American Beheaded

[AutoJC]

AutoJC, to think that Kerry is not a pacifist based on a few out-of-context statements seems like evasion on a massive scale to me.

My points about Kerry:

1. He is not the Anti-American that the faith-based Right purports him to be

2. His foreign policy statements shows he cares about America's self-interests about as much as any president we've had since Truman

That doesn't mean he's the ideal candidate for the job, not by any stretch.

I'm still not satisfied with his positions regarding taxes and the role of government in domestic issues.

[MisterSwig]

The assumption is made that Kerry's foreign policy would be pacifist-based, and would be weak.

Here is what the mighty John Kerry would do to one of the primary sources and greatest financial sponsor of militant Islam in the world.

"[W]e must cut off the flow of terrorist funds. In the case of Saudi Arabia, the Bush Administration has adopted a kid-glove approach to the supply and laundering of terrorist money. If I am President, we will impose tough financial sanctions against nations or banks that engage in money laundering or fail to act against it. We will launch a "name and shame" campaign against those that are financing terror. And if they do not respond, they will be shut out of the U.S. financial system."

"Fighting a Comprehensive War on Terrorism", a speech by John Kerry

Oh, boy! We're gonna stop them from banking in the U.S.

Get real! Pretty soon they will OWN the banks.

This nation is toast.

[Capitalism Forever]

Ah, Auto, you need to improve your skill of decoding liberal propaganda:

“Americans deserve a principled diplomacy...backed by undoubted military might...based on enlightened self-interest, not the zero-sum logic of power politics...a diplomacy that commits America to lead the world toward liberty and prosperity. A bold progressive internationalism that focuses not just on the immediate and imminent, but insidious dangers that can mount over the next years and decade, dangers that span the spectrum from the denial of democracy, to destructive weapons, endemic poverty and epidemic disease. These are not just issues of international order, but vital issues of our own national security.”

Translation: "I will negotiate and compromise with terrorists instead of attacking them. I will ask the UN for permission before I do anything. I believe in appealing to the majority to justify tyranny. I am afraid of guns and want to take them away from everyone. I think we should 'help the poor' and give African dictators more money for 'AIDS research' so they won't get angry and hurt us."

[oldsalt]

Watch how Kerry plays both the prison scandal and the murder of Mr. Berg and you see what this man is made of. Kerry has admitted to committing atrocities during war, yet no one screams for his ... I was going to say "head," but that's a tasteless turn of phrase for this thread ... ass (same thing).

To say that Kerry isn't anti-American is to ignore his entire adult life. He has never changed his tune, from Vietnam to now. I know that today's young adults are tired of hearing about Vietnam, but you ignore it, and Kerry's history in it, at your peril. He is one of the key players in that debacle.

I'm sorry, I can't go on and be coherent because I'm too upset about all of this right now. I'll just say that it is foolishness to underestimate the depth of Kerry's evil. I've personally experienced the consequences of his perfidy, so I know better than to do that. For now, I'll just issue the warning and advise you that if you haven't read up on his activities in Vietnam and after he returned to the States, then you are missing the essential information you need to understand him because he hasn't changed one whit since then. In his anti-American essentials, he has always been consistent.

[doc_dave]

The entirety of the problems we face in the Middle East can be summed up quite easily: it is a continuous struggle to retain power by those in position of authority in the countries therein.

You'll note the lack of democracies in this region. This is no accident. Those in power rake in billions of dollars through oil and, like any dictator, need to preserve their power through whatever means necessary. The two means by which they accomplish this is through force and fear and the cultivation of an "Us vs. Them" mentality; specifically, "The West vs. Islam".

Religion has been used throughout the ages to rally the masses in a common cause, that being an outside enemy, whether real or imaginary. No longer is the populace scrutinizing the deeds of their masters, but instead turn outward and rally around their leader, who is now percieved as a kind of benevolent dictator.

He may be brutal, but he's our own.

So they accept the fear and force imposed on them, for, as they rationalize, it is for their own good; they must come together in order to fight the Great Satan that is threatening their way of life.

It's no surprise that public education in this region is largely lacking. An educated population is difficult to mislead.

If the U.S. was serious about bringing democracy to this part of the world, to truly bring freedom to these people, then it needs to take a tougher approach. Although the pictures from Iraq showing the humiliation and torture of Iraqi prisons shocks and appalls us all, the truth is, this sort of thing is mere child's play in the Middle East. The supposed outrage of the Arab press is little mroe than another ploy by the leaders of this region to, yet again, serve cause to justify their reign. Thus, the citizenry, rather than look inward at the atrocities of their own governments, close ranks with the same.

