Mutually Assued Destruction? Yeah, I'll Have Some of That!

[roo_ster]

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/podhoretz/1340

1. Some folks make the assumption that other cultures are full of little brown/black/yellow/white folks who, if given half a chance, will show that they are all not brown/black/yellow/white, but Red, White, & Blue Americans on the inside.  Providing evidence to the contrary will only bring accusations of racism.

2. Still others make the assumption that our motivations, (life, liberty, prosperity) are held by all and that other cultures will not act "irrationally" in ways to jeopardize them.

3. Some few actually read  what other write and listen to what others say, and come to the conclusion that the above contentions are a fantasy and the holders are advocating faith-based foreign policy.

Examples that exhibit tendency #1 is Norman Podhoretz's book World War IV: The Long Struggle Against Islamofascism.  He acknowledges the threat, but insists that the route to success is turning the middle east into a bunch of liberal, democratic states.  He does this, despite familiarity with quotations such as the following:

We do not worship Iran, we worship Allah. For patriotism is another name for paganism. I say let this land [Iran] burn. I say let this land go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world.

If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession . . . application of an atomic bomb would not leave anything in Israel, but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world.

As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map

We see examples of #2 on APS regularly, "What, you think Iran will come & invade?...If they set off a nuke in one of our cities, we'd plaster them, so they will never do so..."

I would like to see the "democratize the ME" folks and "Iran is not threat" types reconcile their positions with the stated intentions and beliefs of those who hold the power in the ME.

[Brad Johnson]

Not sure what "Mutually Assued Destruction" is, but I bet it's really, really bad. 

Brad

[MechAg94]

I guess you are or he is saying that M.A.D. won't work because the terrorists don't care if one country or the other is wiped out, only if they get a victory in the end? 

I think the thing we need to do is try to help the normal people in those countries realize this.

[DustinD]

I never take part in these debates and am only playing devils advocate here, but wouldn't those people be overthrown by their countrymen if they seriously where about to do something that could get them nuked?

[Len Budney]

I guess you are or he is saying that M.A.D. won't work because the terrorists don't care if one country or the other is wiped out, only if they get a victory in the end? 

It's easy enough to prove that hardly any Muslim extremist believes what you claim: if they believed it, they'd already have blown themselves up. The fact is that suicide bombers are recruited in the same way that cult members are: vulnerable people are pumped full of love, belonging and a sense of mission, and then sent out to do their masters' bidding. Some of them are completely unaware that their truck or suitcase is wired to explode, and think they're acting as couriers.

There are very few human beings who are actively suicidal. Evolution has spent millions of years weeding that out of the gene pool.

The purpose of your rhetoric is the same as any other wartime rhetoric: to dehumanize the enemy so that killing them is acceptable, and to justify the claim that killing them is the only option. Both sides do it in every war ever fought. We thought the Germans were mindless killing machines in both world wars, too. Mysterious how they magically changed from mindless killing machines into a bunch of clubbing party-animals like magic, isn't it? Those Russkies shook off their zombification meds PDQ after the cold war ended, too. It won't be long before Muslims are our weird foot-washing friends again, and the Chinese become the zombies from "Night of the Living Dead."

--Len.

[roo_ster]

I guess you are or he is saying that M.A.D. won't work because the terrorists don't care if one country or the other is wiped out, only if they get a victory in the end? 

I think the thing we need to do is try to help the normal people in those countries realize this.

Pretty much.  MAD is a deterrence only if both sides consider their own destruction a deterrence.

The "normal" people in those countries have no power.  Without power, they are of little consequence.  They are trotted out by those in power every so often for a photo shoot to capture "the mood of the Arab/Iranian street."  IOW, they are props and cannon fodder for those in power.

[roo_ster]

I guess you are or he is saying that M.A.D. won't work because the terrorists don't care if one country or the other is wiped out, only if they get a victory in the end? 

It's easy enough to prove that hardly any Muslim extremist believes what you claim: if they believed it, they'd already have blown themselves up. The fact is that suicide bombers are recruited in the same way that cult members are: vulnerable people are pumped full of love, belonging and a sense of mission, and then sent out to do their masters' bidding. Some of them are completely unaware that their truck or suitcase is wired to explode, and think they're acting as couriers.

There are very few human beings who are actively suicidal. Evolution has spent millions of years weeding that out of the gene pool.

