Skip to comments.
Lee Harris : A Modest Proposal to End the War on Terrorism
Tech Central Station ^
| March 25, 2004
| Lee Harris
Posted on 03/24/2004 11:08:24 PM PST by quidnunc
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-33 next last
1
posted on
03/24/2004 11:08:25 PM PST
by
quidnunc
To: Tolik
FYI
2
posted on
03/24/2004 11:08:50 PM PST
by
quidnunc
(Omnis Gaul delenda est)
To: quidnunc
Bush will have earlier issued a statement that, at this dangerous juncture in history, there can be no hint of a partisan divide on our nations' approach to the problem of terrorism; and that it is imperative that any proposal coming from the current administration will be backed one hundred percent by the opposition party.
Wakey, wakey, you've had a dream my friend!
3
posted on
03/24/2004 11:13:48 PM PST
by
EGPWS
To: quidnunc
I read the article and still think the guy is delusional.
4
posted on
03/24/2004 11:19:22 PM PST
by
GeronL
(http://www.ArmorforCongress.com......................Send a Freeper to Congress!)
To: EGPWS
"Wakey, wakey, you've had a dream my friend!"
5
posted on
03/24/2004 11:19:26 PM PST
by
DeuceTraveler
((fight terrorism, give your local democrat a wedgie))
To: quidnunc
So, in a nutshell, the only "solution" is to cave in to the terrorists and let them have free reign across an entire region that controls most of the world's oil supplies.
Fat chance.
6
posted on
03/24/2004 11:21:19 PM PST
by
Prime Choice
(Hm? No, my powers can only be used for Good.)
To: quidnunc
That's pretty good, in fact *chuckle*
It's obviously nothing more than a mental exercise, but the question is, what coherent argument could even the most peaceful dove or committed liberal make to the logic here?
I know, I know. They feel no obligation whatsoever to make coherent arguments to defend their positions. But they can usually be baited into faking one. I really am curious how they'd attempt to argue this guy's point.
Qwinn
7
posted on
03/24/2004 11:21:30 PM PST
by
Qwinn
To: quidnunc
Dear Mr. Harris. I have another modest proposal. I propose we NUKE MECCA and get this boil lanced for good. God knows how to sort things out, I believe!
To: quidnunc
Didn't make it all the way through the proposal, but as long as we end up killing all of them, then I am for it.
9
posted on
03/24/2004 11:27:39 PM PST
by
sixmil
To: quidnunc
bttt
10
posted on
03/25/2004 1:00:32 AM PST
by
lainde
(Heads up...We're coming and we've got tongue blades!!)
To: quidnunc; .cnI redruM; yonif; SJackson; monkeyshine; dennisw; Alouette; AdamSelene235; ...
11
posted on
03/25/2004 5:29:42 AM PST
by
Tolik
12
posted on
03/25/2004 5:30:37 AM PST
by
Tolik
To: quidnunc
This approach cannot work for another reason familiar to anyone who has ever tried to refute a mind-number robot (or mASSachusetts liberal) with facts. ANY kind of rational negotiation of issues has to assume some level of rationality and good faith on both sides. There is and has been absolutely no evidence of such good faith on the part of any of the terrorists or terrorist organizations. They are NOT fighting for a settlement but for extermination of the other side.
To: quidnunc
Look at the end of the article and who publishes his books. Free Press - the same outfit that published Clarke's book. Controlled by Viacom. This is what he looks like -
14
posted on
03/25/2004 5:47:12 AM PST
by
7thson
(I think it takes a big dog to weigh a 100 pounds.)
To: NHResident
I think he said what you are saying.
Otto von Bismarck could have done such a thing. We probably can't. And yet by simply contemplating such a scenario it becomes instantly clear why the crisis we are facing is so different from any crisis in our past. Every war in our past could, in theory, have been capable of a solution had we been simply willing to give up enough to those who were our enemies. Had we abandoned the Pacific to the Japanese, that would have appeased them; had we kept out of the European war, Hitler would have been fine with us. Had Wilson simply accepted the German sinking of our ships on the high seas, as William Jennings Bryan had urged, we would have never gotten involved in the First World War.
In our current situation, however, the mere willingness to yield to the demands of the enemy is not enough to bring about a definitive solution, simply because while we have enemies, they are not even close to being organized enough to constitute something that we could plausibly call the enemy. Indeed, let us suppose that, instead of trying to open negotiations, we simply decided to flat out surrender. To whom would we surrender? And if we surrendered to terrorist group A, how could we be sure that we were not thereby embroiling ourselves in a war with terrorist group B, who might decide to insist that we surrender to them instead, and to underscore this insistence with terror strikes of their own?
As long as a handful of people in the Muslim world believe that they have a grievance against us, and are willing to use terror to express this grievance, it will be impossible for us either to achieve a negotiated solution to the problem of terrorism, and equally impossible for us even to surrender. This means that even the most peace-loving dove must accept the fact that we have no choice but to fight -- and to fight with whatever weapons come to our hand. Either that, or just to stop caring when hundreds or thousands of human beings are brutally murdered for no reason at all.
15
posted on
03/25/2004 5:55:17 AM PST
by
Tolik
To: 7thson
I take it you don't touch and don't watch ANYTHING that comes out from Viacom? And you make judgment about a book without reading it? If I interpreted your words wrongly, please accept my apologies.
16
posted on
03/25/2004 6:00:01 AM PST
by
Tolik
To: Prime Choice
Quoting Mr. Harris for you:
This means that even the most peace-loving dove must accept the fact that we have no choice but to fight -- and to fight with whatever weapons come to our hand. Either that, or just to stop caring when hundreds or thousands of human beings are brutally murdered for no reason at all.
Does it sound like surrender?
17
posted on
03/25/2004 6:05:40 AM PST
by
Tolik
To: quidnunc
Why cant your post whole story instead of just a tease?
To: Libertarianize the GOP
Libertarianize the GOP wrote:
Why cant your post whole story instead of just a tease?Because according to federal copyright law it would be illegal to do so.
19
posted on
03/25/2004 11:54:22 AM PST
by
quidnunc
(Omnis Gaul delenda est)
To: quidnunc
I am sure you have heard of fair use, which many legal scholars believe covers the posting of whole articles for the purpose of discussion. If Mr Robinson had lots of money we would most assuredly have had the courts agree. At this time only articles covered by the consent decree and a few others that Mr Robinson has agreed to can't be posted in their entirety.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-33 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson