| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| VDH: The Wars for the West |
| 2004-05-08 |
| Can we stop for a moment, take a deep breath, and remember the hysteria of the last three yearsâand then learn something from it? What did we do to deserve September 11? Cannot we provide a Marshall Plan for the Middle East? Who let our guard downâwho became paranoid and passed the Patriot Act? Shouldnât we at least listen to what bin Laden is saying? Why kill innocent civilians in Afghanistan? The British and Russians failed and so will we. The peaks are too high; the Northern Alliance is a sham. We canât fight during Ramadan. There are too few troops. After four weeks, letâs face it: we are in a Vietnam quagmire. Who let bin Laden and Mullah Omar escape? Consensual government will never work with these people. We murdered tens of thousands of innocent Afghans. The country is no better off than before. Canât we get NATO or the UN into Kabul? Are our air-dropped food packages deliberately made to look like cluster bombsâand laced as well with fatty peanut-butter and jelly? Who are these neocons? Wasnât the invasion cooked-up years ago for the Likud party? Donât preempt or be unilateral in Iraqâbut who screwed up in not preempting before 9-11? If we strike Saddam Hussein there will be millions of refugees. Thousands of Americans will die. Moderate governments will fall. We will kill millions of Iraqis. The oil fields will go up in smoke. We want only cheap gasâwe will cause gas to skyrocket if we go in. Pay the poor Turksâdonât be blackmailed by them. There are far too few troops. It will be a bloodbathâit was a bullying walkover. Our troops will be gassed; where is the gas? The sandstorm has ruined our momentum; we are in a quagmire. We will lose 3,000 troops taking Baghdad. The coalition is a sham; donât insult Bulgaria. We protected oil ministries while they looted 180,000 precious objects in the museum. Why did he strut on the aircraft carrier? Why canât we find Saddamâwhy humiliate him with a dental exam? Was it really necessary to show the corpses of his sons? Why were they embalmed? Why isnât there more electric power? Be careful not to antagonize Sadrâwho let Sadr get out of control? We are losing Afghanistan while we fight in Iraq. Rid the country of the Baathists; be careful in disbanding the Iraqi army. The Shiites are our friendsâthe Shiites are fanatics. Stay loyal to the Kurds; the Kurds are grasping troublemakers. More troops are needed. We need more Iraqis on the street or more of the UN or soldiers from Muslim countries or NATO to the rescue. Do we remember the revolving door of hysterical critics who have periodically weighed inâa Noam Chomsky, Michael Moore, Norman Mailer, Alice Walker, Barbara Streisand, Al Franken, Jessica Lange, Dixie Chicks, or Tim Robbins? Remember Scott Ritter, those forgettable congressmen who went to prewar Baghdad, and all the assorted Europeans who employed Nazi metaphors to demonize the invasion of Iraq? All of them did their small part to convince us that we were either crazy or immoral for taking out a mass murderer. We have been fighting two wars all along. The easier one was against the fascists in the Middle East, whom we demolished in Afghanistan in less than eight weeks and routed in Iraq in threeâwhile rounding them up worldwide and preventing another 9-11 attack here at home. But the other challenge? Now that has been nearly impossible to win. For here in the West we are split into two widely divergent groups who disagree about almost everything that has transpired since September 11, a cataclysmic event that apparently exposed a widening fault line. On the one side are those who believe in Western exceptionalism, the unique menu of individual freedom, personal liberty, consensual government, capitalism, rationalism, free markets, religious tolerance and self-critique. These believe that Western liberalism historically has been the only hope for mankind, inasmuch as it is an evolving concept that allows criticism and change, and incorporates widely divergent religions and races under its singular cultural aegis. Western societies are multiracial, not multicultural as a Rwanda or Iraq, and thus offer divergent peoples the common ground of shared values within the now much maligned nation state. The West is, of course, not perfect; but its sins are those of mankind, of which it seeks to ameliorate through constant moral questioning. For those who embrace these values, our miracle of security, affluence, and freedom is entirely logical, and of