posted July 04, 2006 10:04 AM            

Let us make war on the phrase "violence doesn't solve anything." It is a lie, and anyone who utters it cannot be taken morally seriously.

Take, for example, the American use of violence against the Taliban. Thanks to it, Afghani women may get an education, attend public events without a male escort and otherwise ascend above their prior status as captive animals.

Thanks to American violence in Afghanistan, Islamic terror has started to decline in prestige among many Muslims who had previously romanticized it. Though many Muslims still glorify Muslims who blow themselves up to murder Jews and Americans, the glamour of terror is dwindling. In Pakistan, for example, there are almost no Osama T-shirts on sale, and no more demonstrations on his behalf.

Even more significantly, a handful of Muslims and Arabs are beginning to ask what is wrong in their cultures, rather than continuing to blame America, Christianity and Israel for their lack of human rights, political democracy and economic progress.

Once again, violence properly used has led to major moral gains for humanity.

You have to wonder how anyone can utter, let alone believe, something so demonstrably wrong as "violence doesn't solve anything," or "an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind," or any other pacifist platitudes. These are the moral and intellectual equivalents of "the earth is flat." In fact, it is easier to show that violence solves many evils than it is to show that the earth is round.

It was violence that destroyed Adolf Hitler and Nazism. Only violence. Not talk. Not negotiations. Not good will.

It is violence used by police that stops violent criminals from murdering or otherwise hurting innocent people. There are many innocent men and women alive today solely because some policeman used violence to save their lives.

It was violence that ended slavery in America. Had violence not been used against the Confederacy, the United States would have been cut in half, and millions of black men and women would have remained slaves.

The list of moral good achieved by violence is endless.

How, then, can anyone possibly say something as demonstrably false as "violence doesn't solve anything"?

The answer is difficult to arrive at. Given how obviously moral much violence has been, one is tempted to respond by asking how people can believe any absurdity – whether it is that Elvis Presley is still living, or that race determines a person's behavior, or that 72 women in heaven await mass murderers.

Vast numbers of people believe what they want to believe or what they have been brainwashed to believe, not what is true or good. For vast numbers of people, it is simply dogma that all violence is wrong. It is a position arrived at with little thought but with a plethora of naive passion.

It is also often the position of the morally confused. People who believe in moral relativism, who therefore cannot ever determine which side in a conflict is morally right, understandably feel incapable of determining when violence may be moral.

Those who say violence never solves anything have confused themselves in other ways as well. They have elevated peace above goodness. Therefore, in these people's views, it is better for evil to prevail than to use violence to end that evil – since the very use of violence renders the user of it evil.

For those people whose moral compasses are intact, the issue is as clear as where north and south are. There is immoral violence, and there is moral violence.

That is why it is so morally wrong and so pedagogically foolish to prohibit young boys from watching any violence or from playing violent games like "Cops and Robbers." Just as with sex and ambition and all other instincts, what must be taught about violence is when it is right to use it.

posted July 04, 2006 12:24 PM              

quote:

---

One of the favorite cliches of Saddamists and terrorist supporters in the US and elsewhere. Those with no moral compass or who are so weak and cowardly they would never oppose evil and in fact are deep into moral equivalence in every issue of right and wrong.

---

Saddamists? Is that a new word that you made up, Jwhop?

I thought that act was illegal in lot of states. hee hee

Yee Haw, Bring em on!!!

posted July 04, 2006 12:55 PM              

Extremism never solved anything and this article is extreme as are most comments made by the neo-con right.

War should always be the last resort when all else fails. Not the first means of choice. Certainly not the choice of anyone who wants world peace. You cannot bring about peace with violence.

Real leaders promote peace.

posted July 04, 2006 12:56 PM              

quote:

---

Those with no moral compass or who are so weak and cowardly they would never oppose evil and in fact are deep into moral equivalence in every issue of right and wrong.--jwhop

---

quote:

---

It was natural that we assisted to some degree the enemy of our enemy...which happened to be Saddam......The political theory is, The enemy of our enemy is our friend. --jwhop

---

posted July 04, 2006 01:41 PM            

Saddam is not harboring, funding, training or supporting terrorists any longer. Saddam is not holding Kuwaiti citizens in his jails any longer. Saddam is not torturing, raping and murdering his citizens any longer.

