Hiroshima’s Lessons for the War on Terror

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam. He is completing a book on the international challenges America faces in the 21st century.


warIn the summer of ’45, the United States concluded a war that had come to be seen by some as unwinnable after the carnage at Iwo Jima, with a bang.

On August 6th, the bomb fell on Hiroshima. And then on the 9th, it was Nagasaki’s turn. Six days later, Japan, which had been preparing to fight to the last man, surrendered.

For generations of liberals, those two names would come to represent the horror of America’s war machine, when they actually represented a pragmatic ruthlessness that saved countless American and Japanese lives.

There can hardly be a starker contrast to our endless unwinnable nation-building exercises than the way that Truman cut the Gordian Knot and avoided a long campaign that would have depopulated Japan and destroyed the lives of a generation of American soldiers.

That we can talk about Japan as a victory is attributable to that decision to use the bomb. Without it, Japan would have been another Iraq or Vietnam, we might have won it at a terrible cost, but it would have destroyed our willingness to fight any future wars and would have given the USSR an early victory in Asia.

Professional soldiers understand the humanitarian virtue of ruthlessness. The pacifist civilian may gasp in horror at the sight of a mushroom cloud, but the professional soldier knows that the longer way around would have left every Japanese city looking far worse than Hiroshima.

More people died in the Battle of Okinawa on both sides than in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. 9 out of 10 buildings were destroyed. As much as a third of the island’s population committed suicide, fled into caves that were bombed, were used as human shields and were killed when American soldiers found themselves unable to distinguish between Japanese soldiers posing as civilians and actual civilians.

It does not take much to imagine what trying to capture Honshu would have looked like. Take the worst horrors of Vietnam and keep multiplying until you run out of imagination. If you run low, remember that at Okinawa the military was handing out grenades to civilians and its home defense plans involved encouraging the civilian population to commit suicide attacks.

The United States military did not understand the fanatical mindset of its enemies, but it did understand that they had to be fought with equal ruthlessness. And now, nearly seventy years later, on another hot August, we find ourselves in another seemingly unwinnable war.

At the Wall Street Journal, former media figure Ted Koppel popped up with an editorial warning that an overreaction to terrorism is more dangerous than terrorism. Summoning up the left’s favorite argument after the September 11 attacks; he wrote that more Americans had died in car accidents, ladder accidents and of various diseases than in the World Trade Center.

Doubtlessly more Americans died in some assortment of accidents in 1941 than at Pearl Harbor. Instead of calling it a day that will live forever in infamy, FDR could have given a typical Obama speech warning the public not to jump to any conclusions.

Obama gave one of those conclusion-jumping speeches after Nidal Hasan murdered 13 Americans in the Fort Hood Massacre. He gave another one after the Boston Marathon bombings.

The official report labeled an attack by a Muslim terrorist affiliated with a major Al Qaeda figure as a case of workplace violence. The report carefully avoided any mention of Islam, but at his trial, Hasan declared that he was an Islamic holy warrior, in papers he named Anwar Al-Awlaki as his mentor and claimed to be defending Islamic law against the scourge of democracy.

The spectacle of Nidal Hasan trying to communicate to a politically correct military bureaucracy that he really is a Muslim terrorist is almost comic. Before the shootings, he expressed sympathy for terrorists and put his Islamic holy warrior tag on his business cards. He did everything short of hiring a skywriter to fly over Fort Hood writing, “Nidal Hasan is a Muslim Terrorist”.

After Hasan committed the massacre while dressed in Islamic garb and shouting “Allah Akbar”, the same establishment went back to ignoring him. It must have deeply frustrated Hasan, whose entire legal defense is that he is a Muslim terrorist. Hasan’s defense baffles a media which had spent years warning us not to jump to conclusions about a man named Hasan killing Americans only to find that Hasan had already adopted those conclusions as his own.

The Hasan case is a microcosm of America’s failures in the War on Terror. While Hasan is ferried back and forth every day on a helicopter to Fort Hood so he can prepare for his defense, the United States evacuates its embassies in the Middle East out of fear of a terrorist attack.

Obama’s military policy is dominated by talk of smart power. And smart power is power that isn’t used. It’s that liberal notion that the only thing more dangerous than a terrorist is the man who notices he’s there and does something about it. But even before Obama, wars had become a search for a safe middle ground, an exercise in moral violence that aspired to win hearts and minds, but lost lives and goals instead.

Such a course might seem more merciful or moral, but it’s neither. It prolongs the pain and suffering for both sides.

The failure by the stronger side to conclude a war when it has the upper hand is not kindness; it’s cruelty.

In Vietnam, Iraq, Korea and Afghanistan, in the countries and wars where we pulled our punches, the civilian population was left worse off. The tactics that we thought were merciful were actually cruel, and their end result led to victories by monstrous forces like the Kim family or the Taliban who did far worse things to the civilian population than we ever dreamed of.

America was haunted by Hiroshima, when it should have been haunted by Okinawa. And so now it is haunted by Hasan and by his Al Qaeda comrades and by the Taliban and by entire networks of terrorist groups forming because we pulled our punches in the War on Terror.

We don’t understand Hasan and Nidal Hasan doesn’t understand us. He would have had no trouble understanding the America of 1945 that meant what it said, but he is lost trying to comprehend the America of 2013 which only wants to be liked, even when it’s dropping bombs.

Hasan wants us to know that he hates us, but our leaders are terrified of the idea of being hated. Ever since Hiroshima, we want the world to love us. Our enemies aren’t afraid to be feared and hated.

We are.

Our greatest weakness is that we want our enemies to love us. We turn wars into humanitarian exercises that inflict a much worse toll on both sides than an actual war would have and then we wonder what went wrong.

Now America faces an enemy whose chief power is hate. The Islamic terrorist has no other real asset except his hate. Unfortunately hate is our weakness. We are an empire terrified of the thought that someone might not like us. And so the nation that dropped two atomic bombs in August 1945 wilts before the hatred of a Nidal Hasan in August 2013.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.  

  • Naresh Krishnamoorti

    “The failure by the stronger side to conclude a war when it has the upper hand is not kindness; it’s cruelty.”
    These are probably the most irrefutable words ever written about warfare.

    • Bamaguje

      This is the same problem Israel has with Palestinians. The Jewish nation keeps pulling her punches and negotiating for “peace.”

      • Mark

        It IS a similar problem for both the U.S. & Israel but it is certainly NOT the same. America is large, very compentent entity quite well able to protect itself from anybody & everybody. Israel is a tiny country but very tough for it’s size. However, Israel’s “enemies” are an immensely largely entity who absolutely hates jews & wants to completely destroy every person in the miniscule country. Even if you are very tough, under the circumstances would you like to go & fight such a large enemy or would you much prefer to “pull your punches” & continue to try to negotiate anything to avoid it? Enough said?

    • chan chan

      The whole purpose of war is to bring about peace after passing a culminating phase of extreme violence. And the victor imposes their will on the loser. That’s how it works. Anything short of that is a waste of time, lives, limbs, and money.

    • erma652

      as Marilyn responded I am shocked that anyone able to make $8762 in four weeks on the internet. did you look at this site link w­w­w.K­E­P­2.c­o­m

    • ObamaYoMoma

      These are probably the most irrefutable words ever written about warfare.

      Except for when the war and its objectives are completely and utterly fantasy-based the same way this war was rendering it unwinnable even before it was ever implemented. Indeed, we could kill every last Muslim in the world and still not achieve this war’s objectives because again they were incredibly fantasy-based.

  • truebearing

    Kudos to you, Mr. Greenfield! That was clarity at it’s finest!
    The fire bombing of Tokyo was worse than Hiroshima or Nagasaki, but if incendiary bombs were the most potent weapon we had developed in WWII, the liberals would be flapping their self-righteous lips about the horrors of incendiaries. Liberals hate the entire concept of winning militarily, regardless the weapon. Winning is wonderful though, when it is political and they are the ones who win…..so they can immediately implement abject economic and social failure.
    So, using Koppel’s logic, an overeaction to dying is worse than dying? Brilliant. Talk about an overrated journalist.

    • http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/ Jason P

      What Koppel is really complaining about is the fact that we’ve stopped so many more attacks. If we didn’t worry about it, as he suggests, so many more would have been killed. Leftists just want to share in the results of hard work but never contribute.

      • EarlyBird

        Koppel understands that nothing is more corrosive to liberty than war. Being on a constant war footing is bad for freedom at home. He also understands that the many plots that have been stopped have had far more to do with intelligence gathering and old fashioned police work, than actual deployment of troops and weapons and the like. Yes, the occasional missile here, Spec Ops raid there, is necessary, but that’s far different than the idea that we need to fight this enemy in the manner we did Japan.

        • glpage

          I don’t think Greenfield is suggesting we nuke the Islamists. Rather, he is saying that we have been pussy-footing about with them when we should kicking butt. The current rules of engagement handicapping our military in Afghanistan and Iraq, when we were there, have prolonged what should have been a fairly quick military action to get rid of the bad guys. (As an aside, Bush’s attempts at nation building in Iraq was a total CF.) Because of the touch-feely idiocy pervading our politicians we aren’t fighting in Afghanistan to win, we’re there because the politicians want us to believe they’re doing something about Islamic terrorism. As long as our leaders maintain that stupid attitude we will never prevail in a war. I think that is Greenfield’s point.

          • EarlyBird

            GL, we need to understand first and foremost that Greenfield is a propagandist. If Obama cured cancer he’d blame him for creating overpopulation.

            Hence, his focus on some supposed unwillingness to use power on behalf of Obama, which could not be further from the truth. He has dramatically ramped up military actions directly against the Taliban and AQ and other militant extremists since 2008. Just today 12 Islamist militants in Yemen were killed with US drones, as one of many, many examples. (That’s what Obama means by using “smart power” vs invasion and occupation which is “stupid power”). He has shocked and disappointed squishy feel-good lefties, as much as he has disgraceful hacks like Greenfield whose narrative is that Obama is a pro-jihadist enemy of America.

            If Greenfield had an ounce of honesty and fairness in him, he’d have mentioned the disaster that was Bush’s Iraq (and Afghanistan) policies, which did exactly what you’re describing, trying to nation build rather than fight our enemy.

            The most frustrating thing about this war is that a “win” is not fully under our control, and it’s not going to end with a treaty or parades. We need to put enough of the RIGHT pressure on the enemy, smartly, so that the extremists are isolated within their own societies. But we’ve got to be careful to not create the very general sense of vicitimization that gives creedence to the Islamists’ PR.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            EarlyTurd,

            I wish you were in Yemen today, breaking bread with your “militant” pals.

          • EarlyBird

            Hey, at least you are willing to acknowledge that Obama is killing Islamist terrorists. Seems our lil’ Screwy might be growing up.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            EarlyTurd,
            100,000+ dead in Syria.

            I don’t think Obama will take credit for that. That’s the work of the “Religion of Peace”.

          • truebearing

            Whirlybird, are you still spinning? You certainly are amusing to read. Your definition of “dramatically ramped up military action” is truly laughable. Apparently you aren’t aware of Obama’s rules of engagement in Afghanistan, where our troops can’t shoot at the Taliban unless first shot at, removing from our military the single most important factor in winning a battle: the element of surprise.
            So, Obama killed 12 terrorists in Yemen, did he? He wouldn’t use the word “terrorist” for years, and what was that about Al Queda being “decimated” and on the ropes? Excuse me while I LOL.
            I guess Obama never heard about that famous boxer who used a tactic called “rope-a-dope”. I think his name was Muhammed Ali — I’m sure the Muslim name has no direct connection to the strategy — but that appears to be what Al Queda did to Obama. BTW, Obama is the dope in that strategy…..unless, of course, he is intentionally helping the Islamists, which is what the evidence seems to support. Either way, Obama is a fool or a traitor, and many of us think he’s both.
            Twelve more terrorist killed by Obama! Yippee! But his actions have led to a massively successful recruitment of more terrorists and a huge mushrooming of jihadism within the Muslim ranks. He needs to kill 12 per second to keep up with the explosion in their numbers. If only 10% of Muslims are Islamists, they comprise the largest standing army on earth.

          • EarlyBird

            You infant, if you’re arguing that a real, red blooded American president would have won this “war” by now, say it. And tell us precisely how. And tell us why Bush failed to do so.
            You don’t get to pretend that Obama hasn’t been fighting the terrorists. The aggressiveness he’s shown to our enemy has shocked and upset squishy lefties as much as right wing babies who need to believe Obama is a crypto-jihadist.
            And actually, it was 34 Yemeni terrorists in two weeks, with 12 killed just yesterday.

            Fox News, 8/9/2013:

            “The U.S. has sharply escalated its drone war in Yemen, with military officials in the Arab country reporting 34 suspected Al Qaeda militants killed in less than two weeks, including three strikes on Thursday alone in which a dozen died.”

            Associated Press, 2011:

            “Obama’s use of drone strikes in western Pakistan against AQ and Taliban forces is more than 5 to 1 the number of Bush’s use of drones.”

            Project of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, 12/3/2010:

            “Approximately 7,100 special operations counterterrorism missions have been conducted between May 30 and Dec. 2 of this year, the International Security Assistance Force told The Long War Journal. More than 600 insurgent leaders were killed or captured. In addition, more than 2,000 enemy fighters have been killed, and over 4,100 fighters have been captured.”
            Hardly the work of a “traitor” who is “intentionally helping terrorists” you drooling idiot.

          • mmarler

            “Yoou don’t get to kpreetend tha t Obama hasn’t been fightring terrorists effectdively” Yeah, sure. Look at Benghazi..

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Yeah, sure. Look at Benghazi..”

            But he has personal control over the drone hit list. He’s really involved. Can’t we just trust him?

            He’s like our daddy.

          • pdxlady

            Sure, we can trust him; like Michelle can ‘trust’ him to do the dishes. Ha!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            We just have to trust him on everything he wants. He was chosen.

          • William James Ward

            When it gets that bad I will leave home………..William

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “”You infant, if you’re arguing that a real, red blooded American president would have won this “war” by now, say it. And tell us precisely how. And tell us why Bush failed to do so.”

            We already told you. Bush is a dupe of the left, albeit with some strong conservative convictions. He failed because he cared too much about consensus and popularity at a time of war, after an election that he won with great controversy. His opposition is knee-jerk anti-war, in case you didn’t know.

            0′Bama is anti-war on the surface, but hates American sovereignty. He wants to redistribute American wealth and destroy American power. He can’t do that from the outside. His supporters around the world know that. He and probably many anonymous others were groomed for the opportunity to do it from the inside.

            Do you know anything about Frank Marshal Davis? Name one 0′Bama supporter or lifelong associate that has characterized America as good, unless they’re talking about the wealth that they envy and want to “redistribute.”

            Calling people “infant” when they disagree with you doesn’t inspire anyone else to show you the respect you want. Respect is earned. Don’t expect leftist revolutionaries to explain that to their dupes. They’ll explain that if they ever win total control. Over you too.

          • EarlyBird

            That’s not an answer as to “how” any other president would have actually won. I repeat: this is not an old fashioned war where we get to kill enough of ‘em and they surrender. It doesn’t work that way. The old “leftism seeped into Bush’s presidency” saw is getting old, and is ridiculous on its face.

            Physically, specifcally, how can any president win this war? Answer: pretty much by using the policy that I laid out. If you don’t seriously engage that question you’re just playing partisan games.

            This war is not going to be over in our lifetimes, that’s for sure.

