From a purely philosophical perspective I could easily agree with the vast majority of what Mr. Ouradnik says in this morning's Counterpoint.

Unfortunately it's not a purely philosophical world.

Since I'm still on my first cup of coffee any attempts at clarity of expression may be doomed to failure but I'm going to give it a shot anyway.

"Settling for defense of my nation" may sound like a short sighted response from a purely humanistic point of view but, aside from the requirement of providing for the common defense being one of the basic justifications for the existence of a government in the first place, if your nation is not defended and ends up being destroyed, by what process does it end up having the ability to institute the writer's suggested course of action to attain long term peace?

In any conflict, dealt with by either military or diplomatic means, the effectiveness of your own planning, foresight, and willingness to cooperate is ultimately decided by the attitudes and goals of your opponent.

The historical cliche is that of Neville Chamberlain, a fundamentally moral and honest man whose decisions were made with the best of intent in a vain attempt to avoid what was to be a horrible episode in human history.

Heavenly intent with hellish results.

"Peace demands loyalty to the human race" reflects a high but totally unrealistic ideal in the history of human interaction.

If the aforementioned loyalty was an inherent trait among humanity, the conflicts under discussion would not exist in the first place.

Certainly as a long term goal there are many peaceful initiatives that can be implemented in an effort to lessen the motivations behind military conflicts, but to take a totally passive and non-confrontational stance accomplishes nothing other than to grant victory to the aggressive, greedy, and yes, evil among the world's peoples.

My assertions here are only submitted in reference to the Counterpoint writer's premise, and are not to be construed as being directed specifically towards any currently ongoing conflict.

Robert, try taking your 'department of peace' idea to the radical Muslims who are strapping bombs on their children and see how long it takes them to separate you from your head.

I'm glad these peaceniks weren't around to dictate policy to Truman or Churchill, lest we all would be speaking Deutsch, or Japanese.

Point taken neocon.

It's good to know that instead of "Deutsch, or Japanese" we're now all speaking Spanish.

A menos por ahora.

:)

"Nonetheless, the childish assumption remains foremost, that if anyone hits me, the necessary response is to hit back and protect what is mine"

The effiminization of the US male society continues; If anyone assaults your wife or girlfriend, sit back and practice peace, your wife will understand.

"there is little recognition that genuine, lasting peace does not come by imposing the will of the strong over the weak."

No, true peace comes when the strong protect the weak.

I think Theodore Roosevelt probablyl said it best: "Walk softly and carry a big stick"

This letter implies that there is something wrong with spanking your children. Actually, it implies that most people's first reaction to an unruly child is to spank them. I haven't found that to be the case. Generally, spanking is something reserved for situations when all other acts of diplomacy with your child have failed.

So should be the use of violence and war.

(JH)"...to take a totally passive and non-confrontational stance..."

(H)"sit back and practice peace,"

It's a common misconception that the practice of peace is passive. In fact, it is active and it is difficult, particularly for people who have allowed their ego identities to dictate their actions through their habitually reinforced tendencies. The good news is that through personal choice and diligent effort "loyalty to the human race" can be consciously nurtured from individual to community to society.

Be the change you wish to see.

Amazing how "diplomacy" has become a diry word, with connotations of weakness and cowardice.

Zhak,

I have no difficulty in anyone disputing, denying the validity of, or otherwise disagreeing with my written opinions.

But in the future I would suggest that if you intend to assume the credibility of being able to factually belittle what someone else writes, a good starting point would be the avoidance of misapplying context or projecting unstated inferences into your critical analysis.

To take a portion of a sentence, give it an arbitrarily assigned meaning in order to justify your own opinion, and then use that fabricated assumption as evidence of your rational authority to pass judgement, may be an accepted tactic for a cable news show debate but is intellectually disingenious to say the least.

Your assertion that a nurtering of loyalty to the human race can be implanted within an entire society has a nice sound to it, but both history and the complexity of human interaction tend to dispute it's possibility.

Personally I hope you're right, I'd like to see it, but in order for dreams to be accomplished dealing with the realities of survival are a prerequisite.

Feel free to distort or misquote that at your leisure.

