Different take on "The War Against Terror".

I think it is a scandal and a sad commentary of the state of politics in this country that the Senate of the United States voted 98-1 to pass the Patriot Act. The only negative vote came from the brave Sen. FInegold.

I know that he based it on a mining strike that he had been part of "breaking up" for Pinkerton in the nienteen-teens, and I think it was in this area, but I couldn't find it either in the introductory notes to the story, or in a quick skim of the biography of Hammett that I have.

Does the article invalidate what I said?
I am not asking anyone to believe what I say here. Go read what is going on from many sources and make up your own mind.

Many people definetly have different percpectives of what America is at this time. Some have completely opposite views of what America is. I am going to study that and write an article about it.

Terrorism exists no matter what definition you give it or category you place it. Thinking yourself around in circles will never solve the problem. Terrorism is an act of base thinking and desires. Intellectualizing it and thinking you're going to solve the problem is reflective of the man who is shocked when a bunch of guys want to take his wallet. As he is trying to rationalize his way out of the situation, the thieves are thinking about bashing his head with a pipe.

Politics and religion are being used to distract us from the actual problems. It is the cop-out to bash Christianity in the heat of this mess. What we really have here is an economical situation and a system of privacy we allow ourselves to embrace. We don't have all the information and will never be privy to all of the information that our leaders are using to make the decisions they make. Beyond that, we have an oil situation in Iraq and we have an oil man in office. Put two and two together and maybe you can begin to understand the real root of our problems besides all the fidgeting we've been doing throughout the years to get other countries to do as we say and not as we do. Forget Christianity in this. That is sand in your eyes. That's the smoke and mirrors to get you to look the other way. Of course, the terrorists are religious fanatics with reasons of their own. But, our reasons are quite easy to figure out. Money rules our every decision.

There were two main reasons for war in Iraq. We wanted to remove a tyrant from his position of rule and we were afraid he had weapons of mass destruction. I'm not aware of any weapons of mass destruction as of yet and don't expect to be made aware of them any time soon. But, Sadam is in hiding and his leadership is not as effective if it is even effective at all. He has, for the most part, been removed even if we can't find him. I remember no charge for a religious crusade in any of the debates to go to war and I don't appreciate an effective writer, psychologist and professor slipping such effective distortions past readers without so much as some kind of support. When Dr. Goldhammer sites the lives of innocent Iraqi civilians, it seems he's forgotten our own. We have to be aggressive to some extent. Passivists get pushed around. Submissives become owned. The easy-going get used and abused before they even realize it and it is too late. Establish a presence and let people know we don't take any crap. It is basic. It is so medieval. But, some of our old ways worked much better than any new solutions we have. Dr. Spock was wrong. You can't reason with everyone. Sometimes, you have to show people. That is a basic premise of education. The different intelligences include visual as well as audio techniques. Demonstration will work with the terrorists, not talk. Establishing a strong presence with one country will get the rest with the idea off of our backs. Trust me. There are countries waiting in the wings just to see how we handle this situation. We handle it right, they have a good clue at what's waiting for them. We handle it wrong and we'll be gone tomorrow.

Realities of war humble. The very people inflamed against us will soon lose their passion when they feel the pain of the ramifications following their attacks on us. Dr. Spock has really done a number on us with his foolish notions of "Permissive Child Rearing." Our nation has changed from real people ready to get a job done to whining hypocrites who think they can rationalize everything. Smack a guy across the face in the ?'50s and you had a fight on your hand. Slap a guy across the face today and he slaps and ex-parte on you. I know I'll get all the responses in the world about all of the other changes that have occurred and I would agree with most of them. I like the fact that women can run a company these days and aren't always found in the kitchen even though a trend is starting back towards that end. I like the fact that we are more receptive to other races, religions and lifestyles. It may not be perfect, but look how far we've come. I know all of these things and agree. But, where did the men go? Where the hell did the men go? The ones who roll up their sleeves and say, "Now you've done it! Now we're coming to get you!" The Pearl Harbor men. The Revolutionary men.

