For those who do not understand war

Good day everyone. I have created a page dedicated to this subject so you all can stop writing me and asking “where is it.”

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

In case you missed it, Eric was responding to my post

Mr. Fusion: Ron Paul and said this:

“Answer me this simple question.

If the Radical Muslims do not hate us for our culture, if it’s all about our foreign policy, than why are they rampaging all across Western Europe?

Why was Theo van Gogh so brutally murdered in the streets of Amsterdam? Was it because those crazy Dutch supported Israel, and had tens of thousands of troops in Saudi Arabia?

Why were all those cars burned last year across Paris by Muslim Youth?

Why did all those Muslims protest in the streets of Copenhagen against the free speech rights of that newspaper that printed that objectionable cartoon.

Here’s a book you should read: While The West Slept – Why Radical Islam is Destroying Western Europe by NY Times Contributing Reporter Bruce Bawer.”

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

First of all Eric, you asked four questions not one “simple question.” The primary thrust of your argument seems to be obscure. However it does seem as though it is primarily Islamophobic, i.e. it sounds like your entire argument is based upon the premise that “Muslims are our enemy no matter where they are.”

Nevertheless, if that is your position you should go and fight them. Do not wed yourself, and others, to causes you don’t believe in strongly enough to go and fight yourself. And it doesn’t matter if you already served 2, 4, 10, 20 or 30 years in any branch of the U.S. armed forces. If you did serve that doesn’t give you some sort of “patriotic pass” to argue “I’ve been there and you haven’t.” That is circular logic.

If you believe in it strongly enough go do it yourself…do not force it upon others (to serve because of nationalistic/quasi-patriotic compulsion OR via heavy taxation to fund the warfare state) through the use of mobocracy, i.e. mobile vulgus.

Our military is not for what you have been advocating, National Offense. National Defense is quite different than what you advocate. Defending something does not entail running around to every corner of the world to chase down boogiemen where they are said to have popped up. If we were so concerned with “defense” then how in the world could 19 terrorists create such a problem by hijacking 3 or 4 airplanes? It appears that Bin Laden (or whomever is running their operations) has a better grasp of strategy then the current group of Top-Brass in our military.

In the real world, being a true warrior means much more than just waging war. It involves strategy, laying plans, tactical dispositions, the proper use of energy, insight, etcetera. And strategy involves quite a bit more then outflanking your enemy and counting on numerical advantage or more sohpisticated weaponry.

Maybe you would consider reading a bit of strategy by a General named Zhuge Liang. His idea, translated literally, means to “steal arrows with straw boats.” Which means you are clever and crafty enough to use other people’s power for your own purpose…and not simply rely on brute force.

It is exactly what happened to the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. They used the Russians’ military might against them. America’s leaders are playing right into Al-Qaeda’s hands. Can you not see it? It is right there in front of you. If you can’t, I don’t mind lending a helping hand to a fellow citizen and Libertarian-Republican.

You can refer to these stories:

1) How Al Qaeda views a long Iraq war

2) Misreading Iraq, Again

3) Letter Exposes New Leader in Al-Qa`ida High Command 25 September 2006

4) New Tape: Al Qaeda No. 2 Wants 200,000-300,000 U.S. Dead in Iraq Ayman al-Zawahiri Says Al Qaeda Wants to Spill More U.S. Blood Before America Withdraws

 5) “This bill will deprive us of the opportunity to destroy the American forces which we have caught in a historic trap,’ Zawahiri says in answer to a question posed to him [by] an interviewer.“Continuing in the same tone, Zawahiri says, ‘We ask Allah that they only get out of it after losing 200,000 to 300,000 killed, in order that we give the spillers of blood in Washington and Europe an unforgettable lesson.”

Now if that documentation is not compelling enough for you, then maybe we could examine bin Laden’s words directly:

Contrary to what [President George W.] Bush says and claims — that we hate freedom –let him tell us then, “Why did we not attack Sweden?” It is known that those who hate freedom don’t have souls with integrity, like the souls of those 19 (attackers on Sept. 11th).

