Fraidy cats and fear itself: Left and Right
There’s been a longstanding meme on the Left about the Right, one I’ve written about before. It’s a twist on the old schoolyard taunt, “Fraidy, cat, fraidy cat!”
The allegation is that the Right is motivated by fear–and unrealistic and wildly exaggerated fear, at that. My esteemed colleague Shrinkwrapped has written a recent and excellent piece on the subject.
Funny; when I look about me on the Right, I don’t see a whole lot of fear. Anger, perhaps, both at the Left and at the Islamist totalitarian enemy. But on the whole, the Right seems to me to be realistically facing and evaluating the threat before us, taking the enemy at its word about what it intends to do, and trying to learn the lessons of history. The Right wishes to take action against that enemy rather than wait in passive denial, wring its hands in fear, or pursue the false hope of appeasement.
One can disagree with the methods and approach of the Right without disagreeing about the degree of threat represented by the enemy. The Left, however, in choosing the “fraidy cat” argument, appears to be thinking along the following lines (excerpt from that previous post of mine about fear):
The legacy of Vietnam is that the left has a lingering mindset that considers national security concerns to almost always be mere excuses for government spying…The left, and many liberals, seem to feel that the raising of security issues in these situations is almost always bogus–a sort of screen, used by a proto-totalitarian government to cover its own misuse of power, with the goal of getting away with domestic spying on its enemies, and the further consolidation of its own power. If this is the conception, then national security concerns must be downplayed in almost all cases, and the role of fear as motivation for those concerns exaggerated instead.
I see the Right as motivated by realism about the goals of Islamist totalitarianism, and this leads to calls for action to block the enemy before the threat it represents becomes even greater, and the possibility of even more devastation looms larger.
But even if we are willing to grant, for the sake of argument, the Left’s charge that the main motivation on the Right is fear, we can say two things. The first is that in facing an enemy bent on one’s destruction and willing to purposely kill as many innocents as possible with all the weapons at its disposal, some element of fear (as in “apprehension of a danger”) is certainly warranted. The real question is whether the fear is realistic or whether it is exaggerated, and whether the person is paralyzed by that fear, or whether he/she takes appropriate action to forestall the feared consequences.
The left has its own fears, of course, and they are potent motivators, as well. As previously stated, they fear abuse of power by our own government in the pursuit of national security more than any foreign threat. To parse it even more finely, sometimes it seems that they fear abuse of power by a Republican executive branch more than anything; back in the days of FDR they liked a powerful federal government well enough, when it was run by a Democrat.
Speaking of FDR, it was he who famously said, “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” The context in which he made that statement is interesting; take a look at his First Inaugural Address, delivered in March of 1933, when the nation faced the Great Depression, the subject matter of FDR’s speech.
FDR does indeed say, “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself” (and, by the way, listen to the audio; what a speaker he was!). But this is the message in which his quote was embedded:
…the only thing we have to fear is fear itself””-nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance. In every dark hour of our national life a leadership of frankness and vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory…In such a spirit on my part and on yours we face our common difficulties [he follows with a long list of the problems the nation faced at the time]…Only a foolish optimist can deny the dark realities of the moment.
Then, as now, the danger of fear is not really fear itself. It is, as FDR stated [emphasis mine], “nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts.”
I submit that those words define the stance of the Left today far more than that of the Right–in fearing, for example, warrantless NSA wiretapping of calls with terrorist foreign nationals more than the consequences of not using reasonable tools in our arsenal in order to fight an implacable and vicious enemy (and see here if you wish to revisit the complexities of the legal arguments concerning these wiretappings).
And I agree, along with FDR, that “only a foolish optimist can deny the dark realities of the moment.” I happen to think the Left fits the definition of “foolish optimist” in denying the dark realities of the present-day Islamist totalitarian threat. The Left, of course, thinks people such as myself to be foolish optimists in denying the dark realities of the threats posed by the would-be dictators Bush and Rove, and that we are timid and cowering fraidy cats in assuming that people such as Ahmadinejad mean exactly and precisely what they say.
[NOTE: And speaking of fear…]
It is indeed the left that characterizes unreasoning fear; they are so terrified of George W. Bush, that it blinds them to everything else, even things that directly threaten their lives.
So great is this fear that they feel obligated to believe that everything that kills people, had to have been caused by George W. Bush. Just look at our resident trolls for examples of this misplaced blame.
As previously stated, they fear abuse of power by our own government in the pursuit of national security more than any foreign threat.
I think this is mistaken. I don’t think the left in anyway fears governmental power. Playing on such fears is just another bit of traditional left wing opportunism. What the left fears is the loss of its own power and position in government. That is quite a different thing.
A couple of problems with your analysis, Neo.
