Skip to main content

It's all about reputation

Ian commented at GayPatriot: “Now, after three years of a difficult slog in Iraq, a resurgent Taliban, a restless homefront and growth of worldwide distrust and antagonism towards the US, there is no longer the perception that the US is not to be messed with. That is a dangerous and enduring Bush legacy.”

My reply:

Black is white. Up is down.

Our “pre-W” reputation wasn't as someone “not to be messed with.” That's complete BS. Heck, Bin Laden and friends were so convinced of it that they perpetrated 9-11. Not to be messed with? People messed with us *constantly* because they knew they *could*. All it takes is killing a few American soldiers and we run away. Over. And over. And over.

Which, in my view, is probably the most important reason that it was necessary to go on from Afghanistan to Iraq. We desperately needed to send the message that we aren’t to be messed with because not *only* will we sweep down like the judgement of God and wipe your puny tyranny from the Earth but we will go on and visit wrath elsewhere as well. No more thinking that when the sh*t hits the fan next door that you’re safe from getting splattered with it.

It's not pretty. It's not pleasant. It's actually rather cold and terrible. But so is allowing people to think that we don't say what we mean or do what we say. If Ian is right about something it's that we *must* have a reputation that we aren't to be messed with.

And frankly, we’ve got to consider body language, posture and posturing and how it is interpreted by people from a culture where *no* insult is tolerated. When we tolerate insult, act all peaceful and reasonable-like, it is interpreted, not according to *our* culture, but according to theirs. If they posture and we roll over, we’ve signaled submission and will be despised rather than respected. Saddam, under sanctions, assumed the posture of victory because by *his* rules he *was* the victor.

And we get people all worried because we might antagonize someone.

It’s amazing.

People insist on our national posture being that of a food animal and think it’s going to result in peace and happiness. Food animals get eaten and it is right and good that they get eaten. It’s their *purpose* to be eaten.

*Our* culture values humility and other remnants and artifacts of our Christian heritage. Our God voluntarily became man and allowed himself to be spit upon and killed in the most humiliating way possible in order to provide our salvation. Even if you are an athiest or pagan, this *is* what informs our culture.

Moslems will say that they respect Christ far more than any Christian because they refuse to allow that God would let any of this happen. They don't believe that God let Jesus die. Humility is degrading and entirely unacceptable in any way. Honor is more important than anything. A nation that despises itself, which is what our “body language” tells them, does not deserve or recieve any respect.

Down is up. White is black.

And why the heck is it necessary to explain this to people who percieve their side of the issue as internationally sophisticated and informed?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

How Suzanne Brockman lost me.

I just finished reading the latest paperback from Suzanne Brockmann. _Dark of Night_. I'm disappointed and that's a sad thing because I've absolutely loved her series of romances about SEAL team 16 and the Troubleshooters. Aparently I'm not alone. My complaint isn't the same as most of the others... I'm great with Sophia and Dave. I even am okay with Tracey being people smart. She and Decker did seem to come out of left field. I thought Decker was great even if I thought his overwhelming conflict was pretty lame. What I didn't care for was the politics. I read for escapism, for studly dangerous men acting like men, for sex, and adventure with guns, where our military are the good guys and the SEALs are supermen and military contractor's are heroes, too. (I wonder if Ms. Brockmann realizes that the Troubleshooters ARE Blackwater?) I do not read sexy action adventure to be presented with a *cause*. It's small things but they don...

Tyranny.gov vs Tyranny.com

Compulsion is Compulsion, no matter who does it.  This is Brilliant Theft is Theft, no matter who does it. Freedom of Association has no room in it for *private* action   that takes that away Freedom of Association. If I have a business and have voluntary associations such that I choose to serve some people and to not serve others, that might make me a jerk and it might lose me business, it might make me smart and it might gain me business, but it's got to be my choice.  If I would normally serve the current disliked minority in my shop except for the fact that if I'm SEEN to serve them by the wrong people I'll have a private campaign against me as those people do everything possible to ruin me by preventing me from doing business physically or by attacking my customers or suppliers, then I am NOT free to make those choices. Does it really make a difference to losing my CHOICE to voluntarily associate if there's a law that says I may not serve "those people" o...

The Shooter

I just watched the DVD. When I saw trailers for this I wanted to see it. It's the sort of movie that I usually enjoy. It wasn't bad. In fact it was pretty good in some ways and the annoying bits weren't too hard to ignore. The end was sort of bad. Not the choices that I'd make. It took conspiracy a bit too far, away from conspiracy to "this is the way the world works." It *should* have been enough to expose the Senator and his fellows. Where was the press in this? The idea wasn't too bad. The speech his spotter's widow gave about her dead husband's choices was good. (Though why she'd go back to using her maiden name I can't imagine.) Among all those willing to look the other way were several people who were... righteous. But overall it wasn't a "conspiracy" movie. There wasn't a "conspiracy" there was only finding out the "truth" of reality. In this world president Bush re...