Friday, January 19, 2007

Some Clarity Added For A Clearer Understanding

My good blogfriend Super Frenchie has found it necessary to send in the hoards to see my earlier post on a stunt that was almost pulled by French President Chirac, which can be read here, if you haven't already done so. But first, let it be known that he has asked my permission to link to and hammer me in the past, and I have given him the green light to do it, whenever he wants. I do not mind at all. There's no hostility, whatsoever.

Well, he did. And needless to say, it's awakened the dead. Note the comments on SF's post.

One commenter has taken special exception. (Here, here, and here)

And that's fine. She is entitled to her opinion. There is no sense arguing about it, it matters very little to me how she or anyone else that disagrees with me feels about this, or any other issue for that matter.

But when I am called a warmonger by someone that doesn't know the first thing about me, that's when I must set the record straight.

I don’t think it’s all that far fetched to think that LA Sunsett is a warmonger. Here’s what he thinks about Iraq:


If I were President, the Sunni triangle would be known as the Sunni canyon and al-Sadr would be dead. And damn the bleeding hearts. You can call me cruel if you want, but we’d be closer to being gone by now.

The she follows with:

Cruel? This comes across as being, errr, delusional, and yes, the way that a warmonger thinks…

Despite what this commenter may think about me, I am certainly not a warmonger. Nowhere in my post did I call for military action against Iran. And as for this comment about the Sunni Triangle, read the entire post for a better perspective of what I was trying to say.

But if it still isn't clear, allow me to break it down further.

If we are going to send our young men and women to fight a war, then we must fight it to win. There is no such thing as a politically correct war. If we are going to engage an enemy, then we must try to destroy that enemy and not play silly little political games and appease those that are against what we are trying to do.

I am an ex-soldier, who stood in uniform. I wasn't drafted, I volunteered, and served with honor. Many in my family served with honor, before me. Some did not come home, those that did were forever scarred. I went to their funerals, I witnessed the changes in people that made it back alive. I do not relish the fact that we are at war now, but if we are going to fight a war, we need to do it the right way and make every effort to win it.

We can debate the reasons we went to war for the next hundred years, it will not change one thing. There will always be people that are against it, people that are for it, and people that see both sides of the argument.

When Bush made the decision to go into Iraq, I was a bit apprehensive. I knew the risks, the potential use of chemical weapons weighed heavily into that. When I saw the elite units of the Iraqi military lay down their weapons and blend into the civilian population, I knew this was going to be a long fight. I knew this was not going to be easy and that there was a good chance that this would not be resolved anytime soon.

I also knew that Saddam had WMDs, at some point. Regardless who gave them to him, he had them. I also knew that he wasn't cooperating with UN inspectors. He refused to verify that those weapons had been destroyed, all the while playing cat and mouse games, trying to make the world think he had them. Watching those towers crumble, I fully understood that we could not take the chance that he didn't have them. Since he gave us no good reason to believe him, I knew that there was a real chance, he had them and would get them to people that would have no qualms about using them.

People, there are no absolutes in this world, especially where these issues are concerned. If George Bush would have ignored the situation and an attack had occurred in which the materials were found to have been supplied by Saddam, then he would have been in even worse trouble for not protecting his people. Regardless of how you view his decision, he made the decision, and I am not going to second guess it.

What I will do is, second guess the inefficient way he has conducted the war, the miscalculations, and underestimating the resistance. That is all fair game. Which brings me back to this point, either fight the war to win or don't fight it.

So, with all that a bit clearer, I challenge anyone to prove that this attitude constitutes one of a warmonger.

It's easy to sit in judgment of decisions that one does not agree with. And it's perfectly fine to voice your opinions about them, pro or con. It is not okay to presume to have any answers about someone that disagrees with your position, and types irresponsible comments about someone they know nothing about. It's what some people do, when they have nothing better to offer a debate.


L'Amerloque said...

Hi LAS !

Faithful Wiki ever present:

//This article is about the word. .../...

A warmonger is, pejoratively, someone who is anxious to encourage a people or nation to go to war. It is often used to describe militaristic leaders, or mercenaries, commonly with the implication that they either may have selfish motives for encouraging war, or may actually enjoy war.

By etymology a warmonger is literally a seller of war, from monger used as a transitive verb, meaning a peddler.//

Amerloque (absolutely against the American adventure in Iraq from the beginning) really cannot see how the "warmonger" epithet fits LAS.

He's coming down squarely on the side of LAS on this one.

Stating "if one is making war, one should make winning war" is not, once again in Amerloque's view, displaying "enjoyment" or "encouragement" to make war.

At worst, it might be interpreted as a rephrasing of "fish or cut bait", no ?

Note that Amerloque frequently disagrees with LAS. (smile)


LASunsett said...


//Note that Amerloque frequently disagrees with LAS. (smile)//

And might I add that Amerloque is always respectful in all of his writings and disagreements, which make him one of the highest character. You, sir, have more integrity in your little finger than many have in their entire bodies. Thank you for gracing this blog with your wit and wisdom.

superfrenchie said...