1)The left does not see ‘realism’ in the ‘Rights’ approach to the threat of Islamic terrorism. There is fear of Islamic terror by us all(some more than others), but the left fears the escalation of death and destruction on both sides – and appreciates, to the exclusion of the ‘Right’, that simply destroying who they percieve to be the enemey(of which they aren’t quite sure it seems)will not bring security to the United States or the West.
Having said that – I’ve seldom heard from leftist commentators that no action is preferable(maybe in protests but thats a different story really)as you say. And that touches on the biggest problem with the ‘Right’ – they really don’t understand the left’s argument(they do know Bushism’s like ‘cut and run’ and other meaningless cliches that don’t at all touch on the issues), which is based on rational logic – they only understand ‘fear’ – which is manifested in the desire to destroy, label and ignore historical precedence relevent to the issue of Islamic terrorism(and it ain’t Berlin ’38, people). My opinion the right is mostly motivated by racism in this particular issue – we’ve go over that before but I’ve become absolutely convinced of that.
I’ll leave it at that for now – it gets a little tedious having to defend the ‘Left’ from such misrepresentations and generalizations – with all the hate the right directs and the left for it’s views the least they could do is understand the argument….
If that can go over without the usual flak and nonsense(including banning those who disagree with neo’s views) than I’m happy to continue…
Before I go – to illustrate what I mean, an example…
Tatter wrote:
“So great is this fear that they feel obligated to believe that everything that kills people, had to have been caused by George W. Bush. Just look at our resident trolls for examples of this misplaced blame.”
Alright – our friend Tatter is being sarcastic, he doesn’t really believe that the ‘left’ believes that – the does believe though that Americans, Westerners should not question their own governments at all if they decide that war and actions that will lead to war are the appropriate path (and I’m not exaggerating)and that doing so ‘weakens’the ability of his government and mine to solve the problem(America’s and the West’s security).
Sound about right? – or am I misrepresenting your views Tatter?
It looks to me like the left has come to believe its own propaganda. Sometime in the past, I believe, many on the the far left knew that the worldvew they werw presenting and the resultant slogans they were shouting in an attempt to gain power were false but, leftist agitators and intellectuals have shouted them for so long and these false ideas have become so pervasive and widely held that for many they have become the truth and now the left us a captive of this fantasy.
Sorry for the misspellings and typos. I still cannot find a spell checker that is compatible with the Mozilla based internet browser I am using. When I write posts in Word, then attempt to paste them into the comments box they simply are not recognized by HaloScan. Any help in solving this problem would be greatly appreciated.
In any case the last line should have read …and now the Left is a captive of this fantasy.
But Stephan,
If that is truely the left’s view why are they so strident? Why is there talk of impeachment or even assassination. Why the characterization of Bush as a retard and his followers as panic stricken sheeple? Or chickenhawk warmongers?
That is all a bit over the top for what you characterize as mere disagreement among gentlemen as to proper means to achieve the same end.
The implication that a policy inspired by fear must therefore be irrational is, as you point out, bogus.
To use an entirely different situation. I spent much of my childhood in one of the more troubled districts of Belfast in the early 1970s. The standard English/American academic interpretation of our conflict was that our actions were based on “fear” and this on its own was thought to prove our inherent irrationality.
Well that is a comfortable enough thought for an academic sitting in Liverpool or Des Moines, Iowa. Unfortunately where I lived we went through a few weeks of near nightly gun battles on the street outside and regular bombings. To us it seemed that our fears were quite rational.
I dont think I’ve ever seen the “racism” ploy played so early in a debate. The weakest possible comment.
What would SB know of “racism” in the heart and mind of anyone but himself.
“the left’s argument…, which is based on rational logic,,,the right is mostly motivated by racism”
What telling commentary?!?! What a valuble contribution to any discussion.
It proves that what the left fears most is making rational judgements on the facts at hand on any issue, and then having to formulate a non-verbal response, or a response that doesn’t impose on others instead of themselves.
Racism indeed. What frivolous nonsense.
Brad
Neo,
BTW I listened to your interview, and was quite surprised. You sounded like such a nice, reasonable person, not the racist, warmongering creature that Stephon Britton has so accurately and rationally described.
Brad
Sometimes, when stating an argument, you has to search for examples. Other times, the examples find you.
Britton: So are you saying that the right fears the present, while the left fears doing something that may make the future worse?
I prefer analysis and debate based on the terms anti-war and pro-war, since I am classicly liberal in my views on domestic issues and yet I am pro-war. ‘Left’ and ‘Right’ mean little to such as I in a debate about foreign policy.
I am very much against the passive foreign policies of past administrations such as Carter and Clinton because I believe such policies engendered and unwittingly encouraged the terrorists and the nations that wage war by using the terrorists as proxies.
I am completely “sure” of who the enemy is, thank you.
