Dialogue, opus 1.

I posed some questions to Rew at the comments section of her blog, The Power Liberal. They follow with her responses and then my long post of further reply. PL bold.

"It is no suprise that I am against the war." Would you elaborate on your meaning here? This phrase is a continual puzzle to me. (I am not laying traps for you.) To be against something one can infer a person then to be "for" something. So you agree? If so, in the context of your quote above, what are you for? If I may postulate that one of the things you might be for is the attending chorus "bring the troops home now",then what thought have you taken with regard to the impacts and repercussions such a move might bring? For example, suppose oe might agree that our MP's training their police procuces desireable results. Would your desire to bring them home include provisions to perpetuate those good results? Contrarily, if you see only bad results and outcomes, do those outweigh any and all other considerations and arguements? In a parallel vein, one cannot reasonably dispute the evil which evil men are doing against the Iraqi people, and the contervailing force against this evil American troops, (plus Poles, Ukranians,et.al.) are providing. Does your opposition to "the war" make any provisions in this case? Or do you deny that proposition on its face? If so, on what basis or with what reasoning? This thread of questions might be elongated, as there are many skeins here to be wound and unwound. I hope you might respond in a post. I would be glad to post in kind. I'd have begun there had I known where these questions headed, but I'm off to work. Thanks.

Never let it be said I don't give the fans (heh) what they want. Kerry has asked that I reply to his comments in a new post, so here it comes (I'll let him be bold, because bold is sexy):"It is no suprise that I am against the war." Would you elaborate on your meaning here? This phrase is a continual puzzle to me. (I am not laying traps for you.) To be against something one can infer a person then to be "for" something. So you agree? If so, in the context of your quote above, what are you for? You are actually quite correct here. I should have made it more clear in tense. I was against the war, in the sense that I did not think that Iraq posed a clear and imminent threat to our country. I was, however, very supportive of the battle in Afghanistan. There was a direct cause and effect retaliatory relationship that made sense in that case. Some people like their wars proactive, I prefer mine reactive. You may say "But look at all the innocent lives lost if you wait for someone to strike first." I say, "Are you saying our troops' lives aren't innocent? How do you know that those deaths were necessary?" If I may postulate that one of the things you might be for is the attending chorus "bring the troops home now",then what thought have you taken with regard to the impacts and repercussions such a move might bring? For example, suppose oe might agree that our MP's training their police procuces desireable results. Would your desire to bring them home include provisions to perpetuate those good results? Surprisingly enough, I'm not a 'bring them home now' kind of girl. I am a 'bring them home soon and safely' kind of girl. I want peace as much as the next person, and at this point peace will come about only if we can successfully transfer power into the Iraqis' hands. We did not do this successfully in Afghanistan, and we need to learn that lesson. But transferring power is a difficult thing to do, especially when the people we are giving it to keep ending up dead, possibly by our own troops. (Yes, I did put possibly.)I support our troops. Gathering to rally against the war is the greatest show of support for the troops possible. No one wants the war to keep going any moment longer than necessary on either side, I hope. War protesters are for the most part peace-loving people who want the troops safe, not "Pro-Hussein, Pro-rape" America-haters. If we hated America we wouldn't care what happened in the war. Contrarily, if you see only bad results and outcomes, do those outweigh any and all other considerations and arguments? In a parallel vein, one cannot reasonably dispute the evil which evil men are doing against the Iraqi people, and the countervailing force against this evil American troops, (plus Poles, Ukranians,et.al.) are providing. Does your opposition to "the war" make any provisions in this case? Or do you deny that proposition on its face? If so, on what basis or with what reasoning? Good and evil. Okay, now this just got fun, since we have officially moved beyond politics and into theology. I see gray. As in tune as I am with the concept of Good and Evil, especially in its End Days/Zoroastrian theme of Good Versus Evil with Man the only one who has the freedom to choose a side, I still find myself seeing in shades of gray. One man's evil is another man's good, and vice versa. Heaven as I understand it comes with the ability to have all knowledge. Being one with God upon death gives Man the omniscience missing from life here on Earth. There is a possibility that once I die and am all knowledgeable, I will find out that had their been no war, there would have been an attack so violent it would have killed nearly every person on the face of the earth. Boy, would I have egg on my face. We are humans limited by human knowledge. We can never know everything. What can seem like Evil can actually be a greater good. What seems like Good may be evil to others. And the devil has a pleasing face.Of course, maybe you just meant good and evil in this world, in a physical sort of way, in which case sorry for the tangent. You can take the girl out of the religion classes... This thread of questions might be elongated, as there are many skeins here to be wound and unwound. I hope you might respond in a post. I would be glad to post in kind. I'd have begun there had I known where these questions headed, but I'm off to work. Thanks.Feel free to elongate. I haven't enjoyed a debate this much since Mr. Sticks got too busy to write.