course allows people a level of decency and civility not found elsewhere in the worldâwhether in the commonplace that means water that doesnât make you sick, toilet paper in public restrooms, cars that halt at stop signs, and lines that queue up rather than mobs that rush, or in the exalted sense a Bill of Rights, media that are free, and officials who are accountable. This classically liberal vision is always under assault on the left by utopian totalitarians, devils who demand coercive government powers to force us to be angels, and on the right by autocratic romantics who believe in the superiority of a pure religion, race, or nationality. Thus we must defend the promise of the West and its manifestation in America almost constantly. Indeed, it seems to me in these trying times that the greater sin is for thinking people to remain silent and allow the idea of America to be slurred without retort than it is for the ignorant to so breezily condemn it. We made no claims that we were perfect, only far better than the alternative and thus had the moral obligation and indeed the power and skill to defeat our enemies and preserve our culture. On the other hand in this great divide at home are civilizationâs discontents. Perhaps it is the comfort of Western liberality, affluence, and leisure that has made them so smug, guilt-ridden and hypercritical, inasmuch as so many are so upscale. Or maybe it is a sincere belief that American society is inherently exploitive and believes only in an equality of opportunity rather than their own far more important equality of results. Many seem aristocratic and resent a radically egalitarian popular culture that caters to those well outside the university, sophisticated media, or the general intelligentsia. After all, America pays a lot more attention to âAmerican Idolâ and an array of grasping wannabees on âThe Apprenticeâ than to Guggenheim-prize winners, university-press poets, and independent film-makers. Those who are very skeptical of what America is about seem very unlikely to go to NASCAR, listen to talk radio, join Rotary, or own a plumbing supply business. For the last three years these most influential Americans among the intellentsia have argued that the United States either should not, or could not, retaliate against our enemies. We lacked both the power and a clear sense of moral right to take the âlawâ into our own hands and move unilaterally. And so every step of the way, in almost every 24-hour news cycle, we have seen a litany of criticisms about our ability or right to take action. Such fury has been deductiveâpreconceived distrust of the United States always looking for and finding yet another proof that we are either wrong or weak. If the former group of defenders of the West accepts the tragic view of mankindâwe are all flawed and thus seek to craft a civilization that can ameliorate our more glaring sins in the brief time allotted to us on earthâthe latter is surely therapeutic: give us enough money, education, or power and we can create a perfect person who will worship reason rather than a mere religious totem, and thus soon make the world a perfectly fair and equitable place. For some, the pantheon is a Churchill, C.S. Lewis, or Tolkien, for others Michel Foucault and Edward Said. So now we come to the earthquake of Iraq, and the divide has become a gaping abyss. Yes, there is real controversy over troop levels, the mission and purpose of our stay, and the costs of reconstructing Iraq. But behind the conundrum rest very, very different views of what the West and indeed the world should be. This fight for the future of Iraq is turning out to be for more than a referendum on democracy in the Middle East, but rather a trial of our own culture here at home. |
| Posted by:tipper |
| #37 VDH: the new Reverend Moon. That wipe is defending the $150,000,000,000 squandered on the Iraq bill-of-goods. That makes him a F%&$ing idiot, just like his human doormat defenders. Solution: a hardline Congress, that resists oil-patch idiocy and seizes the Middle East oil fields. |
| Posted by: Man Bites Dog TROLL 2004-05-08 10:58:29 AM |
| #36 I can answer one questioned asked. Who are the neocons? They're Joooooooooooooooooooooooooooooos |
| Posted by: Gentile 2004-05-08 10:24:31 AM |
| #35 I can answer one questioned asked. Who are the neocons? They're Joooooooooooooooooooooooooooooos |
| Posted by: Gentile 2004-05-08 10:24:31 AM |