"Psychologists can outline win-win solutions to substitute for win-lose types that end in anger and hate."

Any phychologists successfully tried this with radical Islamic terrorists? I'd love to see the results.

Neo, maybe he could save some travel and start his Dept of Peace in the gangbanger neighborhoods of Newark, Philly, Detroit, Houston, LA, & of course New Orleans.

Again nice theory, but devoid of reality. Even the radical Muslims want peace, only after they conquer the world and install their version of Islam on everyone.

JH--you read a great deal into very little and much of it far from intended.

Dearest Darling Zhak,

You used a parsed quote of mine as a prelude to your statement that there is a "common misconception that the practice of peace is passive" when the context of my statement was in no way referring to such an assertion. In fact, if the sentence of it's use is taken as a whole, it clearly stated that there were "certainly" peaceful initiatives that could be implemented.

Implementation of an initiative obviously indicates actions being taken.

It's called "reading comprehension", I suggest you check into it.

:)

Instead of hitting Robert, what if we just starting throwing rocks at his house? What would he do? Certainly he wouldn't protect his house, since that would be childish. He'd call the cops to protect his house and they'd come and protect it, by violence if necessary. So it ever is with the pacificists of the world, parasitically reaping the benefits of the protections offered--and yes, violence practiced--by others.

"The historical cliche is that of Neville Chamberlain, a fundamentally moral and honest man whose decisions were made with the best of intent in a vain attempt to avoid what was to be a horrible episode in human history."

... unless you accept the theory that part of his decision was a stall tactic while the Spitfire Warplane was being stockpiled - which at the least is an interesting tangent.

==

"It's good to know that instead of "Deutsch, or Japanese" we're now all speaking Spanish."

As von Braun could have stated, "In German, or English, I know how to count-down, and I'm learning Persian."

==

"Generally, spanking is something reserved for situations when all other acts of diplomacy with your child have failed."

I say all spanking does is get their attention - and sometimes that's needed.

==

" .. the practice of peace is ... is active and it is difficult .."

Sometimes spanking's needed does is get their attention.

==

"Amazing how "diplomacy" has become a diry word, with connotations of weakness and cowardice."

Amen. The head of NATO - General Someone from the Pentagon - said yesterday the War on Afganistan will not be won through military means - it's a hearts & minds thing.

But what does that guy know anyway.

Brian, your comment reminds me of Hollywood and high profile political advocates of gun control who have personal armed body guards.

JH,

I have no difficulty in anyone disputing, denying the validity of, or otherwise disagreeing with my written opinions.

But in the future I would suggest that if you intend to assume the credibility of being able to factually belittle what someone else writes, a good starting point would be the avoidance of misapplying context or PROJECTING UNSTATED INFERENCES into your critical analysis.

Ah, I see I've angered the child.

Didn't do anything other than expose your use of a distorted justification for your assertion.

See it as a learning experience in your quest for the nurturation of loyalty to the human race.

He-de-he.

James,

Many years ago I did a little background research on the "Spitfire Stall" theory.

I found it quite interesting but ultimately inconclusive.

Glad to see it mentioned though, no way to know for a certainty but it could serve to paint Chamberlain in a better light historically.

I respect Winston Churchill's accomplishments with a high degree of regard, and though it is a given that both men made their share of what would eventually be viewed as mistakes, I feel that historians in general have tended to over-glorify Churchill while overly condemning Chamberlain.

Leaving for the day, sincere wishes for a fantastic weekend to be enjoyed by my fellow bloggers.

You too Zhak, just putting you through the same mental exercises that I do with my new analysts.
I WANT them to not only disagree with me on occasion, but to often prove me wrong. Otherwise there'd be no need to hire them in the first place.

JH--

I see that you have left for the day but hope that you may log on later.

I have been trying to figure out why this conversation has gone so far off the track. Reading back, and correct me if I am wrong, it looks like I may have written something that you may have taken personally. Please understand that this was not my intention. There is no deep hidden meaning, no nefarious purpose, no desire to dispute, disparage, or denigrate. I do not know you, I do not pretend to know your background, your motivations, or your personal experience. I have no interest in being any kind of analyst, to disagree just for the sake of disagreement, or to assert my opinion as right or anyone else's opinion as wrong.