The beheading of the young American, Nick Berg, serves as a perfect, horrifying example of the common mentality of the Middle East. How could anyone with a heart and soul do this to another human being? The answer is simple: the people who did this are little more than trained animals. And, having been to this part of the world myself, and I hate to say this and will not claim that all the inhabitants share this low level of humanity, the truth is, very many of them do. The only real education the average person (that is, male) can boast of is that of a rudimentary elementary level and full immersion of a fundamentalist interpretation of Islam.

That is a recipe for disaster. It is also exactly what the leaders of the Middle East want. It is exactly what they need to retain authority in the eyes of their people.

The U.S. needs to take off the kid gloves, if they expect to make any sort of positive impact in Iraq over the long haul. A valuable lesson of how to do this can be found in nearly any college level history book of World War Two. At that time, with the fall of the Nazis, the Allies were still having to deal with guerillas, former Nazis and German army soldiers (collectively referred to as "The Werewolves") who continued to carry on the fight long after the official conclusion of the war.

Upon entering a German town and taking sniper fire, the Allied military unit would immediately withdraw their forces to the edge of town and an around-the-clock artillery barrage centered on that town would take place. At the end of the barrage, the Allies would reenter and make it clear to the inhabitants (ie, survivors) that no resistence would be tollerated.

Quite often, anyone, regardless of age and gender, found carrying weapons would be executed on the spot. Anyone found out and about past a set curfew would suffer the same consequence. Guerillas who were apprehended were immediately expecuted; firing squad or public hanging by the Americans. The British and French opted for the Guillotine, along with hanging and firing squad.

The Russians took a more hardline approach with dealing with resistance: for every one Russian soldier killed, 200 Germans would be rounded up and executed, regardless of age and gender.

The effect of these measures was quick in coming. Although resistence to the occupation forces didn't entriely cease until about 1948, it did drop off sharply once these methods started being used.

I am NOT suggesting that we adopted something as extreme as the Russian approach, however, I do believe we need to reexamine the methods used by the other Allies and the possibility of using them in Iraq.

You have to keep in mind, in this part of the world, sad as it is to say, the truth is that what the inhabitants largely understand is force of arms. You have several generations who were brought up believing that the West is evil and that fighting and dying in a war against them is a great honor and condoned by God. You are not going to change their minds on this matter overnight. You can not simply expect give them a mall, a McDonald's, and a pro football team and expect them to embrace freedom with open arms. It will not happen.

It took nearly 20 years for Germany and Japan to fully change from being heavily militant states to what can only be described as very liberal nations. There is a stark difference between the Germany of 1932 and that of 1972, not to exclude the same transformation in Japan.

This change was done using a carrot and stick approach. We help rebuild their infrastructure, but any resistence would be dealt with swiftly and with a heavy hand.

The only way to deal with Iraq is by using the same methods employed in post-war Germany and Japan. If you concentrate on changing the hearts and minds of the current generation in Iraq, you will fail miserably. You MUST brute force your way forward, helping the citizens, rebuild their country, impose democracy on them, and hope that the following generations will, through a more adequate education, come to understand that we have their best interest in mind.

In short, winning over the current generation will be next to impossible. I'm tempted to suggest, instead of dropping bombs on the country in 1991, perhaps we should have been dropping rock n' roll CDs.

[AutoJC]

Here is what the mighty John Kerry would do to one of the primary sources and greatest financial sponsor of militant Islam in the world.

"[W]e must cut off the flow of terrorist funds.  In the case of Saudi Arabia, the Bush Administration has adopted a kid-glove approach to the supply and laundering of terrorist money.  If I am President, we will impose tough financial sanctions against nations or banks that engage in money laundering or fail to act against it.  We will launch a "name and shame" campaign against those that are financing terror.  And if they do not respond, they will be shut out of the U.S. financial system."

"Fighting a Comprehensive War on Terrorism", a speech by John Kerry

Oh, boy! We're gonna stop them from banking in the U.S.

Get real! Pretty soon they will OWN the banks.

This nation is toast.

I agree; that's naive on Kerry's part.

First off, Bush did just that to the terrorists and their channeling of funds through American banks.