| #34 You would only want to take the SA oil fields if you really wanted to bring things to a head. It's just not our national psyche to do it. A blockade though...? Would the world boycot US oil production from these fields (China, France, Russia?) Those guys would sell their mothers for a profit! Would just stopping production from SA fields be a positive in the WoT. Was ExPres. Jimmy Carter correct that perhaps we should put on another sweater? I still think that a major defunding of Arab jihadies has to happen and that will need an answer to the petrol $. |
| Posted by: Lucky 2004-05-08 9:47:50 PM |
| #33 Jen, seizing the Gulf oil fields would be straight forward. They are not that big a geographic area. BTW Zenster started out a troll but seems to be getting converted. He's also a pompous ass! But he does seem to have taken my advice and bought a dictionary. Now all he has to do is understand that when you put words together they have to mean something as a whole. |
| Posted by: Phil B 2004-05-08 8:27:36 PM |
| #32 gotta have better bait when trolling, asshat, MSD |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-05-08 7:19:07 PM |
| #31 I wonder? http://www.uoif-online.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=XForum&file=viewthread&tid=3770 |
| Posted by: Man Bites Dog 2004-05-08 7:08:54 PM |
| #30 Zenster> Mmmm, tzatziki... :-) Frank G> No harm done -- you've always been one of the most reasonable posters of this forum, and everyone can slip occasionally. As for idiotarian, I guess it's more that he doesn't *care* about what was said, when he gets the opportunity to insult instead. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2004-05-08 6:32:46 PM |
| #29 by the way - I Paypalled Fred (who was incapacitated) $50 for rantwidth...how much did you pay, loinjemmings@freelivrs.net? |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-05-08 6:32:13 PM |
| #28 Idiotarian - nobody here disagrees with Hanson. |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-05-08 6:07:18 PM |
| #27 Kiss your ass? No, thank you. If Zenster wants to chat with his like-minded pals, let him do it somewhere else or he should pay Fred a nice contribution for taking up his bandwidth with his inanity. This thread should be about Victor Davis Hanson's very insightful views on the war we're currently fighting. |
| Posted by: Idiotarian Police 2004-05-08 6:02:28 PM |
| #26 Ip: the quote I misunderstood was: "Yes, our culture is on trial to see if we are determined in assuring proliferation of a morally superior model for government" He meant democracy as a morally superior model - I was 180° off on my initial take. You don't see that on rereading? Idiotarian lovefest? Kiss my ass... |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-05-08 5:57:40 PM |
| #25 pro·lif·er·ate v. pro·lif·er·at·ed, pro·lif·er·at·ing, pro·lif·er·ates v. intr.: To grow or multiply by rapidly producing new tissue, parts, cells, or offspring. To increase or spread at a rapid rate: fears that nuclear weapons might proliferate. v. tr.: To cause to grow or increase rapidly. --------------------- Any negative connotations borne by the word "proliferation" arise from its colloquial usage and not from some inherent secondary meaning. I rather enjoy thinking that proliferation of democracy is one of the finest ways to prevent further illicit spread of nuclear technology. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2004-05-08 5:49:17 PM |
| #24 Pardon me but we're not here to have a idiotarian lovefest. Don't you know there's a war on? Thank God VDH doesn't forget it. I guess that's why he consults with the President. |
| Posted by: Idiotarian Police 2004-05-08 5:47:58 PM |
| #23 Aris Katsaris, thank you very much for carefully reading my words. I'm one of those dangerous individuals who uses polysyllables with incautious abandon, so I'm sort of used to being misinterpreted. Still, it's nice to know someone is paying (positive) attention. I've already witnessed similar attacks upon yourself here and will do my best to protest them when they come to my notice. (I shall think of you whilst spooning homemade tzatziki sauce over my gyros this evening.) Frank G., your gracious apology is cheerfully accepted. I was admittedly rather mystified by your objections. I will trust that we now agree on this matter. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2004-05-08 5:38:23 PM |
| #22 re-reading, I stand corrected, apologies Z and AK |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-05-08 5:24:14 PM |