The purpose of your rhetoric is the same as any other wartime rhetoric: to dehumanize the enemy so that killing them is acceptable, and to justify the claim that killing them is the only option. Both sides do it in every war ever fought. We thought the Germans were mindless killing machines in both world wars, too. Mysterious how they magically changed from mindless killing machines into a bunch of clubbing party-animals like magic, isn't it? Those Russkies shook off their zombification meds PDQ after the cold war ended, too. It won't be long before Muslims are our weird foot-washing friends again, and the Chinese become the zombies from "Night of the Living Dead."

--Len.

Len:

My aim is to humanize and de-Americanize those who are non-American humans.  My aim is to treat them as adults and grant them the sincerity of their stated convictions.  I am writing about real human diversity, not the faux-"diversity" of diverse skin tone and lockstep philosophy of the academy.

The quotes above are not something I made up, mangled, or mistranslated...and not something the leaders of Iran are ashamed of.  Follow the links.  You'll find that the Mahmoud quote is from an article on iribnews.ir, Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting.

Real.  Human.  Diversity.  Once one realizes that not all humans and all cultures are identically motivated, one has to admit that the carrots & sticks that work for Americans or others in the West may not be effective on others from different cultures.  It is not that difficult a concept, but some are unwilling to entertain it in the same way some would not entertain a non-geocentric cosmology: it upsets too many dearly-held articles of faith.  Better to impute nefarious motivations to those so uncouth as to mention it in public.

Oh, using the current life & health of Mahmoud & Co. as proof that Mahmoud, the Ayatollah, and their buddies are not willing to sacrifice millions of Iranians, Azeris, and other ethnicities in Iran is a non-starter.  They are the least likely to pay with their lives, given the past history of aggressive dictators.  Why should they, when millions of Iranians can take it in the face, instead?

Also, why are folks so willing to believe that American religious types are willing to engage in sub-optimal, self-limiting behavior, but when we cross the seas, THEIR inhabitants are very models of rationality?

[Manedwolf]

Also, why are folks so willing to believe that American religious types are willing to engage in sub-optimal, self-limiting behavior, but when we cross the seas, THEIR inhabitants are very models of rationality?

Didn't you know? It's always America's fault. 

[Perd Hapley]

The purpose of your rhetoric is the same as any other wartime rhetoric: to dehumanize the enemy so that killing them is acceptable, and to justify the claim that killing them is the only option. Both sides do it in every war ever fought. 

I would demean myself to rebut this, so I will just laugh at it. 

[CAnnoneer]

If somebody is about to kill me, my primary duty is to protect myself by killing him first. His humanity, real or imaginary, is of no consequence in such a situation. That is why the argument of "dehumanization" smacks of projection more than anything else. Incidentally, that is also why I got no problem being friends with a defeated nation. Ergo, I like Krauts, Nips, and Russkies just fine.

[Len Budney]

The purpose of your rhetoric is the same as any other wartime rhetoric: to dehumanize the enemy so that killing them is acceptable, and to justify the claim that killing them is the only option. Both sides do it in every war ever fought. 

I would demean myself to rebut this, so I will just laugh at it. 

As you wish. It's accurate though. Just ask the nearest German about how they changed into normal people from dirty boche murdering hun bastards. It was like magic. A couple signatures on a treaty, and evil incarnate are suddenly human beings again.

--Len.

[Len Budney]

My aim is to humanize and de-Americanize those who are non-American humans.  My aim is to treat them as adults and grant them the sincerity of their stated convictions.

That's interesting! If so, why do you refuse to grant them the sincerity of their stated intentions?

• Al Qaeda has plainly stated that they hate America because of its intervention in Muslim nations, and that their goal is to expel the US from those nations, most importantly Saudi Arabia. Your translation of that is, "they hate us for our freedoms and want to destroy western culture, setting up a global caliphate and imposing sharia law on Albuquerque."
• Mahmoud Ahmedinejad stated that he regards Israel as an oppressive regime that will inevitably "pass from the pages of history." Your translation is that Ahmedinejad intends personally to "wipe Israel from the map" (an idiom that doesn't exist in Persian) and unleash armageddon, ushering in a global caliphate.
• Muslims the world over condemned the attacks of 9/11/2001, held candlelight vigils and otherwise poured out sympathy for the United States. Your interpretation of that is that "they were dancing in the streets."

And so on. What you call their "stated intentions" may indeed be the stated intention of some drooling whacko somewhere, but when you convert it into a justification of, say, invading Iraq, it's pure propaganda. The Muslim world would be equally justified to quote some KKK kleagle somewhere, impute his ravings to Americans everywhere, and call for an invasion of the US.

