PDA

View Full Version : Fred Reed not mincing words (long)


GDYankee
September 12, 2001, 15:32
Not sure I agree with some of his analysis, but an interesting column by this guy Fred Reed.

A few unorganized thoughts regarding the events in New York:
(1) We lost. Our moral posturing about our degradation is merely embarrassing. We have been made fools of, expertly and calculatedly, in the greatest military defeat the country has suffered since we fled from Viet Nam. The Moslem world is laughing and dancing in the streets. The rest of the earth, while often sympathetic, sees us as the weak and helpless nation that we are.

The casualty figures aren't in, but 10,000 dead seems reasonable, and we wring our hands and speak of grief therapy.

We lost.

(2) We cannot stop it from happening again. Thousands of aircraft constantly use O'Hare, a few minutes flying time from the Sears Tower.

(3) Our politicians and talking heads speak of "a cowardly act of terrorism." It was neither cowardly nor, I think, terrorism. Hijacking an aircraft and driving it into a building isn't cowardly. Would you do it? It requires great courage and dedication -- which our enemies have, and we do not. One may mince words, but to me the attack looked like an act of war. Not having bombing craft of their own, they used ours. When we bombed Hanoi and Hamburg, was that terrorism?

(4) The attack was beautifully conceived and executed. These guys are good. They were clearly looking to inflict the maximum humiliation on the United States, in the most visible way possible, and they did. The sight of those two towers collapsing will leave nobody's mind. If we do nothing of importance in return, and it is my guess that we won't, the entire earth will see that we are a nation of epicenes. Silly cruise-missile attacks on Afghanistan will just heighten the indignity.

(5) In watching the coverage, I was struck by the tone of passive acquiescence. Not once, in hours of listening, did I hear anyone express anger. No one said, coldly but in deadly seriousness, "People are going to die for this, a whole lot of people." There was talk of tracking down bin Laden and bringing him to justice. "Terrorism experts" spoke of months of investigation to find who was responsible, which means we will do nothing. Blonde bimbos babbled of coping strategies and counseling and how our children needed support. There was no talk of retaliation.

(6) The Israelis, when hit, hit back. They hit back hard. But Israel is run by men. We are run by women. Perhaps two-thirds of the newscasters were blonde drones who spoke of the attack over and over as a tragedy, as though it had been an unusually bad storm -- unfortunate, but inevitable, and now we must get on with our lives. The experts and politicians, nominally male, were effeminate and soft little things. When a feminized society runs up against male enemies -- and bin Laden, whatever else he is, is a man -- it loses. We have.

(7) We haven't conceded that the Moslem world is our enemy, nor that we are at war. We see each defeat and humiliation in isolation, as a unique incident unrelated to anything else. The 241 Marines killed by the truck bomb in Beirut, the extended humiliation of the hostages taken by Iran, the war with Iraq, the bombing of the Cole, the destruction of the embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the devastation of the Starke, the Saudi barracks, the dropping of airliner after airliner -- these we see as anecdotes, like pileups of cars on a snowy road. They see these things as war.

We face an enemy more intelligent than we are.

(8) We think we are a superpower. Actually we are not, except in the useless sense of having nuclear weapons. We could win an air war with almost anyone, yes, or a naval war in mid-Pacific. Few Americans realize how small our forces are today, how demoralized and weakened by social experimentation. If we had to fight a ground war in terrain with cover, a war in which we would take casualties, we would lose.

(9) I have heard some grrr-woofwoofery about how we should invade Afghanistan and teach those ragheads a lesson. Has anyone noticed where Afghanistan is? How would we get there? Across Pakistan, a Moslem country? Or through India? Do we suppose Iran would give us overflight rights to bomb another Moslem country? Or will our supply lines go across Russia through Turkmenistan? Do we imagine that we have the airlift or sealift? What effect do we think bombing might have on Afghanistan, a country that is essentially rubble to begin with?

We backed out of Somalia, a Moslem country, when a couple of GIs got killed and dragged through the streets on TV. Afghans are not pansies. They whipped the Russians. Our sensitive and socially-conscious troops would curl up in balls.

(10) To win against a more powerful enemy, one forces him to fight a kind of war for which he isn't prepared. Iraq lost the Gulf War because it fought exactly the kind of war in which American forces are unbeatable: Hussein played to his weaknesses and our strengths. The Vietnamese did the opposite. They defeated us by fighting a guerrilla war that didn't give us anything to hit. They understood us. We didn't understand them.