            I called him an infant because he expressed himself like one. I give people the respect they deserve.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “That’s not an answer as to “how” any other president would have actually won. I repeat: this is not an old fashioned war where we get to kill enough of ‘em and they surrender. It doesn’t work that way. The old “leftism seeped into Bush’s presidency” saw is getting old, and is ridiculous on its face.”

            This forum does not exist specifically to cater to you. Repeating your disagreement about positions that have been argued many times with compelling evidence is what gets old.

            Tactically any president has many options. Generally speaking your summary is not wrong about being focused on winning rather than politics. The left is a factor because of their unhinged politics and dominant cultural (and therefore political) hegemony.

          • EarlyBird

            “This forum does not exist specifically to cater to you. Repeating your disagreement about positions that have been argued many times with compelling evidence is what gets old.

            Tactically any president has many options.”

            Hah! Translated:

            “I’m the resident professor emeritus of this chatboard. My job is to relentlessly criticize both Bush’s and Obama’s clearly differing tactics in the war against Islamist extremism as evidence of the leftist rot at the soul of America. I don’t need to get down in the weeds to explain and defend my preferred tactics for winning this war and see if they can stand scrutiny. ‘Practical’ is for others to deal with. *sniff*”

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Better translation: You are a contrary quasi-troll that will not be allowed to distract people by making demands over and over. If you raise a useful question, that’s fine but getting your wish every time won’t necessarily happen.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            If I understand you correctly, you think I’m bluffing because in fact the US doesn’t have greater military capabilities than it uses.

            Am I understanding you correctly?

          • truebearing

            You take yourself way too seriously, Whirlybird. Try to remember that deluding yourself only fools you.

            Why didn’t Obama use armed drones to help our ambassador in Benghazi, genius? That would have been a perfect time to display this aggressive stance toward terror.
            Obama said that Afghanistan was the war we should be fighting, yet he handcuffed our troops with his insanely restrictive ROE. Only a complete moron could construe Obama’s lobbing of drone missiles — which prevent gathering any intelligence (something you are obviously suffering from) — as “aggressiveness.”
            A president who wants to win a long term conflict like the war on terror doesn’t upend valuable allies like Mubarak, nor does he give Russia veto power over our defense initiatives, alienate our most valued allies –eg Israel, or destroy the morale of the military with PC idiocy. You are so far off the mark it is laughable.

          • Michael Burch

            How many civilians have been killed by Obama’s actions..if this was a republican president you would be screaming for his head…the double standards of the left is breath taking

          • EarlyBird

            No I wouldn’t. Civilians get killed in wars. That’s part of what makes them tragic.

          • Michael Burch

            The muslims who are not muslim enough ..well they have to die for the cause..which makes me wonder..is that the same policy being currently used by Obama and his use of drones??I believe we should leave those muslim countries to their own demise..I find it repulsive for our young men and women to be killed and maimed for basically no reason.jUst as soon as we leave those disgusting countries,they will fall back to doing what they have been doing for hundreds of years..Pull our people out and let the chips fall where ever.Just let it be known that if those barbarians attack us we will use superior force times 10 right back at them…without any regard towards civilians or military alike.

          • EarlyBird

            “The muslims who are not muslim enough ..well they have to die for the cause…”
            The way I see it the Muslim world is in a massive civil war for their religion and society. Imagine if during the US Civil War our country had been invaded by…Norway. The North and South would have suddenly gotten along to fight Norway. Nothing unifies a people than an outside threat. Look at Syria today. As long as we can manage to stay out of that morass, they are focused on each other, not the Great Satan.
            Unfortunately, our many decades-long policies in that region make ALL of these people, on both sides of the civil war, want to band together to dislodge Western influence. See Egypt as an example. To the greatest degree that we can, we should dislodge.
            “I believe we should leave those muslim countries to their own demise..I find it repulsive for our young men and women to be killed and maimed for basically no reason.”
            I fully agree. There is no worse possible tactic for us to use than to treat this like an old fashioned conventional war. To invade, occupy and attempt to transform these countries is not only a bloody fool’s errand, but it is totally counter-productive. It does the PR work of the Islamists for them.
            “Just let it be known that if those barbarians attack us we will use superior force times 10 right back at them…without any regard towards civilians or military alike.”
            Amen.

          • Michael Burch

            I am not a ‘war hawk’ just a simple man who believes in his country.Now do not confuse that with a belief in our politicians..because I do not believe in those low life forms..But when I do fight, I do so to win..It breaks my heart to see all of our young people come home so wounded..They should leave all the fighting to us old folks..but if they did that there would not be any ‘wars’…we are not foolish enough to run pell mell into harms way..which brings me to say ..all politicians are the ones who should be on the ‘front lines. dodging bullets..these ‘wars ‘ would be over very quickly ..I guess that is why these extremists who are ‘old’ use young people as their bomb carrying weapons..

          • mmarler

            Two points, Early: First, what was Obama’s authority for attacking terrorists in a sovereign foreign country? Second, how much collateral damage did those drone attacks create? or do we care?

          • EarlyBird

            “First, what was Obama’s authority for attacking terrorists in a sovereign foreign country?”

            Probably none.

            “Second, how much collateral damage did those drone attacks create?”

            Plenty.

            “… or do we care?”

            It depends on the ratio of terrorists to innocents killed. If it’s a matter of flattening a stadium filled with innocents to get one terrorist, we should care.

          • truebearing

            Obama’s use of drones has hardly equalled the massive increase in the activity of radical Islam, fool. Claiming to have killed all of those “leaders” is questionable at best. Supposedly dead Al Queda leaders have turned up again, alive. Idiot.
            Obama has personally helped uproot Mubarak, to be replaced by Morsi, from the Muslim Brotherhood. He has given billions to terrorists like Hamas. He is giving shoulder fired missiles to Al Queda, even though they murdered an American ambassador. Wake up, pin head. Obama has done everything he can to further jihadism by creating a vacuum of American power. Only a true dolt, or complete liar, would fail to see and acknowledge that truth.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “GL, we need to understand first and foremost that Greenfield is a propagandist. If Obama cured cancer he’d blame him for creating overpopulation.”

            That’s a childish statement. Why don’t you at least use a real example of 0′Bama’s goodness that DG or any of us deny. The only possible examples you can find are highly controversial at best. All you can say is that he seems sincere and tries to do really great things for “the people.”

            Those promises are not equal to curing cancer. They’re equal to snake oil claims to cure cancer.

            “And that requires avoiding giving creedence to the general sense of vicitimization of Muslims by the West, which si the entire narrative of the Islamists.”

            It’s bad enough that our enemies will lie about us creating false grievances. They’ll always do that. But when we confirm their delusional claims, that makes it worse.

            We didn’t start the war, and we didn’t end it mercifully. We want mercy, and you claim to as well. But you’re always defending the “hearts and minds” BS about sending the air force AND flowers.

            Hmmm. Not too consistent. Can’t you admit that the world is a complex and seemingly ambiguous place at times? You have to work at it to truly resolve some of the complexities. Calling people you disagree with hateful seems like a lazy way to reconcile beliefs that you can’t reconcile rationally.

          • EarlyBird

            You have some history to read, OFM. Real history.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Show me your list of what you think I’m missing.

          • Michael Burch

            Obama is a frigging idiot,and so is anyone who even thinks that he knows what he is doing….For any person to be the commander-in- chief of the mightiest military on earth and not to have served in any capacity in any of the services is stupid…Ever single thing this so called president has done has been a disaster,,,it is hard to teach anyone anything ,who knows everything… That explains why Obama has fired most everyone on his staff several times..they had the teremerity to disagree with him

          • moneekwa

            Among the rules of engagement, female troops are strongly encouraged to wear hijab (which their helmets don’t fit over the top of, and don’t stop bullets), they can’t pee or poop towards mecca, they can’t shoot at people even if they observe them putting in IEDs, and until recently they couldn’t carry a sidearm ob base (but the high number of afghans we are training shooting them in the back of the head led to that being changed). Our troops are supposed to “embrace the culture” including child abuse (google “bacha bazi” and “baad”) and mistreatment of animals such as dogs which are haram and unclean. There have been ceasefires to allow the heroin crop to be harvested, an evil drug destined for the veins of American youth. I think we need to decide what our goals are. We will never “win the hearts and minds” of the Afghan people because we are infidels and their “god” and its “prophet” tell them they are obligated to hate us. We should either fight to win or go home. And let Karzai stick his complaints where the sun don’t shine. Let’s see how long he lasts without us propping him up.

        • mmarler

          You may have a point. How DO you fight a virus that has invaded every organ of your body? How do you counteract the “Religion of Peace” when its every fiber screams ‘kill the infidel?”

          • EarlyBird

            Stop feeding the virus, for one thing. It runs on the sense – right or wrong – that the West is oppressing, dominating and attacking them. Let’s get out of their hair and let them rot. Get energy independent and get the f*** out of their countries, cut our aid and military packages to all of them, let their governments fall and only worry about our access to shipping lanes. And play a very aggressive defense. They’ll finally wake up to the fact that they, not us, are their own worst enemies.

          • Drakken

            In case it has escaped your notice but isolationism never works, war one way or another always comes sniffing around whether you like it or not.

          • EarlyBird

            I’m not arguing for isolationism, marine. There’s something between attempting to control every single outcome in the world, and withdrawing into a shell and waving the white flag.

            You are going to hear a lot of conservative arguments for intelligent disengagement and reconsideration of our interests in places like the Middle East as the next presidential election heats up. Don’t let the Establishment (made up of both parties), which has such an interest in maintaining our empire, convince you that it’s “isolationism.”

          • Drakken

            Intelligent disengagement is what we have going on now from your hero Obummer and company, it is a complete utter clusterf***. It is not a question of controlling anything, it I a question of keeping it do a dull roar. Obummers policy’s of smart power is making the region explode.

          • EarlyBird

            To the contrary, Obama’s been very smart, wiping out terrorists with drone strikes while keeping a small footprint and using a lot of police work to disrupt plots at home. A lot better than bombing, invading and occupying so that the locals can rally around the flag and kill Americans. Better than laying waste to whole cities as you prefer, which tends to breed more of the enemy. Better than other big, dramatic military actions which further destabilize and enrage the Middle East and bankrupt America.

            It’s critical to draw distinctions between the relatively tiny number of active terrorists/jihadists, and the mass swath of normal Muslims who don’t lay awake at night dreaming of killing infidels, but care about normal things. Kill the former, and build the trust of the latter. And play an aggressive defense at home. It’s ultimately up to them to transform their own societies into something benign, which is the only definition of a “win” in this war.

            Of course, if a real, genuine 9/11 threat is brewing or occurs again, annihilate the offenders and don’t “rebuild” anything. Just kill.

            What is “exploding” is the political establishments of the Middle East which are untenable for both the jihadists and normal Muslims. You can only keep the lid on a boiling pot for so long. This is the end of the Great Powers’ hold on that region. There really is very little benefit to our being there anymore. Let them sort their own lives out.

          • Drakken

            The great powers kept a lid on the islamaniacs for over a century, now you seem to believe that if we just leave that everything will be just wonderful. It won’t, islam is making a brutal resurgence not seen in centuries, using drones to take out a few hajis isn’t going to cut it. Hard power always wins the day if your willing to have the stones to carry it out, the weak feckless idiots in this administration think that you can play nice with these savages when it is as clear as day you can’t. Start using B-52 strikes and target the imams and mullahs and that will send the right message.

          • EarlyBird

            It kept a lid on every single Arab who wasn’t part of the Western boot-licking, rapacious elite, i.e., 98.9% of all Arabs, and completely warped that society. It put a lid on modernizers including Westernized Arab leaders who merely wanted independence from the West. So now here we are talking about B-52 strikes.

            B-52 strikes because among the Muslims there is a tiny percentage of them who wish to do us harm. Of course, to the guy who only has B-52s, every problem looks like a kill box.

            How about being genuinely conservative and true to our American values and get out of their hair, let people determine their own fates, define what our genuine national interests are in that part of the world, and wipe out any genuine threats on an as-needed basis? You’ll be amazed at how quickly the Islamofascists get sane when they have to actually run things rather than blame all their woes on the Great Satan.

          • Drakken

            There are no modernizers you western hating leftist. If we westerners let them gain that caliphate they seek it will be much more bloodier in the long term. Your Marxist theory of its western colonialism, imperialism and us mean westerners just keeping the poor savages down is utter BS. Islam as a whole run by the mullahs is the strong horse and if left unchecked will become dominate, that is why us mean western imperialist keep a secular strongman in power to keep the islamaniacs in check. So your,: it’s only a tiny percentage”, nonsense is naïve at best, and utterly stupid and dangerous at worst. Yes B-52 Arc-Light strikes do wonders to make our point of we don’t play and are stronger than you so don’t push it. Like the parasites they islamaniacs are, when they take over a country or region they have to move on to other territories like locusts once they suck that area dry. So your wishful, naïve thoughts of they will get sane is utter stupidity and shows that you have no bloody clue as to how the muslim mind works, and that is your problem, critical Marxist theory of I feel therefore I am. You are one of the main reasons that wars are more bloody than they need to be. No wonder why women will never run the world.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “To the contrary, Obama’s been very smart, wiping out terrorists with drone strikes while keeping a small footprint and using a lot of police work to disrupt plots at home.”

            I’ve got a huge series of hornet’s nests in my backyard. I don’t want to offend any environmentalists, so I’ve limited my response to throwing well-placed rocks, and a few sniper shots with a BB gun. My wife is impressed, but we’ve been getting stung for more than 10 years since then.

            So I started sending them love notes. My kids think I’m such an awesome kind green-friendly leader. They get stung too, but I manage to blame my militant neighbor that keeps demanding I do something serious about the nests. Their hate speech is very offensive to the hornets.

            It’s obviously the fault of my neighbors. When their hate speech can be eliminated, the problem will go away. In the mean time, I need to keep up the sniping attacks or else the neighbors will yell even louder for decisive action. And that will really upset the hornets. We can’t have that.

            It’s a tough job taking on such difficult leadership challenges. Who better than me to snipe at hornets? I’m so awesome. Did I mention that?

            “There really is very little benefit to our being there anymore.’

            Just “being there” is a liability.

            “Let them sort their own lives out.”

            We should have sorted them out a long time ago, and then left them to sort out the consequences of attacking or threatening us.

          • EarlyBird

            “We should have sorted them out a long time ago, and then left them to sort out the consequences of attacking or threatening us.”
            Exactly.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Intelligent disengagement is what we have going on now from your hero Obummer and company it is a complete utter clusterf***. ”

            Because he’s using “Islamic Intelligence.”

          • ziggy zoggy

            Empire? Name one country that pays the U.S. tribute. Name one country that is controlled by the U.S.

            GENUFLECT TO YOUR ARAB MASTERS, TROLL BOY.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Empire? Name one country that pays the U.S. tribute. Name one country that is controlled by the U.S.”

            A superpower is a “de facto empire,” to its enemies that we prevent from imposing their own empire. I’ll never apologize for that.

            They’ll say things like, “Empire is essentially about economics, which makes the US the world’s most powerful empire.”

            OK. So in that sense, empire is not necessarily bad. Yet you still use it pejoratively. So trade is bad?

            And they wonder why we call them communists.

          • EarlyBird

            “A superpower is a “de facto empire,” to its enemies that we prevent from imposing their own empire. I’ll never apologize for that.”

            We are indeed a defacto empire. We’ve been described as “the accidental empire.” But we most certainly are an empire.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “We are indeed a defacto empire. We’ve been described as “the accidental empire.” But we most certainly are an empire.”

            By our enemies when we impede their imperial dreams.

