The Moral Equivalent Of 9/11

[Kitty Hawk]

If John Kerry wins, it will be the moral equivalent of another 9/11---but a self-inflicted 9/11. The "Arab Street" will be in full celebratory mood, dancing in the streets, just as they did after the first 9/11.

The whole world knows this is an election about one issue: the war. We are about to find out if the American sense of life is still as strong as it was in '72, when America sent McGovern packing with his tail between his legs. John Kerry is the same anti-American, defeatist, blame America kind of candidate as McGovern.

I am trembling for America. Stand up and fight!

[MisterSwig]

If John Kerry wins, it will be the moral equivalent of another 9/11---but a self-inflicted 9/11.

So, what is voting for Kerry the moral equivalent of? Helping to fly a plane into the Twin Towers?

[Kitty Hawk]

So, what is voting for Kerry the moral equivalent of? Helping to fly a plane into the Twin Towers?

Would you say voting for Bush is the moral equivalent of helping to impose theocracy on America? If theocracy were the main issue in this election, and Bush was for it, then I would say it was.

But theocracy isn't the main issue. It isn't even a side issue. The war is the main issue in this election. Bush is for fighting, Kerry is for appeasement.

A vote for Kerry is a vote for appeasement---which helps the enemy.

I do not believe, of course, that Objectivists who vote for Kerry intend to encourage appeasement or aid the enemy. But that will be the result, like it or not.

[MisterSwig]

Would you say voting for Bush is the moral equivalent of helping to impose theocracy on America?

No.

A vote for Kerry is a vote for appeasement---which helps the enemy.

What enemy? The enemy that Bush is currently appeasing?

I do not believe, of course, that Objectivists who vote for Kerry intend to encourage appeasement or aid the enemy. But that will be the result, like it or not.

How will my vote for Kerry "encourage appeasement or aid the enemy"?

[Montesquieu]

How will my vote for Kerry "encourage appeasement or aid the enemy"?

Because that is what Kerry stands for, and has always stood for since he became a public figure.

[Thoyd Loki]

How will my vote for Kerry "encourage appeasement or aid the enemy"?

By the simple fact that you are not going to be personally asked what you intended with your vote. And the explicit views of the left especially of Michael Moore. They will be the usurpation of your intention.

Bush, if he wins, will have a mandate for war (and will not have to worry about reelection). What he will do with that is debatable.

But Kerry, repeatedly in his double-speak, has made no such promises, the opposite actually. And the whole of his record stands behind him as my proof of what can be expected.

[AisA]

Fear not, Kitty Hawk. Bush will win decisively.

This election is close for only one reason: the Hate America Coalition has mounted an unremitting campaign of lies and deceit in an effort to defeat Bush.

At home, the mainstream media is so desperate to discredit Bush they are willing to use obviously forged documents obtained from deranged sources, while ignoring the Swift Boat Vets and the forged medal citations on Kerry’s website.

Every Bush decision is taken to task, while Kerry’s twenty-year record of voting to weaken America is ignored.

Michael Moore patches together a “documentary” comprising cheap smears, crude non sequiturs and vicious ad hominem toward the Bush Administration – and our objective journalists praise its “courage” and “honesty”.

In Iraq, hordes of reporters search relentlessly for bad news about the war while assiduously avoiding any mention of progress. We hear about the death of every Marine, but not about the hundreds of terrorists we’ve killed.

Other reporters pounce on leaks about missing explosives from a couple of sights in Iraq and trumpet it as the scandal that proves Bush is a moron – all the while ignoring the 10,000 ammo dump sites that we have secured.

However, I believe this all-out assault will backfire – Bush will win, not Michael Moore.

Best of all, a Bush victory will totally demoralize the Hate America Coalition – and that group richly deserves to suffer…..for four more years.

[AisA]

MisterSwig, your premise seems to be that there is only one way to fight: total war that levels cities and annihilates civilians along with the enemy – anything else you regard as appeasement.

But this is a false alternative. There are many ways to fight.

In World War II, we faced two nations whose populations were squarely behind their government’s war effort. The German people elected Hitler freely, and the Japanese people worshiped Emperor Hirohito as a god. Thus, in that conflict, it was necessary to level cities and kill millions of civilians – it was the only way to win.

But such was not the case in Afghanistan and Iraq – and probably not the case in Iran either. Here we have populations suffering under horrific, totalitarian regimes – which the great majority of the population did not support. Here, then, a case can be made that the best thing to do is destroy the regimes, not the entire country and populations.