It’s not that anti-war leftist commentators often declare openly that “no action is preferable;” it’s that every stance and policy the anti-war crowd espouses leads inevitably to inaction, appeasement and therefore encouragement of the terrorists and their despot masters in Tehran and other Islamist nations.
Stephen acts as if debate was his goal yet begins by painting any potential debater and all on the Right as “racist.” What arrogance! If true debate was wanted that insult wouldn’t be used before anyone even enters the debate. One gets a little more angry every time the Race Card is so readily played against the opposition by the anti-war crowd.
Snowonpine – save as text from Word, then open in Notepad and cut and paste pure text.
Another aspect of Britton’s hypocrisy, besides his opening of the debate with racist accusations, is his characterization of the left’s arguments as “based on rational logic,” meaning, of course, that others are not.
Like others here, I know who the enemy is. This enemy’s actions and words leave no doubt as to his intent. Contrary to what Britton asserts, this enemy will not be stopped until enough of them are killed, and enough of their property destroyed, to make them decide that their goals aren’t worth it. This country showed that they were up to the task 65 years ago. There are many differences in our population between now and then which makes me wonder if we are up to it, not least of which is that we are infested with far too many “useful idiots”
http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot
like Britton. Stay tuned.
And that touches on the biggest problem with the ‘Right’ – they really don’t understand the left’s argument(they do know Bushism’s like ‘cut and run’ and other meaningless cliches that don’t at all touch on the issues), which is based on rational logic . . .
One problem with understanding the left’s argument is that the left is having trouble figuring out what it is.
Certainly, some argue that Islamic terrorism is the result of American policy; they are both wrong and usually simplistic, but it is a logical argument despite its flawed nature.
Oh, and ‘cut and run’ is hardly a “meaningless cliche” when many leading leftists propose just that.
The right’s only answer to Islamic terrorism is war and warlike bluster.
The left’s only answer to Islamic terrorism is, “there has to be a better way.”
That’s why I support the right. At least they HAVE an answer, not a belief that some new magical answer will be found if everyone thinks hard enough.
Well it appears the usual is on the menu so there is isn’t much to say.
I will say though, as it is a recurrent point of contention in the replys, that I said it was my ‘opinion’ that racism is the major motivating factor in the ‘right’s’stance on terror and U.S policy. The subject is fear so I merely pointed to what I think is a more relevant to the perspective, and meant to leave it at that – but clearly that has upset some people.
Good.
I’m glad – think about it. That won’t hurt.
Many therapists, somewhat ironically, are convinced that all anger is really motivated by fear.
You’d probably disagree.
Just a quick answer to some.
“Britton: So are you saying that the right fears the present, while the left fears doing something that may make the future worse?”
No. But I’m curious – what in my brief comments has inspired that?
grackle wrote:
“It’s not that anti-war leftist commentators often declare openly that “no action is preferable;” it’s that every stance and policy the anti-war crowd espouses leads inevitably to inaction, appeasement and therefore encouragement of the terrorists and their despot masters in Tehran and other Islamist nations.
– I’d be interested to know what policies you’d have in mind.
“Stephen acts as if debate was his goal yet begins by painting any potential debater and all on the Right as “racist.” What arrogance! If true debate was wanted that insult wouldn’t be used before anyone even enters the debate. One gets a little more angry every time the Race Card is so readily played against the opposition by the anti-war crowd.”
– Sorry to hurt your feelings grackle.
Don’t get angry.
There wasn’t any card played – it’s not relevant to ‘your’ views, so we’ll just stick to those – O.K?
This is a neoconservative board. We talk about your stuff….
One more.
Tatter – the left has an answer too. It’d be pretty silly of you to think that it doesn’t.
Don – The ‘left’ as you would view it, know what it’s arguments are, just fine. Just ask.
I’m glad you concede that the view Islamic terrorism created by U.S policy(alot of it, anyway)is logical. Not quite sure how it’s flawed though – it’s an observation. A fact, actually. How to deal with that seems fairly straightforward – change the policy.
Or continue the policy, accelerate the oppression, esculate the conflict, and hope that it all works out. And hope that the concequences of this approach don’t further erode the liberties of Americans- or worse and just as likely if the U.S gets involved in another major with Iran – threaten a mojor economic and social collapse domestically. It’s hard to imagine the writing being any more on the wall.
Hubris ingnoramus.
And yes I fear that more than terrorism. Because that is far more likely to happen – with far worse long term concequencs than any terrorist attack (and no I don’t hold much stock in Iran’s nuclear programme or the likelyhood of nuclear armed Jihadists – like fables of WMD and ‘they hate our freedoms’, the proof doesn’t exist except in fantasy land.
Which, really, brings me to why I think that most of this comes from a racist framwork – it involves complete disregard and contempt for the people’s of the region and the realities of U.S policies – their effects and their blatant undemocratic nature.