And leftists, supporters of Saddam all; those Saddam supporters who did everything in their power to continue Saddam in power are moaning, whining, wetting themselves, stamping their feet and making lying accusations against the President...that's you Mirandee and all your whining leftist friends.

For all the good it's done you, you could have skipped the sob stories and the phony compassion act.

I suppose Petron that according to your theory of foreign relations, we should still be at war with Britain, still be at war with Germany, still be at war with Japan, still be at war with Spain?

That's right Petron, nations have friends and enemies and the alliances shift with circumstances.

You have some pretty unique view on foreign relations. Once a friend, always a friend. Once an enemy, always an enemy.

So when do you recommend we start bombing the hell out of Britain, Germany, Japan and Spain?

Sure, we backed Saddam when he was fighting against Iran...our enemy in the Middle East who had committed an act of war against the United States by invading the sovereignty of the United States when they invaded our embassy and held American diplomats hostage for more than 400 days.

So what? Saddam happened to be going our way at the time. BFD.

It's also escaped you that the United States had no intention of letting Saddam lose that war.....and turn over more Middle East oil reserves to a direct enemy of the United States.

posted July 04, 2006 02:01 PM              

the incompetent bungling boobs were cheney and bush sr. who supported him thru the 80's and stood aside once again in '91 when saddam slaughtered hundreds of thousands more of his people

posted July 04, 2006 02:19 PM            

You've got your dates and chronology somewhat mixed up...as to what Saddam was doing..that we knew he was doing when he was doing it.

That still doesn't account for your "unique" view of foreign relations...or answer the question of when we start bombing our former...and using your analogy...still enemies.

I also see people wanting to argue out of both sides of their mouths...at the same time.

So, it seems there are those who think George HW Bush should have disregarded the UN Resolution for nations to come to the aid of Kuwait and remove Iraqi forces from within their borders. A resolution which said nothing at all about removing Saddam...nothing at all.

On the other hand, these same people argue that George W Bush is conducting an illegal war in Iraq....because the corrupt Kofi and his little band of incompetent boobs at the UN say so.

But that's bullsh*t. The ceasefire agreement was just that...a temporary halt in the hostilities to permit Saddam to implement the agreement he signed. There was no armistice and a state of war still existed...with no further authorizing needed. All that was necessary was to declare Saddam out of compliance with the ceasefire agreement...which the UN Security Council did...about 16 different times over a 12 year period of time.

posted July 04, 2006 02:26 PM              

------------------
"WHATEVER the soul longs for, WILL be attained by the spirit"

"Love knows not its own depth until the hour of separation"

posted July 04, 2006 02:47 PM              

quote:

---

I also see people wanting to argue out of both sides of their mouths--jwhop

---

one side of mouth....

quote:

---

So, it seems there are those who think George HW Bush should have disregarded the UN...jwhop

---

other side of mouth....

quote:

---

as though the United States needs to run to the UN or anyone else to get their approval --jwhop

---

posted July 04, 2006 03:08 PM            

I can also see confusion in those who said at the time of the cease fire that Bush should have driven on into Iraq and taken Saddam out in 1991...but say now, Bush is conducting an illegal war in Iraq.

Contradictory positions and out of some of the same mouths. However, it makes sense when it's known who's talking. Those who are always against the United States in every engagement with an enemy. Far too late to declare the Gulf War either illegal or a failure...so, blame Bush for not going further....without a UN mandate to do so.

In this instance, it's blame Bush for going in at all

It just doesn't fly though. It would have been OK for Bush to invade Iraq in 1991...when he had no UN authority to do so....but it's not OK for Bush to invade and topple Saddam when he has 16 broken UN Security Council Resolutions and a broken ceasefire agreement...which is authorization from the UN.

On top of that, the President and Congress decide what's necessary for US security interests, not the UN or anyone else.

posted July 04, 2006 05:15 PM              

quote:

---

Take, for example, the American use of violence against the Taliban. Thanks to it, Afghani women may get an education, attend public events without a male escort and otherwise ascend above their prior status as captive animals.