Having two semi-free, pro-America countries with an on-going American military presence in the Middle East is in America’s interests. From there, we can launch air strikes, special ops attacks, or all-out invasions of either Iran or Syria. I’m no military strategist, but looking at a map, I think we will be in a good position to take down both of those regimes.

To win a war, you have to get the other side to give up, to recognize that they are not going to achieve their goals through armed conflict. Well, what is Osama bin Laden's goal? Kill all the infidels on the planet, beginning with the infidels currently on "sacred soil", namely the Israelis and our troops in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.

Thus, the purpose of the 9/11 attack was one of two things: horrify us into withdrawing from the mid-east and ending our support for Israel -- or, bait us into invading Afghanistan, where he could inflict a humiliating defeat just as he did to the Soviets.

However, he underestimated us. We smashed the Taliban, killed a bunch of his Al Quaeda operatives, put bin Laden into hiding and established a semi-free country where women are allowed to vote and go to school. We followed this by smashing the Ba’athist in Iraq and occupying that country.

So things are not going smoothly for Osama. His 9/11 attack has totally backfired. There are now far more infidels on sacred soil – and he is praying that Bush will be defeated, so his guys can wear Kerry down into withdrawing from Iraq. A Bush re-election will surely plant the seed of doubt in his mind and his followers. So, I think we are off to a good start. This is why bin Laden is now proposing a truce. He needs time to regroup.

Maybe this was not the best way to fight this war, but it hardly qualifies as appeasement. Nor is it a reason to vote for a charter member of the Hate America Coalition – John Kerry.

[Montesquieu]

Also realize that bombing technology wasn't very good during World War II, it was seen as a more effective way to cripple the German and Japanese economies to mass bomb their cities. Today we can steer cruise missiles straight to where we want them to go, so there are far more options on the table in the tactics of the war. We don't have to firebomb Baghdad when we have tanks on the ground and AC-130 gunships and a selection of armaments flying overhead to eliminate any potential targets. We didn't have anywhere near this capability in World War II, making mass bombings really the only effective way to destroy targets and tie up German resources in fighting air raids. Another thing, Germany and Japan were highly industrialized societies and we had to bomb the hell out of hundreds of factories and other elements to have even a limited effect on their war output and even then the Germans hit a peak in ammunition production in mid to later 1944. Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, etc are all firmly entrenched in the third world, you would be bombing rubble essentially if you mass bombed the area and achieve nothing. Obviously these people can't handle the problem of governance on their own, so we have to go in their and straighten things out as best we can, and blowing the whole place to hell isn't going to facilitate that.

[MisterSwig]

MisterSwig, your premise seems to be that there is only one way to fight:  total war that levels cities and annihilates civilians along with the enemy – anything else you regard as appeasement.

That's not my premise. Try again.

[MisterSwig]

By the simple fact that you are not going to be personally asked what you intended with your vote. And the explicit views of the left especially of Michael Moore. They will be the usurpation of your intention.

Many people have personally asked me why I am voting for Kerry. And I have let many others know my intention, whether they wanted to hear it or not. So how exactly will the Left usurp my intention? Is it common knowledge that everyone voting for Kerry supports the views of Michael Moore? Or: is it common knowledge that everyone voting for Kerry supports everything about Kerry?

Isn't the idea of voting for the lesser of two evils pretty familiar to Americans by now?

[AisA]

That's not my premise. Try again.

This is all you have to say in response to my post? Sounds like you don't have much interest in explaining your position.

[MisterSwig]

This is all you have to say in response to my post?  Sounds like you don't have much interest in explaining your position.

You're right. I am no longer especially interested in repeating my position on the war issue. Besides, that is not what this thread is about. If you want to understand my position on the war, you can read my previous posts on the subject.

Right now I am interested in why people like Kitty Hawk believe that voting for Kerry is morally akin to piloting jets into the World Trade Center.

[MisterSwig]

Because that is what Kerry stands for, and has always stood for since he became a public figure.

Kerry stands for "appeasing and aiding the enemy?" Is that explicit idea on his platform? Was this idea a part of a speech I missed?

Look, of course I believe Kerry will appease the enemy, like I believe Bush is doing right now. But neither candidate explicitly ran on a platform of appeasing and aiding the enemy. And, if elected, neither one will have a mandate to openly do this.

So, for argument's sake, let's assume that my vote is a vote for everything Kerry stands for. How could my vote possibly stand for or encourage appeasing and aiding the enemy, when Kerry does not explicitly endorse this idea?

