Why “the War on …” Always Fails

The War on Drugs

The War on Illiteracy

The War on Teen Pregnancy

We Americans sure love our wars, don’t we? Why do we always gravitate toward this metaphor to solve our problems? Why haven’t we figured out that it never works?

War is a strategically planned series of violent encounters between one aggrieved party and another. While one could posit that war is never productive (“War, what is it good for? Absolutely nothing”), at least traditional war involves two parties in opposition and a conclusion where one party is victorious over another. That is why true wars are finite. Nation X declares war on Nation Y and the war continues until one is the victor or both sides agree to stop fighting.

However, when we declare “war” on an ideology or a concept, we’re in for an endless struggle with no satisfactory conclusion. War on a concept is an infinite war. The latest case in point is our “war on terror”. On NBC’s “Meet the Press” last Sunday while discussing the war on terror, Newt Gingrich stated that “war is over when the terrorists disappear”. Well, just how ridiculous a statement is that? Terrorists have always existed and will always exist. So long as there are aggrieved parties who, for whatever reason, find it impossible to express their frustration through legal means, there will be terror. Are we really to believe that our military should be in an endless fight against this “enemy”.

When Tim McVeigh bombed the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City, did we send the military after him and his co-conspirators? No, we treated him like a criminal. Al Quada and the Taliban are not national entities against whom we can declare war. They are criminal organizations. Every terror network is a criminal organization. The fact that they may be politically motivated (so was McVeigh) is irrelevant. The way to pursue criminals is with law enforcement officials, not the military.

In a prior post, I defended the part of the Bush Doctrine that stated that countries who knowingly  harbor terrorists are our enemies. We should take diplomatic steps with these countries to get their cooperation. We should use sanctions if necessary. We certainly can’t declare war on them when they have not formally attacked us.

While we pursue terrorism as a criminal matter, we should also take steps to reduce the incentives for terrorists. The incidence of homegrown terrorism in the United States, Canada and other wealthy western countries is low for a reason. The level of desperation in these countries is lower than in others. We must use our influence to help countries like Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan to improve the standard of life for their citizens. International efforts to stamp out poverty and increase education are the way to go. (By the way, these are the very same efforts that would help in our struggle against drug dependency and teen pregnancy, i.e. a concerted effort to reduce poverty and increase education.)

Folks, we need to stop declaring war on everything we don’t like. Concepts and ideologies don’t die because you try to kill everyone holding the particular concept. Concepts change when you make an effort to change hearts and minds. Communism in Russia did not die because of military action. It died because the people realized it no longer served their purposes.

When it comes to ideology, war is good for absolutely nothing.

Respectfully,
Rutherford

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

Advertisements

145 thoughts on “Why “the War on …” Always Fails

  1. I think, what we like Rutherford, is our jingoisms, and that we declare war on so many things really only goes as far as that fact. For example, you cited the war on teen pregnancy, which ever politician decries as an awful sociological phenomena, but which has never even gained the support of our considerable number of “bureaucratic soldiers.”

  2. “We should use sanctions if necessary. We certainly can’t declare war on them when they have not formally attacked us.”

    And when sanctions dont work which they rarely ever do, then what? Ohh and we cant declare war on someone who uses jihadists as proxies to do their dirty work?

    “International efforts to stamp out poverty and increase education are the way to go.”

    Thats bs. Poverty isnt the root cause of islamic terrorism, its islam.

    http://money.cnn.com/2007/03/13/magazines/fortune/pluggedin_murphy_terror.fortune/index.htm?section=money_email_alerts

  3. Elric shorter on the world.

    What makes your alarm clock flash 12:00 when it resets? Blame Islam!

    Who makes that crappy plastic wrapping on electronics that’s hard to open? Islamics.

    Faulty coffee lids? Islam.

    Bad drivers? Islamics.

  4. All you’ve said right now. Hence why I said “Elric shorter on the world” not “Elric shorter on the root causes of islamic terrorism.”

    If you want me to tag a lack of understanding of sarcasm and satire to my assessment of your worldview, I’m more than willing.

  5. Really? Cause you comment a lot. Kudos for saying so much without saying nothing at all. Empty platitudes do seem to be your forte.

  6. While I agree it is absurd to declare war on an ideology or a concept, and we are far too militaristic, it was well within our right to wage war on the Taliban. I applauded when Bush said “We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them”. I wish we would have had a formal declaration of war instead of these limp-wristed congressional resolutions. Sanctions against the Taliban government would have gotten us nowhere. I’ve said it before on other blogs, I supported Bush’s efforts in Afghanistan. It was only when his neocon handlers convinced him to needlessly go crusading into Iraq where I thought he is instead driven by ideology and we are in for a world of trouble. The problem was Bush paid for his Iraq crusade with the blood of over 4000 of our troops.

  7. No you have it wrong, its the thug in chief with the empty platitudes, not me.

    But since you didnt dispute my assertion that the root cause of islamic terrorism is islam not poverty, you must agree with it.

  8. “The problem was Bush paid for his Iraq crusade with the blood of over 4000 of our troops.”

    You make it sound like crusade is a bad thing.

  9. I’d dispute the concept but I won’t dispute you Elric, for while I find the idea incomplete I find arguing with ideologues to be somewhat of a waste of my time.

    Haranguing their unquestioning devotion despite all ration and logic however, I find amusing. So I’ll continue.

    Elric, “Islam, Mohamed, Shitty, Crusade, Go America, Woo!”

  10. Well I would have called Mo-bomb-ed worse and yes I do support the Crusades and America. But by the time the thug in chief is done, there wont be an America to cheer for.

  11. Ironic how Rutherford left out far and away are most expensive and obviously failed war, while only briefly mentioning near the end by example. Of course, it was initiated by a Dimocrat and continues to be supported by Dimocrats, so it is understandable how it failed to receive much mention on this most “balanced” of blogs.

    Last I heard this failure had cost the U.S. Taxpayer more than $6 Trillion dollars. And not only had it failed miserably, it had actually made our entire society much worse for its troubles. How’s that for success, as those who criticize the Iraq War and the reasons for going so willingly forget?

    THE WAR on POVERTY…

  12. “R”,

    We should use sanctions if necessary.

    Refresh my historical memory. When has this method of sanctions worked again?

  13. “Ha Ha! See, just the answer I expected. No really, it’s fun, do it again!”

    This is exactly why its pointless to debate libs. Could have pointed out where I was wrong but no that would be asking for too much.

  14. Sanctions against the Taliban government …

    Curator I could agree with this but for whether it is fair to call the Taliban a government. Surely they are not the official government of Afghanistan. I think you’re right that a declared war was in order. But again you have to ask can you declare war on an official government that has not attacked you nor publicly advocated on behalf of the criminals who did attack you?

  15. Although II found the post an enjoyable read I have to say there seems to be some glaring oversimplifications. I concede that occurs rather easily in blogging but just for the record…

    Are we really to believe that our military should be in an endless fight against this “enemy”.

