Before proceeding, it may be useful to read these lyrics. They are very relevant to the discussion. And this post was started at 5AM courtesy of my struggle now to get adjusted back to the Central Time Zone... Which is probably the most challenging part of going to the other side of the world for a week...
And by the way, Happy Easter !!! He is risen indeed !!!
And by the way, Happy Easter !!! He is risen indeed !!!
Thankfully I finally noticed that my FB friend Shawn spells his name differently than our Sean... Well Shawn posted the following on FB. (not sure if you will all be able to see it, depends if it is set to public???)
"On Fox and Friends this morning, this happened:My responses were like this...
I'm interested in knowing if this is a common sentiment on the right, and why...any thoughts?" Shawn
- Fox host: Dropping MOAB is "what freedom looks like, that's the red, white, and blue."
- Geraldo: It's one of my favorite things to watch. (TP Link has actual video)
" I am curious what peace loving liberals would choose to do differently? The same people who march because male female equality is not perfect in America seem to have no problem turning a blind eye to the women of Afghanistan who were kept out of school, sold as child brides, killed, etc. It seems liberals would prefer that we pull all of our troops back to US and let others fend for themselves. I believe differently. (see link) And ever since lit my first firecracker... I have loved blowing things up. Especially if it helps protect powerless people from bullies. :-) G2A Protector of the Small" G2A
"When Dennis Quaid blew up the alien space ship in Independence Day, Did you cheer or ponder stoically the loss of the alien lives? When your team makes a good play, do you cheer or ponder the hurt feelings of the other players / fans? In this case the USA used a new tool effectively to end the lives of violent snakes who lived in the tunnels and came out to harm innocent people. I think some cheering is okay..." G2A
Now the commenters there are a bit left of me so in summary, they replied with these types of notes:
- Where was the USA pre-9/11 when lives were being lost?
- Lives were lost during explosion, which is bad. People should be more solemn.
- Independence Day was a movie, get real. "I love the smell of nepalm in the morning"...
- We should focus on the bullies and down trodden here.
- My demonizing the liberals is not contributing to solutions
After looking at the actual video, reviewing the google results and the FB comments... Here are my thoughts...
- The Gerald and host comments were related to their playing an excellent Toby Keith song along with the clip.
- Based on the google search for Geraldo and MOAB, I think it is the liberals who are working to blow this way out of proportion.
So what do you think about the MOAB drop and resultant cheering? Here are some more relevant links
50 comments:
I think it quite telling that the USA today graphic comparing MOAB with the Hiroshima A-bomb. MOAB is 3 times the size (their obvious point), and then they caption them with MOAB at 19 tons of explosive force and "Fat Boy" at 15 tons. Do you see the math error? Fat Boy was 15 KILOtons. And the great but admittedly grisly advantage of MOAB is that it lethally reaches into every tunnel.
I don't take joy in it, but there is a certain satisfaction in shooting rabid rats.
HSW MOAB
DM MOAB
MOAB vs Nukes
Either you misread or they had a major typo... The A bomb was 16 to 20 KILO Tons... ~18,000 tons vs 11 tons... MOAB is big but it is tiny compared to the nukes.
"The MOAB, which contains over 8,000 pounds of an Australian explosive called H6 that’s typically used underwater, is powerful: It has an explosion equivalent to 11 tons of TNT. In comparison, “Little Boy,” the uranium atomic bomb that the U.S. military dropped on Hiroshima in August 1945, had the explosive power of about 16 kilotons — or 16,000 tons — of TNT. “Fat Man,” the bomb dropped on Nagasaki three days later, had an explosiveness of about 20,000 tons (or 20 kilotons). Units are key here; the level of damage caused by the MOAB versus nuclear weapons differs by a factor of 1,000."
Based on the DM link above, it does sound like a very violent and appropriate end for a violent group of people.
Considering how they choose to treat women and innocents... I think it seems an appropriate end for them...
I am curious what peace loving liberals would choose to do differently?