--Len.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Nevermind.  What's the point?

[Manedwolf]

• Al Qaeda has plainly stated that they hate America because of its intervention in Muslim nations, and that their goal is to expel the US from those nations, most importantly Saudi Arabia. Your translation of that is, "they hate us for our freedoms and want to destroy western culture, setting up a global caliphate and imposing sharia law on Albuquerque."

Read the transcripts of what the leaders actually say, not Nancy Pelosi's edited version.

I suppose the bit about hanging gays and stoning women for adultery is okay with you?

[CAnnoneer]

I don't know what Len is on these few days, but whatever it is, I am certain junkies would pay a pretty penny for it. 

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

as a retired junkie i beg to differ  we like stuff that makes us happy

[CAnnoneer]

as a retired junkie i beg to differ  we like stuff that makes us happy

Touche! 

[Len Budney]

Al Qaeda has plainly stated that they hate America because of its intervention in Muslim nations, and that their goal is to expel the US from those nations, most importantly Saudi Arabia. Your translation of that is, "they hate us for our freedoms and want to destroy western culture, setting up a global caliphate and imposing sharia law on Albuquerque."

Read the transcripts of what the leaders actually say, not Nancy Pelosi's edited version.

As usual, assertions without any actual quotes, or even a link. I wait breathless for a link. 

I suppose the bit about hanging gays and stoning women for adultery is okay with you?

Are you suggesting that we invaded Iraq to rescue the gays? Why didn't Bush say so! Everyone knows that rescuing gays is a perfect reason to invade a country, kill tens or hundreds of thousands, and turn a couple million into refugees. If only he'd said, "We're invading to make the Middle East safe for gays once again," the American people would have been all over that.

--Len.

[Len Budney]

I don't know what Len is on these few days...

As Cassandrasdaddy says, junkies aren't into facts. They tend to make one cynical, not high. If you get tired of insulting people as a substitute for rational discussion, though, I look forward to your refutation. Maybe you can team up with Maned Wolf and get those first-hand quotes of Bin Ladin saying, "We hate Americans for their freedom and want to topple western civilization!" 

--Len.


PS If you try, don't get too depressed when you crash into a wall of facts. Also don't get exhausted reading Bin Ladin's painfully ponderous prose. Here's a start:

• Bin Ladin's original fatwa against the US, entitled "Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places" (Jerusalem and Mecca).
  
• Bin Ladin's statement on October 7, 2001.
  
• Another Bin Ladin piece declaring Bush a "crusader" and the UN "complicit."
  
• In this video transcript, Bin Ladin says that the US are the real terrorists, and finishes by reiterating that the goal of his terrorism is to make America stop supporting Israel against the Palis.
  

[CAnnoneer]

Len, perhaps you should step back and take a look at the facts yourself then ask yourself the following questions:

1) Are you vouching for the sanity and creditability of somebody who maintains America is on a crusade and is killing Muslims because they are Muslim?

2) Do you support the idea that westerners and jews should just pack their bags and leave the Near and Middle East just because the nut that maintains the above wants them to do so?

3) Do you believe the nut-in-chief and his mini-nuts have the right to demand such a thing and punish non-compliance by purposefully killing thousands of civilians?

4) Do you believe that western culture is better or worse than the worldviews and practices of said nutcases?

As far as attacking you, yeah, I have been on your case more recently because you have been annoying me. You are smug, condescending, and patronizing, which might have been tolerable if you were also logical, informed, and right. But you are not. You have outlandish impractical ideas that smack of reciting ideology to us, a smattering of partial facts put together by selective reading to support a twisted worldview to which you have already consigned yourself a priori and will not be shaken from regardless of what we say. On top of that, you willfully and purposefully ignore arguments given by a list of other posters when those arguments undermine your chosen worldview. You are not here to think, but proselytize. If you would like to be taken seriously, you have to develop the ability for critical and self-critical thought, as well as the mental flexibility and honesty to change your opinions in the face of facts. Dropping the unjustified smugness would also be nice, although not a requirement.

[Werewolf]

I would demean myself to rebut this, so I will just laugh at it.

That reads so much like the statement of one who either lacks the intellectual capacity to respond or just plain knows that they have no rational or fact based basis with which to respond.

Instead they make emotion based and condescending statements in an attempt to redirect the discussion away from their particular failing.