    If by “this enemy” you mean international fundamentalist Islamic jihad the answer is yes. I say so for the reason that the entity is big enough and determined enough to attack the liberties and economies of a majority of the World. It’s not a job for a cop.

    While we pursue terrorism as a criminal matter, we should also take steps to reduce the incentives for terrorists.

    I guess my problem with this is that terrorist has ALWAYS been pretty much a piss poor misused word. It’s open to subjective/objective tweaking because that is just reality. One man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter. So the specific “terrorist” entity and action really need to be analyzed and acting on in an appropriate manner. The incentives are not universal and therefore certain blanket approaches to perceived ones are fruitless.

    Communism in Russia did not die because of military action. It died because the people realized it no longer served their purposes.

    I have to tell you…NO! Russia specifically is a great example of how a people can be shaped by all their different ographies and present something we can’t wrap our heads around due to our ographies. Shorter & hopefully less confusing answer. How do you explain Russians embracing of neo Soviet politics ?
    I also agree with Tex on the War on Poverty. R it fits your thesis as well if not better than the ones you went with.

  16. But again you have to ask can you declare war on an official government that has not attacked you nor publicly advocated on behalf of the criminals who did attack you?

    The Taliban was the official government of Afghanistan and did rather publicy support those that attacked us unless you’re a twoofer who thinks it was Haliburton and Cheney.

  17. And a pro R comment to boot.
    Sanctions do work (especially if you add in embargoes and blockades,boycotts etc.) but only when applied to those that it’ll affect.
    North Korea doesn’t care about it’s people and when the going does get rough the Chinese land route aid to them.
    Not being a big fan of the Olympics I’d still say the various boycotts etc. proved beneficial in the overall diplomacy surrounding the causative issues.

  18. Fine Elric,
    I admit that some aspects of the Islamic religion and moreso interpretations of it can lead to religious violence. I’m not denying it, and to universally ascribe it to poverty is wrong especially when considering guys like Bin Laden.

    However, to think that people being piss-poor isn’t part of it , especially when they are in conflict with much wealthier neighbors (Israel-Palestine) or when they live in a country where their resources should bring them more wealth than they have (Iraq & oil), makes you a dumb, blind ideologue.

  19. Rutherford: “But again you have to ask can you declare war on an official government that has not attacked you nor publicly advocated on behalf of the criminals who did attack you?”

    The Taliban didn’t have to attack us, they harbored al Qaeda.

    Elric: ” I just pointed out that the root cause of islamc terrorism is welll islam, not poverty.”

    The root cause of Islamic terrorism is politics, not Islam.

    And poverty is a part of it. Not all Muslims are rich oil sheiks. Many of them are very poor, and live under oppressive governments that are very rich.

    I’ve walked through slums in Egypt. It aint a pretty sight. It tears at the heart of anyone who has a shred of emotion.

    When you have nothing left to lose, lashing out doesn’t seem all that bad. That’s not saying it’s the right thing to do, but that is the reality.

  20. Tex: “Refresh my historical memory. When has this method of sanctions worked again?”

    Iraq during Saddam.

    Although, I’d venture that starving people to death isn’t much different than bombing them to death.

  21. “I admit that some aspects of the Islamic religion and moreso interpretations of it can lead to religious violence.”

    Well it all started with its prophet didnt it? Or did he misinterpret his own religious writings?

    As for being poor? Well whats your excuses for the homegrown muslims in the West? They poor too? Then how come you dont see poor Christians, Jews, Hindus and Buddhists take up arms?

    Perfect example. The recent Bronx case. They were converts. Why did they feel the need to convert in order to become terrorists?

    No, I am not the dumb one. I dont view the world through multicultural glasses like you do. I see the world for what it is. I see there are good ideologies and bad ones. Islam is a very very bad one.

  22. “The root cause of Islamic terrorism is politics, not Islam.”

    Islam is a political ideology as much if not more than a religious one. Thanks for agreeing

  23. “This is exactly why its pointless to debate libs. Could have pointed out where I was wrong but no that would be asking for too much.”

    Elric, you’re about the last person on the Internet that has the right to cry about the style of someone’s discourse. You rarely make any points, opting instead to ask your little questions (or not-so-little), and then spending days insisting that they be answered like a child who won’t go to bed until his daddy explains in detail why zebras have stripes.

  24. To R’s original point …

    I think that the reason we like the war imagery is that (we pretend that) wars are simple — there are two sides, one is good and one is bad.

    In WWII, it’s very clear. The Axis consisted of the Nazis and the people who attacked Pearl Harbor. The solution? Fight!

    Of course, the “war on teen pregnancy” isn’t that easy, unless we’re going to start executing sexually-active teenagers. Snipers hanging out at the local “lovers’ lane,” that sort of thing. (Actually, I might be on board with a certain level of violence toward guys who try to pressure girls, but that might be me speaking as a father more than anything else …)

    What was I saying? Oh, yeah ….

    It’s easy to rally support if you’ve got a war … but it does fall apart. The war on poverty? What, exactly, is the bad guy?

    The war on drugs? Are we going after supply or demand? How?

    I’m fine with fighting these various fights, but I don’t think that any of them translates well into war language.

  25. Sorry, Rutherford, I need to take a sideline, here …

    RedPill said:

    “his daddy explains in detail why zebras have stripes”

    You know, I’ll have to add this to the list of reasons why it’s so much better to be a Creationist than an Evolutionist!

    “Because God wanted them to be able to hide better, so He made them that way” is a lot easier than anything else I can imagine.

    I think it’s either that or turn to Rudyard Kipling.

  26. “Perfect example. The recent Bronx case. They were converts. Why did they feel the need to convert in order to become terrorists?”

    I don’t know why. But ask yourself these questions:

    Did Tim McVeigh convert to Islam?

    Did the Weather Underground convert to Islam?

    Did the Unibomber convert to Islam?

    Did the Olympics bomber convert to Islam

    Do abortion-clinic bombers convert to Islam?

    If a Muslim had done a school massacre, we’d call it terrorism, so let’s include those, too.

    Have any school shooters converted to Islam?

    The answer to every one of those questions is a resounding “NO!” So obviously Islam is not the deciding factor that turns a person into a terrorist. There are obviously other factors at play.

  27. Wow you convinced me now. You had to dig up cases years and years ago to prove a point? LOL

    When was the last abortion clinic bombing by the way? When was the last time a muslim bombed something?

    Yeah thats the same thing. Keep digging Red Pill.

  28. Elric: This is exactly why its pointless to debate you. Could have pointed out where I was wrong but no that would be asking for too much.

    Marc: “Multicultural glasses” is Elric’s way of insulting someone.

    You see, to Elric, accepting that different people have different cultures, and accepting that those cultures are not beneith ours, is a bad thing.

    Nevermind that the country he lives in was built on the multicultural values brought to it by its immigrants over the last 2+ centuries. Details like that don’t compute.

  29. “You see, to Elric, accepting that different people have different cultures, and accepting that those cultures are not beneith ours, is a bad thing.”

    Sometimes it is.