The Moslem world is doing the same thing. Because their troops, or terrorists as we call them, are not sponsored by a country, we don't know who to hit. Note that Yasser Arafat, bin Laden, and the Taliban are all denying any part in the destruction of New York. At best, we might, with our creaky intelligence apparatus, find Laden and kill him. It's not worth doing: Not only would he have defeated America as nobody ever has, but he would then be a martyr. Face it: The Arabs are smarter than we are.

(11) We are militarily weak because we have done what we usually do: If no enemy is immediately in sight, we cut our forces to the bone, stop most R&D, and focus chiefly on sensitivity training about homosexuals. When we need a military, we don't have one. Then we are inutterably surprised.

(12) The only way we could save any dignity and respect in the world be to hit back so hard as to make teeth rattle around the world. A good approach would be to have NSA fabricate intercepts proving that Libya was responsible, mobilize nationally, invade, and make Libya permanently a US colony. Most Arab countries are militarily helpless, and that is the only kind our forces could defeat. Doing this, doing anything other than whimpering, would require that ancient military virtue known as "balls." Does Katie Couric have them?

İFred Reed 2001. All rights reserved.

kev
September 12, 2001, 15:43
I'd have a very difficult time disagreeing with any of it.

mother
September 12, 2001, 15:53
I'll say it:
AMEN BROTHER!

Richard Simms
September 12, 2001, 16:02
What a whinebox. He ought to do the rest of us a favor and shoot himself. But then, as an American, he is no doubt to cowardly to do it.

CITADELGRAD87
September 12, 2001, 16:07
Hell, I'll disagree with it, don't have the stomach to read it all because the author has christened the act a "military defeat," presumably meaning it was a "military victory" for the scumbags.

The act was nothing more than the murder of civilians, not "non combatents" cause there's no COMBAT, no, they murdered civilians.

Those animals laughing and dancing does NOT lend credence to this "cause," it merely sickens me. I could choose to dance in the face of their problems, I still choose not to do so. Their actions debase them, not me.

Missing from this would be analyst's lexicon is the distinction between WAR and terrorism.

If the successful murder of civilians ABSENT acknowledged war or at least conflict makes them "strong" and us, on the receiving end "weak," the reverse must be true.

All we have to do is attack Canada and destroy a city, or the Virgin Islands, maybe. If we can catch enough innocent civilians in a terror attack, the world will see us as strong again???!?!

I disagree with that flimsy analysis, but if it is accurate, F___ the world.

Regarding this idiot's choice of acquaintences or news sources who "acquiesced," and didn't call for revenge, he's not hanging around the AMERICANS I am.

We will have blood for this.

I'm done wasting cyberspace on this asshole.

[ September 12, 2001: Message edited by: CITADELGRAD87 ]

Scott S
September 12, 2001, 16:08
I'll take issue with points 3 and 6.

First, this was an act of cowards. If this really is war, were's the declaration? Suprise attack? Fine, but have the spine to stand up and say you did it.

Second, just because you're female doesn't mean you're a pussy (pardon my French). Though this country may be run by pussies, not all of them are female. Fred Reed obviously hasn't met my wife, sis-in-law, or mom-in-law. I'll wager he hasn't met Jen, either.

FALPhil
September 12, 2001, 17:00
You guys owe it to yourselves to read these:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=24444
http://www.antiwar.com/rep/utley3.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/keller10.html

hagar
September 12, 2001, 17:00
The retaliation will have a nuclear side, I'm totally convinced of it. Tactical nuke or neutron bomb. It's going to be big, mark my words.

kev
September 12, 2001, 17:08
Originally posted by CITADELGRAD87:
<STRONG>Hell, I'll disagree with it, don't have the stomach to read it all because the author has christened the act a "military defeat," presumably meaning it was a "military victory" for the scumbags.

The act was nothing more than the murder of civilians, not "non combatents" cause there's no COMBAT, no, they murdered civilians.

Those animals laughing and dancing does NOT lend credence to this "cause," it merely sickens me. I could choose to dance in the face of their problems, I still choose not to do so. Their actions debase them, not me.

Missing from this would be analyst's lexicon is the distinction between WAR and terrorism.

If the successful murder of civilians ABSENT acknowledged war or at least conflict makes them "strong" and us, on the receiving end "weak," the reverse must be true.

