Ranting to /dev/null

Yep.

True.

awful big talk for a guy sitting in his cozy home in America on the internet.... Why not sign up and be all that you can be, buddy?
Ron?? Kyle?? If you are so in favor of this war, why not go over there and fight it?

Enough of the "Join the Army" canard. If you have a political argument, with premeses and a conclusion, make your fucking argument. Otherwise, just call Ryan a bad name and go about your business.

Ryan, forgive me, but you sound like a raving lunatic. What’s more, I find your hyperbole rather conflicted given that you pointed out to us all (via the Wittenberg Door) back in undergrad that the attacks on 911 may well have been related to God’s “judgment” on America. Has your perspective changed so much since then? Or is the UK more righteous than the US? It seems to me that “damning” the moral high ground is precisely what has led these deeply “religious,” fundamentalist terrorist groups to do the things they’re doing. Our response, as both Christians and as Westerners (obviously not one in the same) cannot be so simplistic. This is a horrific day and a frightening day – particularly for those of us who had to get on a train with a gazillion other vulnerable people to go to work this morning – but this should not be a day that we accept the rules of the game as defined by our enemy.

"but this should not be a day that we accept the rules of the game as defined by our enemy"

Why fight a war if you are just going to sit back and get your ass kicked? If we don't "accept the rules of the game as defined by our enemy", then we will let our enemy defeat us. And if that's the case, there is no point in fighting. We should just let our enemy come over on our soil and fly another plane into downtown NY.

Ryan made a great point. Defense might win basketball games, but offense wins wars.

I have a son-in-law in Iraq, with his wife and 3 kids in Iatly alone they are all serving their country (mine & yours). He is a F16 pilot in the AF. I pray to God he is safe for my daughter and his children. How dare any of you put down what they believe in, what we believe in or should believe in. This is a just war. I will never get this out of my head as I sat on the phone with a friend on 9/11/01 he sat on the bridge from Jersey overlooking NYC and heard him speak the words "they have hit the 2nd tower now". Now they have hit London ( where next harmony's train). But "Tom" & his unit wakes up to these sounds and goes to sleep by them at night. How dare you compare yourselves "harmony,Mesh Nautimous". You should all be proud of the men & women who are fighting this war for you. I am afraid if it were any of you, we would not be here now.......Ryan I salute you..............

Offense is one thing, damning moral high ground and "render(ing) the godforsaken hole that is the Middle East into a single piece of slag" is quite another. It is this kind of simplistic thinking that leads us to condone the use of torture and the violation of basic human rights, even amongst our own citizenry. There is no easy answer or easy strategy in the "winning" of this war. I'm simply asking that we resist the urge to create a false dichotomy between pacifism and carnage in our response to these attacks, in our response to modern day terrorism. And on a side note, it would be interesting to think about what it means to be a Christian in the midst of all of this. Should it inform our reaction to terrorist attacks? And if so, how? Jesus certainly got his ass kicked by terrorists when he was on earth....

So who exactly are you going to kill with these bombs and tanks and guns? People who live in the middle east are people just like you and me. The kind of people who commit these acts are often middle eastern, it's true, but that doesnt mean that everyone who lives in an entire hemisphere of the earth is a criminal. The only thing bombs and tanks and soldiers do is create a new generation of people who hate the west enough to blow themselves into little pieces trying to bring it down.

As long as people keep ignorantly insisting that the native people we are killing in Iraq had ANYTHING to do with 9/11, there will be no hope of winning the war on terrorism.

One more time people: IRAQ did NOT fly planes into the World Trade Center.

This war we are fighting, despite what the president leads the gullible amongst us to believe, has very little to do with 9/11. The terrorists that are there now came after Bush turned the country into a free-for-all.

Yes, Nautimous, please stop insisting that the cheerleaders for this stupid war might actually consider fighting in it. There's no need, since the disposible people have volunteered to fight it for them.

I'm gonna just ignore "Nautimous" and his/her supporters, none of whom have the spine to put their real names down, because mesh handled their objections quite nicely. Thanks, mesh.