    “Nevermind that the country he lives in was built on the multicultural values brought to it by its immigrants over the last 2+ centuries. Details like that don’t compute.”

    Exually

  30. “Nevermind that the country he lives in was built on the multicultural values brought to it by its immigrants over the last 2+ centuries. Details like that don’t compute.”

    No it wasnt. It wasnt until the 1960’s that immigrants were expected to assimilate into our culture. Now its not the case and slowly we are becoming balkanized.

  31. I’m not talking about assimilation into our culture. That would mean the immigrant casts aside his home culture, and completely adopts ours.

    I’m talking about how ours was built in the first place.

    Why is the culture of Louisiana so much different from that of New York or California? Geography would be one big reason. But another would be the cultures of the immigrants who populated those places.

    They didn’t adopt our culture. They brought their culture and added it to what we already had.

    Surely you’ve heard America called the “Great Melting Pot.” Cultures are the ingredients being added and stirred in that pot.

  32. Pill,

    Tex: “Refresh my historical memory. When has this method of sanctions worked again?”

    Iraq during Saddam.

    Although, I’d venture that starving people to death isn’t much different than bombing them to death.

    WHAT? Good grief man. I’ve supported you to a large degree in the past, but I have to call you on this one. That answer was mind boggling dumb. We had the food for oil scandal with the U.N., where children starved and Saddam and his U.N. cronies enriched themselves. We had 16 U.N. resolutions thumbed for 12 years. We had Saddam paying terrorists 25K for each dead Jew in Israel courtesy of terrorists., ad nauseam…

    And that’s your idea of working? What’s your idea of failure?

  33. “Surely you’ve heard America called the “Great Melting Pot.” Cultures are the ingredients being added and stirred in that pot.”

    And this so called “melting pot” will boil over. Some cultures can not co-exist with others, they most dominate and destroy other cultures.

  34. “Oh, so Elric, you’d like to take us back to before the 1960s then?”

    In some aspects yes, some no. You see I know what you are getting at so no, I wouldnt want to toss aside the Civil Rights movement. I was just referring to the out of control immigration. But you knew that. You just like painting people as racist like a good lib.

  35. I wasn’t going to paint you as anything; i was going to let you do it yourself. You do know the nation of islam was a major player in the civil rights movement of course.

  36. “I wasn’t going to paint you as anything; i was going to let you do it yourself. You do know the nation of islam was a major player in the civil rights movement of course.”

    LOL Thats funny. A racist group a major player in the civil rights movement. Hilarious. I wonder how they feel about their fellow black brothers and sisters being slaughtered and enslaved in Sudan.

  37. Marc,

    You do know the nation of islam was a major player in the civil rights movement of course.

    They also were a major player in numerous murders, including many of their beloved own. Are you actually going to defend the Nation of Islam Marc as something good?

    Man, what are they teaching you guys not too far out of school in history anymore? If you want to take a good look at the fruits of the Nation of Islam, take a good, hard look at Louis Farrakhan.

    For all the perceived ills that you guys dream up of Christianity, have we forgotten the black leadership that helped lead the Civil Rights Movement were predominately black Baptist preachers? Oh, and you can throw in a few more of the evil white preachers too like Billy Graham, who refused to evangelize in the south until all men were giving equitable treatment. Of course, that is always forgotten by the liberal establishment.

    Scary…

  38. “Are you actually going to defend the Nation of Islam Marc as something good?”

    Of course he will. They are minorities, they are not Christian so by liberal “logic” they must be good.

    He also forgot that it was the democrat party that was on the wrong side of the civil rights movement.

  39. Well my buddy Rutherford “R”,

    You’ve written an interesting and thought provoking piece once again. I do you give you credit for having the ability to generate thought. You missed your calling.

    Have you thanked (or cursed) the Rabbit for helping to make your site now the blog of choice? I’m not sure that’s your gain or loss in your measure, but nonetheless true.

    Even General Chen would now be jealous.

  40. Tex, after looking for 7 years, how many WMDs have we found in Iraq? How many SCUDs have we found in that time? How many weapons that the sanctions were targetting have we found?

    Those weapons weren’t used against our troops, or anyone else, because they didn’t have them anymore. That is because of the sanctions that had been imposed.

    That isn’t to say sanctions are the cure for every state that ails us, and perhaps my starvation comment was over the top. But sanctions did work against Iraq. They forced an openly violent dictator into a virtual closet, causing him to have to do his worst through proxies. Hardly the method that a totalitarian dictator prefers, and one that Saddam didn’t have to use until the sanctions kicked in.

    And I believe that historical hindsight makes that pretty undeniable.

  41. “That is because of the sanctions that had been imposed.”

    If thats true, why the cat and mouse game. Why not just let the inspectors have full access so Saddam could have had a clean bill of health and the sanctions lifted? Strange

    The only thing Ill give Saddam is that he knew how to keep jihadists in their place.

  42. “If thats true, why the cat and mouse game. Why not just let the inspectors have full access so Saddam could have had a clean bill of health and the sanctions lifted? ”

    I don’t think we can deny it is true, anymore, Elric. Obviously, there were no WMDs (or other sanctionable weapons) in Iraq. That isn’t even open for debate anymore. We were wrong. (I’m not sayignwe were lied to, so don’t even go there).

    Our troops weren’t nuked, chemed or bioed. They weren’t bombed by Iraqi jets, or fired on by Iraqi helicopter gunships. Because Iraq no longer had those weapons….because of sanctions.

    As to why Saddam feigned to have them is probably the $20,000 question. The theory that I have heard that is the most believable to me is that he was afraid of his neighbors (IE: Iran) and his own oppressed people finding out that the dog’s teeth had been pulled.

    It was a fatal mistake on his part.

  43. Pill,

    The statement that sanctions worked in Iraq is ludicrous. The fact sanctions weren’t working was exactly the reason we doused the dictator and thug – WMD, or no WMD.

  44. Tex #48 and others. In all fairness and calmer afterthought you’d of course give some credence to Malcolm X. Killed primarily because he woke up and started to challenge the NoI machine. There alone there were elements of the NoI that were pretty important in many inner cities.
    Red.. You make a point that goes full circle though regards sanctions. Sanctions did little to endear us to the Iraqi people. Perhaps that and our “lies” to the Shia post Iraq I are reasons they failed to meet us with flowers etc.
    Tex seems to stand with my earlier point that sanctions only work if everyone does them and the targeted care about them. In the case of Iraq there were too many players helping on the sly.

  45. Also, I didn’t say what role they played in civil rights, just said they had one. I was just waiting for you to jump in with intolerant harumphing.

  46. “Obviously, there were no WMDs (or other sanctionable weapons) in Iraq.”

    You mean there werent any once we went in. Well except for a few old shells with mustard gas.

  47. I have to agree with Red on this. Sanctions did work to a degree. Desert Fox in 1998 worked as well where we hit 85% of our targets. Red’s “dog’s teeth had been pulled.” is right on the money. Saddam had much to fear from Iran if they knew just how weak he was.

