If you like the secular values and sybaritic culture we enjoy and all of the things we have earned through our industry and enlightenment and if you don't think that we ought to be held accountable for the sins of everyone from Alexander to Bohemond to Chinese Gordon, then you need to accept that there is a price to pay for freedom which is paid with every long and bloody step. Why do we fight the same battles again and again?
By all means let's pull out of Iraq. Perhaps the price paid there has been too high and not enough has been achieved. Yet we have to remember that we did not start this war and we cannot end it unilaterally. We can stop fighting and go home, but all that does is give our enemies a victory to encourage them to fight on and even increase their efforts. When they attacked us they had greater goals than just killing some Americans and those goals are still waiting to be achieved.
If we give up the fight now, we should do so in the knowledge that it means we will fight these battles and pay their price again and it will not be at a time or place of our choosing. It will be fought on the homefront and we will be weaker and they will be stronger and the price to be paid will be higher in blood and treasure and loss of rights.
We've been here before. I feel like I've written all of these words before. The lotus eaters are not listening.
The generals will make their cases in Congress and then stand bewildered as the politicians ignore them and make arguments based on pandering and political expediency. The meaning of 9/11 will be remembered for an hour on the TV news and then forgotten again. We will continue to wallow in complacency while the enemy plots on towards the day when we are too weak for even another 9/11 to awaken us.
It seems we learned nothing at Roncesvalles, Vienna, and Lepanto. We win and then weaken in our resolve and move on about our business and in a generation or two the hound of Allah is at our throat again. When do we cry 'enough' and put the foul beast down?
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Franco
Dave, I think you are not far off of the mark. As a whole I like what you say.
"When do we cry 'enough' and put the foul beast down?"
One point to make though, with all the attention you bring to facing the beast, how can you then say......" By all means let's pull out of Iraq.".
Do you not think that doing so will allow the beast to grow a hell of a lot bigger by our leaving?
2 - Lumpy
Nice to see that someone noticed it was the anniversary of 9/11 besides the socialist hatemongers and surrendermonkeys and conspiracy freaks.
3 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
"Nice to see that someone noticed it was the anniversary of 9/11 besides the socialist hatemongers and surrendermonkeys and conspiracy freaks."
Well, it wold have been nice if someone had wished me "happy birthday" - but I was born on 10 Elul 5711. It just so happened that 11 September was my 50th birthday on the Christian calendar and the destruction of the World Trade Center (and the real good coffee shop underneath I used to frequent as a college student) was a birthday "present" from the damn Wahhabi to me - telling me I'd never get into the restaurant business in Israel.
Enough whining.
Seriously.
For all the good sense you made in your article, Dave, you did not make the ONE point that needed to be made. The Wahhabi assholes that have declared war on all of us need to be exterminated or we will be, and they have an address - Riyadh. The other schmucks who want to kill us have an address, too. Teheran.
Do you want the coordinates to aim the nukes too?
When are you wake up to the fact that you have to nuke the bastards and be done with it? And say so in plain English?
4 - Dave Nalle
Sorry to hear your birthday was on 9/11, Ruvy. But it makes you younger than I thought you were, so that's good.
As for the Wahhabis or the al Sauds, I didn't want to single them out any more than bin Laden or any other individuals. Yes, obviously those cynical bastards who have turned Islam to their own corrupt purposes are on the top of the list. I'm as aware of it as you are, but they're still just one of the many heads of the beast. Just attacking country after country isn't the ideal solution. We need a more comprehensive approach.
Dave
5 - Dave Nalle
One point to make though, with all the attention you bring to facing the beast, how can you then say......" By all means let's pull out of Iraq.".
That was a semi-sarcastic remark. The idea was that the consequences I talked about after that would make it clear that the cost of pulling out might be worse than what we're currently experiencing there. Maybe I was being too subtle.
Do you not think that doing so will allow the beast to grow a hell of a lot bigger by our leaving?
I think that if we were to pull out of Iraq we would see a final, decisive Sunni-Shia war at the end of which we would see the rise of a far more dangerous, unified and radicalized Islamic power.
Dave
6 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
"I think that if we were to pull out of Iraq we would see a final, decisive Sunni-Shia war at the end of which we would see the rise of a far more dangerous, unified and radicalized Islamic power."
"Just attacking country after country isn't the ideal solution. We need a more comprehensive approach."
Dave,
Given what you say yourself, what more comprehensive solution is there to nuking the bastards? Nuke Riyadh and cut off the head of the Saudi snake - along with the cash pig that funds madrassas world wide - Nuke Teheran and you cut off the command and control for the Persian Empire that would arise upon American withdrawal. Nuke Qom - the PERSIAN Shia holy city - and you deliver a message to the messianic Shia - YOUR GOD WILL NOT PROTECT YOU!!
HOW MORE COMPREHENSIVE CAN YOU GET?
7 - troll
not to worry - I think that the administration made clear over the past two days what has been clear for the past several years...the US military is in Iraq for the long haul
...so we've got 'em surrounded
8 - Franco
HBD Ruvy.
