Don't misunderstand the American character

The United States will do whatever it takes to win the war on terror

Published on December 23, 2003 By Draginol In Politics

All over the blogsphere I'll see people say "You Americans need to start asking yourselves, 'Why did they do this to you.'" It is a terrible misreading of the American culture. Americans don't care. You can argue all day that they should care. But they don't. I don't. There is nothing we have done that justified the events of 9/11. And those who try to justify the acts of terrorists will be ignored as sycophants and appeasers of evil.

After 9/11 the question is no longer "why did they do this to you?" The question should be what is happening to the Islamic world as a result of their growing culture of death and violence towards the west.

Perhaps the Islamic world needs to start asking, why the US does this to them. Because if the choice becomes us or them, Americans will choose us in a heart beat even if that means the Islamic world is a totally destroyed. Make no mistake about that. This isn't jingoism, far from it, it is the quiet knowledge of certainty. The clear understanding of the American character that is saying this.

I don't say this because I hope that happens, I don't. I hope that the Islamic World can live in peace with the west and in particular the United States. I just don't think Europeans and especially the Islamic world understands American culture. We try to do the right thing. But if we feel we've been wronged (and we do) our history shows that we will do whatever it takes to secure ourselves.

Remember this: Japan bombed a military base to start its war against the United States. The war ended with the United States vaporizing two of its largest cities after having used conventional weapons to flatten nearly every city in Japan with millions of civilian casualties. It is one of those things about democracy - it is slow to anger but once angered, once motivated, it is hard to turn it off. So I say to you, for the sake of the Islamic world, they will not continue the path of folly in trying to convince us that the fault lies with us. That sort of argument is interesting in intellectual forums. But in the real world, when people are getting killed, those who would start killing Americans need to understand the full implications of their actions.

Blaming Bush is convenient. But I can say this: Any President of the United States would have done at least as much or would have faced riots. The US federal government only has one job (the state governments do pretty much everything else): Take care of the personal well being of its citizens It's not designed to build roads. It's not designed to build schools. It doesn't provide the police. It doesn't run the water plant. It doesn't provide water or electricity. It just takes care of individual citizens. And it does this in two ways: Killing non-citizens who seek to harm us and provide services to individuals. That's basically all it does (all but less than 10% of the budget is dedicated to those tasks). It's not like a European government or the government in other countries in its design. And it does those things remarkably well. And democracies can be scary things. The average person acts out of passion, emotion. The government is merely the tool of the citizenry. It doesn't rule the people, the people rule the government. Blaming Bush for Kyoto or the International Criminal Court or the Iraqi invasion or whatever may make some quasi-intellectual feel better. But it's a delusion. It doesn't matter who the President was. Those things would have happened under any President one way or the other particularly after 9/11 in the case of Iraq.

So don't delude yourself into thinking that Americans are going to sweat about the "why" the terrorists murdered so many Americans. Most Americans care about how its government will make the problem go away in as permanent a way as possible. It's not the "Arab street" you should worry about, it's the American street people should worry about. Even 4 years after Pearl Harbor, poll after poll taken in 1945 showed that the vast majority of Americans supported the extermination of the Japanese as a people. Do you understand? The extermination of the Japanese as a race. It's not the terrorists that people should be afraid of. That is why the Islamic world needs to stop the terrorists. Why they need to do it on their own. They're not doing it to help us. They are doing it to ensure their continued survival.

Comments (Page 2)

Draginol

on Dec 23, 2003

I wasn't aware that the posting of historical facts was now arrogance.

The United States, as a people, are likely to act better than the average group of people on the planet. But that's not saying much. Humans, as groups, react violently when they believe their well being is threatened. The difference is that Americans, as a group, can cause much greater harm to those it perceives as a threat to their well being than other countries.

I'm sorry if it sounds like this is "arrogance" but this should be common sense.

Machiavelli_incorporated

on Dec 23, 2003

Wardell, i understand ur point of view and agree with ur use of historical facts

however, u seem to have dismissed sumthing when u were quoting ur historical facts. We r not in the imperialistic ages any more. We r in a time when 2% of the world's population own 98% of the world's resources. The problem is not in the middle east, the problem is EVERYWHERE. If american foreign policy does not change, than u can mark my words that there will be another alqueda(i no i spelt it wrong), another terrorist network, and another attack. If we silence the middle east by force, there will only be another, and another. No matter how powerful we r, we cant silence them all through force. The only other time in history comparable to our current sitiuation is the Roman empire, and we all know how they ended up. Unless there is a fundamental change in the view of the american people and government, than america as a country is in big trouble. Dont forget the US has only been the most powerful nation for 10 years (since the collapse of the soviet union) we're not exempt from the lessons of history that were so brutally learned.