  48. Just for Red Pill.

    In our meeting Wednesday, Abbas acknowledged that Olmert had shown him a map proposing a Palestinian state on 97 percent of the West Bank — though he complained that the Israeli leader refused to give him a copy of the plan. He confirmed that Olmert “accepted the principle” of the “right of return” of Palestinian refugees — something no previous Israeli prime minister had done — and offered to resettle thousands in Israel. In all, Olmert’s peace offer was more generous to the Palestinians than either that of Bush or Bill Clinton; it’s almost impossible to imagine Obama, or any Israeli government, going further.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/28/AR2009052803614.html

    Like I said, they dont want peace except through a destroyed Israel.

  49. Pill as good a place to ask this question as any. Sanctions on Iraq…were they successful because they worked or were they successful because Iraq had it’s ass kicked. I’m curious because when it comes to sanctioned nations North Korea makes the list yet they’re ready to launch another missile.

  50. Homeland Security Memo
    TOP SECRET
    01 October 01

    President Rutherford,

    The aim of this report is to list the actions taken within the parameters of your new law enforcement approach.

    The Taliban and Al Queda are suspected for murdering 3000 people in 30 minutes.

    As with any other crime, we first sent in detectives to gather information and interview suspects. Sadly, Detective O’Mally was decapitated while standing in line at a Kabul airport Cina-bun. Detective O’Reiley also ran into some problems. It turns out he never was actually qualified on firing a RPG. On reports of an officer down in Kandahar, Det. O’Reiley met fierce resistance from an army of 5,000 Taliban. After giving warning for the assailants to drop their weapons, O’Reilly’s RPG accidentally discharged. It hit Officer Sandra Martinez’ squad car as she was filling out the proper search warrants for Suspect Mullah Omar’s tent.

    In response to this lack of success we sent in the LA Riot Patrol. The LA Riot Patrol was to rendezvous with the Northern Alliance in Waziristan. Reports are coming in that the plastic shields, clubs and water hoses were not enough to withstand Taliban fighters. Out of the 10 who survived, they left Afghanistan due to union rules working 5 doubles in a row.

    We sent in McGruff the Crime dog too. Apparently, McGruff was never neutered as the last we saw of him he was mating with an Afghan street dingo and missed roll call. Turns out he took a bite out of some in season ass and not crime.

    Walker Texas Ranger did have some success ninja kicking a Taliban fighter but did not know how to pilot a Black Hawk helicopter. Sadly he crashed into Robo-Cop, the only officer that was having minimal success.

    We have reports that our own allies, the Northern Alliance, have tied up Charlie’s Angels and are doing the unspeakable.

    Hannibal from the A Team claims he has a plan that is “crazy, but just crazy enough it might work” to defeat the Taliban. Other then Mr. T, they haven’t been seen since. We have a confirmation that Mr. T has been radicalized and joined Al Queda.

    Meanwhile, with 100% of our police force off to Afghanistan and our 100% of our fleet in Norfolk bored out of their mind, the entire eastern coast is on fire. There is a massive shortage of alcohol which has led to extreme hoarding and illegal brewing by someone going by the alias of Dead Rabbit.

  51. Sonia Sotomayor needs to do one thing. Apologize for that blatantly racist (and even more scary) straight up non-legal/unconstitutional remark. That’s it. Is she perfect? From my stand point, hell no.

    She does seem rather close to being pro-life to me, which is cool. I’m sick of this Supreme Court bickering. Republicans lost the election. Time to take the punishment.

    Anyone who deems that comment she made about skin color making someone a better judge as no big deal has no idea the fire they are playing with. The road away from the Constitution is a road weaving into ad hoc tyranny. To build that road with racism is even worse.

    Again. Lets get her on the bench. Obama won. Unless the candidate is unfit to the point of being a threat to the very core of our nation, I believe we have no business blocking the appointment.

    Unfortunately, at this point, she is that threat. Obama now putting words in her mouth doesn’t cut it.

    I can’t see anyone disagreeing with me unless you disagree with any semblance of constitutionalism.

  52. It’s bed time on the East Coast and way too much to address here. I’ll try to tackle some comments over the weekend but let me make a couple of remarks from the lowest hanging fruit.

    Tex, thanks for the compliment. I must admit I’ve greatly enjoyed having you, Rabbit and the rest of the gang hashing it out in here. I’ve always felt that a good post is one thing but a good comments thread is really where the action is.

    The award (as usual) for most creative comment goes to Dead Rabbit 2.0 for his memo to President Rutherford. I swear when you are in the zone, you are in the zone. Bravo dude.

    As for Sotomayor, how can the same Rabbit who penned the witty memo be the dude who went totally brain-dead on Sonia? Listen, all she was saying is that judges are human beings and their life experience inevitably informs their decisions. Samuel Alito said basically the same thing. Plus, everyone quotes the “Latina makes better decisions than white guy” without discussing the rest of her quote in which she says that her awareness of how her life experiences might prejudice her, makes her extra vigilant concerning her own emotions when making decisions. Again …we love the sound bites out of context don’t we? (By the way, and I don’t have the stats on this, but she has dismissed claims of discrimination in many of the cases that have come before her. Mind you, I said discrimination, not reverse-discrimination. In other words, she’s told women, blacks and probably Hispanics to go pound salt if their discrimination claims did not hold water.)

    There must be some micro-organism in the water that guys like Tom Tancredo can talk like a total nutjob and get anyone’s attention.

    Finally, before I take my leave:

    Elric, just so you know …. for the future …. every time you write “So what is Obama’s GPA again?” I will be translating that in my head to read “Sincerely yours, your devoted conservative reader and biggest fan, Elric”. 🙂

  53. Tex: “The statement that sanctions worked in Iraq is ludicrous. The fact sanctions weren’t working was exactly the reason we doused the dictator and thug – WMD, or no WMD.”

    Did we not invade Iraq because we thought they had weapons of mass destruction that could be used against us, our allies, or sold to our enemies? Weren’t WMDs the entire point of our invasion?

    We thought the sanctions weren’t working. That’s why we invaded Iraq.

    But we didn’t find any WMDs, because there weren’t any.

    And that is because of the sanctions.

    Elric: “Like I said, they dont want peace except through a destroyed Israel.”

    I’m afraid I don’t see Palestinians moving to Israel as destroying Israel. Israeli’s move into Palestinian territory all the time. Perhaps I am missing another point?

    Alfie: “I’m curious because when it comes to sanctioned nations North Korea makes the list yet they’re ready to launch another missile.”

    I don’t have the answer to that one. Luckily I included this disclaimer in an earlier comment. “That isn’t to say sanctions are the cure for every state that ails us” I would even go so far as to guess that sanctions would fail more than succeed. I was really only giving an example, and the only 1 I could think of, at that.

    Maybe the type and/or amount of sanctions were different. Certainly the closed society of North Korea would be able to deal with its sanctions in a different way than Iraq would have been allowed to deal with them.

    Desert Fox, as Curator mentioned would be another thing that N. Korea hasn’t experienced. We destroyed a buttload of Iraqi stuff, and then, largely because of sanctions, Iraq was unable to get more.

