Randy Cassingham's Blog

My father told me numerous times, "If you want to hate someone, stay completely away from him. Otherwise, sooner or later you will find something you like about him." And it is true but, unfortunately, most people (and politicians as well) seem not to understand the concept.

---

Quite a few people simply want to fight -- got an e-mail like that today, saying I was advocating dismantling our national defense, which is a pretty ludicrous conclusion. Very sad, but that's the mentality of too many people. -rc

It seems, though, that in history we consistently have enemies we respect and enemies we vilify. We may respect Rommel, but Hitler is used as a symbol for evil. The difference in opinion seems to stem from the facts we know about them outside of our relationship to them as enemies. Looking at our enemies during my very young life time, I find there continue to be some we treat with respect (Gorbachev) and some we vilify (Hussein). In many cases it's not as much about propoganda as it is about the character our enemies have shown.

It may be true that we The People think we are the good guys, and it may even be true that we the People are good guys, but for quite a while (since after WWII ) our GOVERNMENT certainly hasn't been amongst the good guys.

And how can a member of we The People realize what our illegal war of aggression has done to Iraq and still say, right hand over his heart, "we are the good guys". Please do not make me laugh, or I think I will cry.

Check out Clint Eastwood's amazing "Letters from Iwo Jima". It exemplifies the art of seeing the other side.

The radical Islamists say "Convert to Islam or die." They believe with every fiber of their being that their God requires this. They make no compromise offer within their demand, nor do they seek any dialogue with you other than to hear you say "I convert." And those are not my words or my fanatical "western" interpretation. Those are direct quotes from their leaders and spokesmen. Exactly what sort of rational dialogue do you expect to have with that mentality? Such foolish and dangerous naievete. Spare us.

---

Yes, I agree -- spare us your naivete (the correct spelling)! The only logical conclusion of what you're saying is the only solution is to nuke them. I'm saying there are other alternatives. It's rather clear which position is naive or extremist.

We've co-existed with Islamics for centuries, and suddenly things have changed, yet there's no hope that educating them will help? Uh huh. I'm not saying talking is easy, but it sure beats wanton slaughter. -rc

As always, there is an element of truth to both sides. Having lived among them, I agree that a great number of Islamics want to kill anyone who espouses Western or democratic ideals. And I also DISagree that we have co-existed peacefully with Islamics for centuries. I specify that 'coexistence' implies a willingness on both sides. For centuries, the Middle East has been to fragmented and disorganized for any 'willing' coexistence to take place.

Now that they have become more organized AND financed, they provide a greater force to cause interminable problems throughout the rest of the world. There are two solutions. The easy one is to nuke them. That would eliminate the problem forever, but it would also wipe out innocents along with the 'guilty'. And, it would constitute Genocide, something we supposedly oppose. How about a new Holocaust, only this time it would be the U.S. and the Arabs, rather than Germany and the Jews?

Since there are so many Islamics who are totally willing to slaughter each other as they are to engage in war with the West, they don't really need the West to satisfy their blood lust. Our largest problem is containing their internal carnage so that it doesn't spill over to the rest of the world.

That is the trickiest part. Being able to engage in diplomacy so that they can contain their 1500 years of wars in their own yards, not ours. A hard prospect, but when a People is determined to die in order to protect their Right To Kill, we're left with only Where and Who, not How to stop it.

For those old enough to remember, Saudi Arabia (and Egypt for that matter) were NEVER allies of the U.S. It was Kissinger's diplomacy that achieved a mutual tolerance in spite of diametric opposition in political viewpoint. In other words, the Saudi royal family finds it more expedient to tolerate the U.S. rather than risk possible annihilation. Something that the mobs in Iraq are too disorganized, too scattered, and too determined to prolong the bloodlust among themselves, to consider as any detriment.

John Milton stated in 'Paradise Lost' that it's "Better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven." Faced with that logic, our only hope is to achieve a diplomatic and political balance rather than hope for a final victory one way or the other.

Sorry Randy, but I don't see us having a dialog with Iran, Syria, or the radicals in Iraq that is any more productive that the Israeli-Palestinian talks of the last 30 years.

Nukes or not, we are not fighting the war in Iraq to win it. We haven since WWII. Korea was not a win for us. And by Vietnam the American people had mostly lost their will to fight. If Vietnam and now Afghanistan and Iraq were fought all out, to win, like we did in WWII against Germany, Italy, and Japan it would be over now.

Anyone remember the bombing in Germany and Japan (not the nukes either) that destroyed the infrastructure and the peoples will to resist? We haven't done that, not in Iraq or Afghanistan.

I think it's possible to admire someone like Rommel or Hitler for the things they did well. But that doesn't mean you put them on a hero's pedestal. Rommel as tactician was very good, though he was beat.

And any individual soldier, such as Lothar-Guenther Buchheim, surely has many admirable qualities. That didn't make him any less the enemy though.