          • ziggy zoggy

            I think America should be an empire but it isn’t. It’s a republic. It doesn’t impose its economic system on any other country.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Exactly. We’re hegemonic but not imperial.

            No apologies necessary, but more frequent thanks would be appropriate.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Get energy independent and get the f*** out of their countries, cut our aid and military packages to all of them, let their governments fall and only worry about our access to shipping lanes.”

            Now you’re talking sense.

            “And play a very aggressive defense.”

            That is all we ever do. It just looks like offense to our enemies (including leftists) because technology has made the world too small to hide in.

            “They’ll finally wake up to the fact that they, not us, are their own worst enemies.”

            If any peacenik president came along and put a focus on energy independence while scaling back military, that might be easier to accept, even if I disagreed with some of the decisions. But even you agree that energy independence is the key, and what has 0′Bama done other than hugging our enemies? He’s empowered them economically in every possible way. And weakened us. The only possible way this could succeed is if it makes them “love and respect” us.

            It won’t.

          • EarlyBird

            We have had more gas and oil development on private lands in the past 8 years than we have in decades. Not that Obama hasn’t fought further development, but my point is that, if even in spite of him, we’re fall less dependent today than we were 8 years ago on foreign oil.

            And I agree we’ve played aggressive defense. My only complaint is the invasion and occupation of countries, which is an act of suicide.

          • ziggy zoggy

            What about the Israeli “occupation” of their own country? Thats what your’e really referring to, right? And America’s presence in islamopithecine countries?

            America shouls invade and clear dangerous countries.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “We have had more gas and oil development on private lands in the past 8 years than we have in decades.”

            I don’t know that what you say is true, but even if it were true, that is not a rational argument in support of 0′Bama’s policies. He has fought development, but he’s not omnipotent. That’s your best defense for him; that he’s failed at his objectives.

            “Not that Obama hasn’t fought further development, but my point is that, if even in spite of him, we’re far less dependent today than we were 8 years ago on foreign oil.”

            In spite of him. Exactly. It could be worse, therefore 0′Bama is not all that bad since we might succeed in spite of him. Wow.

            “And I agree we’ve played aggressive defense. My only complaint is the invasion and occupation of countries, which is an act of suicide.”

            I think that what you don’t understand is that occupations become a problem when we stick around to plant flowers without a clear agenda. We go there to defeat evil, we stay there to “win hearts and minds” by doing good things but this is spun as ruthless self interest by our enemies. Especially since we fail to destroy or force capitulation, so outside observers think, well they didn’t go there to win, so maybe they are there purely for self interest.

            If there is a clear military need to occupy, people understand that intuitively. People complain when we occupy out of self-interest rather than military need.

            Heart and minds campaigns are intended obviously to win hearts and minds but are easy to spin as the exact opposite when it’s the military that is charged with this mission.

            We should be unafraid to win decisively, force our enemies to capitulate, and then go in with diplomats and unarmed advisers once the new sovereign is able to stand on their own. Trying to do this all at once is too complicated and too easy to spin as “imperialism.”

          • EarlyBird

            You don’t understand the notion that invading and occupying breaks the system which is in place. A good thing when that system is evil and dangerous. But the next step is to put something else in its place, or else chaos occurs and we rue that we upset the evil but stable system in the first place. And what does that require? Long term troop and financial commitments which we can not fulfill, and “planting flowers” and such.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            You’re arguing against yourself from comment to comment.

          • EarlyBird

            What you don’t get in regard to my comments about Obama’s oil policies is that they are criticism. I disagree with him. I think he’s wrong. You are only confused because you can’t imagine someone being non-partisan and wed to truth rather than their “side.”

          • objectivefactsmatter

            I’m not talking about oil when I say you’re arguing against yourself.

            Sure, you’re the truth guy. In your heart of hearts.

          • ziggy zoggy

            America should not only block the shipping lanes of its enemies but seize or sink every ship that violates the blockade.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            We should not be afraid to do that when it fits our strategic goals. Right now our biggest liabilities are the enemies within. They will lead us to defeat if we change too quickly without purging them first.

          • ziggy zoggy

            Yeah, well look who is in the White House and look at who controls all government agencies. We’ll be lucky if we survive this – and he has three more years to drive us under.

          • Drakken

            Well, the Romans sure had a way with dealing with the traitors within, maybe we should take a page out of their playbook.

          • ObamaYoMoma

            Stop feeding the virus, for one thing. It runs on the sense – right or wrong – that the West is oppressing, dominating and attacking them. Let’s get out of their hair and let them rot.

            While I don’t agree with Greenfield’s unhinged contention at all, you are nonetheless a very gullible useful idiot infidel. Plus you are a little more than delusional as well, as the West isn’t oppressing, dominating, and attacking them or anyone else for that matter without righteous justification. The truth is Muslims aren’t terrorists. Instead, they are jihadists fighting in the cause of Allah for the establish Islam, or the expansion of Islam in this case, via the imposition of Sharia, which is Islamic totalitarian law. As the sole fundamental purpose of Islam, which, by the way, is not a so-called “religion of peace”, but instead is a very aggressive and destructive totalitarian cult, is to subjugate into Islamic totalitarianism all religions and all infidels via jihad and through the imposition of Sharia, which again is Islamic totalitarian law.

          • ziggy zoggy

            OYM, GirlyBird is an Iranian residing in America.

          • ziggy zoggy

            girly Turd,
            yes, by all means let’s get out of their hair. We could use plenty more 911s, you islamopihecine ret@rd.

          • ziggy zoggy

            Antibodies.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          “He also understands that the many plots that have been stopped have had far more to do with intelligence gathering and old fashioned police work, than actual deployment of troops and weapons and the like.”

          If you’re distinguishing between law enforcement investigations and prosecutions of terror, and expeditionary troop deployments, when has any conservative demanded troops when “police” investigators could have done a better job?

          “Yes, the occasional missile here, Spec Ops raid there, is necessary, but that’s far different than the idea that we need to fight this enemy in the manner we did Japan.”

          The point is not that we need to incinerate anyone (though at this point, we had better deal with Iran because we might get there), but that sharp action might seem more dramatic and cruel, but we know that in some cases it is the most merciful course of action among the available choices. Like in dealing with Japan. And to be clear, I don’t think that there has been any point since Japan that we should have used nuclear weapons, not given all of the circumstances.

          But we were not wrong in Japan. And we’re not wrong when we take the sharp and brutal course that ends quickly and dramatically rather than hacking our enemy’s populations to peaces for years on end.

          • EarlyBird

            “If you’re distinguishing between law enforcement investigations and prosecutions of terror, and expeditionary troop deployments, when has any conservative demanded troops when “police” investigators could have done a better job?”
            The so-called “conservatives” on this site, for instance. They think the answer is to nuke Mecca. If you think I’m overstating the position, read the idiocy for yourself.
            WHAT “sharp action”?! I am NOT arguing to be “soft” at all, let alone for the sake of being nice to our enemies. I am saying that the win we are working towards will have a lot less to do with OUR actions, and far more to do with the actions of those within the Middle East who are fighting a huge religious/social/political civil war within their society. By treating them all as one bloc of Terrorisets or Would-be Terrorists, turns them ALL into ‘would-be terrorists.” Yes, the one thing they all agree on is that we are too involved in their lives.
            It’s that when you say “sharp approach” you mean big military movements. TO. DO. WHAT? Specifically?! Where/who do we hit? How? If there is big military target out there, YES, let’s hit it. Okay? IF ONLY that was the situation in this war, we’d have been done by 9/11/02.
            And for the record, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was absolutely the best, most moral way to end that conflict.

          • Drakken

            Complete utter bulls*** and gobbly gook left wing nonsense. Your hearts and minds approach is a complete clusterf*** if you haven’t noticed.

          • ziggy zoggy

            How could the cops nuke Mecca more effectively than the Prez and his miltary?

            Islam absolutely IS a military bloc, you taqiyahtard.

            If you honestly support the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki it’s only because you fear Japanese exceptionalism the same way you fear American exceptionalism.

            Now praise your pedophile pretend prophet, GirlyTurd. Your Arab masters demand it.

          • EarlyBird

            Oh dear, Soggy! As Professor OFM would say:

            “You’re failure to show due respect is not about respect for respect’s sake, but it explains why people don’t take you seriously enough to slow down to explain the nuance of their beliefs. Why should they?”

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “The so-called “conservatives” on this site, for instance. They think the answer is to nuke Mecca. If you think I’m overstating the position, read the idiocy for yourself.”

            1) That’s not the mainstream view
            2) It’s not as irrational as you think unless you take it out of context.

            It’s basically a quick way of saying that we need to stop doing things that they read as confirming their beliefs in allah and the superiority of their religion.

            “Nuke Mecca” might in some cases mean that someone is sick of this BS and imagining a Hiroshima style sharp victory to save bloodshed in the long run. Or they might be thinking literally that by wiping out the (Arab pagan) temple they would make a strong statement about our actual respect for their religion and belligerence since it would be a clear retaliatory message.

            I’m not saying we should do that any time soon if ever. I am saying that there is a rational argument for it.

            I wouldn’t use nukes either. At the most I’d seize it, and maybe destroy it. At worst. I don’t think it should get to that point, but if we in the West don’t wake up to the deranged policies of “multiculturalism” I can imagine a point where that will have to become a serious consideration.

            When you have a POTUS like 0′Bama that so strengthens the jihadi movements, getting a rational person in office might mean that he or she has only 4 years to undo all of that damage. In theory it might become a rational option if this jihadi surge continues to trend this way (not counting what we hope is going on in Turkey and Egypt, which actually goes against 0′Bama’s actions…what irony).

            I guess what I’m saying is that if you want to understand just how deranged (or not) conservatives are, you have to take the time to actually understand the positions behind the comments. Most readers here do understand and you don’t. You only think you do.

            And since this is not huffingtonpost.com, it’s really up to you to take the time to understand the comments. There is no obligation for anyone to adapt their rhetoric every time a skeptic (whether or not a condescending one at that) comes along since most readers understand more or less where they are coming from or at least will ask probing questions in a somewhat respectful manner.

            You’re failure to show due respect is not about respect for respect’s sake, but it explains why people don’t take you seriously enough to slow down to explain the nuance of their beliefs. Why should they?

          • EarlyBird

            What made the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki rational and wise was that the alternative of invading the home islands of Japan would have cost boths sides probably a million lives each.
            Muslims hate and fear us because they see us as economic, political, miltiary and cultural occupiers of THEIR lands. They look at “Girls Gone Wild,” drug addiction, out of wedlock births, and kids texting pictures of their genitals to each other, and decide we are evil and trying to turn them into our debauched Wesetern selves, and do not want to become that.
            Nuking or otherwise destroying Mecca would not make them reconsider their religious beliefs any more than nuking DC would make you reconsider Christianity.
            And again: the very idea that we could nuke X, or bomb Y, enough to push back the enemies arrayed against us is ludicrous. It would have just the opposite effect. It could very well get the attention of nominally pro-Islamist governments, but remember that terrorists are suicidal non-state actors and are often at odds with and out of reach of these very governments themselves.

            “…but if we in the West don’t wake up to the deranged policies of “multiculturalism” I can imagine a point where that will have to become a serious consideration.”
            Multiculturalism is not what created the Islamist enemy, but I agree that we need to reject PC nonsense about “Islamophobia” when and where the charge is misapplied. We should absolutely be willing to put vastly more scrutiny on immigrants and visitors to the US from Muslim nations, etc.
            My concern is that we overstate the threat and have put this conflict so wildly out of scope that we’re comparing it to Japan in WWII, and imaging massive, world war scale body counts if we don’t take dramatic military action now.
            “…if this jihadi surge continues to trend this way (not counting what we hope is going on in Turkey and Egypt,…”
            “There is no obligation for anyone to adapt their rhetoric every time a skeptic (whether or not a condescending one at that)…”
            Oh boo hoo. If you haven’t discovered yet, professor, this is not the Harvard Debating Society. I show as much respect to others on this board as they earn.
            comes along since most readers understand more or less where they are coming from or at least will ask probing questions in a somewhat respectful manner.

            “You’re failure to show due respect is not about respect for respect’s sake…”
            When people reflexively reject me as “commie,” a friend, but it explains why people don’t take you seriously enough to slow down to explain the nuance of their beliefs. Why should they?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “WHAT “sharp action”? I am NOT arguing to be “soft” at all, let alone for the sake of being nice to our enemies.”

            I understand that perfectly. I’m explaining why we don’t do that. You only have to review the history of the USA since the Korean war to understand why we don’t try to win. Our enemies have infiltrated our institutions and we treat them like friends.

            “I am saying that the win we are working towards will have a lot less to do with OUR actions, and far more to do with the actions of those within the Middle East who are fighting a huge religious/social/political civil war within their society.”

            Since you defend 0′Bama’s actions, I have to assume you’re talking about support for the very policies that undermine us. Let me simply say that 0′Bama amplified (or “doubled down” as people like to say) on all of the strategies that hurt us. That’s the fundamental reason for intense opposition to his job performance and policies. Now in support of that, we offer detailed analysis.

            You want to sell that as an intelligent hearts and minds campaign when you don’t seem to understand that there are 3 fundamental factions in this world that each subdivide further; atheism, Judeo Christianity and Islam. In some cases atheists adopt quasi-Judeo-Christian values, and in other cases, supposed Christians and Jews adopt radical atheist values. I therefore go to the core of their actions and allegiances if we want to analyze their worldview vis-a-vis civilization allegiance (rather than theology).

            In terms of global ideological movements, we have traditional Judeo Christian civilization, usually these are conservatives. We have the radical Judeo Christian civilization that thinks some or all of the Bible is a fraud, and therefore they must find humans to take over the role that God plays in the Bible in order to “perfect” the world. And then you have Mohamedism.

            Since the conservatives hold most of the traditional power, because somehow their beliefs tend to lead them to become independent wealthy and successful, these people were the ruling elites for many generations.

            Once Darwin “confirmed” the faith (in atheism) for the atheists, they were able to rally around an ideology to depose the conservatives. This happened more or less in sync with the industrial revolution. Deranged leftists revise history to take credit for this as well. This gives them irrational confidence in their delusions, but it’s not the only thing. In any case, philosophers started coming up with many new ideas for the suddenly more focused atheists. Having “victims” of the industrial revolution gave them various ways of making names for themselves and building cultural hegemony with unions and advocacy organizations. In short, these people who never proved they could do better, started to gain political power by calling out society’s imperfections and becoming champions for those who feel envy and resentment at the world’s imperfections. They point to people who on the surface have a nearly perfect life and point out how it’s just not fair on some level. Envy explains virtually all of it.

            It’s not hard to see how and why these atheists would join with the weaker jihadis, since jihadis have been attacking the same groups since the 7th century AD. Atheists see themselves as obviously more evolved and therefore obviously a weak religion that attack their strong enemy, can be used against that enemy.

            Without understanding these fundamental ideological currents, you can’t understand any winning strategy because what you think the enemy will respond to is read entirely differently by them then how you intend it to be read.

            Bush not only failed to understand the complex ideology of Islam, a martial religion if ever there was one, but he also believed that it was OK to accede to leftist demands or wishes because he didn’t think it would be difficult to kill a few “strains” of “radicals” and then be done with it.

            So Bush needs to be lectured to as well. But just because Bush f-ed up doesn’t mean your paradigm is any better. In fact yours is worse. But basically while criticizing Bush, you’re actually preaching his worldview. Which is why you think there was no possible way for him to succeed.