So the Terrorists go to "neutral-nation" banking institutions to invest their money, completely sidestepping American institutions.

Kerry is weak for raising that as an issue and an approach. He badly needs to do better.

[AutoJC]

Ah, Auto, you need to improve your skill of decoding liberal propaganda:

Translation: "I will negotiate and compromise with terrorists instead of attacking them. I will ask the UN for permission before I do anything. I believe in appealing to the majority to justify tyranny. I am afraid of guns and want to take them away from everyone. I think we should 'help the poor' and give African dictators more money for 'AIDS research' so they won't get angry and hurt us."

That's your opinion. I don't agree that is what yuour intepretation is actually what Kerry means.

I've already commented on that ad nauseum.

You go to the websites of such candidates and you'll find many contradictions to their "stated purposes."

The argument by the faith-based right that Kerry is Anti-American is total bullshit.

[AshRyan]

The argument by the faith-based right that Kerry is Anti-American is total bullshit.

So you've said many times, but failed to provide any evidence for it other than the few out of context quotes from Kerry's website--the problems with which CF pointed out above. Saying that that's his opinion and you don't agree is not an argument. You've consistently ignored all of the evidence to the contrary that other people on this board have given about Kerry's character. Why?

I also think it's inappropriate for you to lump everyone who has come to the conclusion that Kerry is anti-American in with the "faith-based right." That's pure ad hominem.

[Betsy]

I also think it's inappropriate for you to lump everyone who has come to the conclusion that Kerry is anti-American in with the "faith-based right."  That's pure ad hominem.

Indeed!

There are many on the Rational Right -- like me -- who think that Kerry is anti-American, and we have damned good reasons for saying so.

[oldsalt]

Yes, I agree that we ought to have nuked several different countries on 9-12. Yes, I agree that Bush is too much of a pragmatist and altruist to fight within his own Bush Doctrine. Yes, the situation is frustrating to any serious person. But let us consider, for a moment, what would have happened if Bush had done what we all think he ought to have done, or even if he tried to do so now.

Anyone remember their history? I'm talking about Themistocles of Athens. After the Greeks had defeated the Persians at Marathon, they were convinced that the war was over and nothing would move them to prepare for another. Themistocle knew better. He had a clear vision of what was to come and he understood what Athens must do to prepare for it. But how to convince the Athenians?

At the time, Athens was a land-based society and their military reflected that in that it was geared to the land. Themistocles understood that Athens, and her allies, would never again meet with such success against a determined Persian land army. He understood that Athens must have a navy in order to meet Persia away from the Greek city-states.

Athens, however, was intoxicated with their victory and in no mood to consider that they might not have thoroughly trounced Persia. Themistocles knew that no argument would persuade the people to act on reason and the facts, so he tricked them into it. He got his navy built by setting up a false enemy. That, however, was only the first step. He tricked them into fighting, he tricked them into winning. He had to lie for ten years, then he had to lie to get people to stand and fight. One could even say that he had to commit treason to get them to fight, in as much as, on the eve of battle, he informed Xerxes that the navy was getting ready to split. He did this to force the issue before his navy could leave. They won a brilliant battle -- and the war -- because of Themistocles and his lies.

Now, if you are still with me, you might be asking yourself why I bring up this ancient history and what does it have to do with the subject at hand. Ask yourself what is the mind-set of your fellow citizens? What would happen to Bush and his administration if he nuked, say Iran? Iran, whose citizens are in revolt and whose citizens love this country. What would be the response from the majority of the people to the charred bodies of innocents? You've seen what has happened over the abuse of Iraqi prisoners. Do you really think that using nuclear weapons wouldn't end with Bush being thrown out of office and America groveling in apology to the rest of the world?

Bush could certainly be a better leader, but we are demanding that he utterly ignore every single fact of governing a completely split citizenry. He isn't a dictator who can decree that we do whatever he wants. He may have gotten away with a bolder plan, but he would never have gotten away with dropping nuclear weapons on innocents.

Say he did do so, however. Say he took out Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, the Sudan, etc. What would happen to the economy? Even after 9-11, Bush couldn't open up Alaska or the California coastline, or anywhere else for drilling, and after losing the oil of the Middle East, he wouldn't have had an economy left which could build the nuclear power plants we need. While defense is the most important thing, we don't act in a vacuum. There is more than military strength involved. There are consequences to be considered when deciding how to scare the Arabs into civilized behavior.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that, while philosophy can tell us what is the right thing to do, it won't tell us how you drag a country to do it. We all know that you can't reason with the unreasonable. Look around you at the actions of the media, certain politicians, and the liberal half of this country. What was their reaction to our fighting in Afghanistan, where we had an absolute right to wage war? It was no different than their reaction to Iraq. Facts mean nothing to them. Reality means nothing to them. The deaths of over 3000 of their fellow citizens mean nothing to them.

