I’m a “warmonger”

I was told yesterday that I am a “warmonger.”  I opposed the invasion of Iraq.  But I’m a warmonger.  I believe that war should be used only as a last resort.  But I am a warmonger.  Why?  Well, because I refuse to denounce all war as evil.  Because I believe that when someone declares war on me, my nation, my culture, my way of life, self defense is a valid, moral response.  Because I self-identify as a conservative.  I am a warmonger.

Modern day leftists devalue the language with meaning-twisting, Alice in Wonderland word play.   The same person tells me I’m a racist because I committed the sin of being born with white skin and I can only hope, if I completely denounce my whiteness, to aspire to the title of recovering racist.  Yet those who actively and openly discriminate are not racists; as long as they discriminate against white folks, they’re just engaged in “affirmative action.”  If a women causes the foetus in her womb to be removed, she’s merely exercising a “right to choose” as if the choice, not the act, is all that matters . . . as if thieves are merely exercising their right to choose to steal,  murderers are merely exercising their right to kill, dishonest businessmen are merely exercising their right to make money.

If we are going to communicate with each other we have to speak a common language.  Perhaps we can start by giving words their proper and common meaning instead of twisting them into meaninglessness.  Let’s talk.  But let’s speak English, okay? 

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

  1. John Hetman says

    “But let’s speak English, okay?”

    Gladly. But I think that you have to push #2 to do that, don’t you? Isn’t #1 reserved for Spanish?

    I better be careful before soome calls me a “racist” again here.

  2. Zhombre says

    Well, you could turn this thread into Warmongering Racists Anonymous (WRA). Start a simple three-step program: Confess, Denounce & Renounce (CD&R). I confess I am a warmongering racist. I denounce myself for being an atavistic, authoritarian conservatist, melanin-deficient, warmongering racist. And henceforth I renounce my warmongering racist ways. Yes I will strive and I will shine and I will leave my warmongering racist ways behind.

  3. Danny Lemieux says

    DQ – you actually sound offended! You shouldn’t be. You extended the hand of friendship, instead you got bit by someone from an alternate universe who believes themselves to be above sin. Your actions betrayed your nobility, your mistake was to assume nobility where it doesn’t exist. In sum, it’s not your problem, it’s hers.

  4. Kurt says

    Well, you might be a warmongering racist…but as soon as you throw back “liberal” or “surrenderer” or something, she’ll pine for a time when we can all drop the use of labels.

    Since I’m a heterosexual male (as well as a warmongering racist), I’m sure I’ll stand accused of being a misogynist homophobe as well.

    And I own a couple of guns. Lawd, there’s no hope for me.

  5. Tap says

    DQ, you totally ruined Helenl’s week. When told we are waiting with bated breath, ready to hear her solution, she got busy.

    Not to busy to drop little Helen bomblets, but…busy.

    I really appreciated the question of Judyrose, too:

    “What do you say at the negotiating table that could succeed in getting the Jihadists to live in peace with us?”

  6. Zhombre says

    “What do you say at the negotiating table that could succeed in getting the Jihadists to live in peace with us?”

    There is no God but Allah and Mohammed, peace be upon him, is his messenger.

  7. says

    DQ and others,

    If I have offended you and hurt you by saying something that is untrue, I apologize, and I leave you with this:

    ONLY KINDNESS MATTERS — by Catherine Morgan

    Jewel has a song, and in it she sings….”In the end, only kindness matters”. Those are very profound words. I would even say, that these are words to live your life by. Because, it is so true. In the grand scheme of things, we are here on earth only a very short time. Many of us spend much of this time being angry at people, making judgements on others, and generally just not being as kind as we could be. So, the question then becomes….How can we change that? How can we live a more kind life?

    Well I think, that like everything else we can’t be too hard on ourselves. After-all, we live in a harsh world, where many times people are not even being very kind to us. But, that’s no excuse either. Remember when our mom’s told us, “treat others the way you would want them to treat you”. Well it seems that, somewhere between kindergarten and junior high, most of us forget this little bit of wisdom. But, I say we bring it back. Don’t get panicked, I’m not suggesting anything radical. But, maybe just some baby-steps in the right direction.