Because they are different.
Tell me why I’m wrong.
In case no one has noticed, the Left doesn’t actually do anything but talk. When the time comes they may be safely ignored except for the few who do try to “throw themselves into the machine” and take out a few Starbucks. Their fates will certainly give the others pause.
It won’t need to get to the heads on pikes stage. Some of us are just old fashioned paleo-conservatives who believe that giving the rabble a taste of the grape, as in shot, does wonders for behavioral modification. And, our patience is being sorely tried.
– I’d be interested to know what policies[from the Left which encourages terrorists] you’d have in mind.
I’ll oblige Stephen if he first explains the Left’s “argument,” as mentioned below:
… the biggest problem with the ‘Right’ – they really don’t understand the left’s argument … which is based on rational logic – they only understand ‘fear’ …
My hope is that Stephen will come forth with some of that “rational logic”( in lieu of mere assertion) and allow all of us pro-war folks to know just what that argument is.
As for anger over being constantly labeled racist by the anti-war crowd – it only lasts a moment – then revulsion takes over for awhile – and after only a bit longer comes a kind of pity for them. It’s difficult to stay angry very long over a tactic so tediously predictable.
Which, really, brings me to why I think that most of this comes from a racist framework – it involves complete disregard and contempt for the people’s of the region and the realities of U.S policies – their effects and their blatant undemocratic nature. Because they are different. Tell me why I’m wrong.
It’s really up to Stephen to explain why he’s right. It’s interesting that Stephen equates fighting terrorists with “contempt for the people’s of the region.” How does it show contempt to want to confront terrorists and the despots that use them to wage war by proxy? Chilling, yes, puzzling, surely, but logical? Rational?
If there’s one thing I’ve learned about politics from reading sites ranging from Raging Right-Wing Republican to Informed Comment (it’s Juan Cole; run for your lives!) for quite some time, it’s that most people (including political debaters) don’t have a satisfactory grip of the arguments of the other side. One of the surest indicators that a particular person has this problem is that they think everyone on the other side is missing something that couldn’t possibly be any more obvious. Another good indicator is that they can attribute the entirety of the behavior of the other side to one or a small set of vices. Just my observations.
I also find it highly amusing how conservative sites think that the US media is completely dominated by liberals pushing their agenda. As opposed to liberal sites, who think that the US media is completely dominated by conservatives pushing their agenda. But that’s getting off on a tangent…
You can not talk to someone like Britton and expect it to be heard.
What he is saying is analgous to the following:
Right:”All you want to do is sit on your hands and do nothing”
Left:”You understand nothing – I hate sitting on my hands and doing nothing, I know it will be a failure. Thus I beleive on placing my hands palm down on a chair, placing my butt on top of them, and allowing most of my weight to rest on them while staying as still as possible. This is fundamentally different and will solve everything”
Right:”Umm, you are sitting on your hands doing nothing”
Repeat over and over and over and over…
I can somewhat see thier point. To them, that is *not* sitting on your hands. It’s all a level of “nuance” – one is simply sitting, the other is to rest with the body supported by the buttocks or thighs. While the action may be identical (if they will even admit that, some will consider the intent to change the whole action) the whole focus is different.
In the end your actions tell me what you believe. You can claim all day long you don’t want to sit on your hands and do nothing, but when all you do is sit on your hands and do nothing I will figure that’s what you want to do.
There can be no uncertainty about the goals of islamists: they declared them openly and without any ambiguity. Since basically there are only two possible approaches to any conflict, that is negotiate or use force, and abovementioned goals are not negotiable, using force is the only viable approach. The only thing left to discussion is what force and how quickly should be used. But this heavily depends on strategic assessments and intelligence, hardly available to laymen. So we should not play experts in a field where we are really are not such, and leave these decisions to specialists. And for us the only question is whether we can trust these specialists and their estimations. Leftist clearly do not trust them, but because no other approach is possible, they could only sat on their hands and talk about how they distrust government.
The funniest thing is, Britton thinks we don’t know what the left’s answer is.
He forgets that we neocons used to BE leftists, and are still liberal in most ways. That’s where the prefix “neo” comes from.
We know the left better than the left knows itself, as Britton makes perfectly clear with each post. That’s what makes us such an unbearable threat to the left, that they have to attack in any way possible, even if they have to stay up all night to do something as pointless as troll blogs.
It’s also why they are losing, even though they claim they understand the right while the right fails to understand the left. The reality is the diametric opposite of what Britton claims, and the proof is their own inability to stop the War on Terror, even when they sacrifice their own lives (as Rachel Corrie did) to do so.
Sergey:
You’ve said it better than anyone. Would that my insights into Russia and my Russian were as good as your insights into America and English.
Stephen Britton:
Can you recommend an expanded online version of your opinions I can analyze? I’m curious.