9 - Dave Nalle
Ruvy, while I would shed no tears for some of the people killed through your nuking campaign, I do have to point out that an awful lot of innocent African and Philippino slaves would die when you nuked Riyadh. And I don't think that the Iranian people as a whole are beyond redemption, just those who've signed on to the millenialist jihad movement. Like all the end of the worlders they're nuts and expendable as far as I'm concerned.
The point being that nukes are too indiscriminate. I want to defeat radical Islam. I don't want to exterminate everyone who's ever been a worshipper.
Dave
10 - Franco
Dave, got it, sorry I missed it, thanks.
11 - RJ
"When are you wake up to the fact that you have to nuke the bastards and be done with it? And say so in plain English?"
Israel has nukes. Why don't you guys do it?
12 - Christopher Rose
Ruvy, if I understand your belief system correctly, you are also an "end of the worlder" who believes we only have about 20 years to go, so how do you feel about Dave's assertion in #9 that you're nuts and expendable?
13 - Dave Nalle
To be fair, Chris, I did make that comment largely just to irritate Ruvy.
I suspect it's the 'end of the worlder' attitude which makes him so willing to spend lives cheaply, especially those of unbelievers.
Dave
14 - Zedd
Dave,
I think that it is only fair to define who THEY are.
If we continue to deal with people, societies, civilizations with broad strokes, we will be doomed to repeat the major mistakes of the past.
The majority of THEY formed out of our own ineptitude. THEY did not care one way or another about us before our meddlesome, displaced preoccupation with THEM. Another portion of THEY comes out of their defiance for Western dominance, another if not all are encouraged by our allegiance to Israel and I would venture to say that only a tiny minority wants us to convert (the real kooks).
15 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
This is to answer both comments 12 and 13.
I, of course, am expendable. I have a mission to accomplish here, and if I cannot do it, the Almighty will just find someone else. There are over six billion people on the planet, and about 13 or fourteen million Jews. So there are a lot to choose from.
According to the Bible, when Elijah could no longer see things from G-d's point of view, he was cashed in - and told to anoint his successor, Elisha ben Shafat, a plowman. So, I am under no illusions.
I am not willing to see people die easily. But I also know when I can make a recommendation that will not be followed. I am reasonably sure that the State of Israel will not use its nuclear weapons simply because its leaders do not have the guts, intelligence or foresight to do so. This is why I am so sure that in the not too distant future, the State of Israel will fall.
Because of the very foolish and suicidal path that the government of Israel has pursued since ceasing to make its own weaponry in the early 1990's, it becomes a necessity to rely on nukes when the State is in a situation of extreme peril. And that is the situation the State is in.
This most recent raid on Syria was to target North Korean nukes sitting in Syria. The Syrians fired heat seeking missiles at the IDF planes, and they bailed, dropping extra fuel tanks, missiles and everything else they could get rid of to get away from the heat seeking missiles.
Let's translate that into a single sentence for you "big picture" types.
The Israel air force no longer has air superiority in the skies of the Middle East.
Having said all this, I am equally certain that no Arab Palestine will ever arise in this land - period.
As for my own beliefs, I do not think there will be "an end of the world" as you two put it. That's how Christians talk.
There will be radical changes. One of the radical changes will be in the nature of the religion of the People of Israel, changes that I'm privileged to see beginning now, changes that I may even be privileged to shepherd along a bit.
I will admit that if I were in charge, this country would use its nukes to solve problems in the region. The stupidity of the previous regimes here leave little choice to one who would attempt to succeed in securing the Land of Israel for all of the People of Israel. Each concession, each renunciation of G-d's gift to the People of Israel ,leaves fewer and fewer options open when the day of reckoning with the enemy finally comes. And that day of reckoning approaches with unpleasant speed.
But the likelihood of me sitting in the leader's chair - whatever title that leader has - look infinitesmally small at the moment. So, I do not bother myself over such things.
But I'm willing to speak my mind on America using nukes to resolve the problems in the region. It is in the American interest; and you never know who might be reading...
16 - JustOneMan
"Israel has nukes. Why don't you guys do it?"
Irael talks alot but does have the balls to do anything! They dont have the guts to clean up the Islamic scum bags in their own back yard...As Ruvy proves in his comments,
"America using nukes to resolve the problems in the region"
Once again the need American blood and money to save their sorry ass! I guess the "chosen people" means we Americans choose to save you!
Why dont we nuke the whole mideast and end ALL of our problems once and for all!!
JOM
17 - Maurice
#14
Very naive response. The idea that the US (Carter) has somehow angered the Arabs and is now bringing a Jihad ignores the crusades.
18 - Dave Nalle
Zedd, I tried at least a little to hint at the broader historical perspective, but you seem to have missed it. Maurice also points to it.
One of the key cultural differences between Islamic society and the secular/christian west is an awareness of history which as a society we tend not to have.
