Little rant...gotta get it off my chest...


PDA






Harold Mayo
March 2, 2003, 10:31 PM
Why is it that the anti-war people...well, the left in general...don't seem to "get" things?

1. The thought that violence never solves anything

Violence, or the threat of violence, solves virtually all problems. Most people don't even realize that the reason that they obey certain laws and pay their taxes is because of the implicit threat of violence from the government to them as individuals. It's a matter of weighing priorities...do I pay my taxes or do I go to war with my government? Gee...I'm one guy...I think I'll go ahead and pay the taxes.

2. People in other countries are NOT simply Americans who dress differently or look differently and can't be judged based on what we know about dealing with other Americans.

Middle Easterners are not simply guys with darker skin than most of us and towels wrapped around their heads. Their motivations are different, their upbringing is different, their goals and outlook on life are different. How few Americans are actually fanatical enough about their religion to die for it?

Asians are not simply smaller guys with a different skin tone and slanted eyes. They, too, are products of a different society and religion. They don't think like your friend whose great-grandparents happened to immigrate to America from China.

African blacks are not just like your local guys who join the NAACP because its something to do. Many of them still hold longstanding tribal rivalries to heart and many of the older leaders of various factions were born in grass huts even though they might have been educated in British, French, or American universities. They are NOT Oprah Winfrey, Michael Jordan, or Whoopi Goldberg.

Our ideas of what is right and about how to deal effectively with others don't necessarily translate well to dealing with any other group. That's why we have diplomats and specialists to deal with them rather than just picking Joe off the street to be an ambassador.

3. Few actors or musicians have any real clue of the realities of foreign diplomacy or policy

Sheryl Crow was quoted a few days ago as saying something to the effect that having no enemies is the best way to avoid war or something like that. Well, Sheryl, that's true. It's a nice thing to wish for but it's like any socialist ideal in that it's never going to happen. We, the U.S., are the "haves" and most other countries are the "have-nots". We are going to have enemies whether we want to or not. Since we're going to have enemies, we might as well make sure that they fear crossing us rather than thinking that we, as a nation, are a bunch of pansies who can be pushed around.

Martin Sheen only plays a president on television. He is not one in real life. Judging from the behavior of his children, I cannot help but believe that he shouldn't be trying to guide anyone else.

I liked M.A.S.H. but Mike Farrell has no idea how to deal with a potentially hostile foreign power and so should just continue luncheons with Alan Alda and keep quiet. What are we going to do? Appease other countries? That really works. What happens in the schoolyard when you keep giving the bully your lunch money? Is he going to respect you? No. He'll see you as an easy mark and so will others as time goes on. If he presses you for your lunch money and then you give him a blood nose, will he respect you? He might still take it from you if he's tougher but he'll likely hesitate before trying it again.

4. If you don't deal from a position of strength, then you don't deal effectively.

Other countries don't deal with the US on friendly terms because we're a good bunch of guys. They deal with us because of one or both of two reasons-we have something that they want or they fear us. There is nothing else. If we don't have anything for them and they don't fear us, then there is no reason to deal.

In a situation like we have now, with a couple of potential fronts and all eyes upon the US, we can't afford to back down. Regardless of how we got to this point, we CAN NOT back down now. That opens up a HUGE can of worms for the years to come.



Ahhh...I feel a little better now. Thanks for listening. Anyone care to disagree with me?

If you enjoyed reading about "Little rant...gotta get it off my chest..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
bad_dad_brad
March 2, 2003, 10:42 PM
I agree with your rant. Very well thought out Harold Mayo.

There seems to be a constant battle within humanity. The battle between the rational mind and the irrational mind.

Sometimes I am dubious of the outcome.

Good post.

QuickDraw
March 2, 2003, 10:45 PM
Ahhh...I feel a little better now. Thanks for listening. Anyone care to disagree with me?

Nope.

QuickDraw

Blackhawk
March 2, 2003, 10:49 PM
Well said, Harold! :D

Standing Wolf
March 2, 2003, 10:51 PM
Those are entirely reasonable thoughts; unfortunately, the self-styled "anti-war protestors" aren't reasonable people, and in fact, they're plain old-fashioned anti-Americans. Their purported "anti-war position" is just a set of excuses—obviously flimsy—to behave badly toward America.

They're moral and intellectual parasites.

Drjones
March 3, 2003, 02:04 AM
I'll disagree, you knuckle-dragging, bloodthirsty warmonger.

1. The thought that violence never solves anything

What are you talking about? Are you really serious??? Come on and step into the 21st century, will you???

Other than founding this country, ending slavery, Stopping the Holocaust, and accomplishing other things too numerous to mention, violence has NEVER solved anything!

2. People in other countries are NOT simply Americans who dress differently or look differently and can't be judged based on what we know about dealing with other Americans.

Hmmm...You may have a point here. But I still think we can indeed trust Saddam Hussein when he says that he doesn't have weapons he's not supposed to have.

Just like we were right in trusting Clinton, who couldn't even admit he had sex. Maybe he was trying to cover up the purchase of a nuke! :scrutiny: :uhoh:

And the terrorists don't really hate us just because we are who we are. They must have some noble reason for hating us, wanting to kill us all, and for murdering 3,000 of us on 9/11.

And I'm SURE white males are to blame, because we all know they are the root of all evil.

3. Few actors or musicians have any real clue of the realities of foreign diplomacy or policy.

Again, I am in STRONG disagreement with your fantastic claims. I have nothing but the utmost trust in Susan Sarandon, Dave Matthews, Sting, Seann Penn, and all those other overpaid morons to determine our foreign policy and how we should ensure our National Security.

