11 Comments to 'Those macho liberals'
Subscribe to comments with RSS
:: Trackbacks/Pingbacks ::
No Trackbacks/Pingbacks
Those macho liberals
Posted By katie allison granju
I was visiting with some friends last night, one of whom attends the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church. She happened to be absent from Sunday’s services, but is obviously very shaken up by everything that happened.
Anyway, we were chatting, and she said that she’s just so proud of the men who took down the shooter, saying that whatever misconceptions people may have about “non-violent progressives like us,” when the moment came for courage under fire - literally - those guys did what had to be done.
Without guns or any weapons - and without any hesitation - three or more men of the church rose from their seats and tackled the bad guy. With their bare hands. And they then showed incredible restraint by not proceeding to beat the heck out of the guy. Instead, they held him until authorities arrived.
The message? Don’t mess with the men of “the liberal movement.”
Jul 30th, 2008
Actually, the actions of the brave men that took down the shooter shows that our instincts to defend ourselves and others is stronger than any notion of pacifism. If anything, this is an advocacy of protecting our rights to defend ourselves … by whatever means a person may choose, to include firearms. Or not. It should be our choice.
Wait … why does that sound so familiar? Hmmm ….
The actions of the church members are fully congruent with pacifism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacifism
In the true spirit of another Tennesee pacifist Alvin York
Yes. In the words of another famous Tennessean (Davy Crockett):
“Be sure you are right and then go ahead. (or something like that).
If George W. Bush had listened to Davy and taken it to heart, we would not be in this Iraq mess right now and Osama bin Laden might well be dead.
The problem with the right wing conservatives in this country is that they forget Davy’s famous saying and operate according to the old maxim known as:
“Shoot first and ask questions later.” This is what we did with Iraq. This is what Jim Adkisson did down at the church.
I know because back in 2001 no one on this planet was more white hot to go to war against Iraq than I was. If Bush and Cheney were not going to do it, by damn get out the way and let Aulder Guy start it first. It didn’t matter much to me whether they did or did not have WMD. I had nothing but 9/11 on my mind and hanging Saddam. It did not matter to me how many Arabs died (as long as it was in the 100,000s plus) or whether those Arabs really had any personal cupability in 9/11. I just needed some Arab blood and plenty of it.
Looking back on it, I was wrong. I repent in sack cloth and ashes. However, I am glad that Saddam is gone.
Well Well Well you all just could not wait with your BDS (Bush derangement syndrome) to make this about GW First of all Saddam had WMD’s and used them on his on people…… they just sent the last 200 tons are so of weapon grade uranium to Canada this past week from Iraq . It is kill AQ types over there are over here its your choice. if you have not been listening your man Obama he is just going to switch battlefields what’s the diff we invaded both countries. were your argument. If it is because the attack on 9-11 came from there …. wrong the hi-jackers were Saudis
There is no mess over there we have them on the run they have lost we have won…. the only mess is what the media would have you believe We did not win WW2 in a few years and we wont win this world war in a few years. yea we are in a world war these people…they are out to kill us… it is convert are die there is no middle ground there is no talking..;… you on the left need to wake up They keep telling you this and you don’t listen what part of wipe Israel off the map don’t you understand
Well Spanky. I have a hard time understanding your post, what with all the broken sentences and English. They did have WMD at one time—but not when we invaded. Enriched uranium by itself would not count as WMD because it is not weaponized.
Yes, It appears that the surge has worked. I was actually in favor of the surge but doubted that it would work. I just hope it holds together and keeps them at bay until the Iraqis can patch up all of their internal differences and petty feuds.
I think the “…fight Al Qaeda (AQ) over there or over here…” argument is a little empty. There may be 1000 AQ nuts who cannot afford a plain ticket to the United States but can afford a bus ticket to Syria and then across the border into Iraq to kill our guys. However, and this is the important part, it takes only the tiniest handful of that 1000 nutcases (maybe 10 people) who can afford an airline ticket or ship stowaway to the United States. Those are the people who will pop us again, and it will happen again whether we have the U.S. Army in Iraq for 100 years or get out tomorrow. There will be another September 11, despite all of our attempts at security.