The anti-Jihad movement is not motivated by racism. There may be important cultural misunderstandings (or not) but the movement is not based on biological or ethnic ideas. The anti-Jihad movement is based on a genuine concern that there is a war against the West. It is not a large war but it is spread wide and looks like it might last a long time. The Jihadis believe the West must be destroyed or converted militarily and they follow up their beliefs with action. Read the Hamas charter for an education.
Accusations in racism should be based on specific acts or words, otherwise they are empty slander. Nobody can read other person’s mind. If I despise somebody’s behaviour and make it clear, there can be a lot of reasons for me to do so: I can mean his race or etnicity, or his culture, or some specific ideology having nothing to do with both. How can you tell my motivation, if I did not give it myself?
Britton’s right. There is racism involved.
The left thinks the brown skinned Arabs can’t handle it and/or don’t want it. The value of bringing democracy to the Middle East? ZERO.
Bush empowers the people of Iraq with the right to vote. The left thinks giving Arabs this right signifies contempt for Arabs. Today’s “liberals” are anything but.
“…the view Islamic terrorism created by U.S policy(alot of it, anyway)is logical… – it’s an observation. A fact, actually.”
Quite a low standard of factuality there.
” Well it appears the usual is on the menu so there is isn’t much to say.”
A variation on the “I’m laughing at you” comment; in this case it is “I’m bored by you.”
What does someone expect as response to baseless accusations? A complex rebuttal, as if that would do any good with someone who has no intention of debating in good faith.
“I think that most of this comes from a racist framwork – it involves complete disregard and contempt for the people’s of the region and the realities of U.S policies – their effects and their blatant undemocratic nature. Because they are different. Tell me why I’m wrong.”
1) The reason commenters focussed on your irrational accusation of racism is because you launched that all too common pre-emptive strike so early in the thread as to be completely transparent in your motives.
2) No one can tell you why your wrong because you believe it to be true (it is not a product of logic, it is faith-based), and no line of reasoning, no amount of evidence, no arguement, no matter how well developed could ever convince you to look at it differently than you do. You have no desire to learn or at very least see things through someone else’s eyes. The fact that you post it here is only to heighten your “Hubris ingnoramus” and troll. You are as clever as someone who farts at a nice dinner party.
Ti Sweetie:
The same mistake. Doubts of ability of some etnic group master some social skills can be quite resonable and having nothing to do with racism. It is about culture, not abour race. Democracy is very intricate and complex thing, it is thouroghly advanced stage of social evolution. To give voting rights to benighted, poorly educated people can be dangerous blunder. In Russia 75% of population voted for terrorists at first nation-wide free elections in 1917. The same we see at Gaza and West Bank. And in Germany Hitler was elected fairly democratically. Defects of political culture cannot be overriden by procedural niceties.
I was floored by Neo’s Huffington link, a personage I –thankfully– had not met before.
” they were not thinking straight about what was RIGHT for the country.” –Huffington point (emphasis mine)
It’s odd in her mind that ‘peasants get to think,’ which would be my way of characterizing her condescension about the rest of us in America.
But we do, don’t we? .. as you all are doing here.
grackle wrote
“My hope is that Stephen will come forth with some of that “rational logic”( in lieu of mere assertion) and allow all of us pro-war folks to know just what that argument is.”
Well it’s rational that if your policies are creating more terrorism(as they have and terrorist attacks have increased worldwide as well)that you change the policy. You don’t attack countries that have nothing to do with terrorist’s; you don’t invade, occupy, and take over that countries economy and resources. That upsets people. As it would upset you. Very rational.
I’ve explained more in the posts – pay attention grackle.
I’m not really obligated to answer your question first, either. You claimed that the left’s argument encourages terrorism. Own up or shut up. Simple.
Rational, mind. You know – like offer an example, a precendent that can be found in reality.
Go for it sport.
Tatter wrote:
“He forgets that we neocons used to BE leftists, and are still liberal in most ways. That’s where the prefix “neo” comes from.”
I haven’t forgotten that. I just think it’s simply not true. Well it could be true, I suppose – but a quick analysis of neoconservatives since 9.11 I think demonstrates with crystal clarity that they’re concerns have very little to do with democracy, liberty, equal and human rights.
Not that they don’t try, however. It’s amazing how often they use liberal arguments disengeniously to support what are fundamentally facist arguments – i.e spreading democracy, liberation, human rights while trampling roughshod over these very principles with military force – in the context of middle east we see a system of control and domination justified under liberal ideology.
And that’s what the Nazi’s did to justify their policies.
No the U.S is not Nazi Germany. And this ain’t World War 3,4,5 or 6.
But it doesn’t hurt to acknowledge the conditions that gave rise to the radical abuse of power.
By the way, grackle – what does this mean?