          • EarlyBird

            After all of that you failed to specifically state WHAT type of “sharp action” you’re asking for. What. When. Where. How. If you don’t really state what actions you’re demanding, you’re just philosophizing and criticizing the doers, both Bush and Obama, who had to act in the real world.

            I’ve noticed that secularists have a hard time understanding how powerful religious ideology is to other human beings, and how it can get someone to strap a bomb on himself in the name of “God” and kill others. I’ve noticed too that fundamentalist religious people find it difficult to recognize how fundamentalist religious ideology can be used in pursuit of tangible “secular” or physical goals, i.e., to obtain land, resources and political power.

            And if you don’t see the difference between Obama’s and Bush’s actions against AQ, et al., then you just haven’t been following the news in the past 6 years.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “And for the record, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was absolutely the best, most moral way to end that conflict. I’ve never suggested anything to the contrary.”

            If that has been your position, then you fail to understand what I mean when I say short and sharp. Because that is the fundamental lesson from “nukes in Japan.” Not that it must be nukes, but it must be short and sharp to be merciful. If it’s not sharp enough, it won’t be short or it won’t be a victory.

          • EarlyBird

            I just think you’re comparing apples and oranges. There is virtually no comparison between our war against Japan and our war against the Islamist terrorists.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            There are huge distinctions for sure, but we can learn from almost any war. So what are the lessons from WWII? That’s what we’re talking about.

            Apples and oranges both have nutritious value. So there are cases where even comparing apples to oranges will make a lot of sense if you do it objectively.

            There were no significant peace marches in the West defending the Japanese before they surrendered in WWII. Compare and contrast. Learn from the discussion.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “WHAT “sharp action”?”

            It seems like you haven’t kept current on our military capabilities. We could rule the world if we chose to. We are not limited by our military capabilities at this time. Our weakness comes entirely from our internal divisions. That has been my fundamental point all along.

            You already have stated that you agree with going in to win or staying home, so you must think we lack capability. I think it’s totally beyond the scope of this forum to convince you of our military power if you are not already aware. We don’t even have any tactical need for nuclear weapons any longer. Small ones might be nice in a few select cases, but we could do without and still win just as convincingly as if we had used them. We have weapons that are just as effective, but far more precise.

          • EarlyBird

            “…We could rule the world if we chose to.”

            With what army? We couldn’t manage Iraq. We didn’t have even a third of the necessary troops available for that project (as was repeated over and over by our generals but which was ignored by the neocons).
            To “rule” takes men on the ground. We can intimidate every nation in the world, we could bomb everybody in the world, but not “rule” them.

            “You already have stated that you agree with going in to win or staying home, so you must think we lack capability.”

            No, I’ve stated throughout that we should “go in” militarily on an as-needed basis to knock down specific cells, training facilities, weapons, groups of terrorists, etc., where a military action is needed and the best available tool. But no invasions and occupations.

            No military action is going to win this odd conflict on its own, and the wrong kind of action can just exacerbate it by helping our enemies.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “With what army? We couldn’t manage Iraq.”

            The very obvious point is that most US citizens oppose any such moves. The very obvious point is also that in Iraq as well, we did not choose to win decisively. Many or most people in the USA and the West have ideas about warfare that contradict even those you claim to have. They believe in some strange ideas about “fairness” that means if you use “too much force” you become the “bad guy.”

            Now you seem to argue we have a problem with our capabilities. When since WWII has the US used maximum military capabilities against any enemy? Even during WWII we could have managed more, if there was a clear need for sacrifice, or I should say a clear will to sacrifice more.

            “No military action is going to win this odd conflict on its own, and the wrong kind of action can just exacerbate it by helping our enemies.”

            That is complete BS. You win first, and you do it so convincing that others don’t bother trying again. You can then also use “hearts and minds” campaigns to create incentives for others who might otherwise go down the path of revenge, but that’s all it’s good for. HM campaigns are in our interests usually, but not because of any military need.

            And by the way, every time we show mercy to a jihadi, their indoctrination tells them that allah saved them, and it convinces them to fight even more strenuously when they get the next chance. They don’t think that we’re nice when we show mercy in war. Ever.

          • EarlyBird

            “…in Iraq as well, we did not choose to win decisively.”

            You refuse to even define “win.” Further, your adamant refusal to actually define specific tactics and strategies you think we should be using, and where, just exposes intellectual cowardice. You’re like the left wing economics professor who never has to confront the idiocy of his theories because he never has to implement them.

            “Now you seem to argue we have a problem with our capabilities.”

            Again: we don’t have enough troops to take and control giant tracts of land, an insane, counter-productive strategy even we could. And you don’t get to have an opinion about that. Our joint chiefs of staff agree with me. We have never had a smaller number of troops in modern times. We have a small army in terms of manpower. It’s exactly why the neocons chose to go so light into Iraq and even had to call up the reserves: we didn’t have a choice.

            “…Even during WWII we could have managed more, if there was a clear need for sacrifice, or I should say a clear will to sacrifice more.”

            Yeah. Not enough Americans died. I bet those generals who designed battle plans to minimize American casualites were under the sway of FDR’s commies and leftists.

            “That is complete BS. You win first, and you do it so convincing that others don’t bother trying again….”

            Explain how, or shut up. It’s that simple If you want to be taken seriously, express serious thoughts, okay? If you just want to philosphize, find one of your fellow right wing extremists to impress. Someone like Zoggy will do.

            But I understand. Last time I was able to get you to actually detail one of your fantasies, you provided a “plan” for taking over Iran, and it was so naive and fantastical as to read like a comedy, like a little boy raised on too many John Wayne movies explaining how war works. It was almost sweet.

            “Why can’t American presidents work magic on our enemies? ‘Cuz damm leftists seeped into Washington!”

          • objectivefactsmatter

            This is again one of those many times where I see the discourse is over your head.

            Notice I’m not saying we should do X today. When we go to war, we prepare by looking at present circumstances and resources and objectives. We consult with “upper management” of the fighting forces. We might even delay onset to prepare new weapons.

            It’s way beyond the scope to go in to detail and pointless as well when the only thing I can surmise from your position is that you actually think our failures have to do with limits we have other than a will to prosecute.

            You’ll deny the nose on your face just to claim you won an argument.

          • EarlyBird

            “Notice I’m not saying we should do X today…***splutter*** I’m just to…smart for you and …. too patriotic fer….um LEFTISTs! to get… and umm Where was I…

            “… When we go to war, we prepare by looking at present circumstances and resources and objectives…****splutter***!

            You’re not saying much of anything. Shoo, fool!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            So it really is a waste of time trying to reason with you. You can’t follow the conversations. You pretend to for effect.

            So you’re the troll that tells people to go away. Talk about hubris. Why don’t you go to huffpo and work on those gangs that attack people who question things like whether it’s OK to criticize a leftist president. At least you’ll feel at home.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            If any non-lunatics want to have more information about these kind of things, you have to start with some basis in reality.

            This PBS documentary is of course tilted to the left in editing, but there’s enough discussion with enough of the actual players to make it a good resource to find out where we started to go off the rails in planning to invade Iraq.

            http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/pentagon/

            Once you’re familiar with some of those issues it’s a lot easier to see where we went wrong. We were not lacking in capability, we were overconfident and wanted to leverage our capabilities in “transforming” the military. Even hawks can be delusional. They wanted to be all things to all people rather than preparing for significant sacrifices. The professional soldiers warned them too.

            I can understand why Bush wanted to try to appeal to the middle ground after the “hanging chad” controversy, but he should have toughened up and realized that the hard left would never support a war to protect our sovereignty. They’d have to feign support up till they saw weakness. Bush got played by the left, big time.

            Rumsfeld wanted to “transform” our military and now 0′Bama wants to “transform” our nation. Any time someone wants to “transform” something that is already at the top of the food chain you have to question their sanity.

          • truebearing

            “by remaining a huge military, political and economic presence in their countries, we do the work of the Islamists themselves….blah, blah, blah”

            Obama’s last five years of policy refuted your idiotic theory and quite thoroughly. The power vacuum Obama has created has resulted in the rise of the most malignant forces on earth. Your theory has been getting nuked into cinders for five years, yet you doggedly stick to it, assiduously avoiding reality all the way. And yet you have the gall to call others “simple” or “stupid?”

            Why is it always you goose stepping ideologues who can’t understand other ideologies and the impact they have? Islam has a set of beliefs that have motivated Muslims to act the same way since its inception, yet you dolts want to ignore entire swaths of history because you can’t make it fit your propaganda.
            You have the same simplistic, dishonest, mechanistic explanation for every problem on earth. It’s always the fault of the United States, or the West in general, when regions are unstable or torn by war, even when those regions were unstable and torn by war before the US existed. It is the prattle of a simpleton or a liar, or both.

            Your chimpings on the problems in the Middle East are notably lacking in even the slightest mention of the huge role Nazism had in further radicalizing an already radical religion. Saddam Hussein was a member of the Baath Party, which derived directly from the Nazi Party. He was a fan of Hitler. Iran means “Aryan” in Persian. The name change from Persia to Iran was encouraged by the Nazis in WWII. Syria is another nation with strong Nazi influence, as is Egypt. Where in your maunderings did you account for that evil and incredibly disruptive influence? The Nazis had a huge role in stirring up hatred of the Jews and opposition to the creation of Israel. I guess that part of history has been lopped off in your procrustean interpretation of history.

          • ziggy zoggy

            I think America should have nuked Mao and his army in the Korean War.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “I think America should have nuked Mao and his army in the Korean War.”

            I understand both sides of that argument.

            Truman was not a big time dupe, but he was surrounded by enough traitors and dupes that it was hard for him to build consensus.

            Truman in other circumstances would not have been a Democrat. He was an unusual man. Ideologically he was a Republican surrounded all his life by Democrats, most of them corrupt.

            Ike the supposed conservative was not all that much different from Truman when it comes right down to it. Maybe Ike was the archetype for the RINO.

          • ziggy zoggy

            Yeah, I remember reading that Ike was so successful at sabotaging the Soviet Chinese alliance that they were about to go to war with each other – and he talked them out of it! He was a great administrator and he had a lot of talent but he lacked vision and his strategies sucked @$$. He should have let
            Patton take out the Soviet union at the end of WWII and the Cold War never would have happened. A Cold War that has poisoned America with leftism.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            I think in his heart that Ike was not a true conservative. I think he took on that persona because his image appealed to US nationalist pride. And he probably tried to fit the mold as it evolved.

            He was just a very good politician. I don’t think he had a clear worldview.

            “He should have let Patton take out the Soviet union at the end of WWII and the Cold War never would have happened. A Cold War that has poisoned America with leftism.”

            That would have been Truman’s call. But it seems like Ike probably agreed with Truman more than he let on. Ike just wanted to be president in place of Truman for his own personal reasons more than ideological ones IMO.

            I’ll also say that a successful soldier can become a hero of the right for defending the republic even if this soldier is not at all motivated by any conservative / republican values. Lots of excellent soldiers end up showing their leftist ideology as their careers wind down.

            And then there are the weasels that make a career out of kissing butt. Those guys are almost always leftists, but that doesn’t surprise us. Guys like Ike do though. We still think of him as a great hero and conservative and I don’t know if that’s the case so much.

            Most of the truly great American soldiers were motivated by a strong belief in our constitution. But things started to get confusing during and after WWII. For all of us.

          • ziggy zoggy

            I agree with your assessment of Ike. I wouldn’t call him a liberal or leftist but his thinking definitely leaned toward “real politik,” which is as @$$ backwards as “conventional wisdom.”

            Truman was in charge, yeah, but Ike was in charge of war policy and he could have ordered Patton to bring He ll to the Soviets without seeking permission. Also, with his dministrative and persuasive skills I have no doubt he could have convinced Truman that stopping Stalin was a good idea.

        • ziggy zoggy

          Girly Turd;

          No country has ever been formed or maintained without warfare or the threat of warfare, and that includes the US. Rome’s uparalleled longevity was based on its “constant war footing.”
          “Old fashioned police work” had nothing to do with the intelligence work that thas stopped most of the muslim plots. The cops didn’t give the terrorists speeding tickets and forcee them to stop. Old fashioned police work is precisely what allowed Hasan and the Boston bombers to carry out their plots.

          A total war to crush islam just the way America crushed Imperial Japan is precisely what’s needed. Because the imposition of sharia is one of the seven “pillars” (tenets) of islam, it is a seditionist and treasonous political movement trying to replace the Constitution. It needs to be outlawed and all islamopithecines like you need to be deported. Make sure to grovel to your Arab masters five times every day, you Iranian dweeb.

          • EarlyBird

            “…Rome’s uparalleled longevity was based on its “constant war footing.””

            And it is what made Rome, Athens, Sparta, Spain, Portugal, England, etc., ultimately end up second rate powers. Empires die by their own hands. Read history.

            “”Old fashioned police work” had nothing to do with the intelligence work that has stopped most of the muslim plots.”

            You could not be further from the truth. And in fact, in the US at least, most of those plots were discovered by American Muslims working with the police. Military actions hit terror cells in foreign countries where needed, but do not actually disrupt plots here at home. You are at complete odds with the nation’s largest police forces and the FBI.

            “A total war to crush islam just the way America crushed Imperial Japan is precisely what’s needed.”

            Japan was a conventional military power located on an island surrounded by ocean. If only Islam was that.

            You just prove over and over that you’re stupid and simple.

          • ziggy zoggy

            Rome didn’t fall to its Legions, you unmitigated dolt. That would have been impossible.

            The majority of terrorist plots were thwarted by the intellugence community. The FBI and old fashioned police work gave the green light to Hasan and the Boston bombers – and every other attack, because all islamopithecines and mosques aren’t monitered.

            Islam is a conventional and easily identifiable enemy. If you ever had a brain, you crapped it out and flushed it long ago. Don’t forget to use Arabic when you pray to your Arab moon god, you Iranian slave.

          • Drakken

            Ah your leftwing handwringing just came out again when you claimed most of the plots in the US were stopped by muslims, when it is completely untrue and a bloody lie. Muslim jihadist are stopped by intelligence and military power, not by police actions. The problem with this administration is they are going back to the days of Clinton and dealing with islamist with a police mindset instead of a military one and it is failing miserably

          • truebearing

            If only your self-important pronouncements had half the validity that they do mindless arrogance.
            Rome was a victim of it’s own success. Prosperity led to indulgence, indulgence supplanted morality. Rome’s failure was ultimately a moral failure, much like the fall of the United States, where immoral, uneducated fools elect corrupt leaders like Obama. Worse yet, once these morons (consider yourself included) elect a bad leader, they are either too stupid or too proud to admit their mistake, so they elect him again.
            Were is your evidence of these plots being exposed by American Muslims? And if there were American Muslims that exposed these plots, those Muslims willed be killed as traitors, because a devout Muslim is required to engage in jihad, and jihad means killing the infidel. Traitors to the Muslim cause are not devout Muslims, therefore, you’re describing Muslims who wouldn’t likely know anything about what the true jihadis are doing to begin with.

        • ObamaYoMoma

          Koppel understands that nothing is more corrosive to liberty than war.

          That is an utterly absurd statement. If that’s the way Koppel really thinks, then he is as utterly unhinged and ignorant as you, as the maintenance of liberty and freedom are usually the primary reasons for fighting war. As a matter of fact, we usually don’t have any other choice in the matter but to fight a war in order to maintain our freedom and liberty.

          Being on a constant war footing is bad for freedom at home.

          This statement seems to idiotically assume we have been at war for the sake of being at war or that we can simply withdraw from any war at any time before the achievement of objectives, which is incredibly incompetent, not to mention tremendously self-destructive and very suicidal as well.

