government is still what it was.
on Mar 16, 2004

I could ask Mr. Bush the same thing. Here's President Bulbous's plan:

1. I would not distract the country with Iraq while North Korea dances giddily through fields of uranium. I would focus on communicating to the nation and to the rest of the world that a nuclear North Korea, possibly with aspirations to sell weapons to God-knows-who, is the greatest threat to global security.

2A. China is the only country that seems to have any influence on North Korea. They like to see us squirm, so they let North Korea make noise and stomp around. Their greatest fear is a powerful Japan. Tell China that in light of the danger that a nuclear North Korea poses to the region, we will allow and encourage Japan and South Korea to build up armies and nuclear arsenals of their own unless China helps get North Korea under control.


And your plan is different from the Bush plan...how? Other than the Iraq part? How exactly do you know North Korea has nuclear weapons? Your own internal spy network? OR because Bush publicly came out and said that North Korea has nuclear weapons?

How has Bush proceeded? He has tried to get the Chinese to put pressure on them.  So either you are unaware of what Bush's plan was or you do know Bush's plan and you are trying to make the unwary think it is different than it is.

9 PagesFirst 5 6 7 8 9