“It’s really up to Stephen to explain why he’s right. It’s interesting that Stephen equates fighting terrorists with “contempt for the people’s of the region.” How does it show contempt to
want to confront terrorists and the despots that use them to wage war by proxy? Chilling, yes, puzzling, surely, but logical? Rational?”
I’m guessing your saying that attacking and invading countries illegally, and with lies as a pretext is fighting terrorism. Or supporting undemocratic regimes militarily and diplomatically to oppress their own populations is fighting terrorism.
Or that offering complete support for a country viwed by the great majority of the planet a dangerous militant and terrorist state. And intentionally, for the better part of 30 years doing everything possible to sabatouge a peace process or a just political settlement.
Who are the terrorists grackle?
Anybody who speaks Arabic? Anybody Homeland security doesn’t like a can through in secret jail without charge?
C’mon dude.
Wake up – and the rest of you. You don’t have a single shred of credibility anymore in your arguments.
Face it.
Contempt is when you decide what how or if it all peoples will control their own governments, resources and countries. Contempt is when you ignore completely the real history of your own country and it’s client states while demonizing, quite hypocritically and most often with outright bullshit.
That shows contempt for what we leftists call a ‘people’s unindeliable right to self-determination’ – in their own goddamn backyard.
As as American, I’m shocked that you don’t understand that.
I wonder why?
And worse.
so the mindless one goes from racism to facism. Another failed and simplistic analogy. Why should anyone address such simplistic BS as legitiimate? Neo, he is just another smiplistic commenter taking over the thread.
Brad
You’ve been trolling me the whole time, Brad.
But, whatever. I’ll refrain from crying like a little girl.
By the way Brad – why is it simplistic?
I’m only replying to comments and questions – not writing a book.
Plus my comments on facism are sound – if you want to differ than why don’t you go ahead instead of being a big baby?
Hi, stevie/Yahmir/suzy/anon.
By the way, grackle – what does this mean? “It’s really up to Stephen to explain why he’s right.”
It means it’s not enough to simply declare that the War on Terror is wrong. For credibility’s sake the reasoning processes behind these bland statements must be exposed to the light of day for scrutiny and critique. Take the statement below:
Well it’s rational that if your policies are creating more terrorism(as they have and terrorist attacks have increased worldwide as well)that you change the policy.
Extrapolate to the beginning of WW2 – to President Roosevelt: “But Mr. President, since the US has entered the war, violence has increased worldwide!” If this is the best Stephen can do for “rational logic” I’m afraid we are all going to be disappointed.
This argument is in fact a variation on the cherished anti-war theme of Don’t Fight The Terrorists ‘Cause They’ll Get Mad And Do Even More Bad Things.
I’m guessing your saying that attacking and invading countries illegally, and with lies as a pretext is fighting terrorism. Or supporting undemocratic regimes militarily and diplomatically to oppress their own populations is fighting terrorism.
Stephen/Stevie/Yahmir/Suzy/anon is evidently a fan of the concept of International Law, a nonexistent entity. Law cannot exist without an overriding organization of enforcement. There are only agreements, pacts, treaties and other relationships between nations that constantly change due to the changing needs and political cultures of the participant nations. No sane society would ever put themselves under some sort of worldwide enforcement entity. Come to think, isn’t that what the Jihadists’ Great Caliphate dream is all about? And of course the obligatory reference to the nonexistent “lies”(which are NEVER quoted).
Or that offering complete support for a country viwed by the great majority of the planet a dangerous militant and terrorist state. And intentionally, for the better part of 30 years doing everything possible to sabatouge a peace process or a just political settlement.
I’m guessing Stephen refers here to Israel, whom he considers a “dangerous militant and terrorist state.” Israel in reality is a state that has been under constant attack from Middle Eastern neighbors since its inception. I do think he has a tangential point in that I believe anti-Semitism is on the rise worldwide, parading much of the time under the banner of anti-Zionism – a most disturbing phenomenon.
That shows contempt for what we leftists call a ‘people’s unindeliable right to self-determination’ – in their own goddamn backyard.
That’s all well and good – let everyone be self-determined in their own backyard. But if they start pulling shenanigans against others, say, like Saddam did, then they need to be crushed – right in their own backyard if possible.
That war never solved anything is a religious belief. That the US is “creating” more terrorists by resisting terrorism with force is a belief that results from the religious belief that war never solved anything.
If this religious belief were true then it might be true that the answer is to “do nothing”. To do by not doing. (An observation made by the author of the blog Fire and Ice.) So hand sitting is “doing” after a fashion. I’d just like to know, barring the religious assumption, what the mechanism is that makes “not doing” stop terrorism.
Just how much “not doing” are we expected to do?
We live in a world with a global economy. How much “not doing” are we expected to do?