---

And thank America's allowence of violence to create the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and other terrorist networks Anyways that statement I quoted is incorrect, I repeat incorrect! Women are still not free. Change could be implemented through non-violent means. Women are still not free and safe to attend public events without male escorts. And how does violence make it safe for anyone to walk the streets? This article is absolute garbage.

quote:

---

Thanks to American violence in Afghanistan, Islamic terror has started to decline in prestige among many Muslims who had previously romanticized it. Though many Muslims still glorify Muslims who blow themselves up to murder Jews and Americans, the glamour of terror is dwindling. In Pakistan, for example, there are almost no Osama T-shirts on sale, and no more demonstrations on his behalf

---

Thanks to American violence Islamic terror and hate of America has risen. In Pakistan, Osama bin laden is still a hero, but it's kept underground because if they show any signs they'll be taken away to Gitmo. They're working for you by day for the money and economic progress, but at night they're working for the Taliban or Al Qaeda.

quote:

---

Even more significantly, a handful of Muslims and Arabs are beginning to ask what is wrong in their cultures, rather than continuing to blame America, Christianity and Israel for their lack of human rights, political democracy and economic progress.

---

And this stupid and naive author thinks they dont smell the foul BS from America, and Israel?

quote:

---

Once again, violence properly used has led to major moral gains for humanity.

---

Wrong ding dong.

quote:

---

You have to wonder how anyone can utter, let alone believe, something so demonstrably wrong as "violence doesn't solve anything," or "an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind," or any other pacifist platitudes. These are the moral and intellectual equivalents of "the earth is flat." In fact, it is easier to show that violence solves many evils than it is to show that the earth is round.

---

Actually violence solves everything is the moral equivalent of the earth is flat.

quote:

---

It was violence that destroyed Adolf Hitler and Nazism. Only violence. Not talk. Not negotiations. Not good will.

It is violence used by police that stops violent criminals from murdering or otherwise hurting innocent people. There are many innocent men and women alive today solely because some policeman used violence to save their lives.

---

Do-do bird can use that argument. And it can be used to justify the use of violence against America and Israel for their violence against humanity.

quote:

---

It was violence that ended slavery in America. Had violence not been used against the Confederacy, the United States would have been cut in half, and millions of black men and women would have remained slaves.

---

And it was violence that started slavery.

quote:

---

The list of moral good achieved by violence is endless.

---

The list of moral evil achieved by violence is endless.

quote:

---

How, then, can anyone possibly say something as demonstrably false as "violence doesn't solve anything"?

---

Read above

posted July 04, 2006 05:40 PM              

You have to go to the depths of hell if you intend to confront the devil.

posted July 04, 2006 05:45 PM              

quote:

---

If, after all dipomatic efforts have been exhausted, and no progress has been made, you have start speaking in the only language some people understand. The only other option is to do nothing.

---

So things are only black and white? What diplomatic efforts were ever made to begin with?

posted July 04, 2006 06:41 PM            

Am I in a time warp here...or are you?

What diplomatic means were attempted?

Are you that uninformed?

A cease fire agreement and 16 further UN Security Council Resolutions over 12 years...ARE NOT diplomatic attempts in your eyes?

posted July 04, 2006 06:50 PM            

Bush didn't need the UN at all but chose to go that route.

The war in Iraq today is an extension of the Gulf War with the added proviso that if Saddam did not get within the confines of the ceasefire he signed, "serious consequences" would follow...Resolution 1441.

posted July 04, 2006 07:05 PM              

He deserved what he got. I'm surprised he's still alive. He's very lucky that way. It's only by the grace of civility that he IS still alive.

posted July 04, 2006 07:07 PM              

Did violence end the Civil War? Sure did. But look at the repurcussions of that terrible violence. The Restoration period ain't pretty, you know what I mean? That violence, inevitable though it might very well have been, planted seeds of bitterness, distrust and hatred in the South not fully extinguished more than a century later. As wonderful a clean up job as King did even he couldn't put it to rest completely.

Either way you look at it, war is inevitable. The best we can hope for is to go about it with as much honor and dignity as possible.

As an aside ... Islam is a useful tool for that. At first it's a bit off putting to hear a Holy Man discuss warfare (I know I certainly balked), but Muhammed was a practical man if nothing else. And it led to gentleman warriors like Saladin, so who am I to complain?

posted July 04, 2006 07:23 PM              

The price of war is high. That's why we must pick our battles carefully.

posted July 04, 2006 08:25 PM              

quote:

---

The price of war is high. That's why we must pick our battles carefully.

---

thats absolutely right......