I couldn't care less about basso. He's a tool and not a particularly sharp one. But the authors of the repellant talking points he vomits around here don't return my emails, so... For more than four years we've been told by basso's like that opposing the president or the war was tantamount to supporting terrorists and opposing the troops. It is utter crap and I'm sick of it. And that has gotten under my skin, yes. First it's gotten under my skin because it's BS and it's incredibly offensive. But more than that it's gotten under my skin because it is practically single-handedly responsible for the fact that we have yet to have anything approaching a real debate about this spectacular failure of a war. If that doesn't get under your skin, there's something wrong with you. And meantime, basso tells us that anything less than complete and total cheerleading for the president's policies in Iraq equals opposition to the troops. When confronted with the fact that our concerns are shared by those very troops, as evidenced by a poll they participated in, he flatly lies about the numbers in the poll and says that they prove support for Bush and the mission. When confronted with the actual numbers once again, he says "I wasn't wrong." When we outline, repeatedly and explicitly, what the numbers actually say, he runs away only to show up a couple days later, pretend it didn't happen and start a new spate of propagandist threads. Sorry. I call BS. By basso's own standards, the troops should be ashamed of themselves for supporting terrorists. He doesn't even deny it. He just runs away when called on it. In fact, a member of the troops actually posts in basso's own thread expressing concerns about the war and he just pretends it didn't happen. This is what these people do. That is why we failed to have an honest debate about the most crucial issue of the last many years in this country and why people are dying unnecessarily due to lies. People like basso don't deserve the respect of a response if they're going to run away when they get one, only to return throwing venomous rocks days later. And he owes that soldier a damn apology.
I have never once suggested appeasing terrorists or their supporters. Not wishing to escalate warfare and bloodshed is not the same thing as appeasing terrorists or their supporters. I am all for going after terrorists and their supporters in ways that are actually effective. I believe doing that and striving for peace is doing the "right thing." I believe that escalating warfare, bloodshed, and violence isn't the "right thing." In the real world there are more than just two options. Using diplomacy, pressure, and political solutions isn't doing nothing, and is smarter, and IMO more moral than using increased warfare and bloodshed which failed in the past, and is continuing to fail presently. I don't mean to tell you that you are wrong, or even immoral, but I will admit that I can't see the morality in your willingness to increase bloodshed and suffering. I find it especially puzzling since I believe you are a follower of the Prince of Peace. I just don't understand. There is no way that if we were to follow the example of Christ that we would start elective wars, and then escalate them further.
Are you also so simplistic that you don't understand that escalating a failing war policy won't work? And that by suggesting other means to help win, is something different than "doing nothing?"
I would add to your "quote," SM. "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing, or to do even worse than nothing... for good men to do something so incredibly stupid that it helps the side of evil." In my opinion, that is exactly what George W. Bush has done. Something so incredibly stupid that it has helped the side of evil. And I think that was a damned awful thing to say to FB. Are you drunk?? D&D. Civil? Right!
This goes back to the moral relativism thread. From the Iranian POV we are the ones who are evil and are immoral and many of them see it as their moral duty to stop us even when the consequences of a military confrontation between the US and Iran are bound to be much much much worse for them. Your own POV sees them as the ones who are evil and are advocating obliging their own extremists with a confrontation. Have you considered though the possibility that there might be a middle ground between the two POV's where war could be avoided? While things would go very bad for the Iranians to military engage us it wouldn't go that well for us either. As the lesson of Iraq and Afghanistan shows its just not enough to defeat an opposing military on the field of battle but we still have to deal with the aftermath of attempting to pacify the whole country. Iran population and landwise is larger than Iraq and like the Iraqis many of them have the experience of fighting a devestating bloody war. We're stretched thin and taking on Iran isn't going to be easy. The problem that I see with your argument is that it is both self-righteous and impractical. It ignores the possibity of considering that the Iranians might only acting out of their own perceived self-interest and that they might be persuaded peacefully based upon that self-interest. Instead you're making an extremist ideological argument regarding good evil based upon your own perception that they are ideologically extreme and are only acting out of ideology.
