To wit, when viewing the world through rose colored glasses one can actually see a world with no conflict. However, in reality, we know mankind is, by nature, violent.

Eureka! That’s it. I’ve been searching for an answer to the question of why a liberal American would favor a blood-thirsty animal who kills and maims in the name of a holy war over the republic founded on the principle of individual liberty, and the answer has been right there in front of me the entire time. Thanks Alden.

Jihad Envy!

The massive internal conflict of a person who pretends to pacifism, while desperately wishing he could choke the life out of anyone who sees a valid reason for a just conflict, must be immense. With the tiny shred of sanity remaining to them, they can see that taking violent action to make the point that violence solves nothing would be a bad move, so they adopt the terrorists as emotional proxies. “America had it coming!”, they cry.

Now if I could only figure out why the islamo-terrorists would prefer that America elect politicians who are pro-abortion, pro-homosexual, pro-pornography, pro-alcohol, and anti-religion.

In those instances civilians do endure some of the horrors confluent to military action – this has been true throughout history. It’s a cold, ugly fact and will continue to be so. It’s one of the reasons why we should never let loose the dogs of war lightheartedly.

Just as we endured civilian casualties in 9/11, the enemy should expect the same. In fact we should reciprocate civilian casualties in such a disproportionate manner that it would shock the conscience of even the most radical fundamentalist….think Dresden, Kobe and Osaka. Their losses should be so great and unbearable that they can no longer continue to bring the fight as the ensuing losses could not be withstood.

This idea of an antiseptic war is the pipedream of desk jockeys and politicians. Until we get the stomach of our forefathers for the violence germane to war and take this fight outside the politically correct box it has been put in by the international community we will continue to be our own worst enemy.

The real quote is: “you’re either with us or against us in the fight against terror.” President Bush said this in November of 2001

The President also said it on Sept. 20, 2001, in similar words; see Freelancer’s link and quote, above.

I thank you for being around. Can’t yet tell if you are really as inane as your attempts at political rhetoric suggest, or if you are one of us using this facade to keep us on our toes about why we believe what we do. It really doesn’t matter which, the little fizzle-grenades you toss hoping to shake our foundation serve only to bring out the bedrock truth of an issue, and that is to be commended.

And now for some analysis…

So, there’s no room for thinking about it? How about if I am partly with you, insofar as wanting to protect American civilians, but not so much with you when it comes to bombing civilians? Any room for that?

It is such a convenient argument to say that you are for protecting Americans but against killing civilians. I wonder if it would surprise you to know that pretty much EVERY AMERICAN feels the same way. But you know, protecting Americans requires more than words. Believe it or not, it often requires guns and bombs. Please, do some detailed historical research and you will discover that no military force in the history of the world ever spent as much effort in trying to avoid hitting the wrong things, and none has ever been more successful in that regard. The following is from the Presidential speech given after we assumed total control of Baghdad in May, 2003:

In the images of falling statues, we have witnessed the arrival of a new era. For a hundred years of war, culminating in the nuclear age, military technology was designed and deployed to inflict casualties on an ever-growing scale. In defeating Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, Allied forces destroyed entire cities, while enemy leaders who started the conflict were safe until the final days. Military power was used to end a regime by breaking a nation.

Today, we have the greater power to free a nation by breaking a dangerous and aggressive regime. With new tactics and precision weapons, we can achieve military objectives without directing violence against civilians. No device of man can remove the tragedy from war; yet it is a great moral advance when the guilty have far more to fear from war than the innocent.

You can dare to call such a statement a platitude, but since it is obvious that you have never worn a uniform you can’t fathom how much it means to those of us who served that our military can achieve objectives against an enemy without having to destroy a society. Never before in history has that been possible.

Pretty difficult to ferret out the good guys from the bad guys at 30,000 feet…

Again, I call upon your vast personal experience to tell us just how difficult it is to hit what you are aiming for.

The bottom line is this. President Bush declared the following on 20 September 2001:

…And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.

Exactly which words of that are you uncertain about? The good news is, thanks to the bravery and sacrifice of those who employ bombs, bullets and bodies in armed conflict, you retain the freedom to be flippant about the cost of freedom.

think you should break out your history books. Nagasaki ring a bell? Hiroshima? You think those bombs falling in Iraq or Afghanistan don’t kill women and children? Pretty difficult to ferret out the good guys from the bad guys at 30,000 feet…
GregH on October 11, 2006 at 12:04 PM

I love to hear liberals analyze military tactics. The decisions to bomb civilian populations during WWII were made in a time when millions of American soldier’s lives were in the balance. Leaders determined that saving American lives was paramount in a war of aggression that was started by the Japanese. The bombing of the civilian population was caused by the Japanese leaderships decision to place their industrial machine in the midst of the civilian population. You do remember “cause and effect” from school? Also, those were extremely different times.

We, the military, take extreme caution to minimize civilian casualties, sometimes to the extent of causing danger to our military. Yes, mistakes do happen and civilians are accidently killed but this is for from the norm. Do not bother telling me about soldiers being charged with killing civilians without just cause. These individuals are being tried and you have NO CONCEPT of what led to their actions. Unjustified as it is you do not have a clue.

GregH and his, and the U.N., are too multi-culti and elitist to address this. They love dictators but never want to live under them.

I take issue with the Rosie O’Donnels who accuse my husband of intentionally targeting and killing innocent men, women, and children. And this is exactly what I inferred from your post.

think all Americans are against the bombing of civilians. Which is why we don’t do it.

I think you should break out your history books. Nagasaki ring a bell? Hiroshima? You think those bombs falling in Iraq or Afghanistan don’t kill women and children? Pretty difficult to ferret out the good guys from the bad guys at 30,000 feet…

I think all Americans are against the bombing of civilians. Which is why we don’t do it.