For them events that took place a thousand years ago are immediate and critical. Look into some of their holidays sometime. In particular, read up on Ashura as an example. They feel active grief and mourning over the deaths of people who are removed from them by 40 generations.
This attitude is alien to westerners but no less real for all of that. The Jews actually share it to some extent, but Christianity and the secular societies which emerged from the Christian tradition are much less focused on the past and more focused on the now or the future.
We think of things like the Crusades as history. They think of them as almost current events. They're actually out for revenge over the massacre at Jerusalem and a thousand other wrongs done by the 'ferengi dogs' over the centuries. For them things we do now which we think of as motivated by good intentions are part of a continuum of persecution which goes back even before Islam.
For example. We think that we're trying to promote peace between Israel and Palestine for the benefit of all. From their perspective we're using the Jews to perpetuate a westernized enclave which is merely a later-day crusader state in Jerusalem. We've been trying to take control of that region for 1000 years, and Israel is just our latest tool for doing so.
Americans are particularly bad at seeing the world from the perspectives of others. We tend to project our own attitudes onto them, and that just doesn't work.
Dave
19 - JustOneMan
Nalle,
Shouldnt it be...
"Those luntic Muslim zealots are particularly bad at seeing the world from the perspectives of others. They tend to project their own attitudes onto them, and that just doesn't work."
Gee I am very sad today my great, great,great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great,
great, great,great, great, great, great,great, great,great, great,great, great, great, great grandfather died 2000 years ago today...it still brings me to tears..sniff, sniff...
JOM
20 - Lee Richards
Dave,
You make many valid and relevant points, but I disagree that Bin Laden doesn't matter. That's Bush's tragic mistake, too.
Bin Laden represents the 9-11 attack, is the unifying force behind a potent international terrorist organization, a catalyst in Iraq and elsewhere, and a symbol to Islamic radicals that, if we don't have the will or ability to catch or kill him, we probably can't stop them either.
21 - moonraven
The usual Nalle Nonsense!
Not ALL of us were stupid enough on 9/11 to believe that the US had been attacked from the OUTSIDE.
I, for one, said that I did not trust the Bush administration's "presentation" of the event for one minute--and I said it on Mexican television!
A number of Mexican columnists also felt it was an inside job--especially Guillermo Almeyra in his still-wonderfully astute piece published on September 12, 2001 in La Jornada: Los marcianos hablan Inglés (The Martians speak English--in a reference to Orson Welles' famous radio hoax, The War of the Worlds).
Soryy, Dave. Someof us are not as dumb as you are--nor as fatuously "patriotic" to sell our patrimony for a plate of lentils.
The latest poll even shows that 51% of folks in the US--lamentably, not evenclose to 51% of the Bush stooges posting on this pathetic site--jave woken up and smelled the coffee to thepoint of believing that a new 9/11 investigation is in order--to sort out the role Bush/Cheny played in it.
22 - moonraven
Lew: I gotnews for you, pal: Bin Laden is STILLon the CIA payroll.
23 - JustOneMan
Moon...."Mexican columnists also felt it was an inside job--especially Guillermo Almey"
Wow...Guillermo Almey!!! Gee now I have to believe its true1!!! Someone as credible as the night shift tortilla maker at Taco Loco!!!
How can you be a "columnist" in a country filled with illiterates and overweight middle aged ex-american women who like to gangbang mexican day workers!!!
JOM
24 - handyguy
An utterly despicable article that has already drawn a number of quite shameful like-minded replies.
I don't believe this is a war, not in the traditional sense. If our only, or primary response is military, we could very well lose, in the end. I strongly object to the militarist, war-mongering tone of this piece and to all the usual cheers it has engendered.
Further, if you must portray the situation as "Us" versus "Them," then the definitions of Us and Them need to be precise and complete.
"Us" includes the people in the US and in Western Europe who reject your entire thesis as offensive, wrongheaded, and leading to more danger rather than more security. Insisting that we are instead your enemies is part of the problem.
"Them" is a very small group of jihadist leaders and a somewhat larger group of followers [many but not all desperate, poor, and educated only in hate] willing to be led into suicide missions. [Note that the US rarely, or never, provides any counterexamples to the caricatures these young men have been taught to believe. Our government's belligerent tone, and that of articles like this one, eloquently express American indifference. The result is the continuing success of the propaganda in the madrassas.]
"Them" is most definitely not 95% of all Muslims. Possibly even make that 99.99%. And the way many writers on this site, specifically those who will most agree with Dave's ugly article, want to lump all Islam together is another part of the problem.
This is not a football game. Rooting for the home team is not a good analogy. Please take a look at the whole range of issues here, and realize the consequences of continuing to pretend that "War on Terror" says it all. Adding idiotic and immoral calls to "just nuke 'em" is not even worthy of a response.
25 - moonraven
JOM, As always your slobbering racism has gotten the better of you. Almeyra is not only a columnist but a highly respected university professor.
The closest you have come to a university was riding a motor scooter past Bob Jones Bible College.
A firing squad would be too good for you.