    The first thing we need to do is be conscious of our thoughts and reactions towards people. This is important because, if we recognize the times we could have chosen kindness over judgement, we find our opportunities to make a change.

    for the rest of the article, go to http://catherinemarie.wordpress.com/2007/02/22/only-kindness-matters-with-youtube-music-of-jewel-hands/

    I wish all of us the very best, including me. So now I am deleting my bookmark to this blog. I will not be back. Peace.

  8. isirota1965 says

    DQ, the fact of the matter is that extremist name-calling has been a hallmark of the angry left for years. Don’t like Israel? Why, that’s because the JEWISH Israelis are NAZIS. Don’t like the Democratically-elected President George W. Bush? Well, that’s only due to the fact that he’s a FASCIST. In today’s night-is-day, black-is-white world, the left has succeeded in reversing everything. Criminals are victims, Democracies are totalitarian states, while on the flip side, autocracies and theocracies (Cuba? Venezuela? Iran?) are the “true” democracies in their view.

    That’s the world in which we now live.

  9. Danny Lemieux says

    Don’t worry, like a moth to a flame, Blanche..ooops, I mean HelenL will be back. I am sure that we will all welcome her with open arms (the hugging kind, that is, not the warmongering kind).:-).

  10. Kurt says

    Yep. I’ve been to college too.

    I’m not suprised at Helen’s leaving. It is why the pacifist strategy only works if there’s a warmonger backing you up. She thinks we’re tough? Hell, we would be the easiest converts she faces. And she gives up.

    What the hell is she going to do when she up against someone who won’t even acknowledge her presesnce because she’s a woman?

  11. Oldflyer says

    Isirota1965 in (12) highlights the issue. If you can distort abd confuse the meaning of words, you can control, or at least forestall, debate.

    Convservative=Warmonger; Heterosexual=Homophobe; Homosexual=Gay (huh?); Christian=RWN; Male=Sexist; White=racist, abortion=Choice; etc. Very convenient & very disorienting.

    DQ I wonder if Bookworm will be please with what you have wrought in her absence.

    So confrontational.

    The loss of Helenl.

    Well, we must try to endure.

  12. Tap says

    “Yep. I’ve been to college too.”

    Aha. Kurt, you are going to be a tough nut to crack. So you’ve already been to re-education camp, and failed to emerge with the proper views. Hmmmmm….more extreme measures are called for. Stay tuned..

  13. says

    I can understand what helenl means by pressure. The community pressure here from bookworm und Co is very light, but it is very numerous and all pervasive at the same time. So I can understand why she would use the word “pressure” and why she believes it would be best for herself not to come here anymore.

    The point is, nobody was actively abrasive to her until they reacted to her own words. It seems a bit weird, I mean, for someone who promotes and is supportive of caring, peace, and religious beliefs to be so lacking in understanding of the effects her tone and words would have on people.

    If she truly wishes to understand, then why not understand the warmongers like I seek to understand the pacifists? Why not go to blackfive.net and compare what goes on there to what goes on here. Kurt is right, on the warmonger level, the treatment here is light compared to over at military blogs like blackfive.net

    I do not mean that things are impolite, but they do not really have any tolerance for the kind of pacifism that Helen believes in. Far less here of course, even with Danny in the mix.

    Most of the people at blackfive.net believes in peace through superior firepower, but not only that, they are survivalists, believers in gun safety/ownership, and in killing lots and lots of enemies….

    Helen advocates for people to go to mosques to understand, but why cannot she understand those of the warmongering persuasion? Why does she feel pressured if she already understood the positions that we all held? As individuals and of course as supporters of a specific foreign policy.

    In some respects, by understanding why helen said the things she said, I came to somehow bypass the abrasiveness of her words. I got the sense that she didn’t intend to offend people, and yet could not understand why people were offended.

    I base much on intentions, and when I more clearly understood her intentions, I did not find her nearly as offensive as I did in the beginning.

