Gil Hamilton wrote:
This has nothing to do with liberalism but that of morality and civility, but I realize that you shout "liberal" only because you consider that a major insult and that you cling to the fallacy everyone against you must be a "leftie". Sorry to break it to you, sweetheart, but I don't give two shits about your own personal grudge match with the political left. You can take that and put in the same dank, moist place your argument is stored.
Honestly, in that case it was justified - What you said was
classical liberal. I'd never actually heard anyone so stereotypical before. If I was going to take back every time I'd called someone a liberal in a derogatory fashion except one, I'd leave that one, because it was the most true in my mind.
And we have this Reason, why? Social functions don't happen just for their own sake, they are developed for a reason. We have social functions and ideals and principles and all that because within the scope of our society they work. We evolved ideals and functions because they are useful and they help us work. That's what this whole mess is all about. Ideas. Our society is free and good and it works because the ideas it is based on are as good as humanity has developed yet. More on this later.
Okay, so we use these ideas as long as they help us work. When we don't, we use others which do so more efficiently. How hard a concept is that to grasp?
Well "Heil Hilter" to you to, mein Frau. Anyway, I never said anything about defeating fanatics with legal processes, because that doesn't work. I fully and strongly believe in the concept of civilized warfare against them. What you are talking about is whipping people into a nationalist ferver and making us fanatics. Fanaticism is a bad thing. I cite just about every dictatorship in history for that. Turning your society into a bunch of goose steping morons who are so caught up in what they are doing that they forget the organ between their ears runs contrary to everything our society stands for.
What wins wars is having a superior society with a superior infrastructure. Not proud marches with rousing anthems and banners flying and all that fun shit. Here is where rules and civilization comes to shine. Western society has the edge because our system with all it's ideals and principles work. Thanks to them, our society nurtures intelligence and free thinking and creativity, which has made us wealthy beyond the dreams of many islamofascist countries. We've got all the technology and theory and resources to make us indomitable compared to shitholes like Iraq and Syria. That's the edge. We've got superior culture and civilization. All they have is hand-me-downs from the Cold War. Without them, their lack of innovation would have them fighting us with rocks. Yet, they have all the flag waving and unrelenting ferver that you claim wins these conflicts. Funny.
And without motivation, what does it matter? Without any will to push home the attack? If we retreat like we did in Somalia, after a few casualties, or if our soldiers are like those of decaying Chinese dynaties of old, well-equipped but unwilling to use their strategies and weaponry to good advantage against invading barbarians due to malaise?
Motivation - morale, the moral factor - is 9/10ths of victory, and it would be unwise for you to forget that. The enemy has it, and simply because they are mostly lacking in the other tenth does not make them less dangerous because of it.
History disagrees with you. Most wars in history were much more savage and didn't even have any regret for their atrocities.
Yes, we've had regret for our atrocities - But, so to did some Romans and Greeks. Tacitus, for instance, comdemned the practices of the Roman Empire at its height. Nothing has ever matched industrial killing, though there are societies that probably would have exceeded it should they have had the capability. That doesn't mean that the absolute figures, however, should be discounted.
For all our pleasing talk of making the world a better place, more people have died in the 20th century to armed conflict than any other century before it. Apparently the ideals you espouse did not keep up with the technology - In fact, I can tell you they haven't. Our own reluctance now is something more disturbing, a sign of enervation, not something to be proud of.
Anyway, we've got more than better organization. Our society is, simply put, better than the "barbarian" societies (I'm using your word) and the proof is all around you. Why? See above. It's civilized rules that give us of our superior advantage.
Democracy, civilian audit, capitalism and the free market, open debate with subordinates leading to flexible command strutucture - These are indeed the things in
western civilization which support powerful and flexible armies, disciplined armies of soldiers who, because they are free, are willing to do incredible things and brave awesome sacrifice.
Western civilization, which stretches all the way around the pacific rim now, so hardly Eurocentric. But consider that Caesar led a republican army to Gaul when he slaughtered a million natives and sold another million into slavery -
These values are not a guarantee of moral superiourity! They are merely a guarantee of a general military advantage and then not even an overwhelming one. After his defeat at Chalons, Attila the Hun still managed to penetrate to Rome.
There isn't a text modifer big enough to modify the word "bullshit" enough. You yourself spent most of this thread defining just what their level was. Remember? The raping and the massacres and the slave trade? That stuff that lead to your definition that they are "creatures" that need to be killed as horribly as possible? Unless you had your short-term memory removed with an ice-cream scoop recently, you were the one who described in elaborate detail exactly why it is wrong to sink to their level. I'd just as soon not have a certain segment of our populus become like them. I'm going to copy this conversion, by the way, just so I can throw in your face how you said that there is nothing wrong with our soldiers becoming like the Taliban in the future.
