The Fog of Peace

The Weekly Standard ^ | 09/30/2002 | David Brooks

[joeyman]

Mr Brooks, it's easy to argue for war when you can't see yourself doing the dying.

And remember Mr. Brooks, the real beneficiaries of this evolution (should it go as planned) will be the narrow business interests who will receive contracts based on the reconstruction of Iraq and the extraction of it's oil. All of this will be paid for of course by US Taxpayers, either directly or through front organizations such as the IMF, World Bank, UN, etc.

[diode]

Great article. Although I usually disregard these leftist "thinkers" with an irreverent snort, I really would enjoy making sport of them more if the issue was not so important. It irks me when this is the same crowd which flamed the administration for having failed to prevent the 911 attack, and yet now wants nothing to do with pre-emptive action in Iraq. And I have no doubt that these same parochial peace-baiters, if Clinton were still in office, would lift their fog bleat clearly the case against Sadam.

[The Great Satan]

Superb article.

[moneyrunner]

”Mr Brooks, it's easy to argue for war when you can't see yourself doing the dying. “

A vacuous comment. And typical leftist drivel and moral posturing. Given the size of the military, not one person in 100 is involved in the military. The idea no civilians can support the use of armed force is bizarre.

But to make you feel better; it’s entirely possible that American civilians will die in this war. About 3000 have perished already. If we allow it, thousands – perhaps millions - more will join them in death. The enemy has brought the battlefield here. Try, please, not to think in clichés.

”And remember Mr. Brooks, the real beneficiaries of this evolution (should it go as planned) will be the narrow business interests who will receive contracts based on the reconstruction of Iraq and the extraction of it's oil. All of this will be paid for of course by US Taxpayers, either directly or through front organizations such as the IMF, World Bank, UN, etc.”

Evolution??? David Brooks was writing about YOU!

The real beneficiaries of this new war will be the men, women and children not murdered in the next terrorist attack. The real beneficiaries of this war will be the Iraqis freed from the tyranny of the megalomaniac running that blighted land. The real beneficiaries will be the citizens of the other countries in the Middle East who will have an opportunity to overthrow their own oil glutted oligarchs and mad mullahs.

All that drivel about “narrow business interests” reminds me of the tree hugger who, as millions of acres were blackened by fire, took comfort in the fact that no lumber company had made money by thinning the forest and preventing the fires.

[joeyman]

It's absolutely hysterical that anyone who opposes war is a leftist.

When the govt stops funding, sheparding, and encouraging illegal aliens to come to our shores, when they remove those same aliens from the US and delete their drivers lisc, welfare payments, social security payments and voter registration, when they start to control our boarders, when they stop trying to centralize federal power, stop sending all our industrial businesses overseas (because overregulation makes it impossible to compete for US constructed products) when we stop buying oil from Sadam to finance his operations, then I would believe that the govt is waging an effective war on terrorism. If the war is here, what are we doing there? (And THANKS for the condecending comments - it really elevates the discussion).

[okie01]

"Mr Brooks, it's easy to argue for war when you can't see yourself doing the dying. Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera...ad infinitum."

Your comments proving, once again, the old adage: you can lead a liberal to the truth, but you can't make him drink.

Brooks was writing about you, y'know. Perhaps, a little introspection would be in order.

This time around, the question of war and peace is clearly a case of "you bet your life" -- whether you're in the military or a civilian. But you can't really see yourself dying for...well, anything, can you? Not for freedom, certainly. Nor for "peace"...

[okie01]

"If the war is here, what are we doing there?"

One might say, taking the war to the enemy rather than hunkering down and waiting for him to kill some more Americans. A less charitable observer might say "what we are doing there is...saving your butt."

Given the pig-headedness demonstrated (e.g., "the real beneficiaries of this evolution -- should it go as planned -- will be the narrow business interests who will receive contracts based on the reconstruction of Iraq and the extraction of it's oil), I should think the "condescending comments" are totally in order.

[joeyman]

Sir, I am not a liberal. Opposing a war doesn't make you a liberal.