  54. “I’m afraid I don’t see Palestinians moving to Israel as destroying Israel. Israeli’s move into Palestinian territory all the time. Perhaps I am missing another point?”

    You mean Jordanian territory, dont you?

  55. Elric:”You mean Jordanian territory, dont you?”

    No, I said what I meant.

    But I read your quote wrong, so my interpretaion of it was wrong.

    And I don’t really know how to respond to that. At face value, it seems to be an offer worth accepting. Of course, we don’t know all the details of the offer, and that is always where the devil in any deal lies.

    But going just by what we have, I’d say that is an unfortunate development in steps toward peace between the 2.

  56. Well just to let you know, the West Bank was part of Jordan in 1967 so it would be Jordanian territory, not Palestinian since there was no Palestine in 1967. Funny how the Arabs werent willing to cough up a state for the Palis.

    And also to let you know, you will never have peace. Israel is more than willing to sacrifice land but it will never be enough unless its all their land.

    In January, I went to check out both rallies. The Israeli one was very orderly and peaceful. They just wanted the rockets to stop and their beef was with Hamas, not the Palis in general. Was even some singing.

    Then I went to the Pali one. Full of leftists and muslims in “peace scarves”. Nothing but anger and hatred. Saw signs saying “Free Palestine”. You now what the picture was? All of Israel. And now Abbas turned down Olmert’s insane offer.

    You will never ever have peace because they want nothing but a destroyed Israel. Thats the end game.

  57. “Well just to let you know, the West Bank was part of Jordan in 1967 so it would be Jordanian territory, not Palestinian since there was no Palestine in 1967.”

    I know that. West Bank wasn’t the Palestinian territory I was referring to. Like I said, I misread. It’s been a long day of reading and writing on Wilson’s wierd progressive theories. Have pity on me. I’m brain-dead right now.

    “And also to let you know, you will never have peace. Israel is more than willing to sacrifice land but it will never be enough unless its all their land. ”

    Well, like I said, we don’t know all of the details of that offer. And I don’t want to let the actions of people at a protest rally represent the people they are protesting for.

    “You will never ever have peace because they want nothing but a destroyed Israel. Thats the end game.”

    About all I can say is that I hope you’re mistaken.

  58. It just occurred to me.

    They offered 97% of the West Bank. I’ll bet Jerusalem has something to do with the number offered, and the refusal of the deal.

    That’s why I advocate making Jerusalem like the Vatican, and taking it out of the equasion for both sides. I think that would be a good first step. Taking 97% deals would be another.

  59. Hey Rutherford, lets bounce her comment off a mirror.

    “Growing up on the Upper East Side, I’ve been enriched in a culture that has a tradition of success. When I grew up, a work ethic and professional excellence was a family requirement. This tradition makes me better suited then a black or brown judge”.

    How does it feel? Excited for her to be on the Supreme Court?

    This new acceptance of emotionalism replacing the Constitution scares the living crap out of me. Post Modernism at its worse, no doubt. How can you not see this as the road to fascism?

    You liberals like to talk about the Constitution’s imperfections. We’re told it is a “breathing” or “living” document.

    Of course the piece of paper is imperfect. But don’t you see that deferring to a piece of paper eliminates tyranny?

    Amendments. Not emotionalism.

  60. Hate to split hairs Rabbit (or would that be split hares? 🙂 ):

    Your “mirror” statement does not really mirror what Sotomayor said and admittedly, the difference is subtle. Your statement really deals with qualifications to be a judge. Sotomayor’s comment deals with the judge’s behavior once on the bench. Two qualified candidates, white and Hispanic get on the court. Done deal. Sotomayor has no problem with that. Once on the court, there will be certain cases for which the Hispanic, based on her experiences (assuming they were “typically Hispanic” experiences) would bring a different perspective than the white guy. This is why balance on the court is a good thing.

    I suspect the Supreme Court you want, Rabbit, could just as easily be run by computers. The bots would use some syntax analysis algorithm to align every decision with the verbiage of the Constitution and no emotion would enter into it. Personally, I prefer humans who can figure out that Plessy vs Ferguson was a bad decision.

    Read my next comment and dissect what else the “racist judge” had to say in the very same statement that has garnered such controversy.

  61. More from the supposedly racist judge. How can you parse this to make her out to be a racist?

    Each day on the bench I learn something new about the judicial process and about being a professional Latina woman in a world that sometimes looks at me with suspicion. I am reminded each day that I render decisions that affect people concretely and that I owe them constant and complete vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions and perspectives and ensuring that to the extent that my limited abilities and capabilities permit me, that I reevaluate them and change as circumstances and cases before me requires. I can and do aspire to be greater than the sum total of my experiences but I accept my limitations. I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate.

    Stop listening to the nutcase brigade of Gingrich, Rove and Tancredo and judge the woman on the full text of what she said.

  62. Red,

    But we didn’t find any WMDs, because there weren’t any. And that is because of the sanctions.

    I suppose this is a matter of opinion, but if you’re all for us first destroying a countries military might like we did Iraq, then imposing sanctions afterwards claming sanctions worked, hey I’m all with you.

    So when do we go to war with Mahmoud to destroy his nuclear arsenal first, before we impose sanctions?

    Have no fear – Israel is going to do it for us and Mahmoud will be toast.

  63. Red,

    But we didn’t find any WMDs, because there weren’t any. And that is because of the sanctions.

    I suppose this is a matter of opinion, but if you’re all for us first destroying a countries military might like we did Iraq, then imposing sanctions afterwards claiming sanctions worked, hey I’m all with you.

    So when do we go to war with Mahmoud to destroy his nuclear arsenal first, before we impose sanctions?

    Have no fear – Israel is going to do it for us and Mahmoud will be toast.

  64. Sorry “R”…my fingers got a little heavy there. Could you delete that first comment as I had misspelled claiming?

    You’re a peach…a fuzzy one.

  65. “Stop listening to the nutcase brigade of Gingrich, Rove and Tancredo and judge the woman on the full text of what she said.”

    Lets put in the context that she is a member of La Razza.

  66. “That’s why I advocate making Jerusalem like the Vatican, and taking it out of the equasion for both sides. I think that would be a good first step. Taking 97% deals would be another.”

    That would be like offering Mecca to be internationally controlled. Plus the fact of being controlled by an organization like the UN is an abomination.

  67. Elric: “That would be like offering Mecca to be internationally controlled. Plus the fact of being controlled by an organization like the UN is an abomination.”

    I never mentioned the UN, and the Vatican isn’t controlled by any organization like the UN. So I don’t know why you’re bringing that up.

    Nobody would “control” it. That would be the whole point.

    And it was like that before, I believe before the 1967 war.

    As for the comparison to Mecca, ownership of that city isn’t being contested.

  68. Tex: “I suppose this is a matter of opinion, but if you’re all for us first destroying a countries military might like we did Iraq, then imposing sanctions afterwards claiming sanctions worked, hey I’m all with you.”

