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 6)
10 PagesFirst 4 5 6 7 8  Last
on Jan 15, 2004
It does not take 5 to 10 years for an extremist to be made, this is just silly. Recruiters do not send little muslim boys away to an extremist school to learn to hate. This is just plain silly, and it is also this dismissal of really getting to the root of the cause that insures there will never be an end to it.

But then to even remotely empathize with someone that would be vulnerable to turn you would have to understand the trials of the individual.

A muslim extremist is born of the same circumstances that a neonazi is born of, or a cult member, or even a gang member.

You can not use a political platform to try to explain away a SOCIAL issue.
on Jan 15, 2004
Damouse70,
thanks for posting that interesting article on the Baath party. I fail to understand your first sentence though. What article are you talking about. My previous post doesn't refer to any? Reading your second post, I think you've missed the whole point of my comment.

History is NOT the problem. There will always be the occasional nutter who tries to use history to justify their actions. What matters is the here and now. The society and what happens to people on a daily basis. Why would some Palestinian woman blow herself up to kill Israeli soldiers? Especially when she had two children. That is the problem that needs addressing.

The 5-10 years reference is purely to emphasise that the problems of today are short term social problems not bases on some previous wrong from 20 or 50 years ago.

You seem to understand that but failed to see that it's my point as well.

Please re-read and raise any further questions.

Paul.
on Jan 15, 2004
The article that was supposed to have been from the BBC? The one that is now gone....

No I don't think I misunderstood you. You are suggesting that the basis for what is happening today is as a result of something that happened yesterday rather than last week, and I am disagreeing with you.

I have yet to read about a Palistinian mother of two blowing herself up, but I understand that for many muslims, and non-muslims alike the conflict between Palistine and Israel are such a high priority as to overshadow every other issue around the world. However, I also get the distinct feeling that you are going to want to go back to a very over-used piece of propaganda, in possibly suggesting that if the US "didn't support Israel there would be peace in the Middle East".

If that is not where you are wanting to take this then I apologize profusely.

If it is then I will once again remind you that a political platform does not resolve social issues. If you don't believe me then figure out why before some extremist groups decided that Muslims and Jews should not be living together, Muslims and Jews were living together in settlements peacefully. How a known terrorist leader was brought to lead one of the oldest groups of people in the world, and how you can justifiably argue that it is all because of the Jews.

It is not resolved because it is being handled politically or diplomatically, rather than socially. The difference is it is the will of the politicians, terrorists, and special interest groups being forced upon people that would be living in peace if it was left up to them to do so. Jews are not intolerant people, muslims are not intolerant people, but those playing GOD and ALLAH are intolerant people. And that is only putting it nicely.
on Jan 15, 2004
As for that disappearing article, well according to the poster, the US CIA brought Sadam and his Baath party to power, and this was supposed to be true because the poster claimed it came from the BBC, however, the poster failed to post a link confirming the article is legitimate, and even had the article been true, it did not mean that the US / CIA brought Sadam to power, it involved an interview with some 15 minutes of famer who claimed it is what happened.

I posted the article from Aljazeera to negate it. I don't trust people who claim to have been privy to something that the rest of us were not, making a claim that laws were broken , but having no foundation to level the allegations on. The reason why is that even after the allegations are proven false, the allegations themselves are not forgotten, the person who got his 15 minutes of fame from making the allegations has made himself look important, and has made himself quite wealthy, while the unfounded charges he made are given credibility by someone else looking to further their own agendas, and on and on and on.

For example the CIA is supposed to have trained Osama and al Queda. Even though anyone that knows anything about Afghanistan and its history, or hell anyone that just watched the Discovery Channel once in a while, knows that the CIA do not train people for field battle, the military does, that Osama was never in any position to be useful as an agent for the CIA so its illogical to suggest he was once their operative, and aside from all of that, al Queda did not come before the Taliban, the Taliban came before al Queda, and the Taliban were afghanis that were fighting a very long war against the Soviets who had invaded and were trying to make their country another communist state of the Soviet Empire. It is also public knowledge and fully available for online view through the US State Department's Web Page, that US Special Forces trained Afghani units, one of those units headed up by a rich Saudi muslim named Osama, to fight the Soviets in that war.

