« Zarqawis peers react to his passing | Main | Sic Semper Tyrannus »

Who's side are you on?

neo-neocon wrote a two part post last month on "Why this war is so hated" and that one post has stuck with me now for over a month. I've probably sat down half a dozen times since then to write my own post of the same idea. I stopped because I kept getting drawn into a syndrome I call "Grand Unified Theory"-itis, where ytou start trying to link together large marco ideas under a one-size-fits-all theory.

I do sincerely believe she is on to something, and its something big. Why do I think that? Well heres a few things that have tipped me over again into the land of "grand unified theory-itis". At the beginning of the week, I read a post on "Nilist in Golf Pants" about " what would todays anti-war protestors have said at the Normady invasion". The post was funny, but the comments were even funnier, but more to the point the illustrated a problem that had been circling my mind for some time, thanks to neo-neocons original thought provoking post. The left responded to this simple joke as if it was a stake in their heart, but that wasnt the only example. Over the last 48 hours, Ive watched the world reaction to the death of the blood thirsty murdering thug Zarqawi in utter amazement. In just 48 hours he hass gone from "just another dead thug" to martydom; and this time it looks like hes on his was to near "che"-like status in the west!. The press are now asking if he wast killed by a bomb but "rather he was possibly murdered by US troops" ( shhh, questions are being raised by locals who say that Zarqawi was stomped to death...) As if this true that it would be a bad thing! Later on this week, I read the the latest posting by Steven Den Beste I knew I was on the right track. Again, not becuase of what he said, but because of the reaction to it.

When we went to war on September 11th, 2001, I was totally prepared that we would have to fight for our lives against the Jihadis. I was not prepared for the fact that most of our fight in the war would end up as a fight against ourselves.

The war on the battlefield is slowly but surely being won, but at the same time I fear that the culture war at home is being lost. It would seem that "Bush Derangement Syndrome" is but a symptom of a more deadly and potentially fatal disease.

I have some gardening to tend to and an airshow to go to later today, but I promise a large post on this subject this weekend.

Posted @ June 10, 2006 12:42 PM | Current Events

Comments

Nothing new there. It's been like that for some time. Alger Hiss vs Whittaker Chambers. Go back some more and it was the Royalists vs the Revolutionists. Pogo said it best, "I have met the enemy and it us". These days substitute nuance for us.

Posted by: Dennis at June 10, 2006 08:24 PM

I just read the responses to Den Beste's statements, and I am reminded why it sickens me to start "debating" war protestors. Make a statement that sways from the accepted "Bush lied" mindset, and it's suddenly like one man trying to defend himself from a pack of hungry wolves. The pure venom that comes from their keyboards is profoundly disturbing and it raises my blood pressure just to read it, merely for the way they manage to trot out every tired argument that's been put to sleep many times before, but it doesn't stop them from trotting it out again ("100,000 civilians died! Are you telling me the Lancet would lie?!?!)

I briefly thought of taking up the argument over at metafilter, but like Den Beste I realize it won't change anyone's mind there, so why bother?

Posted by: Paul T at June 10, 2006 09:41 PM

Its pretty common for people to produce reasons for behaviors and attitudes that have nothing at all to do with the true motivations. I am convinced that this is the case for those opposed to the war.

The war is "bad" because it disrupts the preferred political climate for the left--a focus on universal health care and other left-wing insanity. The reason John Kerry desperately wants the troops to come home is because the war on terror is an issue the left can never hope to compete on. Peace, any kind of "peace" is an absolute necessity to reverse the political fortunes of the left.

Of course, the left doesn't actually intellectualize their views this way, but subconsciously they will grasp any argument, no matter how irrational, that justifies their opposition.

Posted by: Mick Stockinger at June 10, 2006 10:55 PM

After having spent some time over at metafilter watching the minions screw themselves into the ground with their arguments, I have a serious desire to go rinse my eyes out with Drano.

Nothing like a little mindless "fact"-tossing and kossack screeching to liven up a screen...

Posted by: JD at June 11, 2006 07:47 PM

Please change "who's" to "whose" in your headline.

Posted by: beloml at June 13, 2006 06:40 AM

My approach to all this war bit is a tad more practical than much of what I read.

There are people who want people like me gone along with the way of life I enjoy.

I don't know who started it all and it doesn't matter now. It's on.

I don't want to please them or try to be friends with them. It's pointless.

It's a we/they situation.

I know which side I'm on.

Posted by: Bill at June 15, 2006 02:35 PM