    I don’t think people do themselves a favor by ignoring war. It exists. Why ignore it? Why act as if it is some kind of deadly sin one must never even talk about let alone engage in? Backed by religious beliefs, don’t you think this is rather… um intolerant? Intolerant of diversified views, wouldn’t a pacifist be against that kind of intolerance?

    So what we have is fake liberals vs true liberals. Who truly is tolerant? Who truly is progressive? Who truly is diversified and understanding in a cosmopolitan manner? That is the struggle. Not everyone is what they claim to be. Their words may be hard to describe, but their intentions and behavior isn’t.

    The first thing we need to do is be conscious of our thoughts and reactions towards people.

    I don’t ascribe to that kind of strategy. What I focus on is the intentions and actions of the person I’m communicating with. Meaning what they are doing as they are talking and writing and speaking.

    So the first thing I think people need to do is to be conscious of what the other guy is talking about, feeling, intending, and doing. If a person said a racial epithet but it is clear that he didn’t intend to do so or because he didn’t even know that it might be a racial epithet, the proper response would be one of tolerance and amusement. Not of outrage and what not, not accussations of racism and “he hurt my feelings”.

    If people do things helen’s way, then I think their feelings will be hurt, because they are too inwards looking. They don’t pay attention to any other person, except themselves. That is bad.

    I don’t think it is enough. I don’t think it is enough to start off with your own feelings. Because in a way I believe that your emotions derive from your beliefs concerning why other people are acting the way they do concerning you.

    So if you are kind, and others react badly, then if all you are doing is looking within yourself for your own intentions, you will be offended. If you aren’t paying attention to what they are doing and what their beliefs/intentions are, then you lack 50% of the equation.

    In this case, I tend to believe that helen doesn’t like war. To the extent that she does not truly understand why those of us would support war. I think she believes eternal peace is probable and feasible. She doesn’t tend to contend with the “peace through superior firepower” beliefs. Meaning, she doesn’t say you cannot have peace through SF nor does she debate the merits of such a belief. She just doesn’t believe. Maybe because her assumptions rule such a possibility out.

    Maybe it is a lack of curiosity *shrugs*

    How is this for a modification of the Golden Rule. Instead of treating people like how you wish to be treated, you treat people as they deserve, proven by the actions and intentions of those people.

    Btw, I’m not white JJ, so can I also be a racist too?

  14. JJ says

    Absolutely!

    If you don’t have them already, you have to get some guns, though, Kurt’s right. And maybe a couple of Dobermans. (Being able to drive a tractor is a help too, I think – I grew up on a farm.)

    I live in a house with 7,000 books, true – but I make up for it by having .38′s, a couple of nines, and 200 pounds’ worth of Dobes: Spock and Zoey are a red and a black-and-tan respectively. The sign on the windows reads: “We Don’t Dial 911.”

    Oh yeah, have I ever been to college! (Always graduated early though – maybe they wanted me outta there quick…)

    Sorry about Helen. She succumbed to what, to me, wouldn’t have been enough pressure to have crushed a grape. I think we were mostly pretty civil to her, but maybe not, in her personal cosmology.

    But it’s a loss though, men! And ladies! We’re gonna have to have to suck it up, and keep the mission moving!

  15. Danny Lemieux says

    HelenL reminded me of some of my pacifist friends (yes, I do have some). They are like the deer facing the oncoming truck headlights on the highway, thinking “This is not logical, I know that I am kind and that I never did anything mean to trucks…so I will stand here and think nice thoughts and refuse to give up my ideals of how the world should be until…” SMACK!

  16. Kurt says

    I remember back before the ‘internet’, posting an opinion on alt.abortion.talk…or something like that… taking a politically pro-choice but personally pro-life position. When I checked back an hour later I had been chewed up, shredded, and spit out. I had stepped into a nest of snakes and every time I thought about it I got that feeling in the pit of my stomach similar to what you feel when you’ve been tooling down the Interstate in your own little world…and suddenly discover there’s a highway patrol car behind you.

    I’m not surprised Helen left. A couple of times a year I have to turn off my attention to all the political/social debates because it gets to be too much. It’s unsettling. Some people thrive in that situation. It slowly wears me down…and I have to recharge every now and then.

