[Thermodyne]

Originally posted by oleg:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thermodyne:
... You speak with the naiveté of a person who has never risked all that he had for the benefit of others.

And you are sure of that. What do you know of me to brand me a coward just because I am against the US policy ?

---

Coward? I find it hard to extrapolate that from my statement. Me thinks you protest too much. And no I am not sure, but you are firming up my suspicions.

My statement was not directed at your person, only at the foundation of your argument. History has shown us that appeasement is only putting off the price that will have to be paid later. A loan if you will. The diplomats borrow a little peace now to be paid for later, with interest.

Edit: This turned into a rant from here on, but it felt good to write it

It should be noted that each potential hot spot has an underlying cause that drives it. And often this relates to the culture of the people involved. And while peace is a worthy goal, it has never been achieved long term without that spilling of blood. Let’s look at the cold war, one of the longest periods of peace that Europe has known in modern times. It was achieved because the result of a war was too terrible to contemplate. And for once, Western Europe had a common foe. This stand off was maintained at the expense of America, the old USSR, and China for the most part. And the blood was mostly theirs along with both Koreas, both Vietnam’s and quite a few Central Americans and lets not forget to mention the Jews and Arabs. During this time Germany was worried about the Bear to the east, France was trying to regain her colonial holdings and England was just trying to adjust to life after empire.
When the cost of the cold war became too great to endure, both in monetary terms and political will of the people, it was decided to spend the other side into bankruptcy. And we all watched as the USSR died. Now we have a billion people who were under the soviet boot set free and another billion that were sucking at the soviet tit suddenly going hungry. The politicians are hollering about how great the peace is. While the ex-client states are looking to pick up some unfinished business left from times long past. And we all patted ourselves on the back, "Peace in our time" had returned. Bull ****! But we are a stupid species, so we went on appeasing evil men and their governments. Some of us even arranged it so that there was an influx of cash because of it. The rest of us sat back and assumed that it was so far away that we didn’t need to worry about it. All the while a lot of educators taught our kids that war and force of arms was a bad thing, this based on their limited understanding of the US involvement in Vietnam.
So one day some rag heads passing as Islamic defenders of the faith knock down some buildings, and the world changes. So we are left with some hard choices to make. We can spank back just a little, as we had been doing. Or we could go and remove this plague from the face of the earth. And as a Last choice we could begin a measured response that would place us in a position that allows for selective actions aimed at redesigning a culture. A little show of force here, a demonstration of our might of arms there, with some nation building for desert. Well folks, I for one am going to say that we are on the third choice and it is a stupid plan based on the lessons learned during the cold war! We should have tossed that stuff out the door and started with a clean sheet of paper.
When a nation is attacked, the government should act swiftly and with all reasonable force available to remove the threat. You can not change people’s attitudes, and you can not make war on governments alone. Just as you can not fight terror with terror. If your nation is under attack by Islamic terrorists, then like it or not, you need to make the Islamic Nations that are supporting said terrorism pay a price so terrible that they will spend the next few generations wondering what went wrong. If the leadership is actually the leaders of their religion, then the religion must be treated as a hostile government. If your allies support you, then fine. If they can not find a way or desire to support you, then they should be allowed to beg off with honor. But if your allies oppose you, then perhaps the relationship needs to be re-examined in depth. And once you go to war, it should be total war as far as that goes. The object should be the removal of the enemies’ ability to harm you. Unfortunately with terrorism (unconventional warfare) this will require making war so terrible that the average man will not be willing to risk it. That includes the bombing of civilian targets and the removal of the nation’s ability to feed and house its people. Do I look forward to this with joy, hell no. I don’t enjoy seeing people suffer. But if I have the choice of having me and mine die or pounding the hell out of them, then I choose to let them die and suffer. And because of the hard work of the people of my nation, we are in the position to give better than we get with regards to every nation on earth. This is a fact that will not soon change. And to put this nation in the position of needing to use that power is a very dangerous thing. In times of war, the will of the people rests with far too few people, many of them not elected. The power that is instantly concentrated in a few days during time of war will take decades to be properly redistributed. And unfortunately, America is divided along ideological boundaries to an extent that has not existed since the American Civil War. This makes for a very unstable political situation at home. The difference this time is that most of the people don’t have a clue about what they are supporting or opposed to. They only know what they hear from their professors, and to disagree openly with them will put you right on the path. And they know the “Truth” that the news services provide. People should become truly informed and then take a stand. To say that this is bad or that is bad and then support it with the standard line that was presented on the six o’clock news is a waste of time. To take an ideological stand and then support it with a broad “way the world should be” argument was a waste of your parent’s college money. People need to look at both the cost and the benefit of their positions and then develop an original idea in support of their conclusions. Then make a statement that offers both a reason (need) and a solution that is based on something more tangible than collegiate political science or religious dogma.

OK This turned into a rant, and I done. But first let me share an experience that I had.

The World Bank was meeting in DC and I was stuck in traffic. So I leave my car and go into a little café to get a soda. There I find myself waiting in line with some young demonstrators. As we chatted I asked them what they were marching about. All but one replied that it was a “statement” and that it was “meant to show the world that the people had power to influence their government’s just like during the Vietnam War”. Ok that’s a bunch of who-ya bull****! But one of them made the case for the harm that loans and easy credit were doing to the third world. I didn’t agree with it all, but it was a good argument. When it came time for him to pay for his food, the first card he offered was refused as was the second. He then began trying to borrow some cash from his comrades. I asked him if easy credit and high interest were also hurting him. His reply was that he was just a little short until his dad forwarded some funds to his account. He failed to see that he was taking advantage of the very thing he was protesting. He had heard the dogma and could use it as a very good argument. But he did not understand the basic principles that were at the root of the problem. He was borrowing money that he expected someone else to pay back. Just as many people now call for peace, without having any intention of paying the bill that will come due later. The have the dogma down pat, but they don’t choose to see the end result as history and experience say it will be. They chose to see and hope what it could be. They sit back and assume that the bill will never come due. Or that their will not be a price to pay, no bill waiting in the mail. But history has shown us time and again that the bill will come a knocking. And as the world’s population snowballs, the bill will come due. Do you want to pay it now? Or leave it for your children? Do you want to be sheep and baah out the dogma and ideas of others or do you want to take a hard look and make some hard decisions of your own. In tough times, like minded individuals will come together and bring about change. But these same people will fight and bicker among themselves during times of plenty. I ask you this, how much longer will the times of plenty Last? I think a great portion of the world would answer that the time has already come and gone. And if we borrow peace now, how will our children pay the bill when it comes time to balance the books?

[ July 11, 2003, 17:41: Message edited by: Thermodyne ]