And yes, this is a learning experience in the nurturance of common understanding, compassion and respect for other human beings. But than aren't all of our interactions?

The title of the Counterpoint column is on target. So is this comment, "Peace demands loyalty to the human race rather than settling for defense of my nation, my personal desires, my little visions above all else. Well, who said it was going to be easy?"

Peace is not an easy thing to accomplish. Since the dawn of humanity, as noted by the writer, humans have been in conflict with one another. Bringing peace has been the difficult thing, conflict comes easy! How can that be from the creatures of God? Yet, for we humans peace is difficult. However, for the other species of nature, it comes more natural, co-existence without seeking total dominance over another.

I appreciate Robert's (Bob's) words. I personally know Bob and appreciate the insight that he provides on many topics/issues. While he and I have not totally agreed on everything. We do have basic commonalities in the concept of non-violence and peace. I only wish that people could meet Bob and interact with him before attacking the concepts that he present.

And as for throwing rocks at his house, I do not believe Bob has any fear in that happening. Nor do I have any reservations in Bob's handling of a situation like that, PEACEFUL!

Shalom

Zhak,

I'm trying this from a mobile laptop and with my opinion of "high-tech" being a chrome plated abacus I don't have a lot of faith in it's actually being posted.

There was no animosity in my previous posts directed towards you, although I feel that it probably seemed that way.

I'm a lot closer to eighty now than I care to admit, hard headed and set in my ways, stubborn to a fault but still capable of seeing promise in the members of younger generations.

I spent thirty years, first as a historical researcher and later as a department head, in the employ of a well known Defense Department subcontractor that is still actively involved in weapons system development, procurement and effectiveness analysis.

Here's the disjunction. All throughout those years, and carrying through to the present time, I remained at heart a pacifist with hopes for a basic attitudinal change to be effected within the hearts of humankind.

But I also remained a realist, aware that, tragic as it may, be there are individuals who will never live as anything other than hatefilled sadists in various positions of power throughout the world.

People of good and caring heart must first of all survive in order to bring about any worthwhile change. They must be prepared to stick by their values, promote peace, but also be willing to fight for that survival when it becomes necessary. The two concepts do not run counter to one another, yet there are times when peace can only be achieved through power, and although that may seem like a contradiction to a truly pacifistic outlook, the aforementioned neccesity must overcome in order to lay the framework for any future peace.

You used an invalid quote to buttress a statement. Big deal, but in order to be considered credible to people living in a violent world, anyone promoting the idea of a peaceful world community needs to realize just how drastic the concept is, and to take extra precaution to make every statement to that effect in the most inarguable manner possible.

So I made a conscious effort to taunt you in a condescending and insulting manner. I make no apologies for that, because you need to get used to it to the point of being immune from criticism of your fundamental beliefs. Keep your mind open to specifics of detail, and be pragmatic about the realities of political interaction, while at the same time working towards ideals, that while perhaps not attainable, are nevertheless well worth pursuing.

Been there, done that, and can vouch that it's a journey well spent.

This may not transmit and end up floating around the blogosphere for all eternity instead, and if so, oh well.

Jan & Zhak, you guys play nice or we will have to put you in separate intellectual sandboxes!!

Good weekend all, off to Smith Mtn. Lake to visit some friends and go boating.

"The effemination of of the US male society continues"...

Yes, and this mindset has bled over into our military to the point of being branded a 'paper tiger' by many fanatics in the world, and rightfully so. ugh.

Hugh and Neo,

Has either of you non-effeminate, non-girly men signed up to go into Iraq? You know, since you are such studs and all.

I’m guessing you are both La-Z-Boy Patriots. Chris Matthews on MSNBC has pointed out, on more than one occasion, that none of the prominent Neocons have experience in even a schoolyard fight.

Does this ring a bell, Hugh and Neo? Or, are you guys experienced with getting you butt’s kicked?

Folks who want to follow Jesus' command to love their enemies and that life in the Kingdom of God requires a committment to nonviolence, is welcome to worship with us:

www.ncymc.org

Not an issue, Steve.