| #21 4doo> "99.99% of English speakers wouldn't do" Unless they were intentionally using it as a parallel? Sorry, but the rabid attack that Zenster has just experienced for something he never said by people that did not even bother to read his words reminds me all too well of the rabid attacks I've often experienced here for things I never said by people who did not even bother to read my words. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2004-05-08 5:16:46 PM |
| #20 Can the stalker troll be banned? |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2004-05-08 5:11:06 PM |
| #19 "proliferation of a morally superior model for government" No, Aris, but using the word "proliferation" to describe the spead of democracy is awkward and odd. 99.99% of English speakers wouldn't do it. Maybe Zen's foreign! But he's still focused on nukes if he's using the "p" word. |
| Posted by: Zenster4doo 2004-05-08 5:08:03 PM |
| #18 How're those stadiums coming along, Aris? |
| Posted by: Raj 2004-05-08 5:06:23 PM |
| #17 Am I the only one who translated Zenster's comment about a morally superior form of government as a reference to western democracy? |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2004-05-08 5:00:33 PM |
| #16 Zen, I don't understand the personal thang you and Jen have had going, and I sometimes nod in ageement with some of your points, but "a morally superior model for government" is asinine on its face and disgusting in its implications. Frank G, an obsessive compulsive personality disorder or miscalculated dosage are the only explanations I can tender for the continuous torrent of lies and filth being spewed by my star detractor. In order to stop consuming precious bandwidth at this site, I have resolved to avoid any further interaction as it only seems to encourage deep sea fishing from beneath a well known bridge. Sadly, free speech appears to be a foreign concept for some types. As to democracy being a "morally superior model for government," I have begun to believe that democracy (in the form of elected representation) is a fundamental human right. There is a distinct lack of validity to theocracy that essentially mandates free people to eradicate it. Any amalgam of church and state is inherently tainted by preferentiality and intrinsic repression of minority views. If only by comparison, democracy is certainly morally superior to any existing theocracy. That was the essential gist of my statement. Does this clear things up? If not, please feel free to expand upon your objections. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2004-05-08 4:58:36 PM |
| #15 #14 Frank G, its very simple, z is a pimple on the backside of humanity; and sometimes you must interrupt the important work we adults are doing, and reach around, and POP IT!. He's the kind of isolated, suicide-watch, psychotic, loser-teen that Madeleine Albright would like to wrap her arms around, just to restore his self esteem. If she only knew about him! Oh! the humanity. |
| Posted by: Comment Top 2004-05-08 4:30:45 PM |
| #14 Zen, I don't understand the personal thang you and Jen have had going, and I sometimes nod in ageement with some of your points, but "a morally superior model for government" is asinine on its face and disgusting in its implications. I'll take Sharia when I'm dead, and there'll be dead "true believers" scattered all around me. I owe my children that much. I think Islam doesn't really want to awaken the dragon that will consume them - armed and willingly suicidal 'Merkins would turn Islam to the "extinct" history pages, and deservedly so. |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-05-08 3:33:41 PM |
| #13 Harpos on the assault. |
| Posted by: fury two 2004-05-08 3:20:07 PM |
| #12 Hey Zenster, you seem to know a lot about nihilistic suicide, I'll give you that. So, tell you what, strap on a suicide belt and we'll all chip in on plane fare to Riyadh. What do you say? On the way you can contemplate the determining of "assuring a morally superior model for government", and tell us if its contained in that belt. |
| Posted by: Comment Top 2004-05-08 2:50:54 PM |
| #11 Dave D., you mistake my intent. I too was questioning the ostensible validity of apologist and appeasment oriented hysteria. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2004-05-08 2:47:53 PM |