NOTE TO MODERATORS & APS MEMBERS: God knows, I'm no angel and I'm sure as hell not defending Mr. Budney - but sometimes fistful just goes too far and needs to be called on it. After all - this is the ArmerdPoliteSociety. To the best of my knowledge, it is not the ArmedCondescendingAsshatSociety

[MechAg94]

As usual, assertions without any actual quotes, or even a link. I wait breathless for a link.  rolleyes

Since when have you posted your own quotes and link when telling everyone else they are wrong and uneducated? 

Len, is there some reason why you insist on being so insulting and confrontational over the last week?  It just makes you appear foolish and insures no one listens to anything you say.  If you want an example, look at your first post in this thread.  You quote me and immediately tell me my claims are wrong.  If you had bothered to read, you would have seen that I was just trying to summarize the point of the original post, not make claims.  Please Just post your opinions and refrain from attacking everyone else.  It would be helpful. 

[beatnik]

I suppose the bit about hanging gays and stoning women for adultery is okay with you?

In a word, yes.

If they're really such animals, then they don't deserve their sovereignty.

If we're going to run their lives for them we should have the stones to do it.

But that's not what you guys are suggesting: Iran is going to go down the same way as Iraq.  Why are we dealing with nation building when we could be dealing with subjugated territories?  Why are we allowing people you admit are animals to rule themselves?  I mean, all I hear on NPR is stories about how soldiers have to pay Iraqis to pick up the garbage on their own streets!

What sense does it make to judge a society as inferior, based on stonings, and yet consistently try to prop up that society?  The gays/women argument simply doesn't stand up.  It boils down to "they're poopyheads so we're going to kill them".

For that matter, why does the "they're poopyheads" argument not work in Burma?  Or Somalia?

I much prefer the other alternative: &*$&^ them, we've got our own problems.  If some non-governmental entity started the "machine guns for Zoroastrians" charity, I'd be on board - but I'm pretty sick of sending 28% of my income to help build nations which are just going to end up spitting on us.


And lay off Len Budney - it seems obvious to me that he's just responding to obvious baiting here.  I haven't made a career of reading this forum, but it seems obvious that Manedwolf only shows up to troll, and Len's just responding to it.  Some of us just aren't as good as others about not feeding the trolls (or think that everyone's here to discuss, not vilify).

[Len Budney]

1) Are you vouching for the sanity and creditability of somebody who maintains America is on a crusade and is killing Muslims because they are Muslim?

Credibility? No. Sanity? No. The question on the table is what his motives are.

2) Do you support the idea that westerners and jews should just pack their bags and leave the Near and Middle East just because the nut that maintains the above wants them to do so?

No. I'm just discussing what his motives are.

3) Do you believe the nut-in-chief and his mini-nuts have the right to demand such a thing and punish non-compliance by purposefully killing thousands of civilians?

No. I'm just discussing what his motives are.

4) Do you believe that western culture is better or worse than the worldviews and practices of said nutcases?

Better, overall. But that has nothing to do with identifying his motives.

As far as attacking you, yeah, I have been on your case more recently because you have been annoying me. You are smug, condescending, and patronizing...

Perhaps. On the other hand, I either link directly to the evidence (example: see above), or I state exactly what to look up to understand my point (example: the law of diminishing marginal utility). You can attack the evidence, or in the latter case demand a link. But notice that in the above discussion of Bin Ladin's motives, you switch subjects to whether I personally agree with Bin Ladin (I don't, but it's beside the point), and top it off with a personal commentary on my smug, condescending, patronizing self.

The reverse is not true. I've stated once or twice that someone needs to read up on the economic concepts he's discussing, but I also told him what to read. I didn't call him stupid, and I don't think he's stupid. He just happens not to have read a certain topic which happens to be relevant at the moment. I haven't returned Maned Wolf's obnoxious sarcasm, nor yours. I haven't indulged in personalities at all. I keep to the subject, even if you don't like how I express myself, and I give my evidence.

If you give the same courtesy, I won't quibble with your "tone" in doing so. I'll be truly appreciative.

--Len.

[Perd Hapley]

OK, OK, I'll demean myself.


Werewolf, I've been called on my past behavior, and have responded accordingly.  The comment to which you refer is not in any way remarkable or any more "condescendingly asshatted" than a hundred other comments we see here every week.  Like when you called me a condescending asshat, for instance. 

It's accurate though. Just ask the nearest German about how they changed into normal people from dirty boche murdering hun bastards. It was like magic. A couple signatures on a treaty, and evil incarnate are suddenly human beings again.

No, it's really just mushy-headed, left-wing popular mythology.  Besides, the Japs signed the treaty, and you must know how many WWII veterans still hate them.