    What the sanctions did was kept Iraq from getting more stuff after we destroyed it.

    “So when do we go to war with Mahmoud to destroy his nuclear arsenal first, before we impose sanctions?”

    I’m pretty sure there already are sanctions against Iran’s nuclear program. (Which are obviously not working, and I’ve already said sanctions pretty much don’t work, and that I was only giving the 1 example I could think of where they did)

  69. “Nobody would “control” it. That would be the whole point.”

    The Vatican is the heart of the Catholic Church so the Catholic Church actually controls it.

    “And it was like that before, I believe before the 1967 war.”

    Actually I believe Jordan controlled it.

    As for going to war with Iran, thats not going to happen. Not with the thug in chief in charge. Israel will have to go it alone.

  70. Rutherford, I’m glad you brought up Plessy vs Ferguson. Why was is it a bad decision?

    The Rabbit will tell you. It was clearly unconstitutional in several ways.

    I will admit that my constitutionalism can be used to thwart some of my own arguments on other subjects. Take abortion for example. The constitution deems a citizen as someone who is “born” in the U.S.. That’s why I feel there needs to be an amendment.

    Yes. People should strive to read the document as robots. Don’t you see that the document itself is the only check we have from an unelected, lifetime appointment of a potential tyrant?

    By the way, your assertion that I’m some kind of spoon fed right winger is plain old wrong. As I type this, I’m in between games at a softball tournament. I’m about to mow my lawn and go back to the ball field. Hell, I spend more time reading your quackery then I do watching t.v. or listening to the radio. I read the Economist, History books and go to porn sites with Brazilian women. That sums up the media intake of Dead Rabbit.

  71. I did watch Hannity last night. 101 ways Obama’s rushed con job of epic proportions ripped us off. I learned that 9 million dollars are going to some Michigan bird I’ve never seen in my life. The Michigan Striped Warbler or some shit (I made the name up). 9 million dollars! I’ve blown two tires on Detroit roads this winter and my buddies are day laborers competing against illegal aliens and they literally designated 9 million dollars for the birds!

    I’m so glad President Obama rushed it. WE NEED THIS DONE BY THE WEEKEND! THE FATE OF THE MICHIGAN STRIPED WARBLER HANGS IN THE BALANCE!

    I told my wife I’m going to take it out on the Michigan Striped Warbler. I’m going to have a secret burlap sack full of Michigan Striped Warbler heads in my basement.

  72. “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

    Put that in context.

    I’m so sick of hearing how my life experience doesn’t measure up to the rich life experience of black people and Hispanics.

    The funny thing is, I sometimes feel more black or Hispanic then the very people making these stupid comments.

    I’m blacker then Rutherford. I guarantee it. Rutherford couldn’t navigate his way through 80% of the spots Dead Rabbit has found himself in. And there are millions of Rutherfords out there.

    Yet, by some bull shit default, we’re all supposed to assume
    Rutherford has some magical wisdom that is just out of reach for the pale faced Rabbit to grasp.

    White people need to start speaking up for themselves. And I don’t mean on internet chat forums.

  73. The Vatican is a sovereign nation folks.
    As for Jerusalem. Under the UN partition plan circa 1947 the city was termed an international zone. Prior to that in modern history it was under control of foreign nations such as Britain

  74. Amen Rabbit. This race crap will not go away until these libs quit with the race card. But they cant because they thrive on pitting one group against another. MLK said to judge people by the content of their character. What ever happened to that?

    Libs are so happy about a Latina being in the Supreme Court. They sure didnt give a damn about Miguel Estrada.

  75. I read the Economist, History books and go to porn sites with Brazilian women.

    Well, I’ll say this … you’ll get more wisdom from Brazilian porn stars than you will from Rove, Gingrich and Tancredo. 🙂

  76. I did watch Hannity last night

    How is it I don’t get to quote Keith Olberman without getting my head handed to me but asswipe Hannity (who didn’t even have the balls of conservative Mancow and get waterboarded) is suddenly the font of credible political perspectives? Quite frankly, the minute I saw Hannity’s name, I stopped reading and went on to the next comment.

  77. I was right, he is so predictable.

    Dag Elric will you give a guy a chance to READ the friggin’ article? I’m sorry but I prioritized going to my daughter’s gymnastics class over reading your article. Damn.

  78. Red Pill has exactly the right solution …. one I never thought of. Jerusalem should be a nation unto itself much like the Vatican. I think it’s a great idea.

  79. “Red Pill has exactly the right solution …. one I never thought of. Jerusalem should be a nation unto itself much like the Vatican. I think it’s a great idea.”

    Why?

  80. Rabbit, Plessy v Ferguson was decided by a Supreme Court, supposedly making a color blind interpretation of the Constitution. What magic happened between Plessy and Brown that suddenly made the SCOTUS pay better attention to the Constitution? The fact is there is no magic in the Constitution. It is only as good as the people who interpret it.

  81. I’m so sick of hearing how my life experience doesn’t measure up to the rich life experience of black people and Hispanics.

    Give me a moment to put my violin away. I don’t know the name of the guy but some blogger posted a sentiment similar to Rabbit’s. He, a white guy, grew up in a rough neighborhood, raised by a single parent, went on to college etc and wound up ….. a blogger.

    There is nothing inherently valuable in life experience unless you’ve done something with it. Sotomayor propelled herself from a rough beginning to high academic achievement, several court appointments and nomination to the Supreme Court. Any white guy who’s done the same deserves the same accolades.

    But the thing Rabbit and others on this blog seem to forget (and we’ve been down this road before and haven’t raised one iota of awareness) is every white baby boy is born to inherit the American Dream. Whether they do or not is another question. Every minority baby is born to fight for the American Dream. Until we have social justice in this country, it will always be that way.

    That’s fine … I’m perfectly willing to let this blog be the bastion of the oppressed white guy. Go ahead guys, let’s hear all your sob stories.

  82. As for La Raza … I’m no expert on this but as far as I know it’s the Hispanic equivalent of the NAACP. Thurgood Marshall was an NAACP attorney. Would you have denied him a seat on the bench for that affiliation?

  83. OK Elric, Russian newspaper says we’re slipping into Marxism. They don’t bother to check the spelling of Barney Frank’s name and they make a big deal out of his being a homosexual. This is supposed to worry me? Sorry, I’m not worried.

  84. Careful Dear Rabbit, the thug in chief will shut you up.

    Elric, maybe I’m missing something but this looks to me like an effort to reduce lobbyist influence in Washington, something that is sorely needed.

    We’ve had decades of Democratic and Republican administrations being run by lobbyists. You want that to continue?

  85. Elric the reason I like Red Pill’s idea is pretty simple. If the Catholic Church can have a “nation” that serves as the “headquarters” of its religion, why can’t the Jewish faith have the same?

  86. “As for La Raza … I’m no expert on this but as far as I know it’s the Hispanic equivalent of the NAACP. Thurgood Marshall was an NAACP attorney. Would you have denied him a seat on the bench for that affiliation?”

    The NAACP doesnt translate as “The Race”. So once again your comparison falls short.