News flash. The world has changed into an evolving barbaric state that needs to be controlled or let out of control. Quit asking how it got this way! Start asking who is going to lead this gaggle. Someone has to do it. We don't need a king or a dictator. But, we do need direction, restraint and a better system of checks and balances. In a world bent on doing better, moving forward and creating change, we'd like to put such names on our actions as "world dominance" and "archaic empire-building" when it's really just in everyone's nature no matter how distant from that you would like to think yourself.

Christianity and the Muslim religion are being thrown around as the problem in all of this. The radical extremists on either side hardly reflect the views of the pure religions they claim to follow. And even though war is the most base solution for any conflict and should only be used as a last resort, religion is the greatest reason to go to war if you really want to think about it. Going to war for money, property or the control of resources must be noted as worthless when compared to going to war over life and lives. The material versus the soul so to speak is an easy decision for me to make when asked which is more important. And everyone thinks they are right. Why do the religious, no matter what religion, get bashed for it? Obviously the religious think their religion is right or they wouldn't follow it. I happen to believe all religions hold glimpses into the reality and if they would all just compare notes, they would have the entire picture.

The irony is who puts down a "political police" and suggests an ideological one? Does Dr. Goldhammer suggest that the teachings of religious doctrine be kept on symbolic not literal terms? Who gave Dr. Goldhammer the right to make that call? A holy war is internal, but as I have mentioned earlier, there is an external conflict as well. Religion is a constant exploration, both internally and in interaction with others. It shouldn't lead to war, but humans can become confused between teachings and emotions. If parents can fight at their kids' baseball game, one can only imagine how two passionate religious personalities will get along. Give people a break and realize the innate characteristics working in all of us.

As I have said before, we must relate to people on their level. We talk to children on their level. We talk to mentally challenged individuals on their level. Why would we stop using this most fundamental principle for terrorists? The "evil" Dr. Goldhammer refers to is the myth following all military actions; that violence cannot lead to peace. If that's the way it is stated, it sounds ridiculous that someone could believe otherwise. The fact of the matter is that violent members of our world really understand violence. Terrorists really understand terror. Finding alternatives to war is a fine endeavor and I'm certain some exist. But, a good old fashion butt whoopin isn't such a bad idea either. It is the very fact that Dr. Goldhammer doesn't consider our plight as legitimate international crises that makes me wonder why he believes we can start to govern teachings. Sounds a bit Hitler to me. Ask Dietrich Bonhoeffer?

In one breath, Dr. Goldhammer wants to put down the indoctrination of our youth and then he states, "It may well be that we are condemned to repeat past horrors-until we come to grips with the crucial necessity to educate ourselves and most urgently, children everywhere…" Furthermore, who is going to govern what destructive ideologies are? Who is going to define them and enforce these desired effects? By being defenders of freedom, we will not be able to engage in such an arrogant task as to define what teachings are racist and hatred laden. Such an effort would open the door to further scrutiny of any teachings and would definitely reflect the same "arrogance, power, religious absolutism and empire-building" being argued against.


I wrote these words as a direct opposition to anything Dr. Goldhammer mentioned in his article as both a practice in debate and a demonstration of hype-laden ramblings. Believe either side you wish. I don't care what you think, just that you think. Just take a note that any and all sides can be effectively persuasive. Watch out for the traps that might ensnare you to believe things you would normally be set against. Before anyone asks, I believe more in the words I wrote here. But, I think Dr. Goldhammer voices legitimate concerns that need addressed and hopefully we can find non-violent ways to accomplish that.

By the way, have I mentioned how much I love this site?

You skeert me a bit there, MichaelAllen - I was thinking this does not sound like your normal reasoned posts!

Michael, I'm not sure I understand. First you wrote about the "war on terror," then you seemed to acknowledge that the situation in Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism, then you say the situation in Iraq is about the war on terrorism?


I think if you would look at the history of civilization(s) you might find that the world situation is no different than it has ever been. He-mans fantasies aside, do you really think that might makes right? If so why?


Precisely why Bush and Co.'s "war on terrorism" is rhetoric and nothing more. "Terrorism" will never be ended. The best one can do is address the issues that make it attractive, like poverty and oppression.