As to harmony's position, the Islamists are fighting a medieval war at best, if not a downright ancient, Old World war. The idea of "total war" as conceived in the 19th century onward is delightfully quaint by comparison, and rooted in the idea of nation states duking it out until one of them says uncle. That isn't what we're doing here. Bin Laden and his cronies are fighting the kind of war where the only way to win is to not only kill your enemy, but also to kill all his kids so that they don't come after you in twenty years. The Romans knew how to do this: they salted Carthage, and - surprise, surprise - a century-old conflict came to a screeching halt. Cultures that fully agreed to become part of Rome were welcomed and treated fairly and justly. Cultures that resisted were utterly destroyed. Pleasant? No. But Rome created a thousand years of prosperity for what was at the time the known world.

Sometimes evil men need to be dealt with on their own terms. The Islamists want you, you personally, as well as your whole family, to die. The only response to such an enemy is opposition at every turn, backed by violent force, and the resolve to decisively end any conflict with the deaths of one's enemies. Sometimes the only possible way to peace is victory, and sometimes victory comes at a price. I decided a while ago - and today's horrific events only confirm my resolve - that any price is worth paying.

Last time: This isn't an argument. This is a slight of hand, a distraction. Telling a person who supports a war that he must fight in it to justify his position is like telling a Christian that he must be martyred immediately, or telling a supporter of gay marriage that he must immediately go sleep with other men. You can believe in something strongly, and be justified in stating that opinion, without participating in it.

I have tremendously mixed feelings about the conflict in Iraq. Always have. I wrote an editorial nearly four years ago, warning that a military campaign to Baghdad would be protracted and costly. There is still plenty of room for debate over the connection between Saddamites and Al Qu'da, and a great need to discuss whether violence, which destroys those who use it, is the ultimate answer to the Middle East. (I think both Harmony and Ryan have valid cases to make here.)

But if you can't organize your mind well enough to confront a strategic argument, if you are so addled that you think anyone who supports a thing must join it, or if you're too angry to engage in a conversation with anything resembling human logic, then please stop talking. It's insulting, really.

Oh, and to Penny: I believe you've mistaken my comment for another. I respect your son incredibly. But, to shoot both sides fairly, appealing to the bravery of soldiers isn't anything close to an argument either.

Damn you nautikitty ( bet your are a little piece of pu--y and u need to be exterminated). We all realize 9/11 was not started by Iraq but terrorists trained there Sadam took billions of dollars and let his people starve.He deserves whatever he gets. Precautions are taken not go to in and intentionally kill the good and gentle souls of Iraq. We are there for the terrorists who thrive there. And kitty if you think anyone is disposible it is you little pu--y ass piece of -hit, is shows in your writings.

Classy. I disagreed with you before, but now that you've so eloquently stated your arguement, I can't help but agree with you!

Sadam? What about Osama Bin Forgotten?

I think we should all pause for a second and take note of the inherently emotional & rhetorical nature of Ryan's post. You can look all over this blog for his more rational thoughts/analysis 'bout this "war" thing.

And I think the only people who think the army folks are disposible are those on the "left" (whatever that is). Oh, rhetorically they'll talk about supporting the troops or whatever, but they're not part of the culture that supplies most of the troops, and they most definitely don't like that culture (if only because it re-elected Bush).

Anyways, its an incredibly rhetorically powerful (from a particular perspective) statement to make "if you support this war, why don't you go fight it" and I'm fascinated by its use. I mean, I think the war is necessary, but I'm not passionate about it, so I don't feel that big of a bite when I hear that argument err assertion made.

Still, I agree that we're not putting enough comprehensive thought into this "war on terrorism" or whatever it means. Historically (as in, 1000 years plus) I'm not going argue that "Islam" has been out to get the West, but I'm also not going to argue against the fact that in the last 150 years we've been meddling dangerously in Middle Eastern affairs to the point of getting us where we are now. That is meant in no way to justify the terrorist acts of the last 24 hours, its just meant for context.

So what I feel like is that we're at a crossroads of a sorts. We either do like Ryan suggests (and figure out what the heck it means to have an actual WAR against a particular culture) or go straight isolationist.

But in a way, that feels like we're letting "them" set the terms. I'd love to believe that there is some kind of middle way, that somehow Islamic culture can democratize and solve its problems of racism & oppression & civil rights violations out the wazoo. But I just dunno.

It's on this point that I side with Bush: that we haven't stayed the course long enough yet, we need to see how things are going to develop over time. So much crap thrown around just seems like political rhetoric and completely unhelpful for either determining "what is" and "what we should do". So for now I'm content to let things take their course. Maybe that's a cop-out, but hey, I'm willing to take that critique and run with it for awhile. I'm willing to be ok with being wrong for awhile to see if time will change things.