This is the question people ask who, faced with a complex situation, feel an overwhelming urge to "do something". The something done may or may not help with the situation, but when challenged about that, the reflexive response is, "Well what something would you do?"
That's a way of projecting the "do something" urge on others, but I don't know that it in any well helps us understand the issues involved.
I have been reading a lot of history, lately, and one of the things I have been struck by is how many catastrophic mistakes have been made by people who feel compelled by an urge to do something. An archduke and his wife are assassinated in Sarajevo. We need to do something. American ships are attacked in the Gulf of Tonkin. We need to do something. Terrorists attack the World Trade Center. Surely we need to do something. All of these historical events led to catastrophic errors of judgment. And just about the only defense those who made them have in hindsight is a rhetorical question, "What would you have done differently?"
--Hiram
Hiram, I really like your thinking. The ultimate judgement of history, of course, will be to decide if the "something" was the appropriate solution to the original problem. I think killing those who wage barbarian wars against us and against their own people reasonably justifies doing so with expediency and dispatch. That is not true in all cases, and I agree that the urge to "do something" is too often followed by actually doing it. For example, all this effort to "stop climate change"... :->
John, the USA Today graphic either was a massive typo, a clear display of innumeracy, or a deliberate attempt to deceive; take your pick. "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."
Hiram,
I see things differently... I see "doing nothing" as "doing something".
- to not retaliate after 9/11 would have had consequences
- to not invade IRAQ would have had consequences
So when I ask what liberals would have done differently? "I would have done nothing" is an acceptable answer. Then we can discuss the possible consequences of that chosen path.
For instance, Clinton and Bush did not attack the Al Qaeda training ground in Afghanistan prior to 9/11. Did that choice result in the falling of the Twin Towers and the loss of thousands of US lives? Is that the kind of disaster that "doing something" may have avoided?
If we had "done nothing" in Afghanistan in 2003 or last week, and the Al Qaeda operatives had stayed alive and operational. How many innocents would have died?
The Liberals love to explain how bad "doing something" is... But rarely do they want to take responsibility for "doing nothing". Or offer better solutions.
Of course the peace lovers often do seem to have a plan... Just close our eyes and hope that the bad folks will become peaceful and supportive of human rights before too many innocents die.
I always wonder what those folks do when they see someone being raped, assaulted and/or robbed. I am guessing that they just walk by because they are against fighting back against thugs and criminals.
Jerry,
Such distrust. Given the number of oopses I make each day, I will give them the benefit of the doubt. Besides they have fixed it now.
USA Today MOAB
News Busters
. I think killing those who wage barbarian wars against us and against their own people reasonably justifies doing so with expediency and dispatch.
Are you arguing reasonably justified killing is the best policy? It seems to me that while we have engaged in a lot of killing, some of it reasonably justifiable, some of it not, that we are dealing with a much more extensive threat now than what we were faced with before 9-11. I don't think there is any doubt that Osama Bin Laden, were he still alive, would have been pleased with what is happening today. Part of what terrorism does is turn benign values like reasonableness and justfification against those who follow them and employ them.
"Of course the peace lovers often do seem to have a plan"
What is the terrorist plan? Apart from provoking displays of force that are irrelevant to the demands of the real threat that face us?
--Hiram
What would the consequences of not invading Iraq have been?
HIram asks the right question. Terrorism is not intended as a military strategy, or even a propaganda victory-- spreading "terror" among the "enemy" population. It's true objective is to force the enemy government to become so disproportionately repressive for the sake of security that the citizens resent the security more than desire it.
The best example is the TSA. Remember the shoe bomber? He actually got on the plane! Since then billions of shoes have been checked, at great cost and (for some of us) great pain and certainly inconvenience, and not another has been found. Remember the shampoo bombers? They actually got on the plane! Since then we cannot take any long trips because our toiletries run out, not to mention fitting them in a 1-qt. bag. Remember the underwear bomber? He actually got on the plane! Since then millions of crotches have been groped and photographed, and we have never caught another. One can only imagine what new atrocity our own government will commit to make us "safer" without making us any safer.