My DoB is public. Is it possible that I disagree with FranchiseBlade, not out of immaturity, but out of a different view of the correct course of action that should be taken? I think responding to acts of war with talk is pretty much the definition of appeasement. You seem to disagree with that assesment. Given that, I don't think there is anything further for us to discuss on the topic. As I said in that thread, I disagree with moral relativism. Just because Iran is doing what they think is right, that doesn't make it so. As for there being a middle ground where war can be avoided, from my POV there is not. War has already begun, and Iran has struck the first blow. We can continue to allow them impunity, or we can respond, but the avoidance of war ship has sailed. This speaks to possible outcomes, which I already talked about. Me robbing Mick Jagger could be acting out of my own self interest from my POV, that doesn't mean that Mick should talk to me about it if he catches me in the act, he should respond to my burglary in the prescribed fashion (ie call the police). I don't care if Iran is attacking America based on perceived self interest, religious fanatacism, psychological imbalance, or because Sean Penn told them to; to use a colloquialism, "You mess with the bull, you get the horns."
I am not advocating only talk as a means of resonding to anything. I think the U.S. needs a goal with their response. If their goal is a childish need to show that we can use more force than the other guy. We will be successful. We may not when the war, the U.S. and the world might be a much worse place while we carry that out, and it certainly won't stop others from continuing to support our enemies, and attack us. But we can almost always surely show that we aren't afraid to respond with force. If our goal is top other nations from supplying and encouraging our enemies to attack us, then escalating military conflict is most likely a losing proposition, especially if it is our only response. If our goal is to stop enemies and those that support them from attacking us, then diplomacy, building alliances to unite nations against our enemies, international pressure, and the threat of force when absolutely necessary is a much more effective way to accomplish that goal. I know which goal of those I would choose, and I know which goals I feel is a more moral course of action. Neither of those goals is appeasement. One of those goals is almost diametrically opposed to the message in the sermon on the mount, and the other goal could probably be improved in that sense as well.
It's ok. I think I was the one who initially said that in my opinion his policy of escalating warfare and bloodshed was immoral. He can discuss a difference in morality if he wishes without offending me, but his characterization of my ideas aren't accurate.
I've been meaning to ask this basso. After the road leads to Tehran and we make a mess out of that country, where does the road lead to next?
The problem with your statement that I see is an inability to see beyond your POV. It is exactly the same problem the radicals on the other side have. You might not realize but your view is extremely relative since from your relative viewpoint you see war with Iran as fully justified but are unable to see it from a global perspective. While you may feel that the cause is just I would ask that you consider a moment the lives that would be lost before committing to a conflict. I would never rule out war as an option but I would never consider a situation like this as being inevitable when diplomacy with Iran has barely been tried.
If all of the people that support the enemy are dead, then there would be no one supporting the enemy. I don't think escalating military conflict should be our only response, just part of it. Another part should be reconstruction, along the WWII model. When Germany and Japan (along with others of course) attacked the US and our allies, we responded with force. Military conflict was not the totality of our plan, but it was a major component. Once we beat the enemy, then we moved on to other phases, such as reconstruction. The war had to be won first though. After Japan bombed Pearl, we didn't wait around for a few years trying to convince the world to join us in condemning Japan's action, we didn't threaten that if they didn't go back to their island and behave that there would be serious consequences, we declared war and responded quickly and decisively. Now that Iran has attacked America and our allies, I think we should follow that same proven model. As for your plan, diplomacy is talk, building alliances is talk, international pressure is talk, and threatening force is talk. So, how exactly is your plan not just talk? I do to. I understand that my solution is based on my PoV. Unfortunately, we don't have a phone number for God so he can tell us which people are good and which people are evil. I say, the people attacking America are the bad guys and America is the good guys. Even if that isn't the case, and America is really the bad guys and the people attacking America are the good guys, America should still fight back, as America is being attacked. That's fine for you. You can advocate diplomacy to your heart's content. In my opinion, letting nations attack us and our allies with impunity is the wrong way to go.
Diplomacy doesn't mean letting nations attack us without impunity. In fact it appears that sanctions are working, since Iran already offered to stop funding for Hezbollah and Hamas as well as insurgent groups in Iraq, and one of the things they wanted in return was a lifting of the sanctions. Again it all depends on the goals. If the goal is just to respond with force, we can do that. It won't stop people from attacking us, it will get many more people killed, and ruin the lives of families and end up getting our nation in another situation which won't be won. If the goal is to stop those who supporting the folks attacking us, and end the attacks, then military solutions alone are not effective and won't work. They haven't work, and aren't currently working.