Iraq...clear and imminent threat. You are correct. The country of Iraq posed no threat. Its armies weren’t poised to attack us, its missiles lacked a range beyond about 1200 miles, there was no naval or aggressive air threat. The threat of the Islamofascists is based in no country, holds no territory, protects no populace, possesses no industry, trains no computer scientists nor electrical engineers. Therefore they are not easily turned aside by standard threats to respond with force after an attack. ( That the Taliban sponsored the Al Queda terrorists in Afghanistan might be seen as a lucky break. The crime families home turf as it were.) That the threat of Islamofascism remains amorphous viz a viz a modern country or nation , does not mean we must behave as sovereign countries traditionally have: responding to attack, restraining themselves from attacking first. How to fight such a slippery foe? Wait only for further attacks and retaliate? I disagree. But suppose that were tried? Have you thought about that strategy? Beyond what numbers of attacks, of what kinds might you begin to rethink it? A Beslan in Bemidji? A Madrid train bombing in Minneapolis? Another Oklahoma City bombing in Eau Claire? Ten micrograms of anthrax released in Rochester? VX nerve gas in Eagan? One might run out of patience and places, or people to hit back. The restraint of such a position, honoring as it does the don’t strike first creed, comes with a price. Suppose a ten kiloton device were detonated in Charleston SC. Would you oppose a proportional response delivered by a B-2 on Damascus? Such a huge response might be unavoidable, provoked as it likely would be by the huge outcry. How many innocents would perish in Damascus along with the guilty? The stakes can escalate rapidly. The fetid oppressive Middle East and Muslim world is the breeding ground for the plague of Islamoterrorists. It was time to drain the swamp. Again our natural revulsion as Americans works against us here. We just don’t attack other countries. It is a high stakes endeavor, and it was time to alter strategies. The sight of Iraqis in Syria voting, and the impact it undoubtedly had on the Syrians, who have no such rights, is illustrative of the strategy to defeat the Islamofascists. After all, Democracies do no go to war with Democracies. (Much could be said about why Iraq and why not... wherever elsewhere. A primary choice for Iraq was its strategic geographic location. Open a Starbuck’s in Basrah, they’ll be clamoring for them in Tehran. A totalitarian regime cannot suppress a grande mocha.) I think events in Ukraine, Kyrgistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Lebanon suggest a great wave of people wanting to decide for themselves has been unleashed. Iraq is the struck bell, setting off sympathetic vibrations throughout the region. What we hope is that the tone will travel to Iran and mute the Mullahs and their dreams of Cesium 137.
***************************************
You may say "But look at all the innocent lives lost if you wait for someone to strike first." I say, "Are you saying our troops' lives aren't innocent? How do you know that those deaths were necessary?"
When you say "troops lives" do you mean lives lost? Remember that all those in the service now are volunteers. They have volunteered to serve and accept certain risks.
I have not speculated on the necessity or lack of that regarding anyone’s death. In debating matters of life or death, I don’t think anyone can criticize what someone else chooses, even and especially when that choice lead to their death. "...death’s necessary?" Again, I do not speak of any other’s deaths but my own. Were I 30, I’d have enlisted in the Marines before the winter of 2001. He my choice led to my death, will you debate its "necessity" because you take issue with the cause? You may argue about the latter, the privilege of the former belongs to me.