    Having no doubt in Helen’s sincerity (though unconvinced she’s thought her positions through much more than her relations with, for example, her neighbors) I can definitely see how reactions to her comments here would have disturbed the peace in her life. While we’re creampuffs by comparison, it is much the same reason I don’t comment on a site like Kos. Hitting your head against a brick wall hurts after awhile.

    A year or so ago, after hearing Nancy Pelosi utter speak truth to power I searched around for the origin of the phrase…suspecting that she was pandering to a particular group and didn’t really know what she was talking about.

    I came across this many paged essay by the Quakers…written back at the beginning of the Cold War. Their position was focused on Ghandi…as MLK hadn’t come along yet. It is instructive for a number of reasons…not the least of which was their assertion of the inevitability of nuclear exchange with the USSR if the US was to continue its current course was, happily, false.

    It’s worth a read. Frustrating too…because 50 years or so have proven many of their assumptions false… and they’re still using many of the same arguments. Read through it and you’ll swear they lifted the same demonstrably false assumption straight from the text.

  17. Michael Rose says

    “Modern day leftists devalue the language with meaning-twisting, Alice in Wonderland word play…If we are going to communicate with each other we have to speak a common language. Perhaps we can start by giving words their proper and common meaning instead of twisting them into meaninglessness. Let’s talk. But let’s speak English, okay?”

    DQ, you have identified the surface conflict admirably — but in my opinion it is ONLY the surface conflict. Ayn Rand writes (in her novel, “The Fountainhead”): “There’s always a purpose in nonsense. Don’t bother to examine a folly–ask yourself only what it accomplishes.”

    People like you and BW and I often make the error of assuming genuineness and goodwill on the part of our intellectual adversaries (because we possess it ourselves). As a former college teacher, I tell you from personal experience that nothing could be further from the truth. Universities are supposed to be repositories of knowledge and nurturers of eager young minds. Well, DQ, my field of expertise is music. My principal “colleagues” were in “the humanities” — and they thoroughly got off on meaningless masturbatory wordplay. Sincerely conveying meaning was the furthest thing from their minds: the more the senior faculty were able to obfuscate and confuse, the more they succeeded thereby at intellectually crippling and frightening their students and untenured underlings — and the better they felt about themselves. Their whole sense of self-esteem was tied to being successful at this. And if you ever called them on their bulls–t, they would fix you with a look which, if translated into words, would say: “I’d be most happy to bash your teeth in.”

    I have no doubt that if you gave someone like HelenL a club, she’d joyfully do just that (with Christian loving-kindness, of course).

    My suggestions for dealing with these kinds of thugs masquerading as honest people: NEVER grant them your goodwill; and ALWAYS call them on their bulls–t.

    –Michael Rose (aka Mr. Judyrose)

  18. says

    Hi Michael,

    You’re entitled to your opinion and I suppose we’ll never know, but I disagree. I believe that Helen was well-meaning and sincere. But I also believe that she was so sure that she was right and we really are fundamentally evil (racist, warmongers, etc.) that it colored her ability to talk with us as equals, whose ideas were deserving of respect. In fact, that’s what troubles me generally, is that most of those actively discussing issues (from all points of view) talk like they believe they have a corner on the truth and everyone else is deluded or evil or both. In fighting against that, I’ve now chased away Helen and, it appears, jg on the other side. It’s very discouraging and I have no idea how to create a forum in which people will deal with ideas and issues, not personalities and ad hominem attacks. Good people, and Helen and jg are good people, must be able to talk with each other without getting discouraged, calling each other names and going home. How do we do this?

  19. says

    DQ, you’re a person of good will. I know that because you ACT with good will (at least from what I see of your conduct on this blog). But I think you’re too charitable to Helen. Helen SAYS she’s a person of good will. She likes to think of herself as a righteous person, a humble person, and she’s happy to tell you that. But she resorts to name calling and personal attacks. (I’ve been the recipient more than once.) Then she runs away because she can’t defend her position with reason or logical argument. When you ask Helen a direct question, she just comes back with more questions, as though simply asking questions sets her above others who think they may actually have some answers. In the end, despite all reasonable discussion, she offers the defense of a religious fanatic: You’re wrong and I’m right because Jesus/Allah/The Torah/Al Gore told me so. And if you do that at Bookwormroom, you’re going to get pounced on.