          Now in the case of the current so-called “War on Terror”, that was a war destined to fail even before it was ever implemented since it was premised off of false and absurd political correct notions about our enemy. For instance, its name, “War on Terror”, is incredibly idiotic to say the least because terrorism isn’t even a manifestation of Islam since Muslims aren’t terrorists, as they are jihadists instead. Indeed, this war was the creation of neo-cons and neo-cons are just a hair to the right of you Marxists. Thus, they are also almost as mentally incompetent, and just a little less self-hating for the most part. Hence, the so-called “War on Terror” inevitably turned into the biggest strategic blunder ever in American history thus for, but as long as we still have our freedom, it is never too late to regroup, as our enemies fully intend to subjugate us and indeed the entire West into Islamic totalitarianism via the eventual imposition of Sharia, which is Islamic totalitarian law. Thus, I propose we rename this war the “War on Islam” to correctly identify our enemy this time around, and then redefine its objectives to correct all the previous errors from the first go around. Nevertheless, we don’t have any other choice in the matter but to fight this war, since it’s our own freedom and liberty that is ultimately at stake.

          He also understands that the many plots that have been stopped have had far more to do with intelligence gathering and old fashioned police work, than actual deployment of troops and weapons and the like.

          What are you smoking, it was nothing but dumb luck more than anything else as no plots were actually stopped until after they had already failed by their own devices via technicalities or not until after innocent people were already murdered and maimed in cold blood as in Boston? Nonetheless, if we reacted rationally and banned and reversed mass Muslim immigration with all of its excess baggage, then both violent and non-violent jihad in the USA would be altogether impossible. We could also undo all the damage GWB caused via the creation of the humongous Department of Homeland Security, the immense National Intelligence Directorate, the creation of the Patriot Act, and, indeed, the NSA spying on innocent American citizens.

          Yes, the occasional missile here, Spec Ops raid there, is necessary, but that’s far different than the idea that we need to fight this enemy in the manner we did Japan.

          Only an unhinged neo-con loon could suggest that we need to fight the war in the same manner in which we ended WWII, as the so-called “War on Terror” as defined by the neo-cons was incredibly fantasy based to begin with and destined to fail even before it was ever implemented no matter what. However, your own suggestions for dealing with our enemies, as if they are just a few disparate and disorganized terrorists unrelated to Islam, are equally as unhinged and utterly absurd. Nonetheless, I would entertain the notion of using a few strategic nukes to take out the ruling Mullahs of Iran and their nuclear weapons program and to also put the fear of the real God as opposed to the fake Islamic God into the Pakistanis.

        • Aizino Smith

          @ Early Bird

          Obama’s extensive use of drones may not be the mark of someone determined to win.

          Consider this. If you have not won in 2 or 3 years then you are just training the enemy. Now many wars took longer than 3 years to win like the Revolution, WW2 etc. but at 3 years you could see a trend in terms of attrition. Are we winning a war of attrition?

          There are more Al Qaeda now than before.

          Obama uses drones like Clinton used cruise missiles. He avoids casualties. I hate seeing body bags. but using drones or cruise missiles is like a prize fighter you won’t get close or engage because he is afraid to get hurt.

          Obama uses more drone strikes because as a Democrat president he knows that the press will be more quiet about it than if he were a Republican. We have seen this movie before. When there is a Democrat Prez the stories on homelessness are shelved as are the daily tally of the American body count on the evening news. The Prez knows that by and large the complicit slobbering fawning press will give him more leeway. So there are not so many stories about drone strikes and civilian casualties. nit that much of that was exaggerated and used by the enemies of America and a Republican president.

          Drone strikes are a loser strategy. It is a strategy forced upon us by Pakistan. Pakistan organized, trained & supported the Taliban. Pakistani military advisors were trapped in Kunduz,Afghanistan when it was besieged by the Northern alliance. those same military advisors andsome 5,000 Al Qaeda and Uzvek islamicists (IU) were evacuated from the encircled city of Kunduz because General Perez Musharraf said that was the price to pay for Americans to be able to ship supplies to Pakistani ports and transit Pakistani roods.

          Schaeffer in the book Operation Darkheart said they caught a Pakistni intel officer in Afghanistan. Osama was found in Pakistan in a military district. Drones are a loser strategy forced on the U.S. by Pakistan that give sanctuary to Al Qaeda.

          the fact that the tribal authority is tough is plausible deniability that Pakistan has that it is not their fault that it is a sanctuary. The ISI likes it like that. The Tribal authority might as well be Cambodia. it performs the same role as Cambodia did during the Vietnam war. Cambodia could not control its’ territory and the North Vietnam used it like a hotel. Pakistan claims that that it cannot control the Tribal authority. that may be true in some years or in the past. but to me it seems that they control it just fine. They took southern Waziristan when they wanted. It was hard but they did it. Then they stopped.

          Drones are a strategy forced on us by Pakistan.

          Yemen is pretty much the same way. the Yemenis are adept at playing both sides. The money for the war is in the treatment not in the cure.

          Obama is tough? Al Qaeda is dead and GM is alive? Are there more countries or less countries that you feel safe visiting than a decade ago or 2 decades ago?

          Are we winning?

          Obama purposely soured the negotiation of the Status of forces agreement in Iraq, so he could leave. He applied no pressure on the Shia PM. All so he could bring the troops home. Al Qaeda looks pretty tough again in Iraq.

          Obama is no different than Clinton, He is only tough when it comes to his personal well being and that of the vehicle known as the Democrat party. Other than that he is weak as He;;.

          • EarlyBird

            “..If you have not won in 2 or 3 years then you are just training the enemy.”
            And we’ve been learning, too.
            “…Are we winning a war of attrition?” This is a conflict in which there is a military component, but “war” falls apart as a description beyond that.
            “There are more Al Qaeda now than before.”
            Who says? What’s happened is the old AQ version 1 has been decimated, while other versions have sprouted up in once AQ-free Iraq, and other

            “…I hate seeing body bags. but using drones or cruise missiles is like a prize fighter you won’t get close or engage because he is afraid to get hurt.”
            Explain the reasoning, and where you would put troops to make a stand. Lay out a plan. Just saying “Democrats are weaklings” isn’t a plan. It’s like answering Bush’s Iraq debacle with “Republicans are stupid.” That’s not a plan, either.
            I am for any strategy that works. What I reject is the absurd notion that there is some Clear Strategy to defeat Islamists if only our president had the moral clarity, determination and guts…the Americanism! to get the job done.
            “…Pakistani military advisors were trapped in Kunduz,Afghanistan when it was besieged by the Northern alliance. those same military advisors andsome 5,000 Al Qaeda and Uzvek islamicists (IU) were evacuated from the encircled city of Kunduz because General Perez Musharraf said that was the price to pay for Americans to be able to ship supplies to Pakistani ports and transit Pakistani roods.”
            And that’s somehow an indictment of Obama and his methods?! You’ve got a beef with Bush’s strategy, i.e., the putting troops on the ground! We would not have had to ship supplies through Pakistani ports to support our troops in Afghanistan if we didn’t have them there to begin with. We could have just bombed the whole lot of them! You are actually proving my very point! Glad we agree on the basics.
            “Obama purposely soured the negotiation of the Status of forces agreement in Iraq, so he could leave.”

            Oh bulls**t! He and everyone with a brain was tired of pouring good blood and mone into that quagmire of Bush’s making. We are not a million man army ala’ WWII that can invade and take control of vast swaths of territory.
            “…Al Qaeda looks pretty tough again in Iraq.” It didn’t EXIST in Iraq until we broke open that country with an invasion.
            Again: tell us what to do. Not vague moralizing about being stalwart, but actual physical examples of what we should do. If you’re not willing to really think through the physical choices and pick one, you’re just criticizing from the cheap seats.

          • Aizino Smith

            And that’s somehow an indictment of Obama and his methods?!

            Yes it is! But it is not only an indictment of Obama but all the people at the top. They won’t call a spade a spade. They won’t confront Pakistan.

            All the f______ leftists are after Cheney for BS. Well this is the one thing I would like to talk to him about. He made the call to let the airlift go ahead.

            Some problems in engineering are called intractable if given certain constraints there are not solutions. Well given the constraints that we force ourselves to work under the War on Islamic terrorists is an intractable problem.

            But they are willing to shed the blood of a lot of people in the military so long it is not their kids.

            If you are going to win you have to use the Queen. that is not speaking too obliquely if you have any education in military science.

      • ObamaYoMoma

        What Koppel is really complaining about is the fact that we’ve stopped so many more attacks. If we didn’t worry about it, as he suggests, so many more would have been killed. Leftists just want to share in the results of hard work but never contribute.

        Let me help you out a bit there bud, Koppel sees Muslims as being terrorists that are perpetrating terrorism in retaliation for perceived Western injustices. However, jihad is not terrorism, which is a manifestation of all societies and cultures pursued for any number of political causes. Instead, jihad is holy fighting in the cause of Allah for the establishment/expansion of Islam via the eventual imposition of Sharia, which is Islamic totalitarian law, and is waged by Muslims alone. Thus, because Koppel is an unhinged leftwing loon and a very gullible useful idiot infidel, he misconstrues what is really jihad as somehow being terrorism and then like all self-hating leftist loons subscribes what must be Western injustices as the trigger. Greenfield, on the other hand, also misconstrues what is really jihad as somehow being terrorism, but because he is a neo-con instead of a leftwing loon like Koppel, he doesn’t subscribe to Western injustices as the triggering mechanism. Nonetheless, they are both very mistaken and wrong in their unhinged beliefs.

        • mmarler

          Really? I thought Greenfield summed up the Islam philosophy very well.

          • ObamaYoMoma

            Apparently you don’t know much about Islam. Oh well.

    • EarlyBird

      He’s right on the use of the bombs against Japan. But he’s an absurdist and a propagandist to use our fight against Japan as the model for our current day fight with Islamist terrorists. Where do we nuke? What land do we bomb, invade and occupy to win? What tanks and ships do we destroy? Greenfield is a liar and a propagandist.

      • Petr

        Meca, Medina, Teheran, Islamabad, Kabul, Iranian nuclear facilities, Pakistani nuclear stockpiles, and then continue dropping nukes for every terror attack till they quit or die. Kill Saudi Arabia and you bakrupt the spread of islam in the West. Declare Islam a political ideology on par with nacism (it mostly is) and deport all muslims who want to remain muslims.

        • SCREW SOCIALISM

          Petr AKBAR!

      • Bamaguje

        It’s not so much about nuking Muslims, but more importantly about the resolute determined mindset to win the war against Islamic terror.
        America is seriously handicapped by her futile efforts to win Muslim “hearts & minds.” In Afghanistan for instance, US troops are handicapped by crippling rules of engagement.
        Not to mention bullying Israel to appease Arabs.

        • EarlyBird

          This is a struggle between the West and active, violent extremists, and potentially with all 1.5 billion of the world’s Muslims. It’s a struggle which must include military actions where appropriate. But to ensure we don’t end up having to engage in a cataclysmic war against all 1.5 billion of them, (as Petr believes we must do now), we WILL have to work on “hearts and minds.”

          You’ll notice that I didn’t say “win” hearts and minds. They don’t have to like us. The vast swath of Muslims are not violent and do not wish to commit violence, or the jihadism of overtaking infidels lands. And the vast swath do not want to live under Sharia law or be oppressed by the Islamist monster. But they do share one agreement with the monsters, and that is they believe the West is an oppressor in their very own lands. Undo that belief and it undercuts the very reason for the monsters’ existence. Getting out of their hair and letting them rot would go a long way.

          • chan chan

            I agree 100%. I don’t care what form of government there is in islamic countries. Trying to impose Western liberal democracy and social norms on them is nonsense – demonstrably. And anyone with even a basic understanding of islam can see that.. Leave them be to decay in islam. Stoning people to death for adultery? Be my guest. Death for apostasy? Knock yourselves out. Treating women as chattel and forcing them to wear cloth coffins? Go for it.

          • EarlyBird

            You got my vote. We can get out of their way and play very aggresive defense as-needed. But once we get out of their lands, they’re suddenly not going to be as obsessed with the Great Satan. They’ll suddenly have to take responsibility for their own wretched selves.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “But once we get out of their lands, they’re suddenly not going to be as obsessed with the Great Satan. They’ll suddenly have to take responsibility for their own wretched selves.”

            You need a coherent and comprehensive plan to do that successfully. Please don’t imply that 0′Bama is trying to do what you suggest.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “This is a struggle between the West and active, violent extremists, and potentially with all 1.5 billion of the world’s Muslims. It’s a struggle which must include military actions where appropriate. But to ensure we don’t end up having to engage in a cataclysmic war against all 1.5 billion of them, (as Petr believes we must do now), we WILL have to work on “hearts and minds.””

            Diplomats carry the carrot, our military carries the stick. Working on hearts and minds is not bad per se. It’s using this rhetoric to justify insanity and weak posturing that makes us angry.

          • EarlyBird

            What rhetoric? What’s weak about suggesting that we reconsider our intererests in the Middle East, limit our need to be there, and play an extremely aggressive defense? I think that’s the way to win the long war, nothign “weak” about it.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            It’s weak rhetoric, not rhetoric of the weak. At this point you ought to be able to define your positions with more clarity. But if that’s just your way to gravitate towards agreement, that’s fine.

          • Drakken

            Because you don’t win with a defensive strategy, you win with a brutal ruthless offense.

          • D_boy

            Hey birdbrain even if they kill everyone of us they still will never win the war. God is in control and in the end he defeats satan easily. Islam works under satan’s control. It will have a shorter history than anyone can imagine.

          • Drakken

            I case t has escaped your notice, hearts and minds is a complete bloody failure and is doing the opposite, when the muslim fears you, he respects you. We are not at war with islam(yet) but islam is on the march and at war with anyone who is not muslim, wherever islam goes, the blood always flows, without exceptions. You cannot stick your head in the sand hoping that it will go away, it won’t, the problem is growing and getting worse, not better.

          • EarlyBird

            The Islamists are trying to take their own region back from infidel Westerners who control their governments and economies and who have their militaries parked in their land. Do the math and ask yourself, “What’s the big payoff again for babysitting this sand box?” And you realize, “Not much.” So why are we there? How is it a bad thing to make it harder for them to hit us?

          • ziggy zoggy

            The islamopithecines belong in a remote corner of the Arabian peninsula. “Their own region.” The regions they inhabit now are regions they invaded.

          • Drakken

            Again, you don’t win by being on the defensive, you win by being outright brutally ruthless in offensive operations.

          • Drakken

            What a complete utter stupid, arrogant, ignorant statement that it is only a small percentage that hate us, you haven’t been in the middle and far east have you? For if you had been, you would understand very quickly the vast majority do bloody well hate us and you hear it from the mosques every bloody day.

      • Drakken

        Now your being incredibly obtuse or you think half assed measures are going to carry the day.

        • EarlyBird

          Nothing “half assed,” just an intelligent strategy to let the Islamist mission to die on the vine. Stop feeding it, and attack it smartly.

          • Drakken

            You think because we are over there that they hate us, that is demonstrably a false premise period. They hate us just because we are successful and are infidels, it is that bloody simple. As long as they have oil islamist are going to get fed whether our presence is there or not.

          • EarlyBird

            The “hate” all infidels. But they really, really HATE infidels in their countries who run their governments and keep troops in their backyard. You’ll notice that they don’t hate Canada, Peru or Fiji nearly as much as the US.

          • Drakken

            You haven’t been to the middle east lately have you, they hate all infidels whether they are from Canada or Fiji. As a westerner you cannot walk around freely in a middle eastern country unless you have a death wish. Get with the bloody program girly.