All we have to do is attack Canada and destroy a city, or the Virgin Islands, maybe. If we can catch enough innocent civilians in a terror attack, the world will see us as strong again???!?!

I disagree with that flimsy analysis, but if it is accurate, F___ the world.

Regarding this idiot's choice of acquaintences or news sources who "acquiesced," and didn't call for revenge, he's not hanging around the AMERICANS I am.

We will have blood for this.

I'm done wasting cyberspace on this asshole.

[ September 12, 2001: Message edited by: CITADELGRAD87 ]</STRONG>

I agree that I'm hearing alot of talk about revenge and reprisals, but what he's saying is true. I'm hearing it from MY people; you know, us gun toting loonies. You're not hearing it on the airwaves. You're not hearing much serious talk from the news services. They're still wrapped up in hand-wringing, as usual. Maybe they're selectively leaving that kind of stuff out of their man on the street interviews. Regardless, we do look weak to the rest of the world and have for a long time. Maybe not 'weak', but lacking resolve. I'd ask you to go back and read the entire article without emotion.

A military defeat for us? Why not. We weren't at war with Japan when they attacked Pearl Harbor. Were we 'militarily' defeated in Vietnam? I don't think so. It's semantics. The fact is, even tho we aren't at war with 'them', they are sure as hell at war with 'us'. They've said it many times. We just don't get it. They target civilians. That's how they wage war, and we haven't gotten that either. It's not that we are all weak or that some don't know how to handle these goons. It's just that it seldom gets done and that our public face gives the appearance of weakness and indecisiveness. We haven't fought with the gloves off since WWII.

We don't fight like they fight. We'll surely lose if we demand to play by a set of rules. In our view, their acts are cowardly. To that I'll agree. But it does take some sort of strength or devotion or whatever to do what's been done. I don't admire it, but I acknowledge it.

A hypothetical; Say the forth Airliner was shot down by a US Fighter on orders to prevent it's use as a weapon. Would you say the pilot of that Fighter was heroic? Would you say he was the bravest man that day, and made the greatest sacrifice by following those orders and shooting down that unarmed plane with US civilians onboard. I would. Would it be a military defeat for anyone? Would it matter whether or not anything was declared?

The point is that I think the article basically says that these terrorist are devoted to a cause and our devotion, while absolute, is not unrestrained enough to deal with it. He says they're brave, but he doesn't say it to grant them any respect. Just acknowledging that they did successfully accomplish their mission and that they're dedicated to a belief that we can hardly comprehend.

Anyway, I know there are plety of Americans who can do the job, if only those in charge will allow it.

cowbilly
September 12, 2001, 17:26
Our Marines and Army grunts will not roll up into little balls and cower.

Politics get soldiers killed. Politics cost us Vietnam and created the incident in Somalia and many other recent military debacles.

If you want to hit a homerun, you don't check swing, you swing and follow though. Same thing with war, if your going to shoot, then kill, and kill until the enemy is dead or unconditionally surrenders (and they won't surrender).

Nuclear strikes are the way to go. The Soviets were good fighters(still are) and they lost. This is a good opportunity to take care of Saddam and several other problems. Some will say that nukes are to excessive and that innocents willbe killed.
Not all Germans or Japanese hated Americans during WWII, but yet they supported their governments and it's actions which made them legitimate targets. It is the same with Islam, they support "Jihaad" (SP?) and their government, they are targets.

They targeted our civilians first. It is time to pay the reaper.

PS I'm in the US Army Reserves, combat arms, I know we (the troops) will not cower.

Tactical Nuclear strikes are the way to go.
:mad:

CITADELGRAD87
September 12, 2001, 17:29
Why not a "military" defeat?

Are you serious?

How about THERE WAS NO MILITARY INVOLVEMENT, except perhaps the pentagon.

Pearl Harbor? You know what the targets were, right? Not the Hotels, they went for the carriers. Except they weren't there, so they hit every other MILITARY ship they could find.

Viet Nam. Who did we have there? SOLDIERS.
Did the VC fight "like soldiers?" No. But at least they were attacking SOLDIERS. Kids being used to grenade soldiers is one thing, TARGETING civilians, on the other hand is different.

I also reject that reference to these assholes and "brave" should ever be said in the same sentence.

So if Mcveigh had sat in the truck while it went off, he's not a COWARD, he's suddenly brave?!?!

kev
September 12, 2001, 17:58
Originally posted by CITADELGRAD87:
<STRONG>Why not a "military" defeat?