    As for the question you asked Michael (How do we talk with each other without getting discouraged, calling each other names and going home?), it’s a choice each person makes for himself. You can hold that up as a goal. You can ask people to behave that way. But in the end, there’s nothing you can do to make people participate in an open, receptive way and treat others with civility and respect. For some people, it’s just easier to leave.

    By the way, I must be missing it but when did jg say he’s out of here?

  20. says

    I give everyone a fairshake, there’s not much I expect on behavior. When helen tries to react in a hostile manner to my posts, I come down on her and react. When she stops doing that, then I act like it didn’t happen, but I don’t forget it.

    Then she runs away because she can’t defend her position with reason or logical argument.

    I’d rather someone lack reason and logic, rather than have BAD reasoning and logic. Bad r and l is not good.

    When you ask Helen a direct question, she just comes back with more questions,

    You do have to give credit where it is due, Judy. Helen has answered some questions in detail, concerning her beliefs, to the best of her ability. Sure, like the racism thread, it was via a link, but it did provide substance and elaboration, if not agreement or justifications.

    It is about control in the end. If you have problems on the internet and you can’t handle it, then you tend to get hostile and try to spread it around, making a pain of yourself. Usually this is marked by either continuing to argue something constantly based upon previous topic-arguments, or holding a lot of grudges and so forth and then exploding in a person’s face at once.

    If you can’t control yourself, then Don is no substitute.

    There is nothing particularly wrong with inner harmony, even though it sounds hippy like. But it has to be real, it can’t be fake, it can’t be a mask. Otherwise it will crack eventually and bad things will be let out in public.

  21. says

    Ymar, I confess that Helen has sometimes offered detailed answers. I guess I was thinking about the discussion on a post several days ago about immigration vs. illegal immigration. Helen’s answer to one of my comments was to ask a bunch of questions including: Is it bad to be poor? Gee that’s profound!

    As for inner harmony, I’m all for it. I love your image of fake inner harmony cracking and bad things coming out. You said a mouthful there. (Made me think of M&Ms thin sugar shell. Of course, when M&Ms crack, good things come out – but maybe I’m just hungry.)

  22. JJ says

    DQ – I’ll agree that Helen was probably sincere, but I don’t – and didn’t – find her especially well-meaning. I think Judy has her pretty well figured out.

    As you must have noticed by now, this blog comes pretty close to being what is your ideal. Everyone with strong opinions thinks they’re right – that’s not unusual at all. And this blog tends to feature a cadre of regulars – more or less regular, anyway – most of whom have fairly strong views. Bookworm has somehow or other gotten very lucky with this place, in that most of those who participate are literate, and eminently able to take, promulgate, and defend positions. Occasionally – just occasionally – we even change each other’s thinking. (No small trick, given the general quality of the minds that bounce around here.)

    We argue effectively, in other words. But I don’t think anyone believes they have a corner on the absolute. Two weeks ago Danny and I got into a fairly long-running schlemozzle that extended over several days, and it’s illustrative, I think. We were energetic, and we did not agree, did not convince each other, and there are some things on which we likely do not and will not agree. BUT – not once did either of us ever resort to name-calling, nor did either of us ever claim God had presented him with exclusivity to correctness, nor did we at any time take an attitude of assumed moral superiority. I don’t believe either of us went away mad.

    I am, on the other hand, very much afraid that those attributes were often, or at least often came across as, Helen’s stock-in-trade. I think she often went away mad.

    I agree with your speculation that she was so sure she was right – and we are all fundamentally not only wrong but rotten – that it colored her ability to treat with us as equals. But like so many people who go through life with that attitude, she inadvertently stumbled in over her head, and finished by being quite correct: she wasn’t treating with equals. She was in a place, perhaps a new experience for her, where she was well removed from being the brightest bulb in the room.