[Thoyd Loki]

By the simple fact that you are not going to be personally asked what you intended with your vote. And the explicit views of the left especially of Michael Moore. They will be the usurpation of your intention.

Many people have personally asked me why I am voting for Kerry. And I have let many others know my intention, whether they wanted to hear it or not. So how exactly will the Left usurp my intention? Is it common knowledge that everyone voting for Kerry supports the views of Michael Moore? Or: is it common knowledge that everyone voting for Kerry supports everything about Kerry?

Isn't the idea of voting for the lesser of two evils pretty familiar to Americans by now?

I was going to reply Mr Swig, but it is now 9:30 Pacific time, and it looks like this conversation will be moot in a little bit.

[Yes]

If John Kerry wins, it will be the moral equivalent of another 9/11---but a self-inflicted 9/11.  The "Arab Street" will be in full celebratory mood, dancing in the streets, just as they did after the first 9/11.

The whole world knows this is an election about one issue: the war.  We are about to find out if the American sense of life is still as strong as it was in '72, when America sent McGovern packing with his tail between his legs.  John Kerry is the same anti-American, defeatist, blame America kind of candidate as McGovern.

I am trembling for America. Stand up and fight!

Bush's victory, in itself, does not ensure that America will not have to suffer the calamity of another 9-11 type attack against it.

The Bush administration needs to realize that their narrow victory is far from a mandate, that there are serious shortcomings in the way he has pursued foreign policy, and that they need to pursue a more focused, principled foreign policy based on actions, not just intentions.

[Yes]

In World War II, we faced two nations whose populations were squarely behind their government’s war effort.  The German people elected Hitler freely, and the Japanese people worshiped Emperor Hirohito as a god.  Thus, in that conflict, it was necessary to level cities and kill millions of civilians – it was the only way to win.

But such was not the case in Afghanistan and Iraq – and probably not the case in Iran either.  Here we have populations suffering under horrific, totalitarian regimes – which the great majority of the population did not support.  Here, then, a case can be made that the best thing to do is destroy the regimes, not the entire country and populations.

Try again in your version of History vs. Fact.

FACT- The people of Iraq elected Saddam Hussein to power.

And the Taliban had a broad spectrum of support. There was a clear and present enemy- those who supported the Taliban and their civilians- and a clear and present ally- the Northern Alliance tribes. The strategy in Afghanistan was quite clear here- or should have been to the Bush administration- to destroy the Taliban to the point where they surrender unconditionally or are vanquished. So why didn't they? Why were they concerned with killing the civilians who would have taken up arms against us?

Having two semi-free, pro-America countries with an on-going American military presence in the Middle East is in America’s interests.  From there, we can launch air strikes, special ops attacks, or all-out invasions of either Iran or Syria.  I’m no military strategist, but looking at a map, I think we will be in a good position to take down both of those regimes.

Our bases in Saudi Arabia and Qatar are just as strategic to these regions. As a major distraction, we now have to deal with those "insurgents" who refuse to side with us, whom we should have destroyed in the first place. Iraq is not secure yet.

However, he underestimated us.  We smashed the Taliban, killed a bunch of his Al Quaeda operatives, put bin Laden into hiding and established a semi-free country where women are allowed to vote and go to school.  We followed this by smashing the Ba’athist in Iraq and occupying that country.

The Taliban are an emboldened threat, although I think that the Karzai administration can deal with them. Not so Al Qaeda. They remain a threat to America's interests. They are sponsoring terrorists in Iraq and also insurgents there. It is for this reason that they have NOT attacked Amerca on American soil, since 9-11.

Nor is it a reason to vote for a charter member of the Hate America Coalition – John Kerry.

Once again, I saw nothing in Kerry's campaign program that suggests appeasement, nor that he hates America. Such appears in the Conservative agenda to paint Kerry as a pacifist. Apparently, this strategy has worked and it helped get Bush re-elected.

[jfortun]

Once again, I saw nothing in Kerry's campaign program that suggests appeasement, nor that he hates America.  Such appears in the Conservative agenda to paint Kerry as a pacifist.  Apparently, this strategy has worked and it helped get Bush re-elected.

Perhaps not in his campaign, but his 20+ year voting record clearly indicates an anti-military, anti-self defense agenda.

The Conservatives don't pain this picture, Kerry does.

[AisA]

Try again in your version of History vs. Fact.

FACT- The people of Iraq elected Saddam Hussein to power.

And the Taliban had a broad spectrum of support.

Your position is that Hussein and the Taliban were popular with their subjects? I know the mid-east is nutty, but I never dreamed that the people wanted rape, murder, torture, mass graves, child prisons, gassing of the Kurds and female enslavement.