Are you serious?

How about THERE WAS NO MILITARY INVOLVEMENT, except perhaps the pentagon.

Pearl Harbor? You know what the targets were, right? Not the Hotels, they went for the carriers. Except they weren't there, so they hit every other MILITARY ship they could find.

Viet Nam. Who did we have there? SOLDIERS.
Did the VC fight "like soldiers?" No. But at least they were attacking SOLDIERS. Kids being used to grenade soldiers is one thing, TARGETING civilians, on the other hand is different.

I also reject that reference to these assholes and "brave" should ever be said in the same sentence.

So if Mcveigh had sat in the truck while it went off, he's not a COWARD, he's suddenly brave?!?!</STRONG>

You're mis-interpreting what I'm trying to say. You're looking at everything in your terms, and from that perspective, I agree with you. Our military was not involved so suffered no 'defeat'. That was their 'military' and it was a 'military' victory for their side. Don't take it personally. You don't need to defend the integrity of the US military with me.

Like I said, this is how they fight. Accept it. We didn't like the way the Japs hit Pearl or the way the North Vietnamese played. Every war finally gets around to making us understand that the old rules no longer apply. This is a war, and we've been in it for a long time. We're arguing semantics because you read 'military defeat' and quit reading. Military from their point of view only. To us, it's an act of terrorism against civilians. As long as you hold on to that distinction, you're blinding yourself to the fact that we are in a war. You're arguing about whether someone should be considered brave based on your definition. Nobody is defending their actions or making heroes of the attackers. Is it brave to sacrifice your life for what you believe? If not, then what is it?

CITADELGRAD87
September 12, 2001, 18:36
I'm not taking it personally. I'm not in the military.

Words mean things. I refuse to accept their hijacking of the language.

Recasting a despicable act in terms of more agreeable language is, by definition, cowardice.

If I do something unspeakable to your family over a business dispute, do you accept that it's just "business" as I define it? No? But that's the way drug dealers do "business."

Slavery is accepted in some cultures, as is female genital mutilation, spousal abuse, etc.

I don't give one flying F--- if it's OK in their culure, under their definition, according to their religion, whatever.

They don't GET to lay claim to legitimacy just because their barbaric asses think they are just or right.

We are the bedrock of the civilized world. They are the sworn enemy of civilization.

They are WRONG. I do not care what their motivation is. I do not care if they think they are right, just, soldiers, etc.

They are animals and must be cut down wholesale. A total disproportionate response is in order.

They are not soldiers. Thay are cowardly animals.

Regarding "definitions" and bravery, you have not answered my question, so I will restate it here.

If Mcveigh sat in the truck instead of ran, he was brave under this definition?

That's exactly why I reject it.

kev
September 12, 2001, 19:47
I wasn't avoiding the question. I didn't think it pertinent, but here goes. If McVeigh had remained in the truck, I'd probably consider that cowardly. It wasn't necessary to his mission, so I'd assume he remained because he didn't want to face the consequences of his actions. That's cowardly in my book.

You're right, words do have meaning. You refuse to accept anyone using the term brave with these animals. OK, I'm fine with that. I can see that your definition of 'brave' contains a certain amount of honor. I can also see that there isn't any honor in this case, at least not from our point of view. I had considered bravery as a single point, without the requirement for right or wrong, and without a need for honor. I had only considered the polar opposites; brave or cowardly. With those options only, I chose to defend the definition of brave.

You've chosen to label them as cowardly since you'd consider it unthinkable to grace them with the term 'brave'. Remember, words do have meaning. The people who did this, and those who we'll hopefully be hunting down, are most definitely not cowards. They're not at all likely to 'cower in fear'. They're not 'persons who are easily made afraid, or who run from trouble or danger'. Labelling them as such could lead us into trouble. Thinking of them as animals is probably a good idea. Brave, as in fearless and with courage? Maybe, maybe not. Vicious, fierce, despicable, evil; probably. At any rate, we're going to have to determine to be fierce and vicious ourselves if we hope to defeat them.

CITADELGRAD87
September 12, 2001, 20:36
Total agreement now, KEV.

Animals it is. I did not mean or imply that they are afraid, as in cowering, only that they act like cowards.