What little leadership Bush was able to display at the beginning of this war has been eroded by the constant harping of the left and the blatant bias of the media. As a consequence, we have the continuing exposure of academia and its menions in government and the media. They have been shown, and continue to be shown, for the petty-souled, anti-Americans they are. This anti-Americanism isn't new, but is a continuation of what happened in this country during Vietnam. (We do not live ahistorically.) The population was supportive of our troops during most of that war. The adults didn't listen to the children until after the Pentagon Papers exposed a government that said it couldn't win.

Then John Kerry came home from the war and gave the communists the victory they couldn't win on the ground. He assisted the media in turning the victory of Tet offensive into a defeat, and he turned this country against its military for the first time in our history. The communists acknowledge this fact today.

He is a child of his time, indeed. He grew up knowing that war heroes made presidents, so he volunteered to go win enough medals to make a record, then came right home. He grew up hearing all the little Tooheys in our universities tell him of the evil that is America and the glory of socialism, and when he returned from the war, he saw that the Tooheys had taken over. He acted on that as well. He is a transnationalist who believes that folks will get along no matter what you call their government -- that was and is holy writ among his fellow liberals. Kerry flip-flops on all the particulars, but he has always been consistent in his ambition to be president and his belief in transnationalism. They color everything he has said and done, even his seeming flip-flops. As an evil, Bush doesn't hold a candle. Bush still believes in this country, even if he doesn't understand how his beliefs are a part of the rot. Bush is representative of the myopia of the citizenry in this, those on the right who see no contradiction in the war we are fighting against religious fundamentalism and their won religious demands of the government. They see no contradiction in demanding that the religious schools of the Islamists b closed and their demands for a Christian government. No matter how hard they try to maintain their Christian forebearance, it really comes down to the fact that the Muslims worship the wrong god, and believe that this is the source of the war.

This is the environment in which we are waging war. Bush is no Themistocles, but America is every bit as unweildy as Athens in 481 BCE. With Bush, we might have time to save this country because, for all of his mistakes, he loves America and respects what he believes to be its foundation. With Kerry, who does indeed hate the very founding ideas of this country, we can bend over and kiss our behinds good-bye, because there won't be a hope in hell of saving us.

[argive99]

This is the environment in which we are waging war.  Bush is no Themistocles, but America is every bit as unweildy as Athens in 481 BCE.  With Bush, we might have time to save this country because, for all of his mistakes, he loves America and respects what he believes to be its foundation.  With Kerry, who does indeed hate the very founding ideas of this country, we can bend over and kiss our behinds good-bye, because there won't be a hope in hell of saving us.

I really liked this post. It was well reasoned and has a nice historical refference.

[Although, from what I've read, its not 100% definite that Themisticles signaled Xerxes before the Battle of Salamis. If he did, that has to be one of the guttsiest military maneuvers of all time. And to add to your point, Themisticles was such a great leader that the Athenians rewarded him with banishment. Ayn Rand could have added him to the list of persecuted heroes in Roark's speach.]

To let you know, with regard to Bush vs. Kery, Dr. Binswanger on HBL made a similar point. He said that if you compare the two in terms of extremes, Kery is far closer to the extreme of leftist tyranny than Bush is to the extreme of theocracy. By a comparative standard Kery is far, far worse.

The sad reality, as your post makes clear, is that the man who could genuinely win the war against radical Islam could never get elected in the current political, philosophical landscape. Bush very well may be the best that we can expect. I think when we Objectivists make argument about the war on terror we should distinguish between what should be done and what is realistic for the current climate. Sadly the two will be far apart.

By the way, have you read either of Steven Pressfield's historical novels: The Gates of Fire (Battle of Thermopalye) or The Tides of War (Pelloponesian War)? If you are a lover of ancient Greek history, they are a must.

[ramKatori]

A valuable lesson of how to do this can be found in nearly any college level history book of World War Two. At that time, with the fall of the Nazis, the Allies were still having to deal with guerillas, former Nazis and German army soldiers (collectively referred to as "The Werewolves") who continued to carry on the fight long after the official conclusion of the war.