      • D_boy

        Yeah Meca is top of the list, because Nukes end wars.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      “Liberals hate the entire concept of winning militarily, regardless the weapon. Winning is wonderful though, when it is political and they are the ones who win…..so they can immediately implement abject economic and social failure.”

      That’s because leftists hate American sovereignty. They want a social democratic or quasi-communist government.

      Capitalism is theft. Banks are thieves, yada yada. We need leftists to run our government with a unified party (single party, get rid of conservatives).

      “So, using Koppel’s logic, an overeaction to dying is worse than dying? Brilliant. Talk about an overrated journalist.”

      No. He’s saying his life is not threatened, so Islamic terrorism to him is morally equivalent to “acts of God.” It just happens. Criminals and mortal enemies can’t be deterred. Perhaps he never even got that far. He’s been in the ivory tower for too long and his memories of war are distorted by his ideology. He can’t see the forest through the trees, so he invents his own map of the forest he once visited.

  • lawmed

    Mutatis mutandis,What the West needs to do is to put a definitive end to it all – blast Mecca out of existence, for starters. Go after muslim targets without mercy. Murder millions of them and threaten to murder still more for each attack on the West.

    That is all the muslims understand – force and violence.

    They bomb the WTC – the West takes out downtown Riyadh, next Tripoli, next Alexandria, next Lahore.

    They will get “the message” – and that alone, and nothing less, is what it will take for them to get it.

    • knowshistory

      but we would have to admit that we actually ARE at war with islam. we could never do that. George w “religion of peace” bush himself declared that we are not at war with islam. he would not lie to us, would he?

      • lawmed

        You are right. W’s fatuous and gratuitous pronouncement in the wake of “9/11″ set the tenor and the stage for this insidious and self-destructive meme to gain traction.

        His toppling of Saddam Hussein was the acme of foolishness and a hallmark of the genetic Western failure to understand the dynamics of the Arab world. The regional destabilization that followed led to the resurgence of an Iraq-defeated Iran and to sharp, heightened and bloody hostilities between Shi’a and Sunni which Saddam had kept in-check.

        The second Bush was not the first – H.W.’s improvident Iraq venture in January 1991 betrayed like ignorance.

        Winston Churchill understood political islam – and Winnie was the last of the Western leaders to recognize and to signal its existential threat to the West.

        The willful blindness which has followed will lead to the extinction of the West – and to the death of us all.

        • SCREW SOCIALISM

          Winston Churchill was the greatest man of the 20th century,

        • Drakken

          I we were smart, and we are not, we would get together with the Russians and arm the Kurds, let them add a little flavor to the toxic mix and be a really nice pain in the azz to the Syrian, Turks Iraqis and Persians, call it a nice healthy puck you to the arabs and Persians.

    • EarlyBird

      “…What the West needs to do is to put a definitive end to it all – blast Mecca out of existence, for starters. Go after muslim targets without mercy. Murder millions of them and threaten to murder still more for each attack on the West.”

      Here’s an idea: how about we get energy independent, and start reconsidering what our real interests in the Middle East are, and start getting the hell out of these people’s hair to the greatest degree possible? Protect shipping lanes and other global traffic routes and otherwise leave them alone. Nothing would be a faster, more efficient route to defeating the terrorists.

      They are not robots who read the Koran and decided to wage a global campaign of terrorism. They are people who rightly and wrongly feel oppressed, manipulated, colonized and abused by the West who read the Koran and decided to wage a global campaign of terrorism. The moment we undercut that belief we undercut the entire reason for these nuts to exist.

      “Also… PLEASE! – a “War on ‘Terror’” is a completely inane rubric, a buying into the leftist lexicon.”

      George W. Bush coined that phrase, and the left mocked it. “Terror” is a tactic…” That’s exactly what the left said as it mocked the phrase.

    • sherwool

      In my darker moments, I fear you may be right: we may be in a war where only one of the contestants can survive. I do not like to think in those terms; the decision to embark on such a war is is not one I would care to make; moreover, I think such a war would stand starkly at odds with Judeo-Christian traditions.

      I am confident that for some period of time, Islam can be tamed so that it can exist in the wider, pluralistic world. Certainly many Muslims do not seek the extermination of the infidel, and they share with other living organisms the will to survive.

      Nevertheless, given certain foundational texts of Islam, what Daniel Pipes calls “radical Islam” will almost certainly reappear. That thought does make me pessimistic that Islam can be tamed.

      • Drakken

        Islam cannot be tamed unless your infidel boot is standing on their necks and a gun pointed at them. Your judeo/Christian forgive and turn the other cheek ain’t working with these bloody savages if you haven’t noticed. Time is something that we in the west are running out of and they get stronger because our lack of resolve and our refusal to be utterly ruthless with them, preach your coexist BS somewhere else, I just call you a wishful thinker who ignores reality and it gets a lot of people killed in the process.

  • John E Coleman

    To; Mr. Daniel Greenfield ,

    ” Semper Fi ” has been and always will be my motto & the Heart Felt Love or our
    ” United States Of America ” !
    After our schools { in Norfolk, Va.} were Closed because of the Segregation issue, I joined the USMC in 1957 !

    What occurred back then between White & Black race’s , pales to the outright War which OBAMA has ignited by his remarks !

    Has anyone paid attention to what is happening NOW !! ??
    You may ask ? what in the hell does this have to do with anything ??

    I suggest you research ” Aesopica ” of “Greece ” between 620 & 560 BCE !

    There you may find , if you have any interest to do so ? the Statement ;
    United we SHALL STAND or Divided we WILL FALL ! { Aesop , slave & author }

    Another bit of information { if the above is too much to grasp } check out ;
    John Dickinson/ 1732 – 1808 { Penn State University’s Dickinson School of Law } { Dickinson Collage } and is also Know as ; The Penman of the Revolution !

    Another Tid Bit >> Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania , by Dickinson !

    If the Great ” United States of America ” becomes Divided ,
    WE MAY VERY WELL FALL !!!
    and don’t think for ONE DAMN second , that OBAMA doesn’t knows this !!

    Dominus Vobiscum Semper Fi !!!

  • DaCoachK

    The Left will NEVER see the point of this article because the Left views American as the biggest threat in the world. And the Left is too concerned with making every male a homosexual these days to worry about Muslim terrorism.

  • logdon

    In similar vein the post mortems of Dresden drone on.

    And Frankfurt, Hamburg, Cologne plus all the rest.

    I think that old bit of common sense, you started it, applies in spades.

    • knowshistory

      this is true, as far as it goes. the question remains, who “started” it? hitler? sure, if history started in 1922. it didn’t. in 1918, the entente had moved their forces from the suddenly peaceful eastern front to the west, and were poised to grant the kindness of winning the war. it was the americans, inexplicably on the continent in spite of the lack of any real interests in the outcome of the war, who prevented Germany from concluding the great war in early 1918. instead, the allies won, and imposed a “peace” that enabled hitler to give up the paperhanging business. without American intervention in the war, the Kaiser would never have allowed the national SOCALISTS to prosper. so who started it? America’s interests are at home, and every time our bone headed politicians have ventured abroad, they have created even greater evil than what they can create at home, which is plenty. we are under attack at home. our very population is being replaced by invaders, yet our politicians are still worried about the rest of the world, while they import the rest of the world to enslave us. don’t worry about Dresden. it is the genocide of the legal population of America that we should be concerned about.

      • logdon

        I agree.

    • ObamaYoMoma

      Of course, it does when you conflate what is really jihad as somehow being terrorism and totally misunderstand Islam at the same time.

      • logdon

        Jihad is a noun. The name of what Muslims do.

        Terrorism a verb. How they carry out jihad.

        Totally misunderstood Islam is perfectly understood but Orwellianly inverted by politicians who seem to have problems comprehending up and down. Or, to be more precise, think we have.

        • ObamaYoMoma

          Terrorism a verb. How they carry out jihad.

          Not quite bud, you fail! Terrorism is not how they carry out jihad. It would be if jihad were somehow like terrorism always and only violent. However, jihad, in stark contrast to terrorism, manifests both violently and non-violently, but astronomically far more non-violently relative to violently. Indeed, a good example of violent jihad is the infamous 9/11 jihad attacks and a good example of far more ubiquitous non-violent stealth and deceptive jihad is mass Muslim immigration to the West for the nefarious purpose of eventual stealth demographic conquest, as Muslims never ever migrate to the West to assimilate and integrate, but instead to one day to subjugate and dominate via the eventual imposition of Sharia, which is Islamic totalitarian law. Indeed, that is why Islam masquerades as being a “religion of peace”, to gain a small foothold in which to expand.

          Unfortunately, non-violent stealth and deceptive jihad is allowed to manifests throughout the West today totally unopposed because jihad is always conflated as somehow being terrorism, which is always and only violent. Thus, since stealth and deceptive non-violent jihad, such as mass Muslim immigration to the West, isn’t viewed as being violent, it isn’t construed as being terrorism, and therefore it isn’t opposed. It is nonetheless far more detrimental to our national security than even terrorism. For instance, several Euroloon countries will inevitably become Islamic totalitarian hellholes in the next 30 to 50 years via demographic conquest.

          Hence, it is exceedingly important that we as a nation understand that jihad and terrorism is not one and the same thing, but instead two very different and distinct manifestations altogether. With terrorism being pursued for any number of political causes and reasons and being a product of all societies and cultures, while jihad, on the other hand, is holy fighting in the cause of Allah for the establishment/expansion of Islam and is pursued by Muslims alone. Moreover, while terrorism is always and only violent, jihad, in stark contrast, manifests both violently and non-violently but astronomically far more non-violently relative to violently.

          Indeed, the holy war Islam is pursuing is very similar to the Cold War in that it is fought far more clandestinely via stealth and deception than via violence and the sooner we recognize that reality, the better we will be able to protect and defend ourselves from them.

          • logdon

            ObamaYoMoma
            .

            And you fail in the first sentence. Bud!

            To say terrorism is not how they carry out jihad has to be the crassest thing I’ve ever heard.

            It is one of the ways and thus your nit picking is just that, purposeless ego tripping.

            Yes we all know about the civilisation jihad and your lengthy tome is redundant.

            PS

            I’m English and all too aware of what you talk of. You’re speaking to the converted my friend.

          • ObamaYoMoma

            To say terrorism is not how they carry out jihad has to be the crassest thing I’ve ever heard.

            Okay genius…how is Europe inevitably being rendered into Islamic totalitarianism in the next 30 to 50 years? Via osmosis, while at the same time you unhinged moonbats continue chasing after hydra-headed terrorists in the deserts that are really jihadists. Indeed, you losers are being played like a cheap worn out piano, only you are all too dumb to know it.

            I’m English and all too aware of what you talk of. You’re speaking to the converted my friend.

            Nonetheless, an international boundary doesn’t preclude stupidity friend, and you of all people should understand my point about stealth and deceptive jihad, which goes completely unopposed because it isn’t construed as being terrorism because it isn’t violent.

          • logdon

            Everything you speak of now applies to Obama’s America and you also seem to forget Bush’s ‘religion of peace’ schtic.

            If you can actually manage to read a whole book I’d try, House of Bush. House of Saud.

            Meanwhile I’ll leave you to your blowhard dreaming.

            Try reading this……licking Muslim Brother orifices doesn’t get much worse.

            http://www.raymondibrahim.com/from-the-arab-world/john-mccain-proves-u-s-leadership-allied-to-muslim-brotherhood/

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “However, jihad, in stark contrast to terrorism, manifests both violently and non-violently, but astronomically far more non-violently relative to violently.”

            Jihadis can also use violence tactically.

            The whole premise of “terrorism” is always a misnomer to draw moral equivalence for various reasons and to simplify war in order to explain it to the masses. You’re right that it’s used to conflate many different narratives down to a single distinction; use of terror.

            Terrorism implies a strategy that is focused at least primarily on submission through use of terror tactics.

            In the case of Islam, terror is a tool. It’s the most visible tool and it plays in to the their hands to imply that it’s their only tool. It allows them to play good cop bad cop. Good jihadi, bad jihadi.

            AQ is the bad cop or bad jihadi, the MB is the “good cop” and therefore not jihadi? The MB is not violent and totalitarian? I don’t think so. All because they are not fundamentally a terror organization?

            AQ is a wing of the MB. AQ knows they’re playing a niche role, driving the West to accept the “good cops” or “good (jihadi) Muslims.”

            They know it. Terror is a tactic. Therefore terrorism doesn’t actually exist anywhere really.

            The idea spread when lazy politicians and media writers wanted to write about a particular act of violence without the burden of distinguishing it from the goals of the perp, and from others who use such tactics.

            Terrorism by itself does not exist. Terror exists as a tool.

            I also believe that politicians use the concept of “terrorism” to demonize an enemy without the messiness of explaining what in fact makes them evil. The use of terror might be related, but it’s never the entire argument.

            Terrorism is used on contemporary rhetoric to imply that some evil ideologies require no further explanation.

            Terrorists do exist, as role players. Terrorism does not exist in any literal sense unless you are specifically discussing a niche player. It doesn’t exist as an independent ideology, which is what “ism” suffix usually implies.

  • http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/ Jason P

    Best commentary I’ve read on Hiroshima in a long time. Brilliant comparison to our nations way of doing things today. The contrast is stark and sobering. Reminding us of the Jap barbarity and fanaticism is crucial for understanding the context.

  • knowshistory

    excellent analysis, but based on the usual assumption: that we had to conquer japan. the nukes saved lives, because it would have cost millions of lives to …………….true enough. but why was it necessary to conquer japan? japan was, after all, our own creation. it was our admiral and his fleet that sailed into Tokyo bay and scared the Japanese into modernizing. previously, they were happy to terrorize their own peasants and leave the world alone. the us took japan as an ally, and encouraged them to attack Russia (just a white Christian country, after all. political correctness didn’t start today). then the us president made a hero of himself by brokering the end of the war he promoted, which gave japan control of korea, and weakened the czar, making him more vulnerable to attack at home. but those are different betrayals of our interests by our government. so in 1945 we had already rendered japan a post industrial society. they were right back where they were in mid-19th century(and 18th, and 17th, etc). so why was it that we had to reveal our nuclear hand to enable us to take control of a country–which we then had to restore, not to its early 19th century condition, but into an industrial power which would make American manufacturing a joke? did the Truman administration give any thought at all to the nuclear bombing of japan? consider this. the second nuclear strike, committed exactly 68 years ago, wiped out the only Christian enclave permitted to exist in japan. was this done intentionally, or due to pure incompetence?

    • objectivefactsmatter

      “excellent analysis, but based on the usual assumption: that we had to conquer japan. the nukes saved lives, because it would have cost millions of lives to …………….true enough. but why was it necessary to conquer japan? japan was, after all, our own creation. it was our admiral and his fleet that sailed into Tokyo bay and scared the Japanese into modernizing.”

      Because isolating oneself is roughly equal to rejecting modernism as well.

  • diego
  • EarlyBird

    Greenfield lies: “Obama’s military policy is dominated by talk of smart power. And smart power is power that isn’t used.”

    Associated Press, 2011:

    “Obama’s use of drone strikes in western Pakistan against AQ and Taliban forces is more than 5 to 1 the number of Bush’s use of drones.”

    This just in from Fox News, 8/9/2013:

    “The U.S. has sharply escalated its drone war in Yemen, with military officials in the Arab country reporting 34 suspected Al Qaeda militants killed in less than two weeks, including three strikes on Thursday alone in which a dozen died.”