Forthechildren
September 12, 2001, 22:05
As for suggestion of tactical nukes, I think we need to keep such weapons reserved in order to respond to a similar assault upon us. As bad as this is, it was not NBC.

As for access to Afghanistan, it is difficult. Perhaps we shouldn't ask for overflight rights, but take it from a country such as Iran, itself a state sponsoring terrorism. The only conventional way to make a difference is with airborne troops.

Also we need to remember that more than one empire has to come grief in Afghanistan.

blueyedfaler
September 13, 2001, 00:45
I hate to say this but I thinf Mr. Reed is right. Not to get all caught up in the semantics but over all he is right.
We may get bin lauden or some such but
we will not make this right. I hope I eat these words but if we don't get this
well under way within a week we lose! :(
Kirk

ProGun1
September 13, 2001, 01:03
Let's keep our faith in doers and not letter writers selling a story. The guy's selling an idea that we have been whooped and he is a defeatist demoralizing those that will listen to his banter. He is a liability in the food chain and should cast himself out and leave like the whipped pup he professes others to be. I'm not losing hope too soon. We shall see, no doubt. Why should the military say anything of their impending actions to the silly sound bite editors? Aren't we expecting our paid leaders to do their jobs and not listen to the opinions of news reporters who now seemingly create news and opinion instead of just reporting fact? Screw anyone not with us because they are against us with deeds or words.

Ropes4u
September 13, 2001, 01:40
When I see dead muslims I will disagree with what the writer said until then I for the most part agree with what he says. This is not a reflection upon our military but upon our weak politicians.. I hope and pray G.W.B. proves me wrong..

Blue Skies, Ropes

ricochet
September 13, 2001, 07:23
SORRY TO DISAGREE, BUT I DO.
This guy is a loser, pure and simple, he will not speak for me.
(1)BS
(2)?
(3) IT WAS
(4) They were good, but they are dead. We can and will retaliate, their kids and wives may vaporize. They will not see this, we will (I hope), buy THEY ARE DEAD. They did their objective, we should admit costly, but wrong and expensive.
(5) I watched a different channel, I saw anger and a desire to strike back. Maybe that was where I am.
(6)Sort of. But we are not as soft as you think. We have more dividedness and politics. The Israelis seem to act as one body, damn the torpedoes. They are not us.
(7)We cannot declare this. The head is thinking, while the body follows. Do we nuke the whole area, or the ones who deserve the punishment? If we get sick, we aim at a cure, not to kill the body (usually).
(8)We are, they wish they could be. This is envy. They are not what they wish to be.
(9) My thoughts of an invasion is firstly from upper atmosphere. They are living simple, I think a big bang may be appropriate. We have lost too many, and they feel invincible. Why fight into their hands? They asked for this (a few of them), we did not. Glass from sand? Maybe valuable in a few millenium. They need to lose this one to modern technology. Remember, they are smart, like bringing a knife to a gun fight.
(10)Pretty close, but if they asked for the war, we can offer options, hopefully bigger firecrackers.
(11)Look back a few yeaRS (MAYBE 8) BUT you may be close, I think we kept a little for a surprise, not nearly enough.
(12) So true, very hard, very, very hard.

So, I cannot totally disagree. I belive the author to be no smarter, nor a better person to offer advice than me or your next door neighbor. He is no Einstein, nor will he ever be asked for important advice.

I am so glad this guy is not our Government, The fight has only just begun. If we do lose, it should be after the fight, and not by this idiots lead. Another idiot maybe, but Gore did lose.

I cannot say I totally disagree, nor will I not take flak. But I am glad this fella does not get paid to lead my country. I believe the real fight has just begun. Fred will never speak for me. :eek:
For him to compare this cowardly act to war makes him a fool. For him to say we have lost is like listening to Hanoi Jane. This battle may be longterm and costly, but I do not want to accept defeat, damn the torpedoes. The future is ahead, not behind.

GreyGhost14
September 13, 2001, 07:43
Originally posted by hagar:
<STRONG>The retaliation will have a nuclear side, I'm totally convinced of it. Tactical nuke or neutron bomb. It's going to be big, mark my words.</STRONG>

I would agree if I thought they could find a nuculear target. I don't think one will be fourthcomeing.


As for "Act of cowards." I don't know. It seems to me that a sucicide attack is more "Crazy brave." (With the accent on crazy.)

Maybe the leaders are cowards? Yeah, I can see that. But the little devils they sent at us were pumped up on stupid courage.