For all his talk about women's rights in Afghanistan, John sure doesn't talk about what has happened to women's rights in Iraq since we "did something".
Sean,
Consequences of not invading Iraq... We will never know, however since there were 3ish options back then:
1. Discontinue No Fly Zones: let Saddam kill all "rebels", start building up military again, more threats, etc
2. Maintain No Fly Zone Indefinitely over concerns of our Middle east partners
3. Invade and remove Saddam
So which rabbit hole would you like to go down with me? We kind of see what is happening in Syria when we do not invade and remove a Dictator.
Hiram and Jerry,
I took 7 flights over an 8 day period and felt perfectly safe every time.
And I had no problems with liquids, slipping off my shoes, and never did any one grab my crotch... Though a cute Korean TSA lady did wave a metal detector wand over me once... And if one is going on a long trip, usually they will be checking a bag.
Where do you guys get these concerns?
Sean,
Being a Democracy does mean that the people get to choose the laws, for better or worse... And yes there were benefits to having Saddam in power... That is unless you disagreed with him.
So what women's right in particular are you concerned about?
Wiki Iraqi Women's Rights
HRW Strengthen Domestic Protections
Kurdistan Region
Dude, I gave you an answer on your 3 scenarios years ago. And not surprisingly, I didn't pick one of your three options.
It's fascinating that you lecture us on thinking about the consequences of our choices, but you don't seem capable of that sort of self-reflection yourself.
"We kind of see what is happening in Syria when we do not invade and remove a Dictator."
So you think the Iraqi experience speaks positively of our ability to remove dictators and create a functioning society in their place?
Women's rights in general. Ability to walk around at all times of day, without headscarves. Ability to hold a job. Status under civil law. While as you point out Kurdistan is somewhat ahead of the rest of the country, the Shia-controlled parts of Iraq have stepped back significantly since the U.S. invasion.
What again was your option 4?
Removing violent Dictators is the often the right thing to do. What happens afterwards is up to the free people.
As for Assad, I am just pointing out that doing nothing also can be problematic.
You are correct that women do have different roles and rules in Shiite society. Do you want them to come to the USA and dictate how are social structure works?
This is a fascinating presentation. Even more reasons for the USA to stay closely engaged in Iraq's revival.
Dropping enormous bombs or making missile strikes are not things I am inclined to cheer about.
Laurie, I agree with you. Unfortunately there are still evil people in the world and, as much as we may wish it, love does not conquer all. It still takes two sides to make a peace and only one side to make a war. And making war, as well as making whatever peace that follows, are messy things.
"Removing violent Dictators is the often the right thing to do. What happens afterwards is up to the free people."
The problem with that approach is that it assumes democracy just happens, and you can take folks who have never known anything like democracy and have them just do it.
"You are correct that women do have different roles and rules in Shiite society. Do you want them to come to the USA and dictate how are social structure works?"
Huh?
The USA spent years helping Iraq to learn until Obama pulled us out.
That should have said... "Do you want them to come to the USA and dictate how our social structure works?"
My point being whether women can wear a bikini or veil is up to their society. Our current sense of morality and roles is just that... Ours... I don't deem to know what is ideal.
The key points to me are:
- can girls go to school
- pursue a fulfilling life
- etc
Iraq may not be perfect, however they are working it out based on their values and beliefs. Which of course is what a democracy does.
"Iraq may not be perfect, however they are working it out based on their values and beliefs. Which of course is what a democracy does."
So now you're just being incoherent. One of the reasons you stated for supporting intervention in Afghanistan was to be sensitive to the plight of women there. But now you're saying whatever the locals decide on that point is OK, even if it's worse than before -- as has proven to be the case in Iraq.
Let's think about this in a relative comparison...
Taliban Treatment of Women
Amnesty Women in Afghanistan
And was the Taliban in any way an elected party?