    From the Project of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, 12/3/2010:

    “Approximately 7,100 special operations counterterrorism missions have been conducted between May 30 and Dec. 2 of this year, the International Security Assistance Force told The Long War Journal. More than 600 insurgent leaders were killed or captured. In addition, more than 2,000 enemy fighters have been killed, and over 4,100 fighters have been captured.”

    It’s as clear to any honest person with the most basic grasp of reality that Greenfield’s entire thesis an absurd lie.

    And who is upset about all this American blood-letting? Left wingers “for peace.” They didn’t believe candidate Obama when he promised to hammer AQ and the Taliban anymore than Greenfield and his pack of right wing ideologues. At least the lefties are dealing with reality.

    Note Danny “the hack” Greenfield’s longing for The Good War. He even rues that we “pulled punches” in Korea. Apparently he thought a massive land war in Asia against a two million man strong army, or the incineration of every living organism in Beijing, was preferred to saving S. Korea and establishing a vibrant pro-West democracy there.

    Because see, in Danny’s world, anything but Absolute American Dominance everywhere is proof of something un-American having seeped into the government. If only each American president had the guts and wisdom to wave that magic wand he keeps in the Oval Office. What a fool.

    Horowitz needs to send lil’ Danny into a closed room with Ron Radosh where Radosh can bit** slap this beady eyed little twit with a history book.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      “Horowitz needs to send lil’ Danny into a closed room with Ron Radosh where Radosh can bit** slap this beady eyed little twit with a history book.”

      Holy cow, you are one disrespectful individual. Remind me why we should respect you?

      • EarlyBird

        OFM, Greenfield is a conscious propagandist. He lies, distorts and confuses for a living. He gives yellow journalism a bad name. He’s disgusting. Even if you agree with his values, you should have contempt for his methods. He’s disgraceful.

        • Drakken

          Yes of course we see how your feelings and derision really show us nasty conservatives the error of our ways while leftists love to scream and whine and point fingers at how mean we are. Yeah Greenwood really is bad in comparison.(snorts with laughter)

          • Drakken

            That is Greenfield, not Greenwood.

          • EarlyBird

            He’s scum, Drakken!

        • objectivefactsmatter

          “Greenfield is a conscious propagandist.”

          Of course he is. That’s his job. He’s not posing as a neutral judge who must gather all of the evidence, he’s already gathered enough evidence. He’s an advocate for conservatism because apparently he thinks he already has enough evidence to become an advocate.

          He’s the only author in the section called “the point.” What do you think that means?

          The entire focus of FPM as far as I understand it is to take leftist tactics (focus on the emotional arguments) from the conservative point of view. I personally would not sign off on some of the views, but for the most part I don’t oppose them either. I don’t agree entirely with this precise approach but I recognize that I’m a terrible politician in terms of creating popular success in political life, or winning people to my views. Just because you resent it doesn’t mean it’s wrong or ineffective. I don’t mind if you disagree, but claiming to be conservative while attacking conservatives because it’s not your style or doesn’t meet your standards…because really if you are conservative, you simply don’t understand the style of rhetoric used here.

          If you disagree, attack the ideas, not the person. I think maybe 2 or 3 times you were overjoyed to find trivial mistakes. You’ve not once been able to successfully attack the fundamental message.

          Therefore your entire opposition must be a reaction to style rather than substance. But that is the world we live in.

          At least focus your arguments to offer constructive criticism. You act like you think you’re constructive, but virtually all of your comments are simple attacks. You’re actually aping the style of the left, while attacking Greenfield for straying from the style of the ideal rational conservative author.

          To be honest, it seems like you come here to vent about the world we live in rather than joining us and understanding what we say and why we say it.

  • Sister Valium

    The use of nuclear weapons affects all of us for centuries. The radiation unleashed remains in the soil, air and water. No one wins when they are use. And that is scientific fact. I don’t think this was known back then. Think of the military men who were exposed to the tests in the oceans and desert. How many of them came down with cancer and other illnesses? War is now not only defeating the other side, but also ourselves with the weapons we now have. God save us from ourselves.

    • Michael Shreve

      Better the loss of AMERICAN and ALLIED lives?

      • Sister Valium

        Was not making a judgment call. Just stating science.

        • sherwool

          Sister-
          I do make a judgment (see comment about an hour after your response to Michael).

          Michael-
          You frame the discussion in black or white manner when in fact there are shades of grey: there were not simply two alternatives. If you are too stupid to see that … well perhaps you will inherit the future (for a little while).

  • No Jizya

    If it were up to me, I would have slaughtered every man, woman and child in Afghanistan as a warning to rest of the Islamic world and turned the entire country back over to the Buddhists who originally inhabited before being slaughtered and driven out by the Muslims. Islam must be eradicated. It is a humiliation that the US military could not defeat the Taliban.

  • simon

    Terrific article. Earnestly hope that some of the western leaders will read it.

  • AmericaFirst

    Bernie Scheissbaum says: “Oy! I say we bomb those stinking Aravim back to the Stone Age! And if it costs the lives of several thousand White goyim, who are you to complain? Gentiles are put on earth only to serve us, the Chosen People, a holy people! Now be a good little goy and go encourage your daughter to date that strapping negro buck with two rape convictions. It’ll be wondahful, it will; I would NEVER lie to you, would I?”

  • Joel Cairo

    In World War II there were no questions about who won and who lost. The vanquished were required to rebuild their nations on new models designed to prevent continuation of past behavior. Iraq is a sterling example of how not to do it. If the US had refused to allow a new islam based government and required a pluralistic society it would have made a tremendous difference. My years in the East have shown that if you show respect to the people there they generally believe you fear them, but show them force and they will follow orders.

    • Drakken

      Exactly!

  • EarlyBird

    You’ll see he pretends that Obama doesn’t use the power at his disposal, as if he hasn’t been stacking up terrorists in Pakistan, Afghanistan and elsewhere like cordwood since he took office. In an embarrassing development for lil’ Danny, it was reported just today that the US has killed 34 terrorists in Yemen in the past two weeks, including 12 just yesterday.

    In terms of the war-fighting part, we’re doing just fine. What bothers Danny is that this conflcit won’t be won entirely with firepower, far from it.

    There is a tiny relative number of actual terrorists. And there is another billion or so Muslims, particularly in the Middle East, who feel that the West has been dominating and manipulating them and acting as colonialists in their own lands. And to a great degree they are right.

    Their’s is the last of the post-WWII struggles against Western colonialism playing out in that part of the world, as it did in Africa, Latin America and Asia. It’s a reaction to our polcies and presence in their world, not merely a reading of the Koran. And they are using religion as an organizng concept like Third Worlders (as opposed to the Soviets) used communism to organize their crusades to be free of the West.

    Nothing would take the wind out of the terrorists’ sails more than removing ourselves to the greatest degree possible from the Middle East, and actually practicing our libertarian values of self determination. There is a civil war within Muslim society right now between the pro-Sharia monsters and the anti-Sharia non-monsters. The only thing they really agree on is that they want to get rid of Western influence (see Egypt).

    Why is this obvious strategy so disturbing to lil’ Danny? Because it means that Israel will have some local competition for being the regional hegemon, and every American policy exists to serve Israel.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      “You’ll see he pretends that Obama doesn’t use the power at his disposal, as if he hasn’t been stacking up terrorists in Pakistan, Afghanistan and elsewhere like cordwood since he took office.”

      We need more than jihadi cordwood. We need clarity spoken, and we need to fight those who are waging a stealth war against us as opposed to inviting them to advise us on just how to phrase the lies made to the non-Muslim public.

      The future must not belong to those who want to impose sharia. Yet 0′Bama empowers them every chance he gets. While weakening us.

      • SCREW SOCIALISM

        The future must not belong to those who want to impose sharia.”

        or socialism.

        Look at Eurabia.

    • Drakken

      Obummer is using so called smart power and using pin prick delaying tactics, instead of bringing in a couple B-52′s doing an Arc-light run. 34 dead hajis isn’t going to cut it, 10′s of thousands of dead hajis does get the job done.

  • dsmlaw

    simple old philosophy works. Kick ass and take names

  • Michael Shreve

    In Vietnam, Iraq, Korea and Afghanistan, in the countries and wars where we pulled our punches, the civilian population was left worse off than those in Japan after Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

    • EarlyBird

      Michael, we “pulled our punches” in Korea because the alternatives were to either lose the American military in an Asian land war against a two million man army willing to fight to the death to defend their Chinese homeland, or incinerate every human and other living organism in Beijing.
      If dropping more than two million tons of bombs and killing one million human Vietnamese was “pulling our punches,” I’d hate to see the alternative. And you’ll note that after all that carnage and American deaths and dismemberment, the rest of the Asian “dominoes” didn’t fall. Doh!
      Iraq? With what army were we going to control that nation and reform it into a pro-American beacon of freedom? What color is your sky?
      Afghanistan? Same thing. We are not going to transform that nation into a pro-American beacon.
      Not every war can result in a clean cut WWII style victory. In fact it was the historic exception.

      • Michael Shreve

        DO NOT make the assumption that I SUPPORT American Adventurism. The U.S. government has NO Constitutional power to engage in misguided attempts to “spread democracy” or interfere with the government of ANY nation however degenerate. WARS however are either won or lost. A draw is a LOSS. The U.S LOST in Korea, RAN in Vietnam after REFUSING to do more than SQUANDER American lives in a FUTILE attempt to maintain the status quo, NEVER knew WHAT it wanted to achieve in Iraq and OVERSTAYED in Afghanistan where the “mission’ should have been to capture ONE man.

        • EarlyBird

          I like the cut of your jib, Michael.

          I want to make clear to everyone here, and perhaps this doesn’t apply to you, but the US was not granted the ability by God to prevail over every enemy and dominate any situation as long as we stick to the American Way. This infantile notion of American exceptionalism and the hubris that instilled came from our relatively painless victory in WWII (as if millions of others weren’t part of that epic struggle) and post-war boom.

          It’s not proof of something un-American or nefarious when something doesn’t go as planned. It’s called life. The US is no more immune to the forces of history as any other nation has ever been. But we continue to see this infantile concept at play in regard to our Islamist enemy today.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            EarlyTurd, The majority of your comments are foolish trash talk

            If only you would hold Islam to the same standard you hold the US.

            Using your own words, “Allah” granted Islamists the guarantee to prevail over the Infidel or the wrong kind of Muslim – but it’s not working out that way.

            Islamist Cognitive Dissonance.

            The people most capable of destroying retrograde Islamofascism are the good Muslims we keep hearing about.

          • Drakken

            It is very obvious that you are foreign born to utter such Marxist trash.

          • EarlyBird

            It’s as if you’re a child, Drakken. Truly. What a tragedy that you have such a naive point of view. Good thing you’re a marine, though. We need someone who ca throw grenades now and then.

          • Drakken

            I see you deflected the question though. The only one who is naïve is you there darling.

          • EarlyBird

            Is the question whether or not I am foreign born Marxist trash? The answer is No.

          • EarlyBird

            Was the question whether or not I’m foreign born Marxist trash? The answer is, no.

      • sherwool

        North Vietnam was within 24 hours of agreeing to come to terms when Johnson stopped the bombing.

        We “pulled our punches”.

      • ennis

        ” the rest of the Asian “dominoes” didn’t fall. Doh!”

        The victims of the Pathet Lao and Khmer Rouge would disagree with you.

        • EarlyBird

          From the very beginning the Viet Minh’s turned-NVA and Viet Cong’s struggle was for independence. Ho Chi Minh directly asked for every American president’s help from Wilson through FDR to oust France from their country, and considered the US the ideal country to partner with in their mission for independence. He worked closely with the OSS against the Japanese and French Vichy governments. Ultimately, he was pushed into the hands of the communists because he had nowhere else to go.

          Imagine if we had been true to our American values and told the French to go soak their heads and let go of their colony after WWII. Not only would that war not had to have been fought, but Vietnam would have been a stalwart friend of the US and it would have precluded the horror show in Cambodia – the arms were there because the US and communists where there. Again, even those struggles were co-opted and sponsored by the communists, but were ultimately civil wars against the ruling Westernized classes who were partners in the oppresion of the masses.

          Also, considering that Cambodia fell, what did we lose strategically? Nothing.

  • mmarler

    The nail on the head again, Ann. As a junior captain (Army Air Corps) in the Pentagon I met Paul Tibbets, who led the raid on Hiroshima. He was a very mild-mannered man. It was years later that I learned of his role in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
    Interviewed years later Colonel Tibbets, when asked if he had any remorse about dropping those two bombs said, “No. We didn’t start that war; our job was to end it.” Implied was the goal to end it on conditions favorable to the United States. In other words to win it. Winning any war always involves eliminating the enemy’s willl to continue fighting, using all the tools in the arsenal. Part of that effort in WW II involved the fire bombing of Tokyo, which hideously killed and maimed more people than Hiroshima and Nagasake combined, if my information is correct.
    One final point: If our goal in any military operatiion in not to win, we are doomed to lose.

    • EarlyBird

      Eugene Sledge describes in his memoir of the Pacific campaign that upon news of the bomb on Hiroshima his fellow battle hardened vets didn’t celebrate, they wept with relief that they would live through the war. The bombing of those cities was the most humane possible ending for both sides.

      • mmarler

        You’re right. It was the most humane possible action we could have taken to end the war without an invasion of Japan. While I was in the Pentagon I was privileged to read many documents classified “Confidential’ and “Secret.” One such document, was a study on the invasion of the main island, Honshu. As I remember it, after some 66 years, the report projected two million American casualties and six million Japanese deaths, if we had used that option.

        • sherwool

          Again, you posit only two alternatives. That is a highly artificial way to look at the matter. See my post of about an hour ago

  • Robinoz

    Islam is today’s fanatical Japan with it’s dead emporor Mohammed and jihad suicide belief. Iran needs to be destroyed and other radical Islamic countries dealt with the same way. They will use nuclear weapons on us as soon as they are able. We delay dealing with them at our own peril. Unconditional surrender or war.

  • Van Grungy

    Nuke Mecca and Medina multiple times
    allah is then proven to be a lie, and mohammad a fraud

    It’s the only ideology that depends upon an earthly monument for its very existence.

  • bj affordable

    Another great article from Mr Greenfield. He nails it, as always.

    A thought struck me when I saw the picture of the ‘Japan Quits’ news headline. In the not too distant future, the headline could read: “West Quits. Caliphate enforces dhimmitude terms in full”.

    A not so unlikely future?

  • sherwool

    I do not claim expertise in WW II. However, I am quite suspicious of the claim that dropping two bombs was the way to go. Moreover, I find the scenario posited here- a invasion of Honshu vs. dropping the bombs- were the only alternatives. While I agree we should not have attempted a land invasion of the Japanese main islands in the face of determined opposition, I am not sure those were the only alternatives.

    Truman was highly unimaginative in his approach to ending WW II, adhering to FDR’s hastily conceived “unconditional surrender” as his only terms. BTW, FDR came up with that policy at Casablanca without bothering to consult our British allies and, I believe, with little internal discussion by the Americans:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casablanca_Conference

    Although Churchill was never really enthused about the policy, once FDR announced it, he did not feel he could buck his allies.

    Now I gather we had little assurance either weapon would result in a nuclear explosion – at least let us grant that for purposes of discussion. How long would it have taken the US to develop more atomic weapons? Six months?- ok, assume nine months for purposes of discussion (I doubt it matters greatly). Japan was already a largely defeated power, and they knew it- their ability to resist US air power was militarily insignificant. Yes, they had their sense of honor that required them to go down fighting rather than capitulate, although, once Hirohito gave the word, the Japanese people were in fact ready to cooperate with the American forces. Truman could have fostered that willingness in other ways than dropping two atomic weapons.