    “This is supposed to worry me? Sorry, I’m not worried.”

    Why would it worry you. You are a marxist like the thug in chief”

    “Elric, maybe I’m missing something but this looks to me like an effort to reduce lobbyist influence in Washington, something that is sorely needed.”

    LOL We he sure is doing a back assward job at it.

    “Elric the reason I like Red Pill’s idea is pretty simple. If the Catholic Church can have a “nation” that serves as the “headquarters” of its religion, why can’t the Jewish faith have the same?”

    They will. Soon Jerusalem will be will be Israel’s totally.

    “Every minority baby is born to fight for the American Dream.”

    Give me a minute to put my violin away.

  87. “Elric the reason I like Red Pill’s idea is pretty simple. If the Catholic Church can have a “nation” that serves as the “headquarters” of its religion, why can’t the Jewish faith have the same?”

    I wasn’t really advocating Jerusalem being the religious HQ for the Jewish faith as the Vatican is for Catholicism. That’s not the relationship I was making.

    But, just as the Vatican is it’s own sovereign state not controlled by any other state, that’s what is needed for Jerusalem. Jerusalem is a roadblock to peace. Both sides want it, and neither will concider any deal where they don’t get it.

    So let it be decided that neither side will get it, and then see if they can’t agree to something. It’s no guaranatee, but I think it would be a good start.

  88. Jerusalem shouldn’t be viewed in the “both” lens. You have to take into account Christianity which is why Un protected sovereignty is key. You have a defined geographic area that is important to what ? 50-80% of the world ? Any one faith backed entity holding it is unacceptable

  89. “You have to take into account Christianity which is why Un protected sovereignty is key.”

    Like a good RINO you trust the UN. And please tell us Mr RINO why islam has a claim on Jerusalem.

  90. Calling me a RINO is pretty funny especially coming from someone afraid to answer a question that is all about their worldview and to boot you ask a question.
    Elric your a one way street and a dead end at the same time.

  91. and he avoided the question and playing his little game as expected. I can see why you are more comfortable with liberals than conservatives.

  92. “And please tell us Mr RINO why islam has a claim on Jerusalem.”

    They claim to have a claim on it based on their history going back to their prophet, and their places of worship that are there.

    Question answered.

    Now Elric, can you tell us how anyone else’s claim to the city that predates Islam, Christianity, and even Judaeism differs from the one I’ve given above?

  93. Also…did Alfie mean “UN protected sovereignty” or did he mean “unprotected soveriegnty”?

    (more a question for Alfie than for Elric)

  94. “They claim to have a claim on it based on their history going back to their prophet, and their places of worship that are there.”

    BS. Mo-bomb-ed never set foot in Jerusalem. Their places of worship are there because of islamic conquest, not out of some religious history.

    That would be like a Hindu army conquering Mecca and claiming Mecca as the 3rd holiest site in Hinduism.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/12/islams_mystical_claim_on_jerus.html

    “Now Elric, can you tell us how anyone else’s claim to the city that predates Islam, Christianity, and even Judaeism differs from the one I’ve given above”

    I never said anyone else had a claim to it.

  95. “BS. Mo-bomb-ed never set foot in Jerusalem. Their places of worship are there because of islamic conquest, not out of some religious history.”

    You’re right. My wording was wrong. Many Muslims interpret Jerusalem as being 1 of the places Muhammad visitied during his spiritual Night Journey. But that is myth and not history, and I shouldn’t have used that word.

    Yes, that would be the same as the Buddha saying his spirit transported to Mecca one night, and then having Buddhists laying claim to Mecca. I don’t make the rules, I just try and explain the thinking.

    Nonetheless, that is the initial basis for their claim.

    I’d also point out that Christianity only inherritted Jerusalem through Roman conquest, and then Rome turning Christian.

    And that the Hebrews/Jews took the city of Jebus through conquest, by order of God, and then renamed it Jerusalem.

    So religious claim of Jerusalem based on myth and conquest is certainly not exclusive to Islam.

    “I never said anyone else had a claim to it.”

    That isn’t what I asked.

    “I never said anyone else had a claim to it.”

    So does that mean you don’t care who controls it?

    That’s 2 questions now. They’re adding up quick.

  96. “So does that mean you don’t care who controls it?”

    Israel by rights should and will control it.

    “I don’t make the rules, I just try and explain the thinking.”

    I know, just pointing out the insanity of their thinking.

  97. OK, I’m going to lay off the “you’re dodging a question” nonsense (even though you are very hesitant to answer the initial one) and rhetorical question stacking from now on.

    But I am genuinly curious as to this statement.

    “Israel by rights should and will control it.”

    What “rights” does Israel have to Jerusalem?

  98. Rutherford…sorry for the lengthy comment,but then again I don’t imagine you read your own threads any more.

    RP I did indeed mean the UN as in the United Nations. I don’t trust the UN per se but do believe that humanity deserves the safety and security offered from taking the city of controversy away from all three bickering children. Berlin-esque sectors would be a possible start but I think a rotation would be a good thing too.
    Jerusalem’s history is somewhat against you Elric even if you’d never ever admit it.
    King David is generally considered the founder-agreed ?
    How exactly did the he accomplish that ? It was by conquest if you don’t want to look into it.
    Israel as we know it today didn’t exist until the 20th century. Don’t cry too loud many great nations didn’t achieve status until very late in their lives. Italy and Germany are great examples. People think those to have been around forever but no such luck.
    Modern day Israeli control of Jerusalem is via conquest , foreign provision and treaty.
    Nothing I’m laying down here is meant to say the Muslim entities have a better claim to Jerusalem,I’m just saying the city isn’t all people think it is.
    As for the French cemetery thing. All of France’s cemeteries are segregated for the most part. Your story will only be impressive if the town’s council buckles and ensuing lawsuits fail. I doubt that’ll happen. Also a quick Google of France and cemeteries etc. brings up a lot about Jewish cemeteries. Little deeper the popular hits are about Jewish and Muslim graves being defaced/defiled by Right wing and neo Nazis.
    As for the UK bit. That is pretty effed up and now that it is exposed I imagine people will render final directional wishes if it is an issue. I’ve never heard of Chriistians caring which way they face though. Case in point i spent Memorial Day at the National Cemetery in Bourne Ma. and the sites seem to be all over the place,in fact it is comprised of flush markers so the “stones” all face straight up. My last journey to Arlington was compass deficient but the stones seem to be set up in an orderly military fashion and not geo specific. Where’s that leave us ?

  99. Not debating…correcting. I’d ,strong>communicate with you on my blog but your one way street-ness had to come to an end. You ask and ask but you won’t answer. Why should anyone put up with that (question mark would go here but we all know you hate those)

  100. “Its the ancient capital of Israel.”

    And it was taken from someone else to make it so.

    It seems to me like you are applying a gross double-standard here. It’s OK for Jews to take Jerusalem by force…multiple times…and that gives them the right to control it. But it’s not OK for Muslims to take Jerusalem by force. And if they do, a Crusade is in order.