PBS Taliban vs Post Taliban
So what do you see as being incoherent?
Do you truly believe that modern day Iraq is in any way similar to Afghanistan under Taliban rule?
Also, so are saying we should set up a replacement ruthless murdering dictator who will impose Sean's will upon the people of Iraq with bombs, guns, torture?
"But now you're saying whatever the locals decide on that point is OK, even if it's worse than before -- as has proven to be the case in Iraq."
What I'm saying is that if we're going to sacrifice American soldiers to a cause where we list human rights as one of the reasons we're doing it, we ought to come out of it on the back end with the human rights we were presumably going in to defend and enhance. It's not OK to subjugate women even if there's a democratic veneer to the process.
So it does seem you want to force this society to live by your standards, even if they do not believe in them?
I guess I want them to be free... Remember the Star Trek Prime Directive. This link is in interesting discussion of it and ethics.
No, John, I don't think you can say that. ISIS, Syria, and everybody else is "free" right now to do what they will. To some degree, we would certainly prefer that they do what WE think they should be doing, instead. Where that discrepancy gets big enough-- say where they start killing us or our friends-- then we try to "nation build" and force them to live something closer to our ideals. That seems to be easier to say than to do, partly for Sean's reason that a free society is completely foreign to many peoples.
Jerry,
Sean and I were focused mostly on Iraq and Afghanistan (ie free democratic countries), not sure how you jumped to Syria and ISIS? Neither of which has self rule by the people at this time.
"Put a Boot in Your Ass" is pretty much the opposite of the Prime Directive. It feels like you're just making stuff up as you go along here.
OK, let us take Iraq and Afghanistan, then. Were they "free democratic" countries before we stomped all over them? Are they now, assuming responsibility for all their inhabitants, behaving now as we wish them to, or did we need to MOAB some of them? Would they be anything close to "free democratic" (and I'm not sure that is a good definition of them even today, or of the most desirable state) countries today had we not first toppled the un-free state they were long accustomed to?
"You broke it, you bought it" seems like a good adage, but it's almost impossible to put Humpty together again, especially if you want him to be something vastly different then he was.
Sean,
I am not sure what you are looking for?
Things were absolutely terrible for women and other innocents in Afghanistan in 2002.
Things were bad for women and other innocents in Iraq in 2002.
"The People" in neither country had any freedom to rule themselves or improve things. Both had violent dictators / groups making up the rules.
Now they both have been given a chance to improve their situation. We can help to some extent, but what they choose to do with the opportunity is up to them.
Kind of like a drug addict who had someone that cared enough to stage an intervention and pay for treatment. Ultimately their future is up to them, all we can do is offer them an opportunity.
Based on your logic people should never try to help others, because they may not change or live up to our expectations. That sounds very "not Liberal", I am surprised.
As for "you broke it"... These countries under the rule of Saddam (post Kuwait invasion) and the Taliban were very very broken. All the USA did was try to stop the destruction and give them a chance to rebuild.
And long ago the Ottoman empire broke itself by siding with the wrong side during WWI...
Oh, come on. We didn't go into either place to improve the lot of women or give them American-style government (or if we did it was a mistake). We went into Afghanistan because a virulent strain of Islam was plotting direct attacks against us from there, and were in control of the government, making them a terrorist state. We went into Iraq the first time because Saddam attacked and attempted to subjugate a neighboring country, and a second time because his STATED and PROVEN possession of WMDs threatened us and the rest of the region, at minimum, as well as his own citizens.
I suppose under the BIBI doctrine, we had an obligation to stand up some sort of interim government, and under the imperative of not paying for the same ground twice it should be a government we "like" and can reasonably function. But again, that is all in the interest of the US. If we had a "freely elected" Afghan government that denied terrorists any foothold yet did not let girls go to school, what business is it of ours?
"Based on your logic people should never try to help others, because they may not change or live up to our expectations. That sounds very "not Liberal", I am surprised."