But being "aggressive" sends a signal to the Iraqi people that they are now under our thumb. It is no wonder we are seen (rightly) as oppressors rather than liberators.


Would those be the same "men" who got us into this mess to begin with? "Brain off, full speed ahead," "Hoorah," etc... works great in a movie, but not in real life.

I'm sure you mean well, but embracing violence leads only to more violence.

Hobitbob, have you read the penultimate paragraph in MichaelAllen's post?

Yes, and I question whether the US is suited to be the "defender of freedom." As for judging what beliefs and agendas are correct, all one can say is the current ones cetrtainly are not.

Very likely!


Welcome, Hamnet, btw, are you a Shakespeare lover?

dlowan, I thought most would like the play with arguments there. But, I do follow most of what I have to say even though I think Goldhammer hits on many things I believe as well. I have a complex look at the world that often seems contradictory. But, it comes with the territory. An old U.S. Marine attitude is best exemplified by the saying, "The civilian will never understand the Marine's ability to hold a rifle in one hand and a child in another." That love-hate thing. The battle of good and evil in all of us. The tough love, tough decisions we are all forced to face will make a person think one way one day and slightly different the next as our most natural impulse is to evolve.

hobitbob, we have a very real terrorist situation even though the war in Iraq might not have been entirely of "terrorist" motivations. We stood to have something to gain from that scenario and the "holy war" hype is our distraction. From the terrorist perspective, we are in a "holy war." The American people really have yet to know why we went over there. We were convinced about the need for Sadam's removal and that weapons of mass destruction were a major threat, but all we need is to be told what we want to hear after the 9/11 incident and we are putty in the hands of the leadership.

Might does not make right. I would never say that. But, when you have a volatile situation, you don't take a knife to a gun fight. And you don't tell people what to teach their own. As far as gaining control of the situation and offering some guidance for its direction, I thought we'd all understand the need from some kind of leadership. And we can't let fanatics be our leaders or extreme ideas be our guidance.

I just don't want a world where people are scared. Why should they be when we have the resources to end the terror? We are not there to put the Iraqi people under our thumb, we are there to rid them of the oppression that they have been living under. Then we educate them when we have their attention, which I believe we had at one time and could probably get back with a little more work. Those sensitive to our efforts will listen to us and that will spread. Of course, would we be going against Dr. Goldhammer's wishes for what not to teach?

The Pearl Harbor and Revolutionary men reacted to adverse situations and did something about them. They didn't talk themselves around in circles while the problems needed real solutions now. And no, they are not the ones who got us into the mess. They are the ones who got us out though. If we were to liken it to what we are going through today, it's not Bush and Powell. It's the blue collar worker I sat beside at the bar on the day terrorists took our towers down. He wanted to go to war. He wanted to do something about it. And at the end of the day, when we had a name attached to the catastrophe, every red-blooded American wanted to do something about it. Now, our blood has cooled and our heads are a bit more clearer than that day. We can think through our emotions and come up with better solutions than delivering that good old fashion butt whoopin. But, take yourself back to that day and tell me you didn't feel something stir. Especially when you watch tapes of people jumping and you hear that one was a pregnant lady. I guess the bottom line is that we really didn't oppose going to Iraq. The French took a good bit of hits for their opposition and that should be proof enough. The irony is how much we oppose it now after all is said and done. I know we're still losing people and technically we are still right in the middle of it even though we declared it was over. The point I'm trying to make is that the opposition wasn't really there before we went over. It is now. Regrets. War humbles. Get that message and you'll understand what I'm trying to say about how we should handle the situation now.

It is not a warrior's attitude to embrace war. Indians warred and most never even liked the idea. It is a warrior's attitude that sometimes that's what it takes. Maybe in a sense it is "brain off." But, many wars have come as a result of plenty of "brain on" negotiations and reservations. When you are getting attacked, what do you do? When someone steals something from you in plane view of you, what do you do? When someone is getting beat in front of you, what do you do? If you don't stand up for yourself, you will lose everything you have. I'm willing to fight if I have to, after I have exhausted all other resources. And I won't allow myself to be guilted into feeling something I don't or to not speak my mind about it. You can't shame me to shut my mouth.