'Touche. I fear I deserved that; I have not been explaining myself. What I essentially am calling for is a willingness to
engage in total war - Not to imitate them atrocity for atrocity, but to take the gloves off, in the same fashion they were in the Second World War. The enemy is already fighting Total Warfare to the best of their ability. I'm saying we need to do the same thing. There shouldn't be a moral restraint on our ability to respond in the full measure - If we need to firebomb the Gaza strip, let's do it. I'm not advocating individual acts of wanton cruelty, the sort of which typify the enemy's style in this warfare. There is a definite difference between that and organized western killing when it is wholly unrestrained.
Iraq will fall without a necessity to resort to this. If we want to deal with a country like the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, however, we will not have the option of the necessities of obeying the rules, or avoiding civilian casualties - There will be no enemy civilians, and we must be prepared for that.
Lessee, I'm currently sitting in my living room in a boxer shorts and t-shirt thanks to my houses internal heating and surrounded by an ungodly amount of electronic shit which I make my living on, listening to "The Offspring" and the sound my my dog, who has a greater caloric intake than 75% people on the planet, dreaming on the couch. Civilization is not just a concept. The reality of the matter is that our ideals have been wildly successful. Throwing out principles out the window is unnecessary because it is our principles that make our society indomitable.
No, it isn't. It isn't a concept of democracy that makes our society powerful - It's electors debating in the senate or the house, or you going to the polls! In our history, nobody wrote about the idea of democracy before it was done - It was a matter of the Greeks figuring it out the hard way, and ending up with their debates of the free male populace, the first geneis of democracy. That isn't a friggin ideal, that's a bunch of people in a big room shouting at each other until they reach a consensus.
That's what makes our society indomitable. What
works, what's done on the ground, in reality, not some theory!
Civilization is about
striving, Gil, ever since the first Mesopotamian farmers figured they could dig a ditch to get some more water and improve their crop yields - And then figured out that if someone coordinated the labour gangs it would move along faster. It isn't about something written down in a book or about some perfect ideal we need to reach. It's about people getting their hands muddy and trying to make a better life for themselves in the time they have here on Earth. Sometimes, yes, you have to break something to get that done, sometimes somebody else who's trying to make a better life, too. But the world is a hard and cruel place and there's no alternative to that.
And sometimes there's simply no alternative to actions like what we're undertaken, and even more extreme actions than that - Or at least there wouldn't be an alternative for
us. But humans are downright nasty creatures, we're used to living in about groups of fourty, and the best I think we're going to get to in terms of association will be the nation-state. Can we really be condemned for putting it ahead of altruism? Who would let their neighbour down the street die for the sake of some foreigner, anyway? You can't expect anything more and you can only make the best out of what humanity can do.
That's what civilized war is for. It would hardly serve humanitarian interests if we sink to their level, like you said is OK above. We can remove islamofascism from existance just as well without sacrificing our principles and ideals, like you want to.
Well, I disagree. I think total war will be a necessity - not now, but at some point - and we might as well accept that and not concern ourselves with these trifles.
There are over a billion muslims on this planet. We are going to have to drag them kicking and screaming into the modern world to defend our civilization. You think this is going to be easy enough that we can keep planning our wars for months in advance to avoid civilian casualties?
When, Marina? You may be so paranoid and insane that you think that they've got a chance of winning unless we become savages like them, but fortunately, the people in charge are a bit more stable, eh?
Honestly, I do think I am quite stable. I understand the fundamental organization of the world and
accept it, which is a far more stable state than denial. Do you really think anyone in charge of a country except for the truly insane are as willing to risk violence as I would propose?
I am being a theorist right now, and I can say what I want. In charge of a country I would be sending troops overseas to die, and I would be responsible for the defence of hundreds of millions. This would be the most severe of burdens. Every action would have to be rationally calculated, and weighed in the most precise manner against the magnitude of the risk - Because those people rely on you, and you cannot let them down.
I merely put these bits out, in the hope that over the long term I may eventually influence those with power, so that - appropriately moderated by the weight that rests on their shoulders - by opinions and evaluations might by duly considered and perhaps pursued. In some cases, though, I am quite hopeful to think the leadership of this nation is rather closer to me than it is to you. I'll have to wait and see, but it would at least be a bit of a relief.
Why, really, do you have the arrogance to assume that barbarian invasions ended with the industrial age?