We live in a world with global communications and a near global community. Cultural leakage will happen. How much “not doing” are we expected to do?
We can’t *be* isolated anymore. Business interests and corporations function across, over and through national boundaries. Electrons flow. Information flows. Someone posted (rather passionately) on my blog that all they want is for us to leave them alone.
In an absolute sense that may be true, but in a practical sense it requires the end of modern civilization.
“That war never solved anything is a religious belief. That the US is “creating” more terrorists by resisting terrorism with force is a belief that results from the religious belief that war never solved anything.”
No. It isn’t a ‘religous belief’. It’s a determination based on observation of trends and facts. It’s nothing at all to to do with religon.
Nor does it have anything to do with the moto that you site. That is an ideology.
The fact – in terms of actual numbers; in terms of attitudes towards the U.S WOT in the Arab world; in terms of numbers of terrorist attacks since 9/11 – is that U.S policy has increased terrorism – in a distnctly measurable way.
grackle – your not worth it.
your just talking out of your ass unfortunately – and I can’t be bothered son…
Hi neo.
stevie(me), susy(my wife), Yahmir(my gay jewish lover – ssshhhhh), anon(like A.A, a bit).
Stephen Britton
The Left, optimism? Not in this reality chain.
Only true liberals care whether power is abused. Fake liberals don’t really care because they are going to abuse power the first chance they get.
and that we are timid and cowering fraidy cats in assuming that people such as Ahmadinejad mean exactly and precisely what they say.
Power who are weak and who are afraid to act, feel fear more deeply than people who face necessity.
Hrm, Freudian slip, was thinking about power when I should have typed “Those who are weak and wh oare afraid to act”.
Leaked through from thinking “Those without power”.
The fact – in terms of actual numbers; in terms of attitudes towards the U.S WOT in the Arab world; in terms of numbers of terrorist attacks since 9/11 – is that U.S policy has increased terrorism – in a distnctly measurable way.
grackle – your not worth it.
your just talking out of your ass unfortunately – and I can’t be bothered son…
And this is a reply? The restating of the favorite obviously flawed opinion: That terrorists and their Islamist-despot employers must not be opposed because to do so will anger them and cause them to redouble their efforts. And of course followed up by an insult. Such is the quality of debate from this particular representative of the anti-war view.
“U.S policy has increased terrorism – in a distnctly measurable way.”
That’s missing several points. First off, that statement implies that without US actions – the “policies” canard that Stephen likes to throw around – that terrorism would be either at a steady state or diminishing. That’s not true. The most the US can be accused of is bumping up an already increasing rate. It either grows fast, or a bit faster with US involvement, but it grows nonetheless.
Also: Regarding the growth of terrorism, or to be specific numbers of terrorists and numbers of acts carried out by such: Of course it would grow. But it’s a temporary spike towards eliminating it completely. Take WWII as an illustrative example: US involvement in both wars in that conflict – the European and Pacific parts, separate and distinct actions – also increased the level of combat and deaths in a distinctly measurable way. It was a big country getting involved, of course the levels would grow. But as I said, it was towards the goal of ending it completely. Talking about US involvement increasing violence, whether in WWII or the present times is to miss the fact that the increases are not open ended. They are towards the ultimate end of ending the violence and deaths once and for all. To accept Stephen’s view of the world is to accept a neverending, midrange steady state of violence. In the long run, that claims many more lives than working towards shutting it down for good.
Taking point increases in violence levels is to take a point-in-time view of an entire system and process and to assume the worst about it all. That’s not objectively studying the subject, that’s combing it for facts to bludgeon a target for hate, in this case the US.
Taking point increases in violence levels is to take a point-in-time view of an entire system and process and to assume the worst about it all. That’s not objectively studying the subject, that’s combing it for facts to bludgeon a target for hate, in this case the US.
I couldn’t help but think of Taylor polynomials when you said that. Nice figure on that page, too.
From report of commission on 9/11:
“Lt. General William Boyken, the current deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence, and founding member of the Delta Force, told us that, “Opportunities were missed because of an unwillingness to take risks, and a lack of vision and understanding.” ” That nicely sums up general impact of leftist approach to national security.
Hehe… awesome response. I like that.
El Mondo wrote:
“That’s missing several points. First off, that statement implies that without US actions – the “policies” canard that Stephen likes to throw around – that terrorism would be either at a steady state or diminishing. That’s not true. The most the US can be accused of is bumping up an already increasing rate. It either grows fast, or a bit faster with US involvement, but it grows nonetheless.”
I shouldn’t really have to but I will.
It doesn’t ‘imply’ anything of the sort. A bit like grackles ‘implication’ that what I refer means that ‘nothing'(force) should be done. Pure garbage. Yours and his words – not mine. And, as I say, I takes real ‘dedication’ to find that implication in what I’ve written.