Frankly, I am expecting Osama bin Laden to try one last and very dramatic time to “get us” before November 2 of this year. I think he will want to be able to say to the whole world:
“Aha!!! You thought you were safe. You spent all of those billions of dollars on homeland security. You thought you were killing us all off in Iraq and Afghanistan. You sent your sons and daughters to be killed like dogs. You nearly bankrupted your country. You led the whole world into an economic recession to boot. And now look at you!!! We got you again today, and we really got you good!!! See? We can reach out and get you anytime we like, and there is nothing you can do about it!!! And you too infidel Bush!!! Aha-ha-ha-ha-ha!!!!”
Well, for guys like Bin Laden and Zawahiri, being able to do that and say that in the waning months of the Bush administration would be a temptation just too big to pass up. It would be like putting a fresh steak in front of a starving dog and expecting him not to go for it.
Intuitively, and it is just strictly intuition on my part, I think we all need to be very watchful over the next 3 months because it may be a very dangerous time for our country—more so than usual for the reason stated above.
Aulder guy Sorry I’m not a English Major Never had the money to go to college. Went to the school of hard knocks was A captain/Paramedic in the Knoxville fire Dept for 15 years. Did the best I could sorry if I didn’t live up to your standards.
If you think we are fighting just to kill a few AQ types you are not getting the big picture we are fighting the whole Musilm world, when the towers fell they all danced in the streets, when the Hellicopters went down in Somalia they danced in Iran and Syria. You said it your self there will be another 9-11 this time it might be nucular You want to take that chance New York, Atlanta LA, KC, Dallas,
Yes there is something we can do . We have not played all out full United States Military War fare The last two wars we have only “played regional” war we have not used all our might all our troops people don’t realize the full strengh of this great nation we have not been pushed in a corner I hope it won’t come to that But I’m afraid it is headed to that… the muslims Are crazy
The reason 9/11 happened was because Osama bin Laden believed that the US was a “paper tiger.” Based on a whole series of events:
- the taking of American embassy in Iran under Jimmy Carter
- the bombing of the Marines in Lebanon under Reagan
- the failure to take out Saddam under George H.W. Bush
- the infamous “Black Hawk Down” incident and subsequent withdrawl under Clinton
- the first bombing of the World Trade Center under Clinton
- the bombing of the Khobar Towers under Clinton
- the failure to be willing to risk anything more than planes to the fight in the Balkans under Clinton
- the bombing of the aspirin factory under Clinton
- the attack on the USS Cole under Clinton
…bin Laden recognized a 20+ year pattern of American inaction even in the face of direct attacks. Given the accelerated number of attacks under Clinton, the increasing “up tempo” of operations during the 90s with zero or, at best, wholly ineffective responses, there was no reason for bin Laden *NOT* to plan 9/11….Except that he hadn’t planned on George Bush being unlike the presidents who had gone before him.
Unlike preceding presidents (and I even include Reagan and the first Bush in this list), this president recognized that this “war” didn’t start on 9/11 - it was just the latest in the long line of heretofore unanswered attacks on this country. And bin Laden was only a symptom of the disease - he wasn’t the source.
Whether it was bin Laden or Saddam, both of these people sought to build their mythical “Caliphate” in their own way. Saddam, using the levers of power afforded by being the head of an oil-rich nation; bin Laden by using the levers of power at the head of a terrorist organization like al-Qaeda.
What those on the opposite side of the aisle fail to admit is that WMD was only one in a long list of reasons that Bush gave for the need to go to war against Iraq. (If you really want to make this all about the WMD, we can. But we all know that’s a phony argument to make because it conveniently ignores everything else. But to the extent you want to continue down that road we can absolutely talk about the findings of enriched uranium, the possession of the ability to resume a nuclear program within 6 months, the breakdown of sanctions, etc.)
At the end of the day, what was important about the decisions to go into Iraq and Afghanistan was that it showed that America finally understood that it was at war - that we would no longer just take attack after attack without recognizing that whether it be the Islamofascism of Saddam Hussein or that of Osama bin Laden, America would strike back - with devasting power and efficiency.
