What he said
Dec. 10th, 2003 10:27 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pecuniumAtrios http://atrios.blogspot.com/ led me to a diatribe here: http://www.adamyoshida.com/2003_12_01_archive.html#107085700792933637 [with which I viscerally, and almost violently, disagree, and I told him so).
But the best part of this (which was in the comments, almost exclusively against Herr Yosdida's position) was the following. I would credit the author, but he posted anonymously.
You can't ferret out the terrorists within by aggressive action. You may not be able to ferret them out at all. Our strategy right now is not effectively dealing with the terrible threats we face as the target of everyone in the world.
Full spectrum dominance is not synonymous with freedom and liberal democracy. Who do you think will get hit with mini-nuclear terrorism? The full spectrum dominator. Otherwise, why bother? We need a strategy that will work, that will lateralize and distribute threat targets, and that will address the underlying reasons why these targets ARE targets.
There is no perfect defense, and no perfect offense. Therefore, we should stop causing offense, and start thinking distributed and resilient defense. And this defense should be erected around our deepest values, freedom and liberal democracy, which are the greatest development in human civilization.
Terrorism can't defeat that defense, but in a worst-case scenario it can nuke a city. Will nuking a city roll back all our progress, and destroy our deepest values? If so, this would be terrorist victory.
On the other hand, like with the Internet as a distributed information network, if we distribute the blessings of freedom and liberal democracy in an open, reinforced, global network, no isolated and surprise terrorist attacks can defeat, change, or intimidate us. The act itself will hold much less meaning, and thus be less psychologically enticing enough to go through all the trouble to accomplish in the first place.
It could happen though. Our courage will be in dealing with the fact that this may occur, and ensuring it doesn't defeat us or cause us to surrender our most cherished values and ambitions. I am not afraid. We will win, and that means that freedom and liberal democracy will win. America, as the standard bearer for freedom and liberal democracy, will also win. But ONLY as that standard bearer, not just in our own right.
If we stand alone, we are much more vulnerable, and much more conducive to fear and tyranny. Our legacy hangs in the balance. Join the brave and defend freedom before all else. Remember Ben Franklin's words: "Those who would surrender freedom for security deserve neither." (or some cuch statement)
What he said.
TK
But the best part of this (which was in the comments, almost exclusively against Herr Yosdida's position) was the following. I would credit the author, but he posted anonymously.
You can't ferret out the terrorists within by aggressive action. You may not be able to ferret them out at all. Our strategy right now is not effectively dealing with the terrible threats we face as the target of everyone in the world.
Full spectrum dominance is not synonymous with freedom and liberal democracy. Who do you think will get hit with mini-nuclear terrorism? The full spectrum dominator. Otherwise, why bother? We need a strategy that will work, that will lateralize and distribute threat targets, and that will address the underlying reasons why these targets ARE targets.
There is no perfect defense, and no perfect offense. Therefore, we should stop causing offense, and start thinking distributed and resilient defense. And this defense should be erected around our deepest values, freedom and liberal democracy, which are the greatest development in human civilization.
Terrorism can't defeat that defense, but in a worst-case scenario it can nuke a city. Will nuking a city roll back all our progress, and destroy our deepest values? If so, this would be terrorist victory.
On the other hand, like with the Internet as a distributed information network, if we distribute the blessings of freedom and liberal democracy in an open, reinforced, global network, no isolated and surprise terrorist attacks can defeat, change, or intimidate us. The act itself will hold much less meaning, and thus be less psychologically enticing enough to go through all the trouble to accomplish in the first place.
It could happen though. Our courage will be in dealing with the fact that this may occur, and ensuring it doesn't defeat us or cause us to surrender our most cherished values and ambitions. I am not afraid. We will win, and that means that freedom and liberal democracy will win. America, as the standard bearer for freedom and liberal democracy, will also win. But ONLY as that standard bearer, not just in our own right.
If we stand alone, we are much more vulnerable, and much more conducive to fear and tyranny. Our legacy hangs in the balance. Join the brave and defend freedom before all else. Remember Ben Franklin's words: "Those who would surrender freedom for security deserve neither." (or some cuch statement)
What he said.
TK
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Snarky aside
Date: 2003-12-11 09:32 pm (UTC)I do find it interesting that in several weeks of having comments this was not a problem, but when his diatribe gained so much, heated; and usually reasoned, response, it got to, "fouling", the site.
On the down side (or perhaps my cardiologist would disagree) one can no longer respond to his twisting of facts, reprehensible views, and insipid arguments, which means I will probably stop looking at his site, and leave it to those who agree.
Perhaps this is for the best, since, sadly, I doubt any who read my responses are actually suadable.
TK