There was a clear and present enemy- those who supported the Taliban and their civilians- and a clear and present ally- the Northern Alliance tribes. The strategy in Afghanistan was quite clear here- or should have been to the Bush administration- to destroy the Taliban to the point where they surrender unconditionally or are vanquished. So why didn't they?

They did. News flash -- the Taliban are no longer in power. They recently lost a war to the bumbling, inept Americans. Many Taliban were killed, some are vacationing in cells at Guantánamo, others slithered away into the hills. Some will undoubtably continue to make trouble. None of them were voted into office in the recent elections.

Our bases in Saudi Arabia and Qatar are just as strategic to these regions.

Fine, but also having bases in countries that border Syria and Iran is a good thing, isn't it?

As a major distraction, we now have to deal with those "insurgents" who refuse to side with us, whom we should have destroyed in the first place. Iraq is not secure yet.

I'm not arguing that Iraq is "secure yet", only that it can be made secure -- unless we give up.

Not so Al Qaeda. They remain a threat to America's interests. They are sponsoring terrorists in Iraq and also insurgents there. It is for this reason that they have NOT attacked Amerca on American soil, since 9-11.

Well, if this is true, if our invasion of Iraq has forced Al Qaeda to fight America in Fallujah instead of Manhattan -- I say that is a great thing! From what, precisely, are we being "distracted"?

[oldsalt]

To Yes and MisterSwig:

If you have not recognized Kerry's explicit program of appeasment, I don't know what would help you. What do you think his talk of "diplomacy" and UN involvment was all about? What do you think he meant when he talked about bringing the troops home, beginning 6 months after his election -- explicitly telling the enemy that he is going to leave Iraq to them? What do you think he meant when he said that troops dying for the UN was legitimate, but dying for America's defense was not? Kerry has always been consistent in these matters since his earliest days at Yale, no matter what his election rhetoric attempted to portray. His "flip-flops" and "nuances" bespeak a mind which operates on relativist "principles", and can find no purchase in reality; they say nothing about his core beliefs.

I don't mean to be confrontational, but I suggest that you both study transnationalism a bit more. One cannot understand Kerry without understanding the nature of transnationalism.

As someone said above, the point is moot. Bush won. It is time to roll up our sleeves and focus on the work to be done.

Objectivism! Hooaa!

(I'm feeling very good today. )

Edited November 4, 2004 by oldsalt

[Kitty Hawk]

Try again in your version of History vs. Fact.

FACT- The people of Iraq elected Saddam Hussein to power.

You have got to be kidding. Right? Saddam Hussein was indeed elected---by a 100% vote. Does that suggest anything to you, Mr. Yes? Like if you don't vote for Saddam, you're a dead voter? And of course this was only after his initial rise to power, which was through the murder and assassination route.

Try again in your version of history and fact.

[MisterSwig]

To Yes and MisterSwig:

If you have not recognized Kerry's explicit program of appeasment, I don't know what would help you.  What do you think his talk of "diplomacy" and UN involvment was all about?

I don't know. Is it anything like the Bush administration's talk of "diplomacy" and "U.N. involvement" in relation to Iran?

Check this out: Powell Cautions Israel on Iran Action.

Does this qualify as an "explicit program of appeasement?"

[Kitty Hawk]

A is A was right, the American people decisively upheld America's right to defend itself in this election.

There is no joy in the "Arab Street" tonight.

The rest of the world, the terrorists, the global socialists, the liberal media, all threw down the gauntlet to America in this election, daring us to elect the unilateralist.

The American people picked up the gauntlet, and slapped the world in the face with it.

The American sense of life is still hanging in there, in spite of the world's opposition.

[Kitty Hawk]

I don't know. Is it anything like the Bush administration's talk of "diplomacy" and "U.N. involvement" in relation to Iran?

Check this out: Powell Cautions Israel on Iran Action.

Does this qualify as an "explicit program of appeasement?"

I have not heard yet whether Powell will be part of the second Bush Administration. I am obviously hoping he will not be. Has anyone heard?

[oldsalt]

Two things Bush needs to do right away, and both involve some serious house-cleaning. The needs to clean out Foggy Bottom and the CIA, both entities which have activily worked against him.

Powell definitely needs to go. I never jumped on his particular bandwagon. I didn't like him when he worked for Bush Sr. and, while I understood W's "need" of him when he was running the first time, I've always thought he was a huge mistake. It was Powell who convinced President Bush to waltz with the UN over Iraq.