Hugh,

If you want to engage in male posturing by claiming "The effiminization of the US male society continues", then it is an issue. It is one that YOU brought up.

I am simply trying to assess whether you are a brute or a Neo-con wimp who lives vicariously through other brutes.

Steve:

Are these the Brave American's you're talking about?

http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/index.html?s=entg2

You'll see an over lap here:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/lettersstatements.htm

Back at ya JDR!
http://youtube.com/watch?v=-icCLXcCNlA

Stevie, I will disregard my policy of not responding to snooty assholes and answer your question this time.

No, I have not signed up to go to Iraq. I am too old to do so. I also don't consider myself a "stud". However, I was drafted during the Vietnam conflict and was sent there.

I assure you I am not a "lazy-boy patriot" in spite of what the Jimmie Carter shill, Chris Mathews, points out to you. Ditto the limp wristed journalists who make up about 90% of the lamestream media that you so adore.

And I assure you sir/mam I have had my ass kicked several times. Some deservedly so, some not, but I never cut and run with the zeal that seems to be the hallmark of you liberals.

I've answered your question. Don't bother with the childish insults about my intelligence or education level either, I've heard and felt far worse that you or your limp handed friends can dish out.

What are your qualifications for judging someone's opinion on the military? Listening to Chris Mathews? lol lol

I'm through with you. Piss off, little man/woman, whatever.

I’m sorry this is the end of our exchanges, Neocon. In the short time we had together, you have accused me of being an Ivy League educated lawyer. You have indicted me for loving the “lamestream” media. And in your last response to me EVER, you called me a limp-wristed snooty asshole.

Even though your perceptions of my opinions, education and occupation are 100% wrong, I applaud your decision to get out of the fight. In this battle of wits, you are definitely out-gunned. Cut and run while you still can.

Give Jew4Jesus my love. I’m still waiting to hook up with that guy! (Wrist in limp position).

Keep guessing, Steve.

Excellent links JDR and Stevie D. And BTW, Stevie D, you are in good company. Most of us evil liberals have been drawn and quartered by neocon. You will have less stress in your life by taking his posts "with a grain of salt".

hugh,

The "effemination" of the male is not the problem with America. It is all the male chest-beating, posturing, gonad grabbing, testostrone induced thinking of the American male. History will support me on this one.

Glad someone else saw through ol "neoCON" and his illiterate rants.

neoCON,
Between your FOXNews and attending Klan and John Birch Society Meetings, how do you have time to assail those with brains?

I also know and respect the writer of the letter. He is truly a man who wants peace and works to achieve it. You don't have to agree with his view of the world, but I see no reason to belittle his beliefs.

I also need to add that this war thing is not working out as well as expected. Maybe peace and love would be worth a try.

Again, using my Quaker phrase; "That Friend (Stevie, Deacon, Carol, JDR, Progressive, jan, Robert) speaks my mind!"

Shalom

Carol,
The LTE writer is definitely a decent and genuine person. Isn't it amazing how the war mongering crowd (neoCON et al.) attack a peace loving and decent human being? Just like the schoolyard bullies, they believe in might first and being right second. Too bad that same ideology holds residence in our government.

Stevie D,
You "spanked" ol neoCAWN so badly that I doubt we hear from him for a while. On behalf of all intelligent folks who post here, a big "THANK YOU"! His unenlightened thoughts seem so warped and formed that I figure he must come from a home where he lived with unrelenting criticism and possibly even abuse. Hopefully, all those who will find it in their hearts, will pray for him and that he find some peace and love in this world.

Hey Carol, DD, Darryl, Stevie & whoever else. I personally didn't attack this writer & I'm sure his beliefs are sincere, albeit a bit idealistic in the world we inhabit today.

So I will respectully ask you again & appreciate a response. I will become a firm believer in the peace and love approach if someone can prove to me that it works with Islamic fanatics who want to kill us. Want something easier, please prove it works with everyday gang bangers in the US who will kill you for your sneakers. Anyone with the stats please?

Stevie asks Neocon if he would sign up to serve in Iraq if he believes in this cause, ignorant of the fact that Neocon is too old to serve and has already served. No matter how much you gang up on Neocon, you should thank him for his military service to our country.