4. If you don't deal from a position of strength, then you don't deal effectively.

Are you talking about "threat of force" here?

I dunno what you're talking about...whenever I go to a bar, gym, or whatever, I always find the biggest, heaviest, most ripped-up meathed in the place and start insulting his mother, girlfriend, and anything and everything holy.

Because after all, violence never settled anything....
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
A little rant back at ya! :D :neener:

twoblink
March 3, 2003, 02:13 AM
My old manager who was an ex-Marine told me this: "Violence solves almost everything, that's why it's usually the last resort..." Couldn't agree more.

The rant, is nothing more then what we all feel on this board..

CZ-75
March 3, 2003, 02:18 AM
The battle between the rational mind and the irrational mind.


Sounds like the commercial for Dianetics. ;)

sm
March 3, 2003, 02:57 PM
Harold, what rant?...think your spot on sir!
---
quote: "Why is it that the anti-war people...well, the left in general...don't seem to "get" things?"
---

Umm-- it's simple, some people ain't wired right.:D

tetchaje1
March 3, 2003, 03:23 PM
Amen. :cool:

Harold Mayo
March 3, 2003, 04:15 PM
Although not a war-monger, I DO support aggressive action when it is necessary. I hate to see things devolve into armed conflict but, if they do, we must bring overwhelming force to bear WITHOUT RESERVATION and WITHOUT REMORSE. If we want to cry about a few civilian casualties afterward and send some humanitarian aid, that's fine, but when you go to war, you go to war.

I cannot help but think that Osama might not have been involved with the WTC/Pentagon attacks if he had had a little more fear of the United States. Is this yet another legacy of the Klinton years? I'd like to think so because of my dislike of Slick Willy, but our country's moral fiber and backbone have been weakening even without his influence.

It has been reported that Saddam and other Middle Eastern leaders feel that the United States WILL back down because the American public can't stand the thought of even a handful of casualties. As Colin Powell (a man who has an inordinate amount of my respect not only for his service but for his seeming competence and for his disdain of playing the "race card") said several months ago about some casualties in Afghanistan, small numbers of combat-related deaths weren't even newsworthy during Vietnam. I don't feel that I am callous in this feeling...in war some people die.

I can't stand it when guys who have joined the military (any arm) and then become infantry complain about being sent to war and act dismayed. I remember in the Gulf War a decade ago when an enlisted Marine infantryman protested his being sent to the Middle East. I remember him saying that he had joined up to get money for college, not to go to war. What was he thinking?!?!? He was protesting it because he didn't think that it was a "just" war. Since when did Marine privates decide when to go to war and when not to?

For the record, though, I think that North Korea is a FAR bigger POTENTIAL threat than Iraq or Middle Eastern terrorists in general. Notice the difference in how the US is handling each nation?

Harold Mayo
March 3, 2003, 04:25 PM
While I'm thinking about it...

Since when does a war have to be "just"?

I'm sorry to say that it isn't as black and white as the forces of good vs. the forces of evil.

Is the current situation for oil? Was the Gulf War about oil? Maybe...I don't care. If the supply of oil into the US changes for the worse, our lifestyle(s) change for the worse. Rising fuel prices don't exist in a void. Many people seem to think that paying more for fuel at the pump is the sum total of what would happen. Rising fuel prices mean that the price of EVERYTHING goes up. EVERYTHING. How do these people think that things get to their local Wal-Mart or their local grocery store? They don't think about it...that's the problem. I advocate virtually any action that benefits the US, its citizens, myself, and my family. If that means assassinating a Middle Eastern dictator, then put a bullet in his head. If it means setting up favorable trade policies with his nation and greasing his palms, then break out the diplomats and the greenbacks.

We're in things for the long-term. People don't think about that. Backing down NOW means peace NOW. What does it mean in 10 years? 20? It means that we are weakened even more in the eyes of the world and more and more problems would come our way as the bullies of the world try and take our lunch money. Reasoning with a bully never works...unless you do your diplomacy while backed by something stronger than the bully (or strong enough to make him think hard about attacking you).

10-Ring
March 3, 2003, 04:31 PM
I don't get it either. It's soo simple but instead they choose to defy all logic.

Harold Mayo
March 3, 2003, 04:55 PM
And more...

This is along the lines of "just" causes...

I have a Palestinian friend. Until I knew her, I thought that the Israelis were pretty decent folks defending themselves from Palestinian terrorists. Conversations with her and some of her relatives taught me differently. Although I don't condone the actions of the PLO, you can't pat the Israelis on the back for their treatment of the Palestinians, either. Not now and not earlier.

The fact of the matter is that Israel SHOULD rightly belong to the Palestinians but the land was "given" to the Jews after WWII. The Palestinians are NOT treated very well, in general.

Should we help out the Palestinians since they are the poor, downtrodden underdog?

No.

Why?

Why should we? Israel is our biggest ally in the Middle East. They are an established country with a reputation of strength and vindication of wrongs against them. They are our staunch allies. If we were to aid the Palestinians and they were successful in taking over Israel, then what? We'd have the SAME nation as our ally (I actually have my doubts about how well the Palestinians would run it, though). We have nothing to gain from helping the Palestinians. Nothing. That's why we don't help them, despite their "plight".

This sort of reasoning is beyond the vast majority of our populace here in the US, though. Is it TV? Movies? Why is it that people can't make sound, reasoned decisions without emotion clouding them? I just don't think that Americans have to face many hard realities anymore and most are incapable of sustaining the thought processes that go with dealing with them.

If you enjoyed reading about "Little rant...gotta get it off my chest..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!