We found no difficulties in dealing with the Bush administration, because of the similarities of that administration and the regimes in our countries, half of which are run by the military and half of which are run by monarchs. And our experience is vast with them.

And those two kinds are full of arrogance and taking money illegally.

See Eisenhower’s Military Industrial Complex 

Then, if you read the full transcript, you would have read this:

All that we have to do is to send two Mujahideen to the furthest point East to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al-Qaida, in order to make the generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic, and political losses without their achieving for it anything of note other than some benefits for their private companies. 

This is in addition to our having experience in using guerrilla warfare and the war of attrition to fight tyrannical superpowers, as we, alongside the Mujahideen, bled Russia for ten years, until it went bankrupt and was forced to withdraw in defeat. So we are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy.

Your security is not in the hands of [Democratic presidential nominee John] Kerry or Bush or al Qaeda. Your security is in your own hands. Any nation that does not attack us will not be attacked.

Eric, did you read that clearly?

I know you are an intelligent guy. I know you think the president has been a bit of a war-wimp. But doesn’t the fact that the Al-Qa`ida leadership has said explicitly, many times, things that actually make sense based upon objective analysis?

 Things like, “All that we have to do is to send two Mujahideen to the furthest point East to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al-Qaida, in order to make the generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic, and political losses without their achieving for it anything of note other than some benefits for their private companies.” 

Does it not seem like that is exactly what is happening?

Now, whether you believe what he says or not, in order to win a war you must understand clearly what motivates your enemy. And if you do not at least listen to what “the enemy” says you can never hope to win this “war” in which you would have us all engaged. Unfortunately, it has been many syears since we began striding around the world trying to prove that the USA is the “Home of the Brave” versus leading by example and being the “Land of the Free.”

I have to admit to you…I used to be a neo-con…and I didn’t even know it. I say that because I used to love listening to Rush Limbaugh (among other things). I used to love listening to him do his Ali-Limbali bit, all those parodies with Paul Shanklin and how Rush used to say he could offer campaign strategies to the Democrats and they would never listen. He said he had no fear of giving the Democrats strategic advise because he knew they would never listen to him. I fear that many listeners of his show (Rush included) are in that same position vis-à-vis bin Laden. He can offer the exact means by which our government could stop the effusion of our soldiers’ blood and our leaders are filled with such hubris that they don’t have to listen to anyone…they already know better than the rest of us.

Or have you put too much faith in a man who claims to be, “the decideror maybe you have faith that the president knows, Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.  Emphasis added.

Now, on to your point about Western Europe.

The primary question is what do radicals in Europe have to do with America? Other than the obvious most of them are our “allies”?

Not much.

As a conservative it has got to be strange for you to be using a New York Times reporter as a source, albeit only one. I think if I were a good conservative/libertarian like you I would rely on Michael Scheuer rather than a NY Times reporter as a source. Mr. Scheuer is an old-school conservative like a Pat Buchanan or even Dr. Paul. If you have heard Scheuer’s point you would find that he agrees with Ron Paul. However, Scheuer believes that because of all the trouble we’ve created around the world we need to go and exterminate them (Muslims) because there is very little good will for them to find for Americans.

Other than that, you’ll certainly find he agrees more with Dr. Paul than the likes of Giuliani, Romney or any of the others.

If you’re so inclined you could listen to this interview of Michael Scheuer here. It’s pretty insightful.

Moving forward, I think you have conflated Europe’s problems with ours. In part, you are correct but possibly not why you think. My position is that we have been paying the price for American foreign policy for at least 80 years. Then in trying to make your case against mine, you asked four questions about European domestic problems…not American foreign policy problems.

But I have no problem meeting you there.

Did you think the British would never have to pay for their Colonialism in the Middle East?

Do you think that Englad is not still suffering from its disastrous foreign policy during the 18th, 19th, and 20th century?

Did you know these Unites States used to be colonies of Britain? Of course you did. Furthermore, you know why we are no longer colonies of England. That’s right Eric, we got sick of perceived oppression and rebelled. Seems pretty obvious. Also, see Robert Pape’s book, Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism.