| #10 "Eff all if I have the time or inclination to catagorically go through this wad of drivel." Well, if you'd just taken the time to calmly read that "wad of drivel" through to the end, you'd have figured out that the cluster of statements you took issue with were not VDH speaking for himself: they were him parodying the Leftist voices of what he rightly calls "the hysteria of the last three years"-- and with which he most emphatically disagrees. VDH's point is that we're not only in a fight to the death against Islamofascism abroad, but in a fight against an ideology of failure and weakness here at home, as well. Frankly, to me, that's the bigger of the two wars. And it, too, will be a fight to the death-- maybe not in our lifetimes, but sooner or later. |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2004-05-08 2:12:47 PM |
| #9 "...our culture is on trial to see if we are determined in assuring proliferation of a morally superior model for government. Permitting Arab ascendancy is just plain suicide and nothing else." Zipper, you are such a salad for brains cretin. It was you Liberals' "culture of apology and feeling" that got us 9/11 and this war and that made "Arab ascendancy" (and I'm still not sure what you mean by this and I'll bet you aren't either) even in our own country possible. |
| Posted by: Jen 2004-05-08 1:42:16 PM |
| #8 Shouldnât we at least listen to what bin Laden is saying? Not allowing the utterances of mass murdering fanatics to distract you from killing them first is merely prudent policy. Are our air-dropped food packages deliberately made to look like cluster bombsâand laced as well with fatty peanut-butter and jelly? Eeeew! Fatty snacks, cholesterol bombs! [flutters hands helplessly] We will kill millions of Iraqis. The oil fields will go up in smoke. Hasn't happened yet. Eff all if I have the time or inclination to catagorically go through this wad of drivel. This fight for the future of Iraq is turning out to be for more than a referendum on democracy in the Middle East, but rather a trial of our own culture here at home. Yes, our culture is on trial to see if we are determined in assuring proliferation of a morally superior model for government. Permitting Arab ascendancy is just plain suicide and nothing else. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2004-05-08 1:36:52 PM |
| #7 I think that Man Bites Dog is an unemployed Air America DJ. |
| Posted by: RWV 2004-05-08 12:46:26 PM |
| #6 I'm sure whatever ManSucksDog thinks is a "hardline Congress" is a hoot and a half! |
| Posted by: Jen 2004-05-08 12:42:54 PM |
| #5 And via a "hardline" Congress, no less. Wotta 'Tard Troll. |
| Posted by: .com 2004-05-08 12:17:38 PM |
| #4 You got it, Dotcom! Only a mental midget would have the reckless lunacy to deem VDH a "f*cking idiot." The WOT="oil-patch idiocy" and yet Genius here recommends "seizing the ME oil fields...!" Just how would you do that, Einstein? A full scale invasion that made Gulf War I look like a scouting expedition? |
| Posted by: Jen 2004-05-08 12:14:04 PM |
| #3 Troll Sucks Dog - Beating the DIMmi drum - and his miniscule meat. |
| Posted by: .com 2004-05-08 11:05:40 AM |
| #2 [Troll droppings deleted] |
| Posted by: Man Bites Dog TROLL 2004-05-08 10:58:29 AM |
| #1 He's so right. I have noticed however that there is a fracture in the left, v/s a uniting among the right. The lefty people I sit with in the park can be easily described by this, "Perhaps it is the comfort of Western liberality, affluence, and leisure that has made them so smug, guilt-ridden and hypercritical, inasmuch as so many are so upscale. Or maybe it is a sincere belief that American society is inherently exploitive and believes only in an equality of opportunity rather than their own far more important equality of results. But within that description is a fracture that those on the left are being forced to confront. Those who belong to the church of, "If I constantly point out what is wrong with America, then I am doing something about the homelessness that I see and don't like." These people are followers, they don't want to act, they just want to complain about the fact that those who do act aren't perfect. They feel their complaining absolves them of the need to act. But the others who wanted "equity of results" are beginning to realize that calling Bush, "Hitler" will not achieve them and are now realizing that all their party seems to offer is blame. These people are beginning to get disgusted with those who defend the Clintons no matter how low they sink and want to offer excuses for genocide. They still want the utopia of socialism, but are alarmed by the hate and blame that their "compatriots" are espousing. Meanwhile, the right begins to unite under the understanding that our freedom and security is threatened ..and we must preserve it at all cost. |
| Posted by: Anny Emous 2004-05-08 10:15:25 AM |