"at this point peace will come about only if we can successfully transfer power into the Iraqis' hands. We did not do this successfully in Afghanistan, and we need to learn that lesson. But transferring power is a difficult thing to do, especially when the people we are giving it to keep ending up dead, possibly by our own troops. "

Do you agree that peace as the presence of justice and the absence of threats? Mere absence of war does not qualify; many a people have lived in peace under tyranny. We may rightfully wish for the ending of strife, conflicts and war; we are not engaging the Islamofascists in war to bring about peace. Our goal is victory. We were successful in Afghanistan. What else might the first Presidential election, including vast numbers of women voters (in a Muslim country!) in its 5000 year history be called?
And yes, innocents in Iraq have been killed. ( You may wish to read my post with the quote from David Zucchino’s book Thunder Run for an example of the tremendous fire control discipline of our troops and compare the policy it illuminates versus the recent explosion outside a police station which killed 130 Iraqis, with proud, grim, deliberate intention. That innocents are killed in wars cannot be eliminated. We are way ahead of whoever is in second place. The tragedy of this cannot be gainsaid. But the quickest way out is through. As Ike said, (in a different context), "There it is. I don’t like it. But the decision has to be made." (I’ve paraphrased the quote.) That the drumbeat of bad news from Iraq has slipped off the main pages is by indirection an assertion of progress in Iraq. (You may dispute me here, but the almost ubiquitous phrase from the presses, "highest death toll since..." shows the scores they are tallying. I’d suggest they keep track of cell phone purchases, satellite dishes, internet cafes and Iraqi bloggers. Children in school might also be good news.)

Gathering to rally against the war is the greatest show of support for the troops possible. No one wants the war to keep going any moment longer than necessary on either side, I hope.

You are very wrong on two counts here. If I said to you, "I’m opposed to hockey, but I support the players", what would that mean? Support the players while they do what? Happily sit at home, relieved they’ll be getting no more black eyes? Have you asked any troops if they feel supported when people attend rallies? Ask Citizen Smash. Or Blackfive. Or Greyhawk at the Mudville Gazette. And there isn’t really an "the other side". The Islamofascists have often declared their intention to destroy America. During the cold war, the Soviets had the capability but not the intention to destroy us, as we did also. The Islamofascists have the intention in spades exponential, and will use whatever capability they obtain, whenever possible. No deals can be reached. Our soldiers must destroy them, and our planting of the Democratic Ideals of Liberty in their midst will outflank and undercut them.

"I see gray. As in tune as I am with the concept of Good and Evil,..."

Good and Evil are not concepts.

" One man's evil is another man's good, and vice versa."

How do you know that? On what basis have you made that conclusion?

We are humans limited by human knowledge. We can never know everything. What can seem like Evil can actually be a greater good. What seems like Good may be evil to others. And the devil has a pleasing face.

Are you unable to distinguish an act of perfidy from an act of charity? While Nick Berg was screaming as his head was sawn off, (I heard the tape, did you?), that was not a pleasing face holding the knife, shouting blasphemies. To propose the relativism of neither one nor the other, is a refusal to make moral choices. (Perhaps one can choose not to choose. I do no agree and I will not live that way.) Yes, we can never know everything. With our limited viewpoints we must make choices. We are not asked to decide what is good or evil for others, we must make those choices ourselves." Neither hot nor cold, I will spew thee out of my mouth. " "Or, are you for us, or for our adversaries?" "Thus far and no farther. "

I’ll stop with this from Henry V: The king's a bawcock, and a heart of gold,
A lad of life, an imp of fame;
Of parents good, of fist most valiant.
I kiss his dirty shoe, and from heart-string
I love the lovely bully.