The fact that U.S policy in the middle east has given rise and has increased terrorism since 9/11 is a fact. And that is all. It’s growing – it was growing – and it will continue to grow if the current application of the war on terror continues.
With catastophic concequences that that logically implies.
“Talking about US involvement increasing violence, whether in WWII or the present times is to miss the fact that the increases are not open ended. They are towards the ultimate end of ending the violence and deaths once and for all. To accept Stephen’s view of the world is to accept a neverending, midrange steady state of violence. In the long run, that claims many more lives than working towards shutting it down for good.”
But we’re not fighting a ‘war’- we’re fighting a tactic. Or a religon(for the extremists).
Either one is open-ended.
And the tactic the U.S is concerned about comes directly from it’s actions – which are violent, rejectionist, and oppressive.
Increasing that will not end what was the reason for it in the first place.
But at least our goals are the same…..
“Lt. General William Boyken, the current deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence, and founding member of the Delta Force, told us that, “Opportunities were missed because of an unwillingness to take risks, and a lack of vision and understanding.” ” That nicely sums up general impact of leftist approach to national security.”
Gee Sergey what happened to your Russian broken english?
Anyway – the quote you offer probably has nothing at all to do with the topic – so it would make
you look really stupid using it(sorry mate, but thats the way I see it – I sincerely hope you would to seeing as you normally seem to treat the topic quite seriously.)
The ‘leftist’ approach isn’t anything of the sort. But if you’d rather be an ignorant buffon that’s your choice…
To Stephen Britton: The topic is approach of left and right to fighting terrorism. So assesment of Clinton era government performance of this task, made by leading specialist in this field, hardly can be off-topic.
And “unwillingness to take risks” as the main factor of failure of this policy has something to do with fear, hasn’t it?
I mean that the quote – I’m guessing that it’s a reference to the time in which Clinton could have given the order to ‘take out’ Bin Laden when there was an oppurtunity – doesn’t have anything at all to do with the left argment against the current WOT as I’ve explained.
Incidently – assuming I’m correct about the quote – there have been many, many since 9/11 that the Saudi criminal was in the sights of the U.S miltary and nothing was done.
Seems to be a bit of a problem whoever is President of the United States. Only it’s a bit more disconcerting when it’s done while fighting a ‘global war against Islamo-facists’and you’ve just said Bin Laden will be taken ‘dead or alive’…
The fact – in terms of actual numbers; in terms of attitudes towards the U.S WOT in the Arab world; in terms of numbers of terrorist attacks since 9/11 – is that U.S policy has increased terrorism – in a distnctly measurable way.
We are walking along the sidewalk minding our own business when we are attacked. We bust the attacker’s nose but his buddies join in – even so, we are holding our own – getting a few bruises but in return knocking out their teeth and blacking their eyes. Suddenly Stephen interrupts and from the sidelines starts handing rocks and clubs to the attackers, hollering loudly over our protests: “I AM HELPING THEM BECAUSE YOU ARE CAUSING TOO MUCH VIOLENCE.”
“It doesn’t ‘imply’ anything of the sort… Pure garbage. Yours and his words – not mine. And, as I say, I takes real ‘dedication’ to find that implication in what I’ve written.”
It’s not garbage at all. It is simply the logical conclusion to be drawn from what you’ve written, no dedication necessary to understand it. You place blame for terrorism rates on the US. But the reality is that it increases regardless of US action or inaction. You simply don’t hear or ignore it if the US isn’t involved.
“The fact that U.S policy in the Middle East has given rise and has increased terrorism since 9/11 is a fact. And that is all. It’s growing – it was growing – and it will continue to grow if the current application of the war on terror continues.”
Your opinion. Again, the goal is to end it, not perpetuate it. The US is working towards that end. Simply asserting that “it was growing – and it will continue to grow” is just taking an arbitrary point in time and trying to extrapolate a trend from that. Just because the outcome is not decided does not mean it’s destined for failure.
“But we’re not fighting a ‘war’- we’re fighting a tactic. Or a religion (for the extremists).
Either one is open-ended.”
Argument by canard. What exactly is open ended about fighting to deny the enemy sanctuary in Afghanistan? The goal is to end their sanctuary. What exactly is open ended about ending the terrorism that Saddam visited upon his own citizens, and ending the risk that he would take it beyond his own borders? Open ended was the perpetuation of sanctions, and the continuation of the state where Saddam was “contained”. The alternative to what the US did in Iraq was open ended, not what the US actually did and continues to work towards finishing today.
Greetings! Blessed be! jahre sportschule halle zeichen einlesen schlafproblem
If the criticism is destructive instead in constructive the person on the receiving end could start to think that they arent good at anything and could become depressed and give up on trying to achieve anything. Individuals need to be cautious when criticising someone and make it constructive and not destructive.