    Wherefore I say, having gotten to the age she was, thinking (or not) the way she did, I am perfectly happy to have her go in peace. I would not have it on my conscience that I shook up her sense of rectitude, or took a bite out of her faith. It may be all she has.

  23. says

    DQ, thinking more about your comment #26, you seem to shy away from condemning Helen. Yet nothing you mention would lead one to see her as a well-meaning or sincere person, which is how you described her. You say you believe the following about her – not only limited to Helen, but Helen appears to be included among those who fit these descriptions:
    • She thinks we are fundamentally evil (racists, warmongers)
    • She doesn’t think we’re worthy of respect
    • She believes she has a corner on the truth
    • She believes everyone else is deluded or evil or both
    • She makes ad hominem attacks
    Then you call her “good people.” Why?
    Maybe I’m wrong, but you seem to be bending over backwards not to say what you really think.

  24. says

    I posted #33 before I saw jj’s comment #32. I agree with much of it. But I will miss Helen. She provided comments that screamed for rebuttal, and she was often the one that motivated me to participate.

    Interesting use of the word “schlemozzle” by the way. Here’s the definition I learned growing up: A Schlemiel is the guy that spills a bowl of soup — all over a Schlemozzle.

  25. says

    No, Judy, I really do think Helen is a good heart and have always thought so from her very first posts here. In some ways she is the mirror image of Bookworm, who started out liberal and became conservative. Helen started out conservative and became liberal. Both have the conviction and ferver of the convert.

    The good news is that Helen will be back soon! And, in a private e-mail to me she explained that it was because she realized that she had descended into ad himinem attacks, and regretted having done so, that she decided to take some time off. We all lose it sometimes and say things we regret (I certainly have), but the good folks, like Helen, recognize it and regret it.

    JG never said he wouldn’t be back, but he hasn’t posted since I took him to task for insulting Helen personally and he has not answered my private e-mail to him. I’m afraid he’s gone, and that would be a real shame.

    JJ, you are absolute right about the high quality and intellect of those who post here. I am always amazed that I can put out a simple idea or question and have such thoughful, intelligent, well-crafted responses flood in. I beg to differ about Helen, though. I think she can hold her own nicely in this company. She’s made a spiritual and political journey that only the intelligent and thoughtful can make (even though it is in a direction I believe is wrong). Anyway, I for one will be very happy to see her return.

  26. says

    What we need, frankly, is a WWII-scale war on Iran. When cities are rubble, bridges are scrap, oilfields are afire, armies are dead or fleeing, and the leaders are either in prison or dead, then people _know_ they have been beaten. Being nice to them in the middle of a war just convinces them you’re not serious, and that a few more IEDs will make you go away.

    Comment by Trimegistus | February 22, 2007

    I think Trim’s comment back over at that thread sort of put the pressure and dislike on helen’s psyche. After all, pacifists reading that might be disturbed.

    Oh ya, judy, you know that hell is paved with good intentions. So a person can be well meaning, but not mean well. You know what I’m saying .

    Personal peace matters as well as peace among nations.-helen

    I call it inner harmony, oh well.

    I am of the view that things don’t scale like that. You know in engineering, people always worry about scale. Scale up, scale down. Artists also use scaled down versions of say… models for statues.

    Peace doesn’t scale though. Because everyone can be at peace, and a nation would still be at war.

  27. says

    One commenter even brings up the strange word principle:

    Ingrid’s point is that this is basically a good idea; but it’s a pity we can’t sign up to it because concerns for progressive heterosexual couples, single fathers, gay men, etc. That’s just feeble. This form of segregation is wrong in principle, irrespective of its impact on these groups, and we should not go along with it. Confronting these ideas will do much more good than colaborating with them.

    Which draws a response, in which “principles” is given scare quotes.

    http://bookwormroom.wordpress.com/2007/02/12/san-francisco-has-bigger-scandals-than-a-debauched-mayor/

    Comment by Michael Devereaux | February 13, 2007

    I was reminded of Mike’s comment about principles when I read this new Council winner post about dichotomies within leftist-liberal-progressive cliques in Britain. I think it was Britain anyways.