The argument that attacking Iraq and Afghanistan hasn’t made us safer is plainly false on its face. We have gone 7 years now without an attack. Just look back on the litany of attacks I started this comment with and remember one thing:
*In the previous 20 years, we had not gone 7 years without a single attack even once.* *Not once*
As far as repeating the “bogeyman” argument that we “would have gotten bin Laden if only…”. Aulder Guy has no proof of this other than his own supposition, and even less to back it up. All information at the moment shows that bin Laden is, and has been, hiding out in the tribal regions of Pakistan (provided he’s still alive at all). It *sounds* great that we should “go in and get them”, except that it completely ignores the fact that Pakistan is a nuclear nation and would be able to retaliate with nuclear weapons. Unless Aulder Guy is willing to sacrifice New York or Los Angeles or even some city in India to get one single guy, then Aulder Guy is just using political “talking points” and not thinking seriously about the subject.
Aulder Guy’s argument that bin Laden will try again before the election is no more valid than any argument that says he, or any other Islamofascist, wouldn’t love to strike us on our soil on any day at any time. The fact that they have thus far been unable to do so is remarkable, and a true testament to those who are charged with preventing such attacks.
Does that mean that no attack is possible? Of course not, but the policies favored by Aulder Guy make them *more* likely, not less. Handcuffing our military as well as intelligence and investigative agencies with all sorts of restrictions and threats of budget cuts from the politically correct nanny-staters is not a recipe for success in the greater war effort.
Jim, Thats what I was trying to say you said it better. The press keeps this lie up about how how military is spread to thin it is just a scare tactic the United States Military is so far ahead of every one else it is unbelivible. The mulim armys have bad morale prolems even when armed with the latest weapons they will cower instead of fight . The Iranian Army would fall in ten days when attacked just like Iraq they have no stomach for the fight when fighting for the mulluhs. We can kill them at such a rate even if they chose to fight it would be useless. With are updated combat systems we can kill 100,000 a day with out nucular weapons we have not put the full use of are air and naval and marine air forces to use in a conflict with the new and deadly systems you talk about the libs crying crying and nashing of thier theeth remember the road of death at the end of the first gulf war well multiply that by 10,000
I would agree that the problem of Iran and their aspirations has yet to be addressed, and that the next president will face the tough task of doing so if we are to “finish the job.” (Saudi Arabia and their brand of Wahabbi Islam is another issue, but we can’t put the political and economic pressure on them that we would need to apply so long as they are the regional counterweight to belligerents such as Iran and Syria. The good news is that it is likely that military pressure would likely be unnecessary in acting against Saudi Arabia due to their international financial entanglements and our own ability to achieve energy independence should we ever develop the national will to do so. So first things first.)
The problem with Iran is less one of military strength than it is:
1) They have no internal refining capacity. Despite their huge oil reserves, they have to import all of their gasoline. Simply disrupting the pipelines would effectively incapacitate their entire army as well completely cripple an economy already teetering on the brink.
2) The mullahs are not supported by the vast majority of the population. (Their “elections” are no more credible than those of Saddam Hussein in Iraq and Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe) My last information shows that some 70% of the population is under the age of 30, and they are growing increasingly restless about the strict Muslim laws and the inept management of the economy by the ruling theocracy.Before we attacked Iran militarily, the introduction of special forces to work with natural centers of internal resistance might force internal regime change without the need for armed confrontation.
3) Their true strength is not in their armed forces, but in their support of Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Palestine and providing the financial underpinnings for the government in Syria. Putting more pressure on their ability to fund such organizations through financial sanctions and blockading oil shipments (thereby crippling their operating efficiency and ability to fund retaliatory strikes as well as possibly leading to regime change in Syria) would be a necessary prerequisite to any action against Iran.
There are all sorts of ways to act against Iran without even involving an all-out frontal assault, and - if it came to that - I think we would consider one or all of these alternatives (as well as others I haven’t even mentioned) before committing our brave men and women to the fight.
Do I believe that the current Democratic nominee has the stomach for this kind of heavy lifting? Absolutely not. His solution was to get out of Iraq before the job was done. Whether or not he supported the initial invasion, sound strategic vision required doing what was necessary to finish the job. To this day, he says he would still oppose doing that, which gives me absolutely zero confidence that he even understands the nature of the overall conflict at all.
Obama says we need to “negotiate” with the mullahs. Negotiations only work if both sides operate in good faith, and the Iranians are insistent that they will never give up their nuclear aspirations, so there’s nothing to negotiate. For our side, our only goal is the safety of American citizens and that cannot be negotiated either. So there’s nothing left to talk about. Either the Iranians will or will not change course and our next president will or will not do something about it. And there’s no reason to believe Obama is the guy for the job.
Weren’t we talking about brave Unitarians?