    We could, for example, at least after bombing Hiroshima, have invited a team of Japanese nuclear scientists and some military and diplomatic personnel, to visit Los Alamos. The Nobel laureate Hideki Yukawa specifically should have been included. We could have made clear to the scientists what had happened in Hiroshima, and how we did it. Did they want that to happen to other Japanese cities? We could have told them we wanted to spare Japan that fate, and here were our proposal for doing so, including retaining their cherished emperor.

    An admittedly risky proposition would have been to allow the visiting Japanese delegation to witness the detonation of “Fat Man” so they could see for themselves what the consequences could be. We could have then pursued a diplomatic end
    to the war while, of course, building more atomic weapons, thereby retaining that option if it were truly necessary.

    We certainly should not have attempted a D-Day type invasion of Japan. Far too expensive in terms of American lives, if nothing else. But time was on our side- we
    required only the will to engage a more imaginative diplomacy than a hastily conceived policy of unconditional surrender. But a war weary nation, led by an unimaginative president, was simply unable to consider such an option.

    Would it have worked? I do not know, although at very least, after the bombing of Hiroshima, we should have given other options more consideration than waiting a mere three days before bombing Nagasaki. Perhaps Hiroshima was necessary to convince the Japanese to surrender. Nagasaki was not- at least not on August 9, 1945, and it is to America’s shame that we did not pursue more imaginative options.

  • Dev Null
  • Tim Buttrum

    If the truth be known most Muslims detest Islam and the Koran. I have read the Koran myself to try and understand. The Koran is a book that teaches nothing but violence and hatred. In Iran today Islam is crumbling. Everybody follows the rules so their not killed and try to lay low. The young people of Iran are rising up against Islam and the Mullahs. Islam is spread out across the globe with this type of group first you must not let it get a foot hold in your community. 2. Special Forces from U.S. and allied need to take the war to them with no mercy and no prisoners until the thought of Islam is dead. 3..Any country that allows Islam to be practiced with their murdering of men, women, and children should be given notice if they don’t take care of the problem the rest of the world will and the results will not be pretty. DEATH & NO MERCY TO ISLAM.

  • TheOrdinaryMan

    On American history television a few days ago, there were two survivors of Hiroshima, accompanied by Clifton Truman Daniel,(President Truman’s grandson), giving a talk with a middle school class.(Don’t remember the venue) The two survivors, a male and a female, did their absolute level best to indict America, in front of these 12 and 13-year olds. And Mr. Daniel emoted right along with them, telling the class how terrible American policy was. Not once did Daniel bring up the idea that the US dropped the atomic bombs to save American lives. Not once. Very frustrating to watch. Harry Truman is rolling in his grave.
    However, in addition to Okinawa & Tarawa & Iwo Jima, the Japanese invaded the Aleutians in April & May 1943. 5000 US Army rangers(the 1940′s equivalent of Special Forces troops), sailing from Seattle, met and defeated twice that number of Japanese, in the Battle of Attu. The Japanese had invaded American territory, with the idea of building a base, to invade the continental U.S. The fighting lasted a month, often in bitter cold. In the final day’s fight, after a massed Banzai charge, nearly every Japanese committed suicide, rather than be captured by US troops. Multiply that a hundred fold, and you’ll understand what US troops would have faced in an invasion of Japan.

  • ObamaYoMoma

    And now, nearly seventy years later, on another hot August, we find ourselves in another seemingly unwinnable war.

    The so-called War on Terror is unwinnable because it is exceedingly fantasy based. For instance, terrorism isn’t even an Islamic manifestation.

    At the Wall Street Journal, former media figure Ted Koppel popped up with an editorial warning that an overreaction to terrorism is more dangerous than terrorism.

    That’s because Ted Koppel makes the same mistake you always do, Daniel, that is he conflates what is really jihad as somehow being terrorism, but jihad and terrorism are two very different and distinct manifestations altogether. Indeed, Muslims aren’t perpetrating terrorism because of our actions, because Muslims are not perpetrating terrorism in the first place. Instead, they are waging jihad in the cause of Allah for the establishment of Islam, as the sole fundamental purpose of Islam is to subjugate all religions and all infidels into Islamic totalitarianism via the imposition of Sharia, which is Islamic totalitarian law. Hence, Muslims don’t need a reason to wage jihad on infidels as it is the sole fundamental purpose of Islam.

    The official report labeled an attack by a Muslim terrorist affiliated with a major Al Qaeda figure as a case of workplace violence.

    Actually, he was a “soldier of Allah,” i.e., a jihadists. Moreover, all violent jihadists are stupidly associated with AQ according to our unhinged leftwing media. Nevertheless, it wasn’t a case of workplace violence.

    The spectacle of Nidal Hasan trying to communicate to a politically correct military bureaucracy that he really is a Muslim terrorist is almost comic.

    Talk about obsessed with the word terrorist, but Hasan nonetheless never ever tried to communicate anything other than that he was a jihadist, i.e., a mujahideen, as jihad, in stark contrast to terrorism, is holy fighting in the cause of Allah for the establishment of Islam, and manifests, also in stark contrast to terrorism, violently and non-violently, but astronomically far more non-violently relative to violently. Not to mention that jihad is waged by Muslims only, while terrorism is a product of all societies and cultures. Hence, apparently you are more than a little confused and that is almost comical.

    He did everything short of hiring a skywriter to fly over Fort Hood writing, “Nidal Hasan is a Muslim Terrorist”.

    You’re delusional. He did everything to indicate that he was a jihadist, but not a terrorist, as terrorism isn’t even holy fighting in the cause of Allah for the establishment of Islam, as it is perpetrated for a myriad of political causes.

    It must have deeply frustrated Hasan, whose entire legal defense is that he is a Muslim terrorist.

    That’s a total fabrication and lie. Hasan’s entire legal defense has been that he is a jihadist, i.e., a soldier of Allah. He has never ever muttered the word terrorist one time.

    It’s that liberal notion that the only thing more dangerous than a terrorist is the man who notices he’s there and does something about it.

    But again that’s a manifestation of conflating what is really jihad as somehow being terrorism, but they are not one and the same. Instead, they are two very distinct and different manifestations. In other words, he makes the same mistake you do, Daniel, and that opens the door up for him to blame America first for generating terrorism. Now, if jihad were understood correctly for what it really is, that is holy fighting in the cause of Allah for the establishment of Islam, Koppel and other self-hating loons wouldn’t be able to always blame America first and get away with it.

    The failure by the stronger side to conclude a war when it has the upper hand is not kindness; it’s cruelty.

    Actually, it can’t conclude this war with the upper hand, since the war was based on false premises about Islam, like for instance, jihad is somehow terrorism and like terrorism is always and only violent, Islam is a so-called “religion of peace,” Islam is being hijacked by radical Islamists, Democracy will inevitably bring Islam into modernity, the vast overwhelming majority of Muslims are so-called moderates, etc., etc., etc. Indeed, the war was lost even before it was ever implemented. As a matter of fact, the War on Terror is incredibly idiotic when you understand the fact that terrorism isn’t even an Islamic manifestation.

    And so now it is haunted by Hasan and by his Al Qaeda comrades and by the Taliban and by entire networks of terrorist groups forming because we pulled our punches in the War on Terror.

    Pure utter absurdity! The so-called War on Terror should never have been pursued in the first place because it was incredibly fantasy based and doomed to inevitable failure even before it began. Indeed, the war was impossible to win no matter how much brute force was applied.

  • ObamaYoMoma

    Here’s an idea: how about we get energy independent, and start reconsidering what our real interests in the Middle East are, and start getting the hell out of these people’s hair to the greatest degree possible? Protect shipping lanes and other global traffic routes and otherwise leave them alone. Nothing would be a faster, more efficient route to defeating the terrorists.

    Actually, we do need to become energy independent ASAP in which Obama, the Dhimmicrats, and the leftwing hijacked Republican Party have all been preventing for decades now. Not only for our national security and to create the strongest economy this world has ever seen, but also to deprive the Islamic world of our valuable oil dollars.

    Furthermore, you are correct, we do need to get the hell out of the Islamic world, not because our presence generates terrorism, as you self-hating loons have all been inculcated to believe, but because Muslims are waging jihad in the cause of Allah for the establishment of Islam instead of terrorism and because the sole fundamental purpose of Islam is to subjugate all religions and all infidels into Islamic totalitarianism via the imposition of Sharia, which is Islamic totalitarian law.

    Thus, the solution to all our Islamic problems is simple and involves outlawing and banning Islam in the West ASAP, and at the same time also banning and reversing mass Muslim immigration with all of its excess baggage, since Muslims never ever migrate to infidel lands to assimilate and integrate, but instead to eventually one day dominate and subjugate via the eventual imposition of Sharia. Not to mention that accomplishing the above will also completely eliminate the threat of jihad in the West. The final step, of course, is the total abandonment and isolation of the Islamic world. We don’t need them, but they do need us.

    Of course, as a prerequisite to the aforementioned, we must eradicate the ruling Mullahs of Iran and their nuclear weapons program. Followed by forcing the Pakistanis into giving up their immense nuclear weapons arsenal and also into destroying their nuclear weapons program. Once those two things are accomplished, then we can safely abandon and isolate the Islamic world.

    Indeed, at that point the Islamic world will no longer be able to wage jihad against us and without Western contact, technology, and valuable oil dollars will soon fall back into abject poverty, where Muslims should be allowed to stew in their Islamic totalitarian paradises until such time that Islam becomes totally discredited. How many generations that will take is anyone’s guess.

    They are not robots who read the Koran and decided to wage a global campaign of terrorism.

    Actually, Muslims act very similar to robots, as Islam is not a true religion, but instead a very totalitarian cult that masquerades as being a so-called “religion of peace” to gain a foothold in the targeted infidel societies. As a matter of fact, in stark contrast to all true religions of the world, Islam alone compels fanatical belief via the total, complete, and unconditional submission to the will of Allah, which in essence is Sharia or Islamic totalitarian law, under the pain of threat of death for blasphemy and apostasy. It also makes jihad or holy fighting in the cause of Allah for the establishment of Islam a fundamental holy obligation incumbent upon all Muslims in one form or another, as jihad is the highest pillar on which Islam stands. Thus, all Muslims are jihadists in one form or another. Otherwise, they are blasphemous apostates that according to the texts and tenets of Islam must be executed. These prerequisites unique to Islam alone, by the way, also proves the existence of so-called moderate Muslims as being little more than a very fictitious myth as well, since a so-called moderate Muslim in Islam would by definition be a blasphemous apostate that according to the dictates of Islam must be executed.

    They are people who rightly and wrongly feel oppressed, manipulated, colonized and abused by the West who read the Koran and decided to wage a global campaign of terrorism. The moment we undercut that belief we undercut the entire reason for these nuts to exist.

    Now, of course, if you are a complete and utter ignoramus of Islam and a very gullible useful idiot infidel at the same time as you obviously are, then it is very easy to see how you believe the garbage you believe. Nevertheless, a cursory examination and a brief review of Islam and of its history will reveal that Islam is not a so-called “religion of peace” as it purports itself to be in order to dupe gullible useful idiot infidels like you. Instead, Islam is a very aggressive and destructive totalitarian cult that has as its sole fundamental purpose the subjugation into Islamic totalitarianism of all religions and all infidels via the imposition of Sharia, which is Islamic totalitarian law.

    George W. Bush coined that phrase, and the left mocked it. “Terror” is a tactic…” That’s exactly what the left said as it mocked the phrase.

    Actually, GWB was and still is a leftwing loon who along with his father and other leftwing loons, such as Karl Rove, hijacked and co-opted the once conservative Republican Party.

    Nevertheless, terrorism is not even an Islamic manifestation, as jihad, in stark contrast to terrorism, is holy fighting in the cause of Allah for the establishment of Islam via the imposition of Sharia, which is Islamic totalitarian law, and is the product of Islamic totalitarian culture alone, while terrorism, on the other hand, is perpetrated for any number of various political causes and is the product of all societies and cultures, in stark contrast.

    Not to mention as well, that while terrorism is always and only violent, jihad, on the other hand, manifests both violently and non-violently, but astronomically far more non-violently relative to violently.

    Indeed, a good example of violent jihad would be the infamous 9/11 jihad attacks and a good example of far more ubiquitous non-violent stealth and deceptive jihad, is mass Muslim immigration to the West for the stealth purpose of eventual demographic conquest, as Muslims never ever migrate to assimilate and integrate, but instead to form Muslim enclaves that in time morph into Muslim no-go zones ruled by Sharia. As a matter of fact, a few years ago the government of France counted in excess of 700 Muslim no-go zones in France alone. Hence, it is very obvious once you connect all the dots.

  • William James Ward

    At the root of every leftist assault on American defense is a
    Communist playing us as hard as they can. The goody two
    shoes attitude inculcated in society is outside the realm of
    World realities and weakens America which is the intent of
    our enemies within. At the current rate of deterioration of
    our institutions and failure of our economy and the social
    war against our moral and religious values America faces
    failure as a Nation. The media is working 24/7 to turn the
    minds of Americans on to useless twaddle while the house
    is on fire, trash media has a hold on American minds as
    strong as heroin or crack on drug fiends. The Churches
    have been infiltrated by leftists and moral rectitude has
    become void in humanist fantasy. I have been amazed at
    those who ridicule turning the clock back, it is what is needed
    for a stable life, Communists, leftists, Socialists, Progressives
    and Islamists are driven forward with a continuous aim,
    that is making America unlivable for Americans. We the people
    are the boss of the government and not the other way around,
    fire them all and change every politicians occupation to
    unemployed………………………………….William

  • Al Hudson

    On January 20, 1945, two days before his departure for the Yalta meeting President Roosevelt received a 40-page memorandum from General Douglas MacArthur outlining five separate surrender overtures from high-level Japanese officials. This memo showed that the Japanese were offering surrender terms virtually identical to the ones ultimately accepted by the Americans at the formal surrender ceremony on September 2. “The experiment has been an overwhelming success,” President Harry S. Truman told his shipmates upon learning that the atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima. Truman steadfastly defended his use of the atomic bomb, claiming that it “saved millions of lives” by bringing the war to a quick end. Justifying his decision, he went so far as to declare: “The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians.” In fact the United States Strategic Bombing Survey stated in its official report of 1946: “Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen as targets because of their concentration of activities and population.” In fact the US bombed the city center of Hiroshima, which had a population of 350,000. Only four of the proposed 30 targets were military in nature.

  • mmarler

    Back in the olden days, say eighty or 100 years ago, Major Hassan, following his assault, would immediately be apprehended; a General Court would be convened at 1000 hours the following day; by 1030 he would be found guilty, and at 1200 – high noon – he would be brought in dress uniform before all of the Fort Hood troops, assembled in parade formation. There a senior officer would take his saber, cut the insignia of his rank from his tunic, cut off his medals and ribbons, cut the buttons off his tunic. He would then be marched between two guards to an area near the flag pole, where by this time a gallows wouild have been erected, and hanged until he was dead. No muss, no fuss, no unnecessary expense. How times have changed. It has been four years since Hassan committed his jihad act, and he still draws a full salary!

  • ziggy zoggy

    After ho Chi Minh was granted independence he tried to conquer the South, mon idiot.

  • DOBA DODU

    The biggest terrorist in the world is America. Killings of innocent civilians in world War2, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Vietnam war, Korean War, Iraq war, Afganistan war are some of the terrorist acts of America. America is terrorizing the world even today.