  28. says

    Hi Y,

    I’m reminded of the old saying “all politics are local.” I hate to arm every civilian to the gills; but it may be necessary. I didn’t really understand the point about genocide, except that the article seemed to suggest we should use the threat of it as a weapon to obtain an ally (not something I’d think would work very well in the long term. Generally, I thought the article offered some decent insights and provided many of the new ideas I’ve been looking for. Thanks for the link.

  29. says

    Grim is just making the point that you have to communicate to your allies and enemies how far you are willing to go as a nation for them and against them.

    The US only gets motivated into a war when the citizenry demands it, demands some kind of vengeance or payback or desire for restitution. So people of the Darfur persuasion or Iraqi allies must understand that realistic constraint of the US. Covert aid is about the best you can hope for, when realistically political support is about it that most nations get.

    When people are operating with a clear view of things, it helps them set policies about how they are going to treat the US. This clears up political problems in iraq and makes it clear that US support is not endless, that the US while being a superpower, has its own problems and its own concerns, domesic and foreign, that constrains its actions. If only by self-restraint.

  30. says

    Wow, I’ve been so swamped I haven’t had a chance to read or comment much, seems I’ve missed quite a bit here! Hope one and all have come through without permanent scarring.

  31. says

    Book decided to unleash the reins on Don Quixote. You’ve seen what has happened.

    Now if the President decides to unleash the devastating might and fury of the American nation, small and big, then the world will shudder in wonder and dread at something they have never seen before.

    Hey Anna, did you hear about the 300 trailer? I think they said the same guy who is directing it, also did Independence Day.

    Not even Miyamoto Musashi could present to you a more awe inspiring killing spree than the United States free of limitations, when he killed around 60 men in duels, many of them with using a wooden sword against a steel katana.

    Because you see. Miyamoto Musashi had elevated himself almost to the limit of mortal limitations. There was no internet to help him, no modern medicine to cure mistakes, and no prosthetics. Kill or be killed was the law of the land, and bushido was its formal structure. And therefore Miyamoto Musashi, either because he saw no need or because he thought it a challenge, used wooden swords in duels to the death. And killed his opponent in the first seconds of the conflict.

    The limitations that Musashi put upon himself was self-inflicted. Just as the limitations of the United States. But just because they are self-inflicted doesn’t mean it isn’t lethal and dangerous. What if Musashi’s wooden sword had broke? Would he have time to get a replacement before he gets wounded? He was good, almost beyond mortal good, so he could afford to be limited, to put weights upon himself.

    If the United States is to be responsible for protecting women and children, can the US afford to use inferior weapons in the fight?

    And that is just the thing. People think Musashi and the US were powerful and lethal individuals and nations in their time. But have they actually seen the best of the best of the best at their FULL potential? No. Because in a blink of an eye, you might miss it entirely. So fast would be the destruction and killing.

    Musashi didn’t have to deal with enemies that fought behind children and women, using them as shields. Musashi didn’t have to kill his enemies when they held his family or loved ones or the lords that he was loyal to.

    When his only concern was about his own life, he could easily take care of his own life with a wooden sword, because of his skill.

    We no longer live in that kind of world. Break through the genkai. Show the world the full power of the United States. Air, land, sea, space, psychological.

    The world thought they saw the might of the US after 9/11. They saw nothing. Show them why they are wrong to relax in our presence.

  32. JJ says

    “Arming everybody to the gills” has a history, you know. Before WWII started (for us – the rest of the world was already at it) when Yamamoto was trying to point out to the Japanese leadership (Tojo, mostly) that fighting with us was going to be beyond their ability, he said that it wasn’t going to be simply a matter of anything that happened in the Pacific. He pointed out that the Japanese army was going to have to land in California, and fight its way 3,000 miles to Washington DC to actually gain a victory.

    Among the things he saw as making that next to impossible was the presence of 10,000,000 farmers and their young sons between California and Washington, all of whom were hunters, all of whom were well supplied with rifles. As no one in Japan who wasn’t in the military owned or ever had any experience with a gun, that armed populace presented a powerful disincentive.

Trackbacks

Leave a Reply