Brad Wardell's views about technology, politics, religion, world affairs, and all sorts of politically incorrect topics.
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 4)
10 PagesFirst 2 3 4 5 6  Last
on Dec 28, 2003

Machi - it's really hard to take you seriously when you're such an extremist.  So now America "trained" Hussein and put him in power. 

Do you have any idea what you're talking about or do you merely regurgitate idiocy written on various left wing news sites?

If you think that American reaction to being attacked is isolationism, I suggest picking up history book. The US has consistently reacted very strongly when attacked, often seemingly irrationally.

1) War of 1812 - US declares war on the world's most powerful country over impressment of US sailors.

2) War of 1898 - US declares war on Spain because a US ship at anchor in Havana Harbor explodes and assumes the Spanish did it.

3) World War I - US declares war on Germany/Central Powers because Germany had unrestrcted U-boat activity.

4) World War II - US lays waste to Japan after it bombs a US naval base. Wipes out a good portion of Germany in the process.

5) Vietnam - US gunship in the gulf of Tonkin is allegedly (though probably not) attacked.

And yet some of you have the nerve to spew your invective at me because I point out that if the United States got nuked by a terrorist group that the US reaction might be to lay waste to the entire middle east if that is what it took? Do they not teach you people history anymore?

And the US is the one that has a lot of restraint compared to its capabilities.  European and Asian countries have done far worse relative to their capabilities.

on Dec 28, 2003
"Machi - it's really hard to take you seriously when you're such an extremist. So now America "trained" Hussein and put him in power."



i think its u that needs to pick up a history book. The US placed Hussein in power and gave him money and weapons to fight off the Iranians in the 80s. In world war 1 and 2, the US did not intervene even when the europeans were begging for help. In world war 1, the US sold both weapons to Germany and Great Britian to benefit economically. You quote historical evidence without examining all the issues behind them. R u not aware that the US went to war in WW1 only after the british intercepted a telegram from germany supporting the mexicans invading the US. (100 years ago mexicans were actually a threat)

R u also not aware of the fact that the war in Vietnam was to prevent the world wide spread of communism, not the attack on a gunship. There was also alot more reasons the war of 1812 was declared, u seem to be only looking at the things that were spoon fed to u through the media, disregarding any polticial or economic considerations for the examples u gave. Do consider dropping 2 nuclear weapons on civilian cities restraint? If so than i guess the US should just vaporize the earth if it doesnt show restraint



"If we only acted defensively, we'd simply be giving terrorists more time to grow stronger in their home countries knowing they have no reason to fear us. By playing the offense, we're sending a message that we will not tolerate terrorism and they will not escape from us no matter where they hide."

Well, then y just us? y not canada, or France, or Great Britain. These are all developed countries bleeding the middle east of its oil. (sum more than others) y do they attack us instead. y dont the terrorists look at Canada and go "geez... they nv bomb any of our buildings, they must be weak, lets blow up the CN tower"

on Dec 28, 2003
Mach-

Sorry, your facts are incorrect.

You state: 'The US placed Hussein in power and gave him money and weapons to fight off the Iranians in the 80s.'

Fact: Iraq was a Soviet Client state in the 80's. The extent of US involvement in the Iran-Iraq war was to feed Intel to Iraq in order to prevent Iran from winning. The detente there was useful for our purposes.

Fact: The US has never been a major source of military funds and hardware for Iraq. According to a study done by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, the major sources of military hardware for Iraq were the USSR, France, China, and Czechoslovakia. The USSR provided Saddam with a whopping 57% of his arms. France rolls in at 13%, followed by China as 12% and Czechoslovakia at 7%. The United States shows up at a gloriously high and excessive 1%. The data stops at 1990 due to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and subsequent UN arms embargos. Reliable data for the post '90 period is impossible to predict, according to the SIPRI.

(Source is http://projects.sipri.se/armstrade/atirq_data.html)

Do feel free to discard whatever history book is teaching you the tripe you've spouted about US support for Saddam.