From a public policy perspective, there's a very real difference between helping your own citizens and the citizens of other countries. Especially when you are asking your own citizens to potentially sacrifice their lives to do so.
The reality is that our interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan had very little to do with human rights. If we were really so concerned about human rights, there are several situations in sub-Saharan Africa that could have used thousands of American troops over the last two decades. So maybe we should stop using that fig leaf as a justification for our overseas adventuring. Or we need to push those countries that we help much harder to live up to the promises that we made to our citizens when we put our soldiers' lives on the line.
If you believe in the "Prime Directive", then you let the Syrian civil war play out, don't you? The reality is that all Donald Trump accomplished with his missile strike was winning a news cycle. The airfield that he struck was operational the next day. Bombing the Assad government went against his pre-existing policy of backing the Assad government as the most effective partner there to fight ISIS. And let's not also forget that while the pictures of the gassed Syrian children were awful, the pictures we don't see from Syria are far worse. The networks can't show us the pictures of the children who have limbs blown off due to mortar fire and other conventional weapons. "Putting a Boot Up Their Ass" may feel good for a moment, but it isn't a strategy.
And again, I like Sean's observation of what we can reasonably expect from peoples who have only known monarchies or dictators?
The Two Requirements for Intervention:
1. There is a US security or economic issue in the region.
2. There are people who can be helped by the intervention.
We don't intervene in Africa because so far it has not met rule 1.
We intervened and are still helping in both Afghanistan and Iraq because they met both Requirement 1 & 2.
Now as for policy and where people live...
If the quality of life of America's poor is an 6 on a 10 point scale... (ie food, safe, personal freedoms, free education, free healthcare, etc)
And the quality of life in Afghanistan is a 1 on a 10 point scale... (ie none of the above)
Personally I think it more important to help care for the humans in the foreign country. We are doing plenty for our own unfortunate, I mean they are breeding like bunny wabbits, so they can not be too stressed or in suffering... :-)
Of course the Liberal view seems to be that we should let all refugees come to the USA so they can be cared for here with tax payer dollars. Instead of helping them to stabilize and improve their own country.
Jerry,
When you see a stranger lying by the side of the road, do walk by repeating the mantra "if I help it will be a mistake... I should only get involved if it will help me personally..."?
If not, why do you think the very powerful and wealthy USA, with it's all volunteer military, helping people who are being tormented in other countries is a "mistake"?
Especially if the USA is helped if their country is stabilized...
"Of course the Liberal view seems to be that we should let all refugees come to the USA so they can be cared for here with tax payer dollars."
Let that straw man burn, baby, burn!
"I mean they are breeding like bunny wabbits"
You may find this amusing, but it's factually incorrect and pretty demeaning. But it's typical for you, so carry on.
I think the correct statement is factually correct. Fact Check 2
As for my view regarding refugees and Liberals...
After listening to Liberals for the last year stomp, accuse people of xenophobia and gnash their teeth in opposition to:
- reducing the number of refugees allowed
- improving border security
- deporting illegal workers
- etc
I think my man is pretty solid. Liberals definitely want to help the world's down trodden by inviting them to come to the USA.
As I have posted before, average family sizes among welfare families and non-welfare families are the same (and have been decreasing at a faster rate among welfare families for the last 50 years).
"Liberals definitely want to help the world's down trodden by inviting them to come to the USA."
Which explains why, under the Obama Administration, we accepted fewer Syrian refugees than Canada? Come off your ideological mountain and join us in the real world.
Sorry, but the US as a nation lacks the moral authority and resources to be everybody's good Samaritan. What if the guy by the side of the road is just a hopeless drunk? What if the guys who beat him are still standing around, will your involvement help anybody? The problem is one of a proportional response and recognizing the limits of military intervention to solve social problems. Heck, why don't we just call in the Army and Navy to bomb the Chicago city hall? Would that get freedom and opportunity and safety to the local population?
Post a Comment