From a Political Platform you can claim that had the US not trained Osama there would have been no Taliban, no al Queda, and no 9/11. From a social outlook however, that is not and would not have been true.
on Jan 15, 2004
You pose a good argument. For the sake of hearing both sides, which is what one must do to gain an actual solution, I cannot agree with everything you state. This is a forum right? So here goes. In December of 2002 "W" fired his secretary of treasury Paul O'neill who went on and stated a few things that didn't mix well with George Jr. "From the very beginning, there was a conviction that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go," this is one of O'neills controversial comments that have made many theorize wild conspiracies. From Bush's awareness of a strike on the WTC, to the government planning it all along. None of these theories have anything close to substantial evidence ofcourse but it is like looking through an open door and not entering it. Let's face it, Bush has had a vendetta out for Saddam since he stepped into office. Could anyone say that it would not affect them if someone were to try and take the life of their father? If it is not obvious for anyone else than let me state where I get my stance from. It is clear that Bush is walking in the same exact footsteps as his father, must be in his Genes to attack the Middle East and cripple the economy in one quick swoop. The sad really is that O'neill made other comments. He added that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11. Coincidence maybe, whatever it might be these are things I think everyone should atleast ponder upon for 5 minutes of the day and come up with an opinion on their own. The fact of the matter is you stated that it didn't matter who the president was we struck back because we had to. I disagree and think that Bush is the reason why we have troops over in Iraq. I don't disagree with the dismantling of the Iraqi regime, it had to be done eventually. I do disagree with this monkey of a president capitalizing on this unfortunate opportunity (9/11) to satisfy his own personal vendetta at the cost of the economy. The country is in shambles the unemployment rate is up, large companies are moving manufacturing over seas for cheaper labor, the value of the dollar is dropping steadily, and many people still want him back as president?! Nothing can justify the events of 9/11, but when will Americans wake up and notice that , like Brad Wardell said, people tend to react out of passion and emotion, and this is the very thing that Bush is taking advantage of the fact that we are not resisting anything he is doing due to the emotions that 9/11 struck within each American heart. Do I think any president in office should have retaliated for those attacks yes, do I think it should have been at the cost of our own economy, ofcourse not. The truth is that what is being done is right but the reasons for it and the way it is being done are wrong. I can't pass judgement on Bush but I can criticize the leader who is diminshing the strength of the country that I love for his own personal reasons. The worst part is the democrats that will run against him are all a joke. Woe to the country for the next 4 years. The economy will rebound sure, of course, its predicted but believe it or not that is nothing more than a fluke. I don't consider myself quasi-intelligent I'm just not blind. As far as the Federal government not playing any roles other than the protection of the citizens that doesn't make sense since Bush is taking money away from education to put into the war and that readily affects us. It will be a gradual affect, tech companies already state that they would rather invest in employing foreign companies due to the better educational system of certain countries like Japan. Yes, Bush is a man who doesn't back down but will he exhaust his resources before he decides that he is done. The great thing is Americans always prevail. The reason for the pride when we look back should be we defeated terrorism and the Bush administration. In a country that has In god we trust on the most important paper in the country they (Bush administration) do not seem like they are looking to the bible for answers but The Prince written by Machiavelli, "the end justifies the means".
on Jan 15, 2004

Let me boil things down:

1) I patronize people who make statements I know to be wrong. It is hard to respect people who have put little effort into actually learning the histories in which they talk about. I mean, sheesh, now we have people regurgitating nonsense from the democratic underground and elsewhere about how the CIA put Saddam in power. Please. When in doubt, blame the CIA.

2)I've spent most of my adult life debating history and politics on various forums. It's clear that some people have little experience in debating. Here's a hint: Arguments take on the following format: <assertion> <evidence>.  Make your claim, then back it up by a source. The source doesn't have to be some web link. It can be a book. It can be a well understood fact that you can refer to.

 

on Jan 15, 2004

Brad is correct to say that the standard human response is 'an eye for an eye'. But Brad to use your analogy, 'Billy kicks Joe and then hides, and so Joe beats all Billy's friends, all his neighbours, all his family, and everyone with the name Billy.' This is what the America is about. They can't attack the terrorists directly so they go after anyone they even think is remotely connected. This very attitude itself is generating more Billys.

Why Billy originally kicked Joe originally is important, but so is stopping Joe making the mistake of beating up innoncent people.

Brad, think of how you would react if someone beat you up because your 1st cousin (who you may not even like) kicked them?

Solitair: My argument, contrary to what some people have tried to morph it into, isnt' that the United States is justified for beating up Billy (to use the analogy). My argument is to point out that that is what is likely to happen based on history.

That is what I've been meaning by the whole shooting the messenger point.  I have never argued that the US has some right to annihilate the middle east. I do not think it does in fact. I am saying that given human history the most likely result if a truly damaging attack on the United States in which many Americans (hundreds of thousands) died that the reaction would not be to wonder why Billy kicked Joe in the first place but to kill Billy.

on Jan 15, 2004
Giving into history is what is generally called making a mistake twice. If something is not working why repeat it more than once. We should look at history to know what not to do not to make inferences about how it will repeat itself.
on Jan 15, 2004

psychx: How people should behave is quite different than how they will behave.

We can either close our eyes and wish really really hard that people will change the way they have been for thousands of years while armegedan closes in. Or we can recognize human nature and try to strive towards realistic solutions.