With respect to your comment on the US entry into WW I, you're not looking at the entire picture. The first major problem was the Unrestricted Submarine Warfare (see Lusitania). Germany agreed to halt said warfare. The telegram you refer to indicates that the Germans were going to renege on that agreement on Feb 1. This telegram was widely published in US newspapers, enraging the American public. Once the Kaiser announced that the Germans were no longer going to abide by the Sussex Pledge regarding Unrestricted Submarine Warfare, President Wilson asked Congress for a declaration of war. He was forced into this by his pledge to maintain the freedom of the seas. Congress voted overwhelmingly in favor of war with Germany. Had the Germans not repeatedly violated the neutrality of the US and hindered free trade, the US would probably never have entered WWI.

The entire WWI example is just yet another one which shores up Brad's point about an enraged America and what she is capable of doing.
on Dec 28, 2003
Saddam Hussein's rise to power (courtesy of PBS): http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/iraq/war/player1.html



The Revolutionary Command Council was not a pro-US group. Nationalizing the oil production was not pro-US. The Scud missles used during the 1990 war were Russian designed and of Chinese construction.



Facts on who benefited from keeping Saddam Hussein in power: http://www.heritage.org/Research/MiddleEast/wm217.cfm



The largest suppliers of weapons to Saddam's Iraq were Russia, China and France respectively.



My problem with modern Europe is not that they oppose US policies on moral grounds, but that the countries of Europe (France and Germany in particular) offer terrorists safe hiding and provide them with weapons and money.
on Jan 02, 2004
Machiavelli_incorporated, one day the United States of America will fall. All empires fall at some time. But it will Not be because of religious extremists/terrorists.

When it happens, it'll be from within, as in its own citizens, not terrorists.
And who knows, that could be centuries from now. But encurring the wrath of the U.S. is a quick way to be decimated.

Maybe you'll get my point if I use all caps.

DECIMATION, ANNIHILATION, TOTAL DESTRUCTION. We're the type of society to cut its nose off to spite its own face..I.e. if we gotta go, our enemies go to.
Sure, that's a negative comment..but true. Family for an Eye, Nation for a Tooth.
on Jan 03, 2004

Need to add a killfile option to JoeUser.  I enjoy reading thoughtful and educated views from those on the left.  But a lot of the nonsense I'm seeing posted by some of the far left people here lately sounds like some of the idiocy you'd find on Democratic Underground or some other left wing fringe site.

If people can't bother to look up basic facts on Saddam's regime they shouldn't be spouting off crap like "The USA put him in power.." or other idiocy.

on Jan 03, 2004
The CIA did have a substantial role in both the 1959 and the 1968 coup in Iraq to remove Prime Minister Qassim who's views and policies were becoming much too communistic in the eyes of the American officials thus bringing the Baathist regime in power.

PBS's site (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saddam/) offers a great deal of information, notably in the interview section.
on Jan 06, 2004
I have to agree that Brad is correct in his statement that it is human nature to seek revenge. Terrorists attack the US, the US seeks revenge. Japan attacked the US the US seeked revenge.

What he is avoiding is the fact (as seen by many islamics) that the US has been attacking them and their way of life for decades. Unsurprisingly they seek revenge.

What constitutes an attack?
A small group of terrorists on 9/11? The US governments billions of dollars worth of supprot to Israel?

What constitutes an acceptable level of revenge?
US invasion of Iraq? Suicide bombers in Israel?

Who has the right to judge any of this?

No-one here has the right to demand vengence. No one can claim their country or people are innoncent. Until people start looking forward instead of backwards things will never improve. History is there to be learnt from, not to find excuses for revenge.

The truth of the matter is that America DOES need to ask why. Only by knowing the why can it really fix the problem, whether by force or some other means. Attacking Afganistan made sense, they refused to hand over the terrorists, but why did America then attack Iraq? Why has it risked creating thousands more terrorists and decades more hatred? Why destroy the international consensus against terrorism? Why destroy international goodwill?

As an aside, (a point of fact, not a comment of the rightness or wrongness)
In 1916 in Dublin a small group of terrorists (as far as the British were concerned) instigated an uprising. Documents from the time confirm that very few Irish people supported this uprising. The British didn't ask why though. They replied with overwhelming strength crushed the uprising and put the leaders to death. Exactly what the leaders had hoped for. The strength of the British response and repression was a mistake and grenerated the very level of support for the terrorists that they had being trying to suppress. 5 years later Ireland achieved independance.
Learn from history, don't repeat the same mistakes.

Paul.
on Jan 06, 2004
I have to agree that Brad is correct in his statement that it is human nature to seek revenge. Terrorists attack the US, the US seeks revenge. Japan attacked the US the US seeked revenge.

What he is avoiding is the fact (as seen by many islamics) that the US has been attacking them and their way of life for decades. Unsurprisingly they seek revenge.

What constitutes an attack?
A small group of terrorists on 9/11? The US governments billions of dollars worth of supprot to Israel?

What constitutes an acceptable level of revenge?
US invasion of Iraq? Suicide bombers in Israel?

Who has the right to judge any of this?

No-one here has the right to demand vengence. No one can claim their country or people are innoncent. Until people start looking forward instead of backwards things will never improve. History is there to be learnt from, not to find excuses for revenge.

The truth of the matter is that America DOES need to ask why. Only by knowing the why can it really fix the problem, whether by force or some other means. Attacking Afganistan made sense, they refused to hand over the terrorists, but why did America then attack Iraq? Why has it risked creating thousands more terrorists and decades more hatred? Why destroy the international consensus against terrorism? Why destroy international goodwill?

As an aside, (a point of fact, not a comment of the rightness or wrongness)
In 1916 in Dublin a small group of terrorists (as far as the British were concerned) instigated an uprising. Documents from the time confirm that very few Irish people supported this uprising. The British didn't ask why though. They replied with overwhelming strength crushed the uprising and put the leaders to death. Exactly what the leaders had hoped for. The strength of the British response and repression was a mistake and grenerated the very level of support for the terrorists that they had being trying to suppress. 5 years later Ireland achieved independance.
Learn from history, don't repeat the same mistakes.

Paul.
on Jan 06, 2004
"Need to add a killfile option to JoeUser. I enjoy reading thoughtful and educated views from those on the left. But a lot of the nonsense I'm seeing posted by some of the far left people here lately sounds like some of the idiocy you'd find on Democratic Underground or some other left wing fringe site."

Does anybody else see the blantant hypocrisy here? Thoughtful and educated? i enjoy reading that stuff too but definantely nothings come from you just yet.
First off, The US greatly aided saddam's rise to power to combat the iranians and stop the cold war, if you want to dispute that then you'd better come up with some sources next time.
Secondly, i agree with Solitair in his idea that the "why" behind it is probably the most important aspect of this war. If the US blindly goes into war like it is now then catastrophic results will ensue. If you honestly think that the american miliitary is strong enough to defeat every terrorist uprising, which isn't going to stop unless Bush sends nukes to every third world country, then i suggest you do some reasearch on historically, just how these "invincible" armies fared against the mass's dissatisfaction against them.
Before you spout off more crap again, read up on some of this
-Long term causes of the French revolution
-The rise of the IRA
-HRE's peasant revolt in the 16th century
There's alot more but i think that's all you can comprehend for now

U.S. support

Yet the United States played a role in bringing Saddam's Baath Party to power and adopted Saddam as an ally, essentially the lesser of two evils, during the 1980s when he was fighting Iran, which Washington viewed as a more serious threat to U.S. interests. During that period, the U.S. government and U.S. companies provided Saddam with some of the makings of his chemical and biological arsenal.

After Washington turned against him in 1990, Saddam lived with the knowledge that the United States was trying to have him killed or overthrown. Even before Baghdad fell this year, Saddam apparently slept in dozens of different locations and employed a large number of look-alikes to confuse his enemies. The first U.S. act of the current war was to aim missiles at buildings near Baghdad where U.S. intelligence agents believed Saddam might be staying.

http://www.startribune.com/stories/484/4267493.html




on Jan 06, 2004
Why is America at war? Really. Why?

Does anyone have any answers that they would like to put forward? I will tell you, the real answers are not discussed, for noone dare upset the "lords" and "masters", or the Jewish people and their elite.