If the war method doesn't work in Iraq, S. Lebanon or other terrorist hotbeds, please let me know which one of you is ready to visit these places with your message of peace and love. Your buddy Tom Fox did it, so why don't you guys if you are so convinced it will work?

Dan,

The "peace and love approach” is an invented talking point. Most bloggers here seem to realize that we must learn to peacefully co-exist with Muslim States. However, I don't know of any "liberal" blogger in here who advocates putting daisies in the rifle barrels of terrorists.

Your fake dilemma implies we have views that no one here has expressed. When you really dissect your argument, it really is nothing more than you saying, "Screw you hippies!"

True, I did not know Neocon was a veteran. I hate he had to endure Vietnam for such a useless cause. I appreciate the fact that he did what he felt was his duty. However, calling me ignorant implies that it is something I should have known or did not know due to lack of education. Ignorant can simply mean unaware. If that is all you were saying, then that’s cool.

What do I suggest we do? Aggressively pursue alternative fuels and get the Hell out of the Middle East as soon as we can. I don’t think we will be holding hands in the streets and singing Kumbaya with the Arabs any time soon. Bush has made sure of that. However, if we leave them alone and let them settle their own problems, we might be able to some day.

The author is a sincere believer in peace. I am too. Maybe you think he is too idealistic. What is wrong with that? I may be more rigid and pragmatic in my views. However, the author makes excellent points about really incorporating what we know, when attempting to come up with solutions.

Stevie, look back at Carol's last post, "maybe peace and love would be worth a try". So I'm not the one who invented the talking point, Carol did, so she most certainly expressed those views contrary to your statement. I asked the rest of you because you seem to be of the same persuasion, especially Darryl, a pacifist.

Again, I have no problem with peace and love, I experience that daily with my family and friends and enjoy it very much. I in no way implied anything about screw you hippies, I just asked a sincere question. I would like Carol or anyone else to explain how the peace and love approach will work with Islamic fanatics or even gangbangers. Still interested in an answer to that btw.

If you did not know Neo was a veteran then you were ignorant to that fact. Read my post again please. I in no way implied that you are an ignorant person.

No problem pursuing alternative fuels, we are in agreement 100% there. But....do you honestly think if we totally get out of the Middle East then Islamic fanatics will simply leave us alone? It may be worth a try, but I still doubt they will.

BTW, nothing wrong with the LTE writer being idealistic. I've just never seen where the pacifist approach worked with terrorists, didn't work too well for Tom Fox and his friends. So, I would be interested in an actual report of when this approach worked. That's all.

BTW, were you a hippie? I was a bit too young for that movement, but I remember my brother with his long hair and tie die T shirts. He's a conservative now, even more so then I.

"I would like Carol or anyone else to explain how the peace and love approach will work with Islamic fanatics or even gangbangers. Still interested in an answer to that btw."

You are just hell-bent on creating the illusion that you have posed a question that no one is willing to answer. Your question is leading and loaded in a way that attempts to tilt the argument in your favor. There is no way to answer that without affirming your view that we can only deal with terrorists through war OR peace. In reality, we will have to deal with them in both ways. Maybe we can seek peace as the obvious choice, and war as the last resort.

What examples do you have where dealing with terrorists violently has helped anything? Is it helping in Iraq or Chechnya? Where are your “stats” on that? Better yet, how could there be "stats" which back up or refute a subjective, non-scientific question?

Stevie, again it's no illusion my friend. My monitor shows Carol's post that states: "Maybe peace and love would be worth a try". Does your monitor show this too? My question isn't loaded, I just simply want to know how trying peace and love will help reduce terrorism. Plain & simple. If it works then I'm all for it.

I think we did deal with terrorists in both ways Stevie. We sought peace with them after the first World Trade Center bombing in '93, we protected Muslims in Bosnia, and we ignored the rest of their attacks against us, USS Cole, Kobar, Tanzania, etc. In all fairness, Bush was concerned more about stem cell research in the first 8 months of his term and didn't address terrorism either.

So what did the "peace" get us? 9/11.