[joeyman]

One might say, taking the war to the enemy rather than hunkering down and waiting for him to kill some more Americans.

But I thought they were already here, their sleeper cells are already here, their weapons of mass destruction are already here.

If those facts are true (and I believe they are, specficially since every govt spokemans who talks about this issue says, "It's not if but when...) then regardless of what we do overthere...we will reap the whirlwind. We need to concentrate on this issue domestically and stop adventuring overseas.

[okie01]

"Sir, I am not a liberal. Opposing a war doesn't make you a liberal."

You are correct, sir. Accordingly, I shall correct the source of your offense:

Your comments proving, once again, the old adage: you can lead a liberal Populist to the truth, but you can't make him drink.

The rest stands.

[okie01]

"We need to concentrate on this issue domestically and stop adventuring overseas."

In order to effectively obtain national security, we need to do both!

Why kill the drones...and leave the queen?

Your reference to "adventuring", by the way, places you squarely in the third branch of parochialists, as described by Brooks.

[rdb3]

[Long Cut]

Post #6 is EXACTLY what the author was speaking about. You mention a litany of subjects about which YOU think the government should be doing something, until which time it has no business fighting a war elsewhere.

Sounds exactly like the Democrats who are desperate to get the war off the front pages and talk down the economy once again. It is also just as selfish and short-sighted.

Yet again, we have someone who is comfortable gambling with American lives. Oh, and the "buisiness interests" comments are classic Leftist. But I guess the two concepts go very well together.

[okie01]

"But I thought they were already here, their sleeper cells are already here, their weapons of mass destruction are already here.

"If those facts are true (and I believe they are, specficially since every govt spokemans who talks about this issue says, "It's not if but when...) then regardless of what we do overthere...we will reap the whirlwind."

So, you do believe that we have already been infiltrated. And, it is likely, already attacked (e.g., anthrax).

And your solution to this state of affairs is to succumb to the blackmail?

Or, at most, to disarm his thugs...but leave the blackmailer be?

That would be, you realize, only making it worse?

Think, man, think about what you've just said.

[rdb3]

Don't hold back, Cut. Tell us how you really feel.

[Long Cut]

Whether or not YOU oppose the war, Sir, it has already been started. Our only options are total victory or abject defeat and surrender.

It is a little late for "opposition". Your options are to help win it or remain respectfully out of the way of those who will. Right OR Left, any "opposition" aids our enemies, regardless of the intention. Willful ignorance and selfish apathy will NOT decrease the threat.

[Nick Danger]

I am not a liberal. Opposing a war doesn't make you a liberal.

No, from your comments I would say that you are at that place on the far side of the circle where the left and right meet. You are to the right of Buchanan and to the left of Cynthia McKinney. You went around the right side, and so do not perceive yourself a leftist. Many who espouse the same opinions came around on the left side, and they don't think they are conservatives.

You are, though, guilty of being what Mr. Brooks was talking about: parochial. For you, it's all about what happens here. But you haven't really thought that through, either.

What could happen here is that an atomic bomb could go off about five miles from my house. That's about how far the White House is from where I'm sitting right now. I worry about this, as do many residents of this area. New Yorkers probably worry about it as well. And if the people in L.A. and San Francisco don't, they probably should.

You cannot convince me that you can keep that from happening with any amount of Border Control short of a full-blown police state. Hell, we have native-born Americans going off to al-Qa'ida training camps now. How to deal with that? Are native-born citizens now to get permits to travel from city to city?

You're full of slogans, but no answers. Meanwhile, the danger grows every day that I'm going to wake up to a bright flash, and die a split-second later. Not willing to die in a war? Not that way, I'm not.

[joeyman]

Oh longcut knock it off. I went round and round with you on this weeks ago and I see no point in repeating it.

[joeyman]

Your comments proving, once again, the old adage: you can lead a Populist to the truth, but you can't make him drink

I can live with that label. I'm a live and let live kind of guy though, so libertarian would be closer to the truth. (OK I voted for Bush and I am a Republican - but that doesn't obligate me to support their policies when they do something stupid.)