Draginol

on Dec 23, 2003

First off, 2% of the world's population have always effectively owned nearly all the world's resources.

Secondly, you speak as if the issues I bring up were ancient history. The genocide in Africa is only a few years old. Ethnic cleansing in Bosnia is quite recent. The millions dead in Europe happened within the lifetime of many people.

When mankind can go a few centuries without slaughtering his fellow man enmasse then maybe we can start talking about times having changed.

BTW, the United States has been the world's most powerful nation since 1917 by any statistical measure. But that's besides the point.

You can replace the United States with any major power and it's still the same result. If any nation with significant capapbility to do mass destruction is put into the situation of it being "us or them" history has made it pretty clear what will happen. The only difference is that the United States is a bigger target than other countries with similar capabilities.

As for Orc's ignorant comments, I'll take advantage of my right as a blog owner to remove his comment. If he wants to spew crap, he can start his own blog.

Draginol

on Dec 23, 2003

BTW, Machi, why not tell us what happened to the Roman Empire. It wasn't brought down from without. It was brought down from internal weakness.

In addition, you seem to have ignored the countless empires between 300AD or so and today.

You seem to refer to history lessons that no one is aware of. What lessons would that be? My arguemnt is that it is the world that seems to be ignoring the lessons of history -- that of basic human nature.

Replace the United States with say China or Russia or any other country with significant means. What do you think would happen to the middle east if terrorists kept attacking say Russia with it culminating in the use of nuclear weapons to destroy Moscow. Do you think the Russians would just turn the other cheek? Is there any evidence you can conjure up that lets you imagine that the Russians or any country with the means wouldn't just flatten the whole area that it believes was involved with the incident?

Machiavelli_incorporated

on Dec 23, 2003

listen, i am not trying to attack america or ne thing, i brought up the roman empire as an example of no matter how powerful a nation-state is, it will eventually fall if the people and government become too arrogant. It is true that 2% has owned most of the worlds resources. however, these 2 percent were all previously distributed throughout the world, leading to more isolated incidents, eg the french revolution. with the development of globalization, we r no longer divided into isolated sections, where a polticial or economic splash in one country does not effect another, those 2 percent now r almost exclusively in the US and sum in Europe. Meaning all the hatred will be concentrated against us. Hence 9/11

JeremyG

on Dec 23, 2003

"My arguemnt is that it is the world that seems to be ignoring the lessons of history -- that of basic human nature. "

Here in lies the basis of our disagreement. You concede that things will always be the same, as opposed to doing everything possible to change it. After all that's what the US is supposed to be....be an example....rise above.

You think about the facts as you see them in terms of economics, power and political might. I think in terms of possibility and compassion and hope. People like me see people like you as harsh and uncaring, and people like you see people like me as dreamers and unrealistic.

Draginol

on Dec 23, 2003

Jeremy: Certainly. But I tend to think that it is better to assume the worst and hope for the best. Human nature has gradually improved but it's all a matter of thresholds.

I am not willing to give credence to arguments of "why do they hate you?". There are always reasons why people hate things. It doesn't give them a license for murder. Repeat enough times and the victims will eventually reach the point where they think it's an us or them proposition.

Draginol

on Dec 23, 2003

Mac: The Roman Empire didn't fall because the government became too arrogant. If arrogance were a cause for governmental downfall France would have long ceased to be a nation state.

Also, as individuals, we humans are capable of a great deal of enlightened thought. But as groups, we humans haven't changed all that much in the last few milenium. If Americans start getting killed wholsale, all cries for restraint will go right out the window.

Anthony R

on Dec 23, 2003

There was a plan to storm mainland Japan but after weighing the casualty projection which was in the hundreds of thousands on the American side Truman decided to drop the bomb. America nuked Japan, because imperial Japan was a fearsome enemy that crippled America’s naval fleet. Japan didn’t realize the significance of aircraft carriers and that was a big mistake of theirs, they took out all the battleships but neglected to destroy the aircraft carriers. The carriers ended up sustaining America through the war.

I get a charge out of Europeans that want to lay the blame for all societal ills on America’s shore. Visit Normandy and you will find rows of brave American soldiers that did battle with the Wehrmacht so that you could find a free voice to lambaste the US with bilge and drivel. The US is at war with extremism for survival, and along the road we found out that we can’t fully count on Germany or France to lift a finger to help. Germany, France and the UN were doing a brisk business with Hussein, so there was a conflict of interest. France and Germany wanted to bid for contracts in Iraq even though they didn’t lift a finger to liberate it.
If Chirac and Schroeder had their way, Hussein would still rule over twenty five million people with an iron fist, conducting his human rights violations that rivaled Hitler or Mussolini, the only difference between Hussein and Hitler was the numbers, Hussein killed less, but that does not minimize his legacy as a monster.

What was to become of Rome, when she should no longer have any state to fear?

--Cato the elder

messybuu

on Dec 23, 2003

Is there a nation out there that would simply surrender to terrorists and ask "Why do you hate us? We only wanted to love!" I can't honestly imagine any country doing that, and I'm sure that there are groups out there that feel justified to bomb any country that can be named.

leedogg

on Dec 23, 2003

factoid: a fact as far as I'm concerned and aware of.

factoid 1: Most of the violence and unstability in this world seems to be stemming from the Middle East, specifically fundamentalists within the muslim religion. Likely reasons: fanaticism, ignorance, blind hatred, misguided ideologies. A strike upon America out of the blue without any obvious provocation, creates an enormous backlash reaction: The problems in the Middle East need to be resolved once and for all.

factoid 2: The rest of the world feels threatened by this violence and unstability. European bodies argue and debate, but for the most part accomplish nothing (http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectID=83C5390B-7673-472E-A6B14EE2925F9CF6). The US and England feel threatened to the point where they decide they cant wait for Europe to get its act together and therefor decide to act on their own.

factoid 3: America will continue to act upon its own interests just like every other country acts on their own interests. Our interests now encompass any nation or region which poses a threat to worldwide stability, economic prosperity, and the basic human rights and freedoms of all people.

Machiavelli_incorporated

on Dec 24, 2003

The strick on america was not out of the blue, it was due to american foriegn policy which attracted attention 2 our own country. I personally owe no alleigence to any country right now, being legally canadian, chinese by blood, and living in the US. And i choose to view the situation from a global perspective. My question is this: would the US gain more if it went down on the middle east with an iron fist as Brad seems to suggest so eagerly, lose civilian lives as well as american combatants, and speed up the already problamatic fissure in the UN, or make concessions to the middle east, if not to pacify the region, than at least shift the attention from us and back to isreal, the real object of palestinan anger/hatred.

Draginol

on Dec 24, 2003

Please refrain from strawman arguments.

At no time have I even suggested that mass extermination of the Islamic world was something that was good let alone "Eager".

Let me dumb it down here since some people seem to willfully mis-read what I say.

If a man goes up to another man and punches him in the nose, odds are the other man's reaction is going to be to fight back.

And yet many people, particularly on the left, are telling the man who just got punched that instead of punching back he should think why he got punched in the first place and not punch back.

All my article does is point out that such a thing is contrary to human nature. We can debate at length of whether it's wrong or not. I'm not arguing the morality of it. I am simply pointing out that human nature is to strike back without thinking about it where the severity of the response is dependent upon how much harm has been done.

I approve of the US strategy - it is trying to reform the Arab Islamic world with Iraq as the first step and hopefully over time the surrounding countries. I find that to be much preferable than one that would lead to the annihilation of Arab Islam which is, IMO, the most likely result if the left were to be listened to.

The best thing that can happen for the middle east is for their people not to commit any further terrorist attacks against the United States.

leedogg

on Dec 24, 2003

Ok Machiavelli. I'll give you their strike on our WTC being due to american policy in general, if you give me our resulting invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq as a consequence/result of Saddam's & Al Quaida's respective policies in general.

Anthony R

on Dec 24, 2003

An aggressive policy, or warlike posturing, is not the cited reason why UBL attacked America, reality lies on the opposite end of the spectrum.

Terrorists began to think America was weak. After America withdrew from Somalia UBL spewed forth a doctrine in which he claimed that American soldiers are “paper tigers,” easily vanquished because they run from a “bloody nose.”

Now that the US is going after terrorist’s full tilt, a lot of liberals and sophists who don’t even understand the nature of the brutality that exists in the world want to condemn it as “American Imperialism,” they view any success in the war against these thugs as “American triumphalism.”

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!