I thought the foiled attempt to blow up 10 US airliners over the Atlantic would help convince a few more folks that there are radical Muslims who want to kill us. They don't give a rats ass if you are liberal, conservative, white, black, Catholic, Hindu, gay or straight. Simply being an infidel is sufficient. In fact, there would have certainly been Muslim deaths on those 10 planes, collateral damage I guess, but they don't care.

I fear it will take a few more 9/11 like events or something even worse for the peace lovers to realize that these people want to kill us and the only way to combat them is to catch them and lock them up or kill them. Peace and love is not in their dictionary.

Your Question:
"I just simply want to know how trying peace and love will help reduce terrorism."

My Answer:
Trying peace and love will naturally result in pushing for negotiations over fighting. If the Israelis did not realize that negotiations (trying peace and love) are usually more fruitful, why did they agree to a cease-fire with Hezbollah? How has every war ended eventually? Peace talks not Let’s Keep Fighting talks.

I really think you need to give up your crusade to get an “answer” to your question. It is loaded and you know it. I explained how in my last post. Your question implies disparities in our beliefs where none exist. We agree that peace is better than war. Likewise, most of us understand that war is sometimes a necessary evil. Let’s just leave it at that. I asked you for examples where making war on terrorists has helped anything. You have not answered that either. Let it go.

By the way, I am really enjoying this debate with you. You seem smart and capable of civil discussion. I just think you really should analyze how good/evil dualism affects your views on this issue.

Ok we'll leave it at that for now. Gotta go make a living today, maybe I'll join in tonight. Likewise enjoy the debate. Nice to have someone who can provide meaningful debate without launching bombs and excessive repetition of ideas not related to the thread.

To the Warmongers among us:

Did any of you catch General Barry McCaffery on Meet the Press Sunday? As a 4 star General, he said we need to take military options off the table in the middle east and work on negotiations! He also made the statement that Iran and N.Korea are going nuclear and we need to stop posturing and do some real negotiating. Wow! Imagine that!

Do Dan and others know more about this than General McCaffery? McCaffery also said that General Abazaid now felt Iraq was teetering on outright civil war----wow! Not what our President says.

As for "THANKING" neoCON for his service to our country, hell will freeze over.

Serving in our armed forces does NOT make one a hero. Performing heroic acts, makes one a hero, and can be acheived as a civilian as well as militarily.

Remember the last lines in the movie "A Few Good Men"??? Anyone?

"Remember the last lines in the movie "A Few Good Men"???? Anyone?"

Nope, don't remember them. Here they are:

Kaffee: "I'll pick you up at seven."
Jo: "What are you gonna do now?"
Kafee: "I'm gonna get started on Henry Williamson. Stand my post for awhile"

We have certainly seen alot of war and peace in this one.

I'm glad that we were not all together in a room;
who knows what might have erupted if we had weapons in our hand instead of letters on a keyboard. What I saw was:people not listening, people being defensive, people feeling that they were being taken out of context,people getting pissed off and putting each other down. One writer even wrote (hope this is contextually ok)
"So I made a conscious attempt to taunt you in a condescending and insultig manner" Wow!!! There was no other way to make your point. Who appointed you to be the teacher about how to cope with life's difficulties? I'm not as old as you are, but I've been there and done it too.
If you approached me that way, I would probably withdraw or write you from the safety of my computer as I am doing right now.

For any of us to call what the writer has suggested as being unrealistic or maybe as being in "la la land" is to commit to maintaining our current course of action: bombs,cluster bombs, bullets, guns, missles, blood, loss, grieving and all the good things that war and power bring to us like freedom and autonomy and maybe the right to tell other people what is best for them.

I respect our military and all the veterans who write here. Thank you for giving me the freedom to write this email. I wish that piece was as vehemently sought after as was war as a solution so that you might not have gone through the horrors which I know you went through.

While we may need to maintain a military force, the author's suggestions give us a concurrent course of action as well--I don't think that they are mutually exclusive.

Sorry DD, didn't catch the general on Sunday, I was out burning Iranian oil on my boat.

DD: "As for "THANKING" neoCON for his service to our country, hell will freeze over."

No further comment needed.

Signed, Dan the warmonger.