    Does that about sum it up?

  101. “But it’s not OK for Muslims to take Jerusalem by force. And if they do, a Crusade is in order.”

    The Crusades werent just about Jeruslaem, but you knew that. Muslims were pushing into North Africa, Europe, the rest of Christian Middle East, not even counting the Eastern Jihadist front expanding into India and Asian Minor. But hey, the Jooooos took Jerusalem from a people that dont exist anymore so its the same thing.

  102. LOL!

    The people the Jews took Jerusalem from people that don’t exist anymore, so it’s all good.

    That’s quite the moral-relativist view you have there.

    Of course, you know why those people don’t exist anymore, right? Because they were all exterminated by the conquering Jews!

    So if Muslims wipe out all the Jews, would that give them the right to Jerusalem?

    “The Crusades werent just about Jeruslaem, but you knew that.”

    You’re right. I do know that.

    But you have made several comments in the past about the Crusade to take Jerusalem being justified, and have made recent comments concerning recent events along the lines of “what’s wrong with a Crusade?”

    Are you unwilling to stand by your own statements?

    “Muslims were pushing into North Africa…..”

    Did we crusade into N. Africa to save the poor people there from the evil Muslims? Nope.

    “…not even counting the Eastern Jihadist front expanding into India…”

    Did we crusade into India to save the poor people there from the evil Muslims? Nope

    “…and Asian Minor…”

    Did we crusade into Asia Minor to save the poor people there from the evil Muslims? Nope.

    “…Europe…”

    Did crusaders kill thousands of European Jews in the People’s Crusade that preempted the First Crusade? Yep.

    “…the rest of Christian Middle East…”

    Did crusaders massacre Jews as they retook the “Christian Middle East?” Yep.

    So kindly spare us the whole “crusaders were simply retaking what was taken from them” BS. The Eastern Emperor asked for a small elite force to help him with 1 city. He didn’t ask for 60,000 landless knights to retake the Holy Land. That’s why he screwed them after Constantinople.

  103. “So if Muslims wipe out all the Jews, would that give them the right to Jerusalem? ”

    Well you certainly couldnt give it to the Jews but the Muslims are working on that plan right now.

    “Are you unwilling to stand by your own statements?”

    I stand by everything I say.

    “Did we crusade into N. Africa to save the poor people there from the evil Muslims? Nope.”

    Actually they did. Try reading some history.

    “Did we crusade into India to save the poor people there from the evil Muslims? Nope”

    Crusades couldnt even stay organized enough to keep the Middle East islamic free. A new Crusade with an alliance with the Hindus, Hindus and Buddhists would be nice. We are all in the same boat.

    “Did crusaders massacre Jews as they retook the “Christian Middle East?” Yep”

    We nuked Japan and fire bombed Dresden. Your point?

    “That’s why he screwed them after Constantinople.”

    He ended up screwing himself.

  104. I must admit its odd that you find the Crusades so much more offensive than the Jihad expansion, driven by islamic text and examples of Mo-bomb-ed.

  105. Rutherford…sorry for the lengthy comment,but then again I don’t imagine you read your own threads any more.

    Alfie, I’m not entirely sure how to take this. I definitely don’t feel the need to answer every comment. In fact, to be honest, my knowledge of the history of various religions is so shallow that all I can do on this particular thread is enjoy reading the debate. But yes, I am reading it.

    While I am here … it is hilarious that Elric thinks that as long as the people you screwed over no longer exist then you get a free pass. So I guess the only mistake the Nazi’s made was not actually exterminating all the Jews. Had they done that, they would have been heroes in retrospect? Elric, sometimes dude, your logic defies logic. 🙂

  106. “So I guess the only mistake the Nazi’s made was not actually exterminating all the Jews.”

    You are starting to sound like a muslim cleric or the thug in chiefs buddy Farrakhan. 🙂

  107. Elric: “I must admit its odd that you find the Crusades so much more offensive than the Jihad expansion, driven by islamic text and examples of Mo-bomb-ed.”

    Actually, I don’t find the Crusades to be any more offensive than any other history. That’s why I study history so distant from our own time. So that I can remove my personal feelings, and view it objectively. I only use it as an example to show Western/Christian hypocrisy on the topic of Islamic conquest.

    ““Did we crusade into N. Africa to save the poor people there from the evil Muslims? Nope.”

    Actually they did. Try reading some history.”

    And now it is your turn to be history teacher here. I have referred to my notes and books, and even the Internet, and I can’t find anything about any major or serious crusading campaigns into North Africa.

    Saladin certainly prepared for Christian incursions into Egypt and North Africa, but those military installations or garrisons were never challenged.

    Please answer who, when, and where on the topic of the Crusades into North Africa.

  108. It gets worse and worse the deeper I dig.

    “Ironic how Rutherford left out far and away are most expensive and obviously failed war, while only briefly mentioning near the end by example. ”

    That would be “our,” not “are,” Tex.

    And that isn’t even counting your crybaby comments to fix or delete your endless typos.

    “Sorry “R”…my fingers got a little heavy there. Could you delete that first comment as I had misspelled claiming?”

  109. “Actually, I don’t find the Crusades to be any more offensive than any other history.”

    The caliphate pushed into India and slaughtered millions of Hindus because they were viewed as pagans and therefore not eligible to live under oppressive islamic rule as a dhimmi. Thats not more offensive than the Crusades?

    That is why I call you a moral relativist.

  110. Interesting post, R. OK then.

    September 11, 2014

    The best thing I can say about Obama’s speech last night was that it was shorter than I expected.

    The thing that did surprise me was that Obama actually tried to explain to us plebeians the nature of the enemy. He isn’t a slow learner, he’s impervious to it.

    I wonder if Professor Plum knows why the radical jihadists kill other muslims?

  111. I have to be downtown today. I don’t want to be.

    I have to say Rutherford that after never having heard of him and only seeing that one partial interview, your opinions are rather steadfast regarding Ward Churchlady’s intellect and charisma. Like I said, my opinion is that he’s loaded with both and that’s part of the problem with the radical left.

    I think the radical right is loaded with something else that they share in common with the radical left (begins with an “s” and rhymes with yit), but the radical right have a smaller sphere of influence and it seems that the majority understand that they’re full of it.

    Our schools – and now it’s not just colleges – are stocked with little Wards.

  112. Muffy, funny you posted here. And even funnier, Rutherford probably still wonders why (even though I have referenced this is a half dozen comments in his most recent post that he blows off as usual).

  113. Tigre I did want to wade into the convo started toward the end of the last thread but I can’t even load it to reference the points I wish to take up. I might find the time and ambition later though.

  114. “Our schools – and now it’s not just colleges – are stocked with little Wards.” -me

    To clarify – the little Wards stand behind the lectern preaching to pump up more little Wards.

  115. When I get a chance I’ll have to go back and read this post. After writing some 500+ posts I’ve forgotten 75% of what I’ve written.

    I’ll beat Tigre to the punch: “Yes R so have the rest of us.”

What's on your mind?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s