Josiah: thanks for the words of support. You're right about the "why don't you join up" argument being rhetorically effective, but so is the Michael Moore "Bush is sending your son to war, why not his?" argument. Just because it's effective doesn't mean it's not spurious. Just like being martyred isn't the only way of giving your life for someone, joining the army isn't the only way of defending your country.

As to why I haven't joined up: I wouldn't want to be defended by me, so I don't know why anyone else would want to be either. I've never been in shape, and I don't know if I'd even pass the basic physical entrance requirements, if only because I need glasses. I have, however, considered going JAG during or after law school. I may yet do so, but I've still got time to think about it.

I have never been comfortable with the President's use of the "war on terror" as a title for his neocon-influenced policy of pre-emptive war. As a public official, it is the President's responsibility to distinguish between what is considered an act of "war" and an act of "crime." I believe the acts of the terrorists of 9/11 and this morning were criminal acts, as warlike as they seemed, and they require a response of international intelligence and policing, not war. Of course, one use of "war on terror" is akin to the old "war on drugs," a metaphor rather than a literal description of reality. However, despite that use, I believe the administration's use of "war on terror" has allowed them to justify such warlike acts such as pre-emptive war and detaining terrorist suspects as if they were prisoners of war, all in the name of defeating terrorists, who are actually criminals in violation of laws, and not representatives of states involved in acts of war.

The subject of just war, as it relates to the war in Iraq, is another topic altogether. I believe the case can be made that the war in Iraq was/is justified by using just war theory. However, the rhetoric of war in response to particular terrorist criminal activities is ill-used, and can have damaging and dangerous effects.

Not an act of war? Pray, tell, what's it take? The terrorists don't think they're criminals, they call themselves mujahadeen, the holy fighters. If they think they're warriors, and if they do things which are warlike, then why isn't this a war? Just because there isn't another nation state at the other end? Please.

Granting, for the moment, that these are merely common criminals - a point I only grant for the sake of argument - what do you suggest we do? Use harsh language? These people are armed to the teeth. Are you going to do a routine traffic stop, note their outstanding warrents, and ask them nicely to come down to the station for questioning? How about serving them with a subpoena. Maybe that's a better idea. Yeah, and maybe pigs will fly out of my butt.

This isn't "pre-emptive" war. This is reactionary war, and we're really slow in reacting.

We have killed over 22,000 CIVILIANS in Iraq during this just war you speak of. I'm sorry if I do not share your blood lust.

Which puts us way behind their former master. So it's okay for them to be slaughtered in the hundreds of thousands using torture, chemical weapons, and mass executions, just because it's their dictator doing it, but accidental deaths caused while liberating those same people from tyranny, oppression, and mass graves are unjustified? Your morality must be different from mine.

"Your morality must be different from mine."

You finally said something I agree with.

Penny,
I can understand that you'd be emotional about the situation in Iraq beause you have a loved one there. I'd like to point out that no one has bashed the soldiers in Iraq, just the war itself. It is entirely possible to desire our soldier's safe return and well-being without supporting this complicated war. I point this out so that you would consider that a voice against the war is not necessarily a voice against your son-in-law.

Furthermore, the deaths of civilians in Iraq are largely due to the tactics of the terrorists. When the enemy dresses as civilians, intentionally mingles with civilians, uses mosques and schools as cover, and targets civilians themselves, civilian casualties will be high. But that civilian blood is on the heads of the terrorists.

I'm curious when Saddam killed "hundreds of thousands" of Iraqi civilians. If you are referring to the Anfal campaign of the late 80's, when Saddam's government used chemical weapons on the city of Halabja, the death toll was about 5,000 people, many of which were civilians. His reason for using this kind of force follows your line of thinking exactly -- the Kurdish people were, from Saddam's viewpoint, using "terrorist tactics" in an attempt to seize power in northern Iraq, and he viewed civian deaths much the same way as you do: incidental.

To say that he killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis is a plain fallacy to support your already weak conclusion.

CRM: You're dead wrong. Estimates of deaths caused by ruthless crackdowns on Kurds and Shi'ites after the 1991 Gulf War range from 100,000 to 230,000.

See here for tabulations.