|
|||||||||
Posted October 11, 2001
'Neocon'
[Regarding Scott McConnell's column of October 9, "The Push for a Wider War":]
I don't know what a "neocon" is. Since McCain has been around the block a few times, I can't imagine him being a neo-much-of-anything. He probably recognizes the duty of a free people to flush murderers, such as terrorists. McCain has sort of an elitist mentality that makes me nervous, but he's basically a good guy, I think.
The President is being advised by people who believe the best way to combat terrorism is to play into their hands: take away our personal freedom, trample on the Constitution and our right to privacy. That's always the cop's answer – only the cop and the crook have the ability to defend themselves, so we need more and more cops, and (s)he has a bigger empire and budget. Swell.
I want to track down terrorists, and those who support them, and remove them from both the gene pool and the problem domain. Every stinking one of them, wherever they live, wherever they hide. George Bush, Sr. chose to kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqi kids rather than finding and killing Saddam and his 50 closest associates. For that crime, I think daddy Bush is a war criminal, and should be sitting in The Hague.
I hope his son doesn't make the same mistake. He must find and kill bin Laden and his 50 associates. Or maybe 5000 associates. Then we need to smoke Saddam and company, and see if releasing sanctions and letting food and medicine into Iraq gives them some room to live.
I think Arafat should have been roasted a long time ago because I believe he's behind the Palistinian terrorists, but I don't know that for a fact. I'd like some candid Israeli and other intel on the subject – then roast his ass if it turns out I'm right.
If that's your definition of a wider war, let's get it on. And get it over with. But let's kill the bad guys, the leaders, not the kids who are handed a gun and sent to the front lines without any training or even ammunition, just to die in an inferno of propane.
Scott McConnell replies:
First, explaining what a neoconservative ("neocon") is would take a really long time, sort of like trying to explain "Marxist." In brief, they are former liberals or leftists, disproportionately well-educated, who abandoned the Left in the late sixties and moved rightward. If you agree with them, (as I did for many years) they are smart and wonderful; if you disagree with them (as I have come to), they are too warlike, too enthusiastic about high immigration, and exert too much influence over conservative intellectual life. I think they are a very important part of American history of the last thirty years.
As for your other points – I essentially agree, except I especially want to track down the terrorists who attacked the United States and remove them "from the gene pool." The anti-Israel terrorists are a different sort of problem – in great part driven by the injustice of the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land. They aren't crazy, at least no crazier than the Irish Republican Army; and the US should deal with them by pushing for a fair peace.
I don't think we have enough strength to kill "all the bad guys" – and we would have no international support in trying to do so. If the US tried to attack Iraq, Iran, Syria and Egypt, as some neocons are now demanding, we would soon be as isolated in the world as Israel is, and face far worse prospects than we do today.
Libya
I agree that bombings generally create resentment towards the US. But, in the case of Libya, didn't they shut up and hide under a rock, for the most part, after we bombed Gadaffi?
Eric Garris replies:
If you believe that Libya was behind the terrorist activities they were originally accused of, then the answer would be no, the Pan Am Lockerbee bombing was clearly aimed at the US. Two Libyan "agents" were tried on those charges, which took place after we bombed Libya.
On the other hand, if you believe what most analysts now contend, Libya was never involved in terrorist activities against the US, and Lockerbee was done by Iran in retaliation for our shooting down an Iranian airliner and killing all 200 or so on board. The two Lockerbee suspects ended up being cleared on most charges, and the US has quietly moved to lift sanctions from Libya since they know they were wrong about this.
Oil
I
appreciated very much Justin Raimondo's [column
of September 28,] "Kill
Em and Get Out." I think he has struck
the best balance yet between writing of our
need to respond to the outrageous attacks on
New York City and Washington, while also establishing
our need to change our foreign policy which
has created large scale animosity amongst Muslims
of the Middle East against the United States.
There is only one point in the article with which I might disagree with Mr. Raimondo. That is regarding the question of what would happen to the oil supply if the United States pulled its military out of the Middle East. I think our own history and what happened after our revolution serves as an answer. The British Empire had sought to control the trade of American colonies. After the War for independence, it was a very short time until America's most important trade partner was once more the British Empire, and this continued for several decades.
The interventionists like to paint a doomsday scenario of what would happen if the United States military lost control of the Middle East (if you want to call it control). The reality is, whoever gains control of the Middle East will want to sell the oil. One does not need a military to force producers with a product to sell to consumers with a desirable legal tender. One only needs a military to gain control of a region so that we can determine which producers and which creators of pipelines are going to get rich with a little help from their taxpayer support.
It
seems to me that our desire for control of the
Middle East makes very little economic sense.
If we lose control, those who gain control will
still find it in their best interest to produce
and sell oil. However, if we seek to continue
to make it our aim to control the world through
global hegemony then we will find growing hatred
of our oil industry as well as our nation.
America's Destiny
It is so sad that this and other un-American web sites are allowed to exist. When a nation and civilization as a whole are under attack we need to suck it up. I remember people saying during Vietnam that it wasn't our war. These coward said that if America was attacked then they would fight. Well lo and behold we have an attack on our soil. But still the cowards and the sons of cowards won't fight. It must be time for a house cleaning. Nation is call to it's destiny. America's destiny is finally rule the world. We did not ask for this duty it was thrust on us. We must not waver in our cause, no matter the cost to ourselves or the fools who would bring America to it's knees. Damn all who will not defend this nation.
Eric Garris replies:
I suggest that you read the Constitution. The whole basis for America is difference of opinion. What you are advocating is exactly what Osama bin Laden wants for the world, just a slightly different version. As a matter of fact, just change a few words in your rant and bin Laden would endorse it today.
The Enemy
You are either for the U.S. and for what it stands or against. You are against. You are, therefore, aiding and abetting the enemies of the United States. You are the enemy.
Eric Garris replies:
Here is what bin Laden says:
You are either for Islam and for what is stands or against. You are against. You are, therefore, aiding and abetting the enemies of Allah. You are the enemy.
Need to Attack
We live in the year 2001, and have had much of a past, a past that we have had to fight and struggle through to get where we are now, somewhere where my wife can go out on a Friday night with her friends, somewhere where she votes for who is in government, somewhere where she gets help for our daughter and somewhere where she is protected.
Unlike Afghanistan.
But hey, you all sit back and watch it happen in front of your eyes, while your wives cook your Sunday dinner, then you could sit back and watch a movie, or go down the pub, or perhaps something else to help you escape reality.
Oh, and why don't you all gather together, get yourself on a lonely desert island with long sandy beaches for you all to bury your heads, you could call it, "We don't care what happens in the world Island"!
The "Backtalk" editor replies:
The
US is not bombing Afghanistan in order to defend
women's rights; in fact, the US Government helped
the Taliban take power.
Non-interventionists
don't need to find a "mind our own business
island" (hopefully) – we have a country
whose founders advocated military non-interventionism.
The father
of this country wrote: "The great rule
of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations,
is, in extending our commercial relations, to
have with them as little political connection
as possible."