« Couldn’t find Wizards game | Main | True cost of war »

November 16, 2007

Military might not the way

Seems once again we’ve hitched our wagon to a falling star. Our insistence on military might over the will of the people will eventually garner us a place along with other empires that lost their principles to greed and fear.

Supporting dictators only underscores our unwillingness to face the fact that our way isn’t always the best way. Pakistan’s President Pervez Musharraf refuses, not unlike others inside our own government, to even engage in dialog with anyone he perceives as a threat to his own power, dismissing them as terrorists or worse.

As long as we stay this course, there will be no victory and only countless dead, maimed and homeless left in our wake.

J. Hall
Overland Park

Comments

BuddyT

OH, just wanted to make sure I had it right. The "cow bird" is parasitic isn't laying its eggs in the nests of other birds, making the hosts of those nests do the hatching for them??? I mean this is the "leftist socialist" of all birdom is it not?


Yeah, I think that is the "true blue cow bird"......sucking it's existence off those who produce.....

True Blue indeed............

BuddyT

I just read some "driveling blather" written by "true blue cow bird", rather amusing I must say.....

Man they don't like it when you call them on their stupidity do they? lmao.....

Rock on Cow Bird, can't wait for the next lame a$$ post...

Engineer

jack
"After all it was Obama who said we should bomb them if they don't do what we want." I heard him make the statement on which this comment is based. The statement was rash and unthinking and was not well considered but neither I nor his statement said anything about nuclear bombs.

Engineer

jack
You will note that I did not say "Democrat Party". What I wrote was "Democrat Congress". They are Democrats and they are in Congress so I see nothing wrong with the appellation. I could of course have said 'Those members of the Democratic Party serving in Congress" but that does seem a little much. And to complain about the use of "Democrat" on a blog on which you yourself have posted much rougher language and on which our President is routinely insulted and lied about by others seems a little excessive. As to alliances with bad guys, it is one thing to work with a Country when you have mutual enemies, it is another to ally yourself with the terrorist and/or murder down the street when you are likely to become the next victim after the problem at hand has been disposed of.

jack

eng: After carefully re-reading my post, I fail to find a place where I said anything about any political party. I voiced my personal belief about the situation which is based on what I have read in several different places with several different slants.

BTW: Out of my respect for you I must say that I see a couple parts of your post as beneath you.

The first is the twisted repetition of what some far right wing talking heads claim Obama meant when he made his statement regarding the use of nuclear weapons. If you read what he said in total, and ignore the "spin", you will discover this statement is not reality based.

Also, I am equally sure you understand that the name of the group you are talking about is the "Democratic" party. The dropping of the "ic" from the end of the word by so many on the right is a focuss group generated attempt to make the name of this group sound like a slur.

IMO: Some of the politicians who say "Democrat Party", along with many of the talking heads and others who do the same, are probably so ignorant as to believe this is correct pronunciation. I have more respect for you than to believe you are one of these functional illiterates. Bastardizing the name of an organization in an attempt to slur anyone you disagree with is (again IMO) beneath you.

As to the statement that no moderate would ever make common cause with truly bad folks, history is full of just such "deals with the devil". The US itself has done this many times, including with the murderous Stalin. They will convince themselves that they can haave a positive impact on the group they make cause with but, once they decide that Musharref must go, they will make the deal.

The question there for is what can we do to help those most likely to be beneficial to our interests in the coming over throw of Musharref?

Engineer

jack
I don't follow. We are talking to people in Pakistan and doing out best to see that armed conflict is avoided. And I can't see how the Democrats will or would do any better. After all it was Obama who said we should bomb them if they don't do what we want. We cannot direct President Musharref's actions, we can only advise and suggest. And I cannot see how true moderates could, under any circumstances, ally themselves with either al Qaeda or the Taliban. As for No More, no one said that Saddam was directly involved with 9/11. And a majority of the Democrat Congress voted for the use of force against him. He did sponsor terror and he was bent on dominating the region. Bitter as it seems to be to some. Progress has been made in Iraq. If P&R don't succeed in their efforts to bring about defeat, to which they seem committed, a stable Iraq may yet be attained.

jack

kcstar: Here is the problem. Supporting Musharref while only paying lip service to the moderates in Pakistan only helps the Taliban and Al Qaeda in the long run. Why? Because without some help from us, the moderates can A) accept the right wing dictatorship of Musharref or B) cut a "deal with the devil" in the form of the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

Of course the problem with this is that it can not be solved by bumper sticker foreign policy. No "my way or the high way" is going to work here. To get where we would be best off would require nuance. It would require talking to people who don't necessarily agree with us in advance. I know this is anathema to the true believers, but there it is.

One thing we have going for us is the top generals of the Pakistani government. Why? Despite them having cut deals with the Islamists on one side and are supposedly taking orders from Musharref on the other, they have a BIG stake in keeping the Islamists out. What is the stake they have? Their heads. They are the kind of folks that people like the Taliban/Al Qaeda enjoy making 6 to 8 inches shorter when they have the chance.

And why do we need these generals? Because they control Pakistan's nukes. We want those nukes under tight control. They want to keep their heads. Should be a fairly easy negotiation if we lower ourselves to actually talking to them.

Musharref is on the way out. The question is who/what will replace him. We can make alliance with those most likely to be the ones we prefer, or we can take what we get. The stakes are much too high to just take what we get.

Now, let's have the far right true believers tell us all about how we should just invade them too.

Chris40

J. Hall and his ilk are such morons they don't even deserve a response. Just keep donating to moveon.org, J., so you and your democrat buddies can put out some more General Betrayus ads.

kcstar_is_one_sided

In regards to Pakistan(which this letter is about) I asked this in another column about Pakistan and got no responses. People sure like to complain, but they have no realistic alternative.

So what are our options on Pakistan?
Who do we support?

I understand when there is a difference of opinion, however, I just don't understand why there is all the complaining about Bush and the support for Pakistan when any Democratic President would do the exact same thing.

NoMoreMrNiceGuy

Just wait until the socialist government of ours starts in on us. All of the brainwashed, brain numb idiots will do nothing. I am a veteran and can say I would not "serve" unless MY country was threatened. There were ZERO Iraqis involved in 9/11. Why people can not fess up to this and see the facts. Funny how the majority of the terrorists were in fact Saudi.

truebluehawk

Well said, J. Hall. Why the neocons in power in D.C. can't see past their noses is beyond me. A fairly well-educated middle school student would have been able to project some of the problems we've created for ourselves by starting the war in Iraq and "stying the course" to an undefined end.

Now, let's just wait for BuddyT to roll out of bed and fill the page with his driveling blather. He probably needs to pop a few Advil first to cure the hangover blues. Go for it, Buddy. I'll check your posts tomorrow and enjoy a few laughs.

 
About KansasCity.com | About the Real Cities Network | Terms of Use & Privacy Statement | About Knight Ridder | Copyright