![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
selenite0One of bloggers at Winds of Change came up with an interesting metaphor for the war while discussing the atrocities in Russia:
Smoking contributes to cancer. Russia had a three pack a day habit going in Chechnya for too long, so they shouldn't be too surprised now when the doctors hand Putin the X-Ray and shake their heads. But to suggest now . . . that the solution lies in quitting smoking, is ludicrously inadequate.
The terror has now metastasized, linked up with tumors elsewhere in the body of the world. It is a systemic disease and it requires a systemic cure that acknowledges the true nature of the disease.
The cancer of the jihadi mentality is ready to attack anywhere the tissue is weak. Those who advise against weakening the tissue further are correct, but they insist that the cure go no farther.
Give them what they want? Sure, stop smoking. But the cancer doesn’t want you to stop smoking. It wants you to die.
America's smoking habit has been propping dictators to maintain "stability" in a region that desperately needs change. We've cut back, and hopefully we'll completely quit soon. But the important thing is going after the worst of the cancer wherever we can. Right now that means cutting out the tumors easiest to get to and causing the most damage, not just one the one that made us go to the doctor. Saddam didn't have anything to do with 9/11--so what? He's contributing to the problem and Iraq's the best place to start on the solution.
I hope we can beat this without resorting to radiation therapy. But that's going to take aggressively using all the other treatment options first.
Smoking contributes to cancer. Russia had a three pack a day habit going in Chechnya for too long, so they shouldn't be too surprised now when the doctors hand Putin the X-Ray and shake their heads. But to suggest now . . . that the solution lies in quitting smoking, is ludicrously inadequate.
The terror has now metastasized, linked up with tumors elsewhere in the body of the world. It is a systemic disease and it requires a systemic cure that acknowledges the true nature of the disease.
The cancer of the jihadi mentality is ready to attack anywhere the tissue is weak. Those who advise against weakening the tissue further are correct, but they insist that the cure go no farther.
Give them what they want? Sure, stop smoking. But the cancer doesn’t want you to stop smoking. It wants you to die.
America's smoking habit has been propping dictators to maintain "stability" in a region that desperately needs change. We've cut back, and hopefully we'll completely quit soon. But the important thing is going after the worst of the cancer wherever we can. Right now that means cutting out the tumors easiest to get to and causing the most damage, not just one the one that made us go to the doctor. Saddam didn't have anything to do with 9/11--so what? He's contributing to the problem and Iraq's the best place to start on the solution.
I hope we can beat this without resorting to radiation therapy. But that's going to take aggressively using all the other treatment options first.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-09-22 11:27 am (UTC)A distinct minority among Palestinians.
Not in Gaza. And the Pals have been shifting from secular to Islamist groups over time. I think you're describing how they were in 1994.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/holy/combatants/palestinians.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas
http://www.jmcc.org/research/special/study2.htm
Since when were we legally at war with Iraq? We had UN authorization to conduct military operations to liberate Kuwait and contain Hussein. That does not equate to a legal definition of war (last I checked, only the US Congress can declare war -- and it hasn't since 12 DEC 1941).
So--I know you're not as ignorant as you're pretending here. Or do you honestly believe Korea and Viet Nam weren't wars? If you just want to do pedantic nitpicking to confuse the issue, save it for your students. We were in a state of armed conflict with Iraq ("war" to non-pedants), terminated by a cease-fire agreement. When the cease-fire was violated (many, many times) we had legal justification to resume operations against Iraq. Getting real support was more important than a legal rationale, so we went back to the UN Security Council.
And even if it did, then wouldn't a better place to start be a known supporter of international terrorism who is much closer to developing nuclear weapons? Say, the Democratic Korean People's Republic?
Hmmm. You want Bush to start a major land war with China. No, you're not that stupid, you're just being annoying again. Next.
shouldn't the US go after the dictators it's propping up?
Yes. Eventually.
Or do you think Bush would've had an easier time getting a Congressional vote to attack Saudi Arabia? And what would've happened to all the Americans in SA during the debate?
Wouldn't it be better to pay attention to our only formal ally in the region and do what we can to stabilize them and support them? They thought invading Iraq was a bad idea.
So what is it with you and Israel?
Those 10,000 troops are the reason OBL declared war on the US.
You're forgetting Andalusia and the fall of the Caliphate. (http://slate.msn.com/id/1008411)
we're going to have to take care of these issues eventually. Why not now when the American people are theoretically more willing to do so with 9/11 so fresh in our minds? (I know the answer -- it has more to do with the election cycle than anything else).
Or possibly because wars require making decisions based on strategy instead of popularity.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-15 01:08 pm (UTC)http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/10/15/wmid15.xml