July 8, 2005
Resolution
The difference between my interlocutors and I seems to be that I take a look at the situation, see a threat, recognize the nature and origin of that threat, and contend that no price is too high to pay to win. Those who are disagreeing with me take a look at the situation, don't really see a threat, blame the origin of the threat on us, and aren't willing to pay any price to win.
How many more innocents have to die before it gets into your skull that people want to kill you? Their race or geographic origin doesn't matter a damn. The fact that they want to kill you does. I love our society too much to see it sacrificed on the altar of sensitivity and moderation. I'm willing to do whatever it takes to win, and if that means doing things that I would rather not see happen, then that's what it means. Do I want people to die? No. I'd really like it if we could all play nice. It's good for people, good for business, good for society, and good for kids. But we're fighting people who like nothign better than sticking explosive devices on crowded trains. We can't play nice anymore, as the people who blew up London aren't willing to. That being the case, I think the world would be a better place with more terrorists dead than with more Londoners dead.
I am speaking with a clear conscience about defending to the death the culture that has brought more freedom, prosparity, and well-being to human history than any other from people who want to impose a tyrranical, theocratic, misogynistic, totalitarian way of life on the whole world. Do you realize who you're defending? Take that into account before you go accusing me of being "negligent".
No one seems to like me saying these things. In the past, I've needed to moderate my language to avoid needlessly offending people I care about. But about this, I don't care about how I sound. This is a matter of life and death, not just for me, but for the culture which has given me and everyone reading this the opportunities and freedoms we all enjoy. This matters to your children and their children. If I have to piss people off to make them take this seriously, than so be it. This isn't a simple police action. This conflict won't end until either our society comes crashing down around our ears or until we've killed a lot more vermin than we have already.
I often disagree with you, but I read your blog because there are very few others who approach things as thoughtfully as you do. I like how you detail your thought process. Honestly.
I certainly understand your anger, but I disagree with you on this one. The US military is currently spending hundreds of billions of dollars searching out bad guys who don't play by the rules. These insurgents deserve to die. When we find them, we incarcerate them, ideally send them to trial, and some of them will perhaps ultimately be executed.
Surely you realize that by announcing a policy of blind rage, President Bush will greatly increase the number of innocents jailed? If he was to encourage a shoot-first policy, the hands of America will, along with the terrorists, be covered with the blood of innocents.
Posted by: Nat at July 8, 2005 9:43 PMThat may be true. I'll grant that. I'm just starting to wonder if maybe that's necessary to win. Because if it is, then, well, it is. The more I think about it, the more I realize that the rules we're playing by are really new, and not particularly well broken-in. The right to a trial works well enough in a fairly closed system where people tend to play by the rules. Even as recently as the 19th century, it was common practice to declare people to be outlaws, and declaring detainees to be "unlawful combatants" is an attempt to confer this status upon them.
My question for you is simply this: if the kind of response I'm describing is what it takes to win this war, are you in or not? Because I'm in.
Posted by: ryan at July 8, 2005 11:08 PMYou are advocating crossing the line into war crimes.
Remember that Mel Gibson movie 'The Patriot' and the British general who slaughtered towns of innocents because it was the only way to get the militia men?
What's the difference between you and him?
Posted by: Nat at July 9, 2005 12:18 PMI'm not advocating killing unarmed civilians, that's what. Look at my posts. Have I ever suggested such?
Posted by: ryan at July 9, 2005 12:49 PM