And realistically what about Europe or even the greater U.K.?

And what do “those crazy Dutch”, the protests in Copenhagen and in France have to do with us? Nothing. Each of those countries has its own laws and it is up to their Legislature to write and pass them. Likewise, it is up to them to enforce their laws, not us.

Again, your point seems a bit muddled.

What about the Catholics versus the Protestants in Northern Ireland? Those who fight/fought for the IRA, and more broadly the Republic of Ireland in general, know that in order to get a response from your enemy you must do something to provoke them; the harsher the action the more harsh the reaction. Similar to Newton’s Third Law… “For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.” Or as Scott Horton puts it “the action is in the REaction.” It is obvious that bin Laden knows that and sadly not many seem to know who are directing our troops.

Moreover, as Daniel Ellsberg points out one of the many problems that our soldiers face is that, unlike Vietnam, they cannot avoid injuring and even killing innocent civilians when they react, and often over react, to a suicide bomber.

Now, you are not trying to defend another dying empire, are you? I doubt that is what you are implying but read this article by Brendan O’Neill to see what I mean. O’Neill summarizes Ayman Al-Zawahiri’s whining and complaining like this:

So, here we have a terrorist who’s stuck in a dugout criticising a Queen who has long since ceased to have any real power for awarding a writer who made a perceived insult against Islam 18 years ago with an order of chivalry for his contributions to an Empire that does not exist.

Again, read his article and see how much Al-Zawahiri sounds like a whiny California left winger. Maybe you would be inclined to read this very short piece on Our Original Foreign Policy. One note on the Jews and those ever so frightening “Islamofascists” in Iran, “So why hasn’t Iran started by wiping its own Jews off the map?

Finally, if nothing I’ve said could make you even entertain the idea you might be mistaken maybe you will consider George Washington’s advice:

It is our true policy to steer clear of entangling alliances with any portion of the foreign world…Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force…Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.

It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those intrusted with its administration to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism…. If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit which the use can at any time yield.

Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy, to be useful, must be impartial, else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it.

Or even Thomas Jefferson’s words that we should have,

“Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none. Or that, “We did not raise armies for glory or for conquest…”

I do not like… the omission of a bill of rights providing clearly and without the aid of sophisms for freedom of religion, freedom of the press, protection against standing armies, restriction against monopolies, the eternal and unremitting force of the habeas corpus laws, and trials by jury in all matters of fact triable by the laws of the land and not by the law of nations.” –Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787

By a declaration of rights, I mean one which shall stipulate freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of commerce against monopolies, trial by juries in all cases, no suspensions of the habeas corpus, no standing armies. These are fetters against doing evil which no honest government should decline.” –Thomas Jefferson to Alexander Donald, 1788.

Note his anti-mercantilist sentiment via, “Freedom of commerce against monopolies.” Or enjoy an insightful and witty indulgence with Thomas J. DiLorenzo’s The Latest Defamation of Jefferson.

In closing I’d like to ask you a series of questions.

And you can reply if you are so inclined but right there, wherever you read this be honest with yourself, answer the following questions. And take note of how many of these questions can you answer sitting there as you read this.

What led to the Spanish-American War?

Why do so-called conservatives like Theodore Roosevelt so much? After all, he was Bill Clinton’s favorite Republican president.

Why was Woodrow Wilson elected on the platform of “he kept us out of war” only to be in front of Congress six months later making the case for America to get into World War I?

What was the Brest-Liovsk Treaty?

What turned the war in the Allies’ favor?

Why was Article 231 of the Treaty of Versailles so important?

Why have we been so heavily involved in the Middle East since 1919?

Why were we (the U.S. government) in favor of the fabled “red line” agreement?

How was it that Hitler, the failed art student and street punk, was elevated to power in such an advanced and industrialized society?

Why was Hitler’s Anschluss with Austria so critical?

What led the Japanese to attack at Pearl Harbor?

Why did we give enough tax payer dollars to fund 60 combat divisions of the Soviet Army for siding with the Allies for six days?