In this case, the solution relies on the Islamists to recognize that they will not solve their problems by attempting to mass murder Americans in the United States.

on Jan 15, 2004
That is what I am saying maybe I wasn't clear. Human nature is very chaotic and can change with little influence. The only way to achieve peace is to predict how people will behave. We can no longer look at the past for examples of what we should do, is what I mean.
on Jan 15, 2004
I agree totally.
on Jan 15, 2004
great you should read my other post from earlier I kind of take a weird stance. Unfortunately as much as you and I can agree I really do think that most people think otherwise...It's sad.
on Jan 16, 2004
Sorry Brad, I didn't mean to suggest that you approved of instant revenge based reactions. I just meant to use your analogy to highlight the difference between applying a reaction against the perperator and everyone you associate with the perpetrator. Again, not suggesting you advocate this, just pointing out that for many people that is what America's attack on Iraq is similar to.

Damouse70, again I think you misread me. I have absolutely no intention of suggesting that the US should not support Israel. I do believe it should sometimes take a more even handed approach to politics in the area (and it's condemnation of the physical barrier does indeed do that). Previous attitudes of condemning only Palestinian attrocities was one sided.

The Palestinian woman was the recent suicide bomber who killed 4 soldiers. There are frequent interviews with her family on TV at the moment. To put my arguements in perspective (which I believe are actually the same as yours - do correct me if I'm wrong), if that woman had something to live for, if she had a job, had a future, had peace, would she still have blown herself up? There will always be fanatics, but the quantity of them will probably be related to the social and economic realities of the population from which they come.

Trying to apportion blame and settle for incidents of the past is not going to fix the problem.

Seeing what is wrong for these people TODAY and trying to fix that might.

Paul.
on Jan 16, 2004
Pentagon Resuming Anthrax Vaccinations

Jan 8, Associated Press

WASHINGTON - The Pentagon (news - web sites) is resuming anthrax vaccinations of troops after a federal judge removed a legal restraint on the program.

U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan on Wednesday issued a two-page order that ended his Dec. 22 injunction halting the vaccinations. The new order cleared the way for the Pentagon to resume inoculations of service members, except for the six military personnel who brought the suit challenging the military's authority to require the vaccinations.

In a statement issued Wednesday night, the Pentagon's undersecretary for personnel and readiness, David Chu, ordered military departments to "immediately resume the anthrax vaccination program."

More than 900,000 servicemen and women have received the shots, among the millions of doses of various vaccines administered annually to protect troops against disease and bioterror threats. Hundreds of service members have been punished or discharged for refusing them, according to the Pentagon.

Chu noted that litigation has not been finally resolved, but added that the Pentagon is convinced that the anthrax vaccination program "complies with all legal requirements."

Sullivan had halted the vaccinations in December, saying he was convinced by the six plaintiffs that the vaccine was experimental and being "used for an unapproved purpose" — that is, for exposure to inhaled anthrax, not just for exposure through the skin.

The federal government has long maintained that the licensed vaccine is safe, is not experimental and can be used for protection against anthrax inhaled or absorbed.

Eight days after Sullivan's December injunction, the FDA (news - web sites) announced the vaccine was safe and effective for use against inhaled anthrax. In his written order Wednesday, Sullivan questioned the timing of that announcement so soon after his injunction.

"Although the timing of the issuance of the rule is arguably highly suspicious, nevertheless, the rule has been issued and the principal reason for the issuance of the injunction has been addressed by the government," the order said.

Mark S. Zaid, a lawyer for the six, said his clients will move ahead with their case. He also questioned whether the Defense Department pushed the FDA to declare the vaccine as safe.

" We're going to continue to challenge this FDA ruling as well as the Defense Department's process," he said.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=542&ncid=693&e=10&u=/ap/20040108/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/military_anthrax
on Jan 16, 2004
The Anthrax vaccine in question was developed back in the late 50s. The only thing that ever made this vaccine experimental was when the US Army wanted to find out if a soldier was protected against the use of Anthrax during biowarfare, after only receiving the initial series of vaccines but without the booster etc..

The attenuation of the vaccine was never modified, the content of the vaccine was never changed. This same vaccine has been used to protect farmers, parks and recreations workers, healthcare employees, and the military for over 40 years now.

But then I guess if some of these soldiers would rather experience death by Anthrax then more power to them. When Anthrax is used for biowarfare, the victims are infected through subcutaneous, respiratory, and pore absorbtion. Between the moment of exposure and the moment of death, victims bleed into their lungs, abdomen, and chest cavity, suffer from severe flu-like illnesses, and die within 48 hours. There is absolutely no way to treat Anthrax in biowarfare format because the victim is infected with hundreds of millions of spores, rather than the -100 that a person would be infected with from natural exposure.

Perhaps these soldiers should have just requested the FDA provide them with the study protocol, or maybe just asked to meet with the doctors at USAMRIID that were doing the study.
10 PagesFirst 4 5 6 7 8  Last