We know that the current American leadership is nothing more than a bunch of retreads from Bush41. With Bush43, they are worldwide pariahs given respect only for the military machine they are clearly willing and free to use. The American people protested to no avail: the Jewish media put them in their place and persuaded them through a barrage of lies that going after Hussein was a moral and strategic imperitive. Nevermind that Jews engineered the Iraqi Freedom Act of 1998 which set the formal policy of regime change in motion: you are not supposed to have the intellect to follow "Jewish democratic machinations". You are not supposed to see that both Clinton and Bush are beholden to the Jewish minority of America, and if this minority wants to send your children to die, then who are you as an ordinary (that means sub human in Jewish elite definitions) American to even know or if you do, complain?

SARS and the Coming Terrible Flus: Are These More than Great Global Scams?

Rather than public health emergencies, new colds, flus, and pneumonias like the “Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome,” generally called SARS, are best diagnosed as a “Sickening and Repulsive Scams.” This article argues that new unprecedented viral attacks, alternatively, are part of a deepening social experiment featuring institutionalized bioterrorism for widespread psycho-social control. The outcome of this experiment, whether it leads to population reduction or not, depends on you.


Background
You are about to read much neglected truths pertaining to SARS as one of many new flus and pneumonia-like illnesses. Authorities explain these scourges are simply the latest threats in an ongoing series of attacks on humanity by mysteriously mutating “super-germs.” Yet, a careful study of this multi-disciplinary subject reveals something amiss far more insidious and deadly than SARS. This spreading flu fright stretching from Asia to North America has all the earmarks of a novel social experiment in population manipulation aimed to culture the mass mind for the arrival of “the Big One”—a biological agent, predicted to be a flu, that will facilitate the decimation of approximately a third to half of the world’s population. Curiously, this number is in keeping with current official population reduction objectives.

Naturally you would be disinclined to believe the above sentence. Open-mindedness in this domain threatens exposure to a “Twilight Zone” of knowledge in which reality is far stranger than fiction. Your first instinct, therefore, might be to close this page in favor of another that promises more of the standard treatments broadcast on every official news page and government report on this subject. But, if you choose to have your worldview shattered by considering the little known truths surrounding the new flus and the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome, then continue reading. . . .

“No great epidemic has ever evolved divorced from major socio-political upheaval.”

Leonard G. Horowitz, D.M.D., M.A., M.P.H.

Full text: http://www.sarsscam.com/
on Jan 07, 2004
You apparently weren't aware that Saddam had been in power for quite awhile by 1980.  What is this rise to power nonsense when he was alrady in power? Sheesh.
on Jan 09, 2004
I was alive in '45, having just returned from Okinawa and to train further at Guam in preparation for the big push to Japan. The atom bombs saved my tail--I had no tears for them. Further, in occupying Japan, I took a trip from Yokosuka to Yokohama and Tokyo. Yokohama had been wiped out by napalms and a good share of Tokyo.
But you're wrong about the federal government not having much to do beyond defending the country; it is, after all, a united country requiring a good deal of coordination among the states. Great article.
on Jan 09, 2004
"Terrorism is the best political weapon for nothing drives people harder than a fear of sudden death."
-- Adolf Hitler

"All propaganda has to be popular and has to adapt its spiritual level to the perception of the least intelligent of those towards whom it intends to direct itself. The great masses of the people will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one."
-- Adolf Hitler, President of the Reichstag and Reich Chancellor, Nazi Party

Here is another quote from Hitler . If you substitute the word Jew for the word Terrorist , Bush has made this exact same quote - word for word .

"I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews, I am doing the Lord's work.
-- Adolf Hitler, from Mein Kamph

Just one final quote , and you might want to take this one as a warning .

"In Germany the Nazis came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, but I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, but I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, but I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, but by that time there was no one left to speak for me."
–Pastor Martin Neomoller, leader of Underground Resistance in Nazi France

(Wake-up America or you'll be saying this tommorrow!)
on Jan 09, 2004
Angel, you're a loon. Go away.
10 PagesFirst 2 3 4 5 6  Last