I searched the web and found that this "werewolf" tale was a satire written by a FOX journalist. It was then mistakenly quoted by Rice and Rumsfeld who thought it was true.

Maybe there is more to this. Maybe the FOX journalist was not making something up completely. What "college level history book" has this information?

Does anyone know the truth about this? I'm rather curious.

[blaked]

When a country invades another country and claims humanitarian or altruistic motives, it resembles a rapist who claims that he 'knew she wanted it' and that he was there to 'make her want it.' When you invade a country, be prepared to go all the way. As David Osterfeld (a Rothbardian anarcho-capitalist) said, people are governed because they consent - either by actively supporting the government or passively refusing to overthrow it. Well, the Iraqis don't consent. Probably 90% of them would be passive in any case, whether occupied by the US Military, Halliburton McContractors, or Saddam loyalists. The only logical (notice that I don't say legitimate or moral) ways to take over a country are to seduce it or to kill everyone there and take their land. As we can see, this shotgun wedding scenario isn't panning out too well.

This 'for your own good' justification of force is bad enough when it's used by a government against its citizens. If millions are oppressed in a foreign country and you're upset about it, you should become a mercenary. There were American socialists in the 1930's that fought for the 'Lincoln Brigade' against Franco. If American businesses with a commercial interest in Vietnam fealt that their markets or sources of cheap labor and beach-front real estate were threatened, they could have hired Thai mercenaries to kill them off. There are plenty of American and South African security firms that are willing to wage private wars against foreign governments that control resources you happen to want.

[AisA]

When a country invades another country and claims humanitarian or altruistic motives, it resembles a rapist who claims that he 'knew she wanted it' and that he was there to 'make her want it.'  When you invade a country, be prepared to go all the way. As David Osterfeld (a Rothbardian anarcho-capitalist) said, people are governed because they consent - either by actively supporting the government or passively refusing to overthrow it. Well, the Iraqis don't consent. Probably 90% of them would be passive in any case, whether occupied by the US Military, Halliburton McContractors, or Saddam loyalists. The only logical (notice that I don't say legitimate or moral) ways to take over a country are to seduce it or to kill everyone there and take their land. As we can see, this shotgun wedding scenario isn't panning out too well.

At the grave risk of appearing to disagree with a Rothbardian anarcho-capitalist, if the only ways to "take over a country" are seduction or extinction, how do explain what America and her allies did to Germany and Japan in WWII?

This 'for your own good' justification of force is bad enough when it's used by a government against its citizens. If millions are oppressed in a foreign country and you're upset about it, you should become a mercenary.

What if those oppressors are part of a international movement with the stated goal of global domination?

There were American socialists in the 1930's that fought for the 'Lincoln Brigade' against Franco. If American businesses with a commercial interest in Vietnam fealt that their markets or sources of cheap labor and beach-front real estate were threatened, they could have hired Thai mercenaries to kill them off.

No, no there was a bit more to it than that. You see, there was this country called The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Its stated goal was the destruction of western capitalism and the spread of communism to every country on earth. One of its premiers took his shoe off at the United Nations, banged it on a table and declared that he would bury the West.

Now, we in America considered that an undesirable outcome, so we looked for places and ways to counter the spread of communism without engaging in global thermonuclear warfare with the USSR. You see, they had thousands of warheads on Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles pointed at us.

In 1962, we caught the U.S.S.R. trying to sneak offensive nuclear weapons into Cuba (just south of Florida). Fortunately, we convinced them to remove the missiles. Then people bagan thinking that it might make more sense to confront communism some place farther away.

This is largely why we committed to the defense of South Vietnam -- partly out of (improper) altruistic reasons but primarily out of the selfish and totally proper motive of stopping communism everywhere we could. And it is not irrelevant to note that had we been allowed to win, millions of humans would have avoided torture and death.

Yes, America made mistakes in that war, the chief one being the refusal of the civilian leadership to allow the military to prosecute a vigorous strategy of victory. Declaring the enemy's capital and its primary ports of entry off-limits for attack makes victory unlikely.

Your attempt to trivialize that war as being merely about "American businesses with a commercial interest in Vietnam" is preposterous, ignorant, insulting and utterly false -- regardless of how many Rothbardian anarcho-capitalists you can conjure.

And please, come up with something more original than "Halliburton McContractors".