LA, I'm sorry about the name-calling at my blog. I'm sure you know it wasn't my intention.

I always fail to understand what people get out of name-calling. Personally, I find sharp sarcasm to be more efficient anyway.

From the very first day I posted a very dissenting opinion on PYY, you have always debated me in a very gentlemanly way. We don’t agree on much, but we can talk. (Incidentally however, I do agree with you on much about Israel). is a pretty busy blog and name-calling has overall been fairly rare. For that reason, I hope you will reconsider posting there.

Again, my apologies.

LASunsett said...

Hi SF, I left you a response on the thread. I know you didn't mean for it to happen. But, if I stay, I will not be so kind to the name-callers (and I think you know he isn't the only one) and I have way too much respect for you to stink up your blog, in that way.

But if I may offer some friendly advice from one friend to another, you really need to get a handle on this guy, or he will run off more people as time goes on. It won't stop with me, he will feel more empowered, each and every time he is able to do such. And you have put way too much time and effort into it, to let some schmuck tear it down. That's why I do not allow that kind of thing to get out of hand here. Decent intelligent people do not want to deal with that shit.

I want something special here, not like so many other sites that practice that kind of behaviors on a regular basis.

Again, I am not mad. I am just not into dealing with blatant harassment. (If he ever comes here, you'll see a side of me that you have never seen and trust me when I tell you, i will not hold back. I just do not want to do it on your blog.) I hope you understand.

Anonim said...

Ignoring occasional name-callers, ad hominem attackers is probably the best way to deal with them. But, if a site is infested by too many such characters, it's a problem.

On "politically correct war"... I may have tried to say this before, but I'll try again. If war is not rejected categorically, then your war needs to be "correct" to begin with. Without any adverbs attached. If not, or if it comes out that the war is a wrong one, you need to (1) continue your war as a politically correct one; or, (2) fight to win it anyways (let the next generation deal with the harsh judgment of history); or, a third option, (3) back out (don't make it a problem of any generation other than your own, and all that follows from it).

I agree with you LA, Option 1 is not a viable one. Option 3 would be my choice. Although I have ideas, I'd be hard pressed to explain how that option can be carried out without truly devastating consequences (some price has to be paid obviously). But, LA, you should feel just as hard pressed to defend option 2 (more work is needed). Above, in parentheses, I gave away how I read that option in rather general terms. I am afraid purely military analyses don't cut it quite right; they limit the options in the least. If "fight to win anyways" is to be justified in such pure terms, then all is fair: insurgency, sabotage, murder to intimidate/undermine, ..., countries wanting to acquire nuclear arms capability, et cetera. Since none of this is considered fair in this blog, then maybe Option 2 cannot be defended in purely military terms, either.

Jean-Philippe said...

"We can debate the reasons we went to war for the next hundred years"

There is now facts, you hardly can't pretend to not be aware by now.

- Saddam was a dictator.
- This state invaded and make war to the country surrounding it
- It used chemical weapon against it's own population

The rest is purely conjuncture.

Greg said...

It is impossible to discuss Iraq these days, especially with non-Americans, in a way that advances the debate towards possible solutions. I don't think most Europeans are even interested in a way out of the carnage for Iraq. Because that would mean not being able to say "told you so." I think is the last place I feel like discussing it, precisely b/c it will only result in people calling me names and lecturing me about the "indian genocide" and the "israeli lobby" and everything else my American indoctrination, I mean education failed to teach me.

The only acceptable opinion on that blog these days is:

we never should have gone;
we only went b/c Bush lied about Saddam's WMD (alternatively, the US gave the WMD to Saddam);
Saddam wasn't so bad after all;
at least not as bad as Bush!

JPH said...

When did you read a " I told you so ". ? Insulting allies ( I mean the Bush squad), is not a good way to manage foreign policies. But, now, what are we suppose to do ?

Greg said...

JPH, you haven't heard the "i-told-you-so" gloaters? They are everywhere.

The worst part about them (aside from the fact that for them to feel good, Iraq has to descend further and further into chaos) is that they give themselves too much credit. France never said, "Um, that WMD evidence is flimsy." If only it had! France said, "Force is not the answer!" Big difference.

In fact, I like to play out the "what ifs" with these people. Assume we listened to and obeyed de Villepin/Chirac. Inspectors go in, and notice all the suspect WMD sites are wiped clean. They find some illegal, undeclared missiles, which are destroyed. A few months later, they declare Iraq WMD-free. The sanctions then have no raison d'etre, the inspections are no longer needed, and neither are the US air patrols of the north & south no-fly zones. End result: Saddam has as little oversight as he ever did, and then has free reign to develop nukes and other WMD. And he can re-start his killings of kurds and shia en masse.

Not an unlikely scenario at all. And not any better than the current situation.