Why then did Joseph Stalin become an ally and then an enemy of the U.S so quickly?

Why did we drop, not one but two, atomic bombs on Japan?

What led to the “Cold War?”

Why did we support the creation of Israel?

What led to U.S. forces being shipped out to Korea?

Why did we overthrow the Shah of Iran in 1953?

Why did we invade Viet Nam?

Why were the Marine barracks blown up in Lebanon?

Why did we support Saddam Hussein during the 1980’s?

What were the reasons for the first Persian Gulf War?

Why were the Air Force Barracks blown up in Saudi Arabia in 1996?

Why did Osama bin Laden declare war on the U.S. in 1996?

Why were two American Embassies bombed in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998?

Why did we go to war in Kosovo?

Why did the USS Cole get bombed in 2000?

Why was America attacked on September 11th?

Why do the “terrorists” really hate us?

One final note, I think we have much more in common than you may realize and we should try and find amiable ways to work toward our common goals. Goals like:

1)     Low to no federal taxation

2)     Restoring Individual Liberties

3)     Stop out of control spending

4)     Property Rights

5)     Strong Defense

6)     Gun Rights — and enforcing the Bill of Rights overall

7)     Getting the U.S. out of the United Nations

In this way we, and those like us, can begin to restore the American Republic, or as George Washington said, “Let us raise a standard to which the wise and honest can repair…”


4 Comments on “For those who do not understand war”

  1. chris the iconoclast Says:

    Mr. Shannon,
    First I want to extend my gratitude towards the direction of all your hard work writing and researching. It is a sad shame that at the other end of the intial correspondence, he failed to reply to something that would, in the end, better educate him. Through his lack of response, he cowers with defeat just as dog runs away to his kennel after being scolding for shatting on the sofa.

    War sounds great, or atleast it used to. I was once of the opinion that it was necessary, and I believed that their was an enemy. The enemy always changes, and history clearly shows this, and only from the future we realize this, just as we should realize that when our enemy changes we have gathered a old enemy as a newly found friend.
    Furthermore, I have never voted and I am 28 years old. When I was in the Army I was ALMOST forced to vote! NOw I am into politics only because of RON PAUL. I believe the time to change is now, and no other is truely like him. Drop all your party affiliations and research the man at YOUTUBE.
    Power to the Freethinker.

  2. Jimmy Says:

    It’s hard to believe that any1 takes this guy Dondero seriously anymore. He has been proven, on many occasions, not to have the slightest idea what he is talking about…yet he keeps flappin’ his gums about things he is wholly ignorant about.

    As you have shared in the past, “Thus the wise win before they fight, while the ignorant fight to win.”
    He’s trying to win Dr. Paul’s seat in Texas and is on the trail for Benito Giuliani. I’m glad you didn;t respond to his cheap and frightened little response to your thoughtful post.

    He is rightfully being ignored by many.

    Keep up the good work Matt.

  3. Nate Says:

    eric’s ignorance is on display for everyone to see when he can’t even asnwer one of your questions.

    I think your point is a good that he is projecting his repressed homosexual fear onto them. That’s pretty bad if he doens’t even realize how little he knows about the history of our country let alone how little he is honest with himself about his deep seeded sexual preferences.

    I think maybe he wishes he was there at Abu Ghraib so he could be one of those sexually abusing the men and women there. After all, he does think Prez Bush is a “war wimp.” Maybe he’d like to show them how much of a tough guy he is.

    It’s a shame that this type of thinking and behavior is associated in any way with citizens of this country. The same type of barbaric, ass-backward thinking he accuses those “Islamo-fascists” of is the exact type of behavior he exhibits on a daily basis.

    Oh, one final note, eric thinks he is such a tough guy and is very brave over the internent but if it came down to it, and he couldn’t get other to fight is fight, and he actually had to fight a guy like you mono y mono you would make his goofy ass cry for his mama!

    All the best Matt,
    -Nate Thompson

  4. […] If you want to understand a large ptotion of our problem then just read my post For those who do not understand war […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: