American and British soldiers invited to march on Red Square

[Drummond]

Whether Russia was right or wrong, this is the only way to fight any kind of war -- completely and totally winning, an absolute crushing of enemy resistance, with a little good intimidation through the demonstration of superior firepower during the war to keep the enemy in line afterward. This is the kind of thing most of the world seems to say about Israel or the United States responding to pathetic low-tech Muslim terrorist attacks with high-tech, state-of-the-art weapons systems. I fear the United States has given into this idea at some level too. By the time you're in a war, you need to win it absolutely and completely. There's nothing wrong with the "hit them with all you've got approach." War isn't an honor fight.

I do see what you're arguing .. and in terms of sheer tactics, what you say makes reasonable sense (IF justified / justifiable by circumstances).

But I still have a problem with this 'sledgehammer to crack a nut' issue .. and I've a way of illustrating my case, very unfortunately. It's this .. when whatever battle or war has been won, if such tactics have been used, these days the media will do all possible to paint any force winning in such a way as an aggressor, or a bully, or otherwise morally culpable for such a display of force. Trust me when I say that the Left overseas enjoys painting the US as an imperialist bully .. and in turning public opinion against you wherever, and whenever, it can.

Did you by any chance see that BBC 'Big Questions' iPlayer link I left on another thread ? Those in the studio debating Iraq and Blair's involvement tried to paint Blair as an aggressor, in the pocket of Bush, actually, LITERALLY, as some kind of 'war criminal' (.. this received applause !). And almost at the outset, one speaker tried to say that because of the number of deaths caused by the invasion, this meant that Blair was no less of a monster than Saddam was (and if you DID view the video clip, you'll know that the studio audience approved of the comment and clapped it !).

Trust me in this. The greater the appearance of overwhelming force used, the more the so-called 'aggressor' is open to villification by the media afterwards. In fact .. yesterday, on the BBC's Andrew Marr show, an Alastair Campbell (a senior advisor to Blair back in 2003) - and NOT given to emotional displays !! - was nearly reduced to tears in mid-interview, as he considered the massive attempts to villify both himself and Blair over their Iraq support.

He said that it was his perception that nobody is interested in learning the truth anymore .. that Blair was honourable, and did what he thought was right. The Chilcot Inquiry here, and persistent media attention, has done much to try and demonise them both.

RWNJ .. I can agree with you purely in terms of tactics. But after the war .. these days, the peace has also to be won. It's a sad (- and VERY annoying !- ) fact, but true nonetheless.

This is the way the world is. This is how many people on the planet think these days. Although .. perhaps, Russia is a sufficiently regimented Society these days, still along the old Soviet model, that its Government can do all it chooses without political fallout resulting .. ???

RWNJ and anyone else .. have just dug out a couple of newspaper links covering Sir Alistair Campbell's reaction to the Andrew Marr 'grilling' he received yesterday morning, on our domestic TV channel, BBC-1. This, folks, is just the latest in a long line of attack-dog interviews and villifications people such as Sir Alistair have taken, and continue to, for 'daring' to support GW Bush over Iraq, an issue which persists here as being a very 'live' one.

... as I've argued elsewhere ... strenuous efforts are ongoing, and have been for YEARS, to ensure that no British politician will want to support the US over any comparable issue in future.

I don't think you understand just how great the villification-pressures are on those who've supported you in the recent past. How public opinion can create too toxic an environment for the freedom to take tough action to still be available to those who head our Government.

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/156823/Alastair-Campbell-close-to-tears-when-quizzed-over-Iraq

LABOUR media chief Alastair Campbell became tongue-tied and close to tears during a grilling about Iraq ­yesterday.

The former Tony Blair aide – now an adviser to Gordon Brown – froze for at least 10 seconds during a live TV interview when asked about claims that the public were misled over the threat posed by Saddam Hussein.

Struggling to retain his composure, Mr Campbell confessed to being upset about alleged “vilification”.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1249152/Emotional-Alastair-Campbell-cracks-TV-interview-Iraq-war.html

Selected quotes ..

Alastair Campbell broke down on live television yesterday as he defended Tony Blair's 'honour' over the Iraq war.

In an extraordinary performance on the BBC's Andrew Marr Show, Mr Campbell struggled to contain his emotions when it was put to him that Mr Blair had misled parliament about the case for war.

During several lengthy pauses, one lasting 15 seconds, the former Labour spin chief took a series of deep breaths while trying to compose himself.

His comments brought a sharp rebuke from the father of a British soldier killed in Iraq.

Reg Keys, whose son Tom died in June 2003, said Mr Campbell deserved criticism for his central role in the creation of the infamous 'dodgy dossier' in 2002 on Saddam Hussein's supposed weapons of mass destruction, which helped propel Britain to war.

Mr Keys said: 'He reckons he's been through a lot? He hasn't even scratched the surface of what the families of British service personnel killed in Iraq have been through, or what the wounded who lost their limbs and eyesight are going through every day - they have got a lifetime of this ahead of them.

He played a top role in the deceit that took us to war. I hope he lies awake every night thinking about it. He deserves to be vilified for the role that he played.'

The clash with Mr Marr came as Mr Campbell was touring the television studios yesterday to promote his latest novel.

He later said he was upset when Mr Marr introduced him as talking about his 'new work of fiction', which he took as a barbed reference to the Iraq dossier. He told Sky News: 'I think sometimes the glib way in which people look at this issue, cover this issue, is upsetting.'

Do you see what your supporters are going through, on this side of the Atlantic .. ??

Reg Keys, a few years ago, tried to stand as an opposition candidate in Blair's electoral constituency, in an effort to depose him as Member of Parliament. Had he succeeded in gaining enough votes, he'd have ousted Blair out of his job as Prime Minister.

So, RWNJ .. IDEALLY, I'd agree with you unreservedly. But .. any forceful defeat of one's enemies has to be accompanied by a means of irrefutible evidence that it was all morally justified, in a way that one's critics cannot have any means of undermining. Without that capacity to argue an evidently unassailable case .. one which cannot be subverted later, AS HAS HAPPENED IN THE UK .. damage results.

[Rightwing Nutjob]

So, RWNJ .. IDEALLY, I'd agree with you unreservedly. But .. any forceful defeat of one's enemies has to be accompanied by a means of irrefutible evidence that it was all morally justified, in a way that one's critics cannot have any means of undermining. Without that capacity to argue an evidently unassailable case .. one which cannot be subverted later, AS HAS HAPPENED IN THE UK .. damage results.

Naturally it must be justified. But if not, who is going to something about it? The Europeans and this let's bring-a-knife-to-a-knife-fight attitude? If Russia were wrong, who's going to get in its face over the incident? What threat could anyone bring when they refuse to win without fighting "fair."

It's fair to discuss whether Russia was justified; but if justified, then use of overwhelming force to win is justified. If it wasn't justified, then even an icepick at a gunfight isn't justified.

[Drummond]

Naturally it must be justified. But if not, who is going to something about it? The Europeans and this let's bring-a-knife-to-a-knife-fight attitude? If Russia were wrong, who's going to get in its face over the incident? What threat could anyone bring when they refuse to win without fighting "fair."

It's fair to discuss whether Russia was justified; but if justified, then use of overwhelming force to win is justified. If it wasn't justified, then even an icepick at a gunfight isn't justified.

I do see your basic point .. and I consider you've a strong case, taking it purely on its own merits.

I think what matters is that you bring sufficient force to bear to see to it that victory would be the outcome. That might indeed involve overwhelming force .. although, depending on circ's, not necessarily.

I think the real point is that, within democratic societies, whatever is done has to be explainable afterwards in an acceptable fashion. Because if it's not .. or if one's opposition has any latitude to try and chip away at the case you'd make for the tactics/degree of force used, then ultimately recriminations are brought to bear. In America's case .. the Left over here have done a considerable amount to try and paint America as an imperialist bully, and my concern is that the more America uses overwhelming force to get things done as a 'bog-standard' approach, then the Left will succeed in seeing to it that the US achieves international pariah-status.

If you think that's an exaggeration .. consider that Blair is fatally tainted by his association with Bush. He is openly called a 'war criminal' by the more strident of his critics !! The Chilcot Inquiry has done much to polarise opinion recently on this .. and is fast shaping up as an official way to scapegoat everyone from Blair on down in the British Cabinet who willingly supported him.

As I said before .. the political climate is being so poisoned that I doubt any British politician would dare do a 'Blair' and give such unqualified support in future campaigns.

All that said ... I do see your argument, and I agree that in an ideal world, your approach is the preferable one. But I must make this point, and maybe I'll be repeating it in future ... the likes of Michael Moore work to demonise America's Right wing INTERNATIONALLY .. and his views are well known here and to an extent receive respect. But ... WHERE IS HIS RIGHT WING OPPOSITION, TO COUNTER HIS PROPAGANDA ?

... that's the difficulty. If people such as Coulter, Hannity and the like could show us not only their point of view, but that international opinion mattered to them ... then this would just have to damage Moore's propagandising efforts. But for as long as Moore has an unimpeded, unopposed run at international opinion, then people like him will succeed in painting the US as imperalist, arrogant and uncaring of anyone save themselves and their own opinions .. if his is the only American voice to emerge to give any opinion !

Combine that with your 'we will use overwhelming force when we choose' approach, and the WRONG attitude will predominate internationally - and international opinion will isolate you, regardless of the righteousness of your cause.

I hope very much not to see that happen.

[I saw a 'HardTalk' interview last night on BBC News, by the way .. Hans Blix was being interviewed. In it, he said a nuclear-armed Iran would be dangerous, but it was better to live with that than see America attack it.

.. You see .. people here will buy into that, if they already see you as an aggressor force.]

Considering Russia specifically .. I want Volk's feedback on the nature of public opinion there. Whether their Government commands so much authority and acceptance that little criticism is fed back to Government that it needs take note of. If that is in fact so .. then it will not suffer pressures which Governments such as mine would be stuck with. Theirs, politically, will effectively be a different world from ours, with comparisons hard to draw.

[Volk]

Considering Russia specifically .. I want Volk's feedback on the nature of public opinion there. Whether their Government commands so much authority and acceptance that little criticism is fed back to Government that it needs take note of. If that is in fact so .. then it will not suffer pressures which Governments such as mine would be stuck with. Theirs, politically, will effectively be a different world from ours, with comparisons hard to draw.

They have to note criticism on economic issues. For example when the crisis was going strong Putin personally had to go around and fix problems in response to protests in a poorer town supported by one industry. Or, in the Far East, the government was planning to raise tariffs on automobile imports (cars there mainly come from Japan which is right nearby Kamchatka). There were protests in the street, and what was meant to be a delay was put on raising the tariffs, and was then extended passed its original expiration date.

In other areas, they don't have problems as in the West. Political correctness is not an issue. Gay rights are not an issue and gay marches are not allowed.

On the war, public response was pretty much unanimously in support, I'd say. But it shouldn't be compared to American wars. We didn't, after repelling the attack, go in and make a regime change, and then spend years and years throwing billions into building up the country. We went in, accomplished the objective, got out.

[Drummond]

They have to note criticism on economic issues. For example when the crisis was going strong Putin personally had to go around and fix problems in response to protests in a poorer town supported by one industry. Or, in the Far East, the government was planning to raise tariffs on automobile imports (cars there mainly come from Japan which is right nearby Kamchatka). There were protests in the street, and what was meant to be a delay was put on raising the tariffs, and was then extended passed its original expiration date.

In other areas, they don't have problems as in the West. Political correctness is not an issue. Gay rights are not an issue and gay marches are not allowed.

On the war, public response was pretty much unanimously in support, I'd say. But it shouldn't be compared to American wars. We didn't, after repelling the attack, go in and make a regime change, and then spend years and years throwing billions into building up the country. We went in, accomplished the objective, got out.

Well, Volk, taking your description on face value, I'd have to say that your own society has some definite advantages today, compared to what I see in my part of the world. Thanks for your answer.

Your comment about not fighting wars that result in regime change is interesting. This immediately had me thinking of your invasion of Afghanistan, two decades ago. I suppose .. technically you're correct if this is what you'd say for that episode .. though it's a fact that though you went in to prop up Babrak Karmal's regime, you nonetheless effectively did institute a form of regime change by turning his Government into one subservient to Soviet masters.

The Mujahiddeen - from which present-day Al Qaeda sprang - were, in those days, fighting for autonomy from Soviet domination of their country.

Tell me also, Volk, what the Warsaw Pact amounted to .. if not a means of forcing Russian dominance on all 'member' countries ! And consider Hungary, 1956 .. and Czechoslovakia, 1968. In each case, those countries wanted autonomy. In each case, Soviet forces intervened to make sure those efforts failed.

-- So I'd say that Russia's record regarding what one might term 'foreign adventurism' is far from enviable !!

If you had Iraq in mind regarding American efforts at regime change .. the initial and overriding point was to get full accountability from Saddam for his WMD stocks. The US waited TWELVE YEARS, from 1991 to 2003, for Saddam to comply with the various UN Resolutions being passed through that period. Only when it was obvious that military intervention was the ONLY reasonable option remaining, was it instituted.

Remember, Volk, that in 1991, Coalition forces (with US forces predominating) COULD have finished the war back then by marching into Iraq and defeating Saddam within Iraq itself, and not merely in Kuwait. But no, Volk, the US held back from regime change at a time when it could've easily arranged it.

[Volk]

For sure there are some areas however where the government does not take the people's interest into account. It depends on a lot of things, but yea I suppose there are some advantages and some disadvantages. For one thing this government is extremely corrupt which can cause problems for example where the interests of the populace over the rich who have enough money to bribe officials are concerned.

Oh and the lack of political correctness isn't always a good thing. The gay parades aren't allowed, but the gays still try to hold a disallowed one annually. The police usually stand by regardless of what happens to them.

The Mujahedin have always been fighting for the same thing, and that is their rule of Afghanistan through Sharia. They don't care whether the enemy is other Afghans, or Soviets, or Americans.

Yea, I don't support the Soviet action in those countries. For example in Hungary, the slogan was something like "Yes to Socialism, no to Soviet Domination" (not exactly, but it had the same idea as that). According to Marxism, nationalities are to be given the right to self-determination. That's why early on in Soviet rule, the different peoples of Central Asia asked to become their separate republics and were granted this, splitting off from the RSFSR. Otherwise they'd still be part of Russia today.

I don't think that some of the Western foreign actions at around the same time, were very good either, though. Many countries were still holding on to their colonies with force in the face of popular resistance to colonial rule.

When I mentioned American regime change I didn't mean to criticize it or suggest it wasn't justified to get Saddam out of power, just that because of the difference and the nation-building, the public response in Russia to the Georgia war and the public response in the West to its wars that use vastly more money are not comparable.

[Rightwing Nutjob]

Combine that with your 'we will use overwhelming force when we choose' approach, and the WRONG attitude will predominate internationally - and international opinion will isolate you, regardless of the righteousness of your cause.

When a nation refuses to win a war decisively and overwhelmingly when it has the capability, it's warring poorly. If the people expect it, that nation must doom itself to perpetual conflict. Win it as quickly as possible -- War done, no more killing and dying. Whether the war is just is different. If a people want to create a loss or draw just to be fair to the enemy, well they deserve what they've got coming. If they think that winning makes one a war criminal, they deserve what they've got coming, which is failure. They can expect no one to take defense of their interests seriously afterward. Don't worry. There's plenty of it here too, and I think we've managed to show our own lack of interest in winning rather well, and the world is still unhappy with us. There's no real winning on that front unless we cower and cry inside a shell and do nothing.

Volk explained the proper way to conduct war once you decide to go to war:

We went in, accomplished the objective, got out.

Everything else is PR and politics, often for the benefit of folks who are too morally or mentally weak to want to actually win.

I don't mean to be insulting, Drummond, but I think it's reflected in British entertainment. Take a look at Dr. Who, for example. What do the common people do in these programs when confronted by an aggressor? They wait for the Doctor. They wait for help. They take no action on their own but stand like sheep "believing" in the Doctor or wishing the "authorities" would do something. We've got plenty of folks like that, but in the United States, the average individual is likely to shoot the threat themselves before they're killed because they know the so-called "authorities" are minutes away (except at Virginia Tech where it's a microcosm of everything fail our liberals want to create and people die because guns are banned while the criminal uses the gun).

In the last episode, the show portrayed every citizen tuning into a speech by President Obama where he would explain how he was going to "save" the economy and all of us. In our most lefty movies here, it would have been a speech with some kind of argument built into the plot to explain why Obama's plans are correct. Fiction reflects the society around it. Does this TV show reflect British society and their mental state? It sounds to me like it does.

It reflects a loser mentality where the proper order of things eventually saves the people. Yet that proper order in this fictional world is the Doctor, who must use the superior ability at his disposal to win the day and save the British people year in and year out.

The bottom line is you cannot win without having some form of superiority, whether it's in technology, numbers or other strategic consideration. To demand "fairness" in the fight is to demand suicide or at best a double suicide as both sides of the conflict lose and continue to lose as their battles are dragged out for years on end.

If the British have reached a suicidal state, it saddens me. It worries me that Americans may do the same. The Russians, Chinese and Muslims won't (and that statement does not equate any of the three to the others). All of them will decide what to do and do what it takes to achieve it. When one becomes an aggressor, the west will apparently stand around shaking its hands in moral uncertainty crucifying its leaders for getting involved or fighting too hard.

As for what you can do about it, Drummond, I don't know. Michael Moore is not remaking your nation. He is preaching to the choir, reinforcing weakness and self-loathing. Your nation has banned Michael Savage from setting foot there, all for speaking. What happens to Sean Hannity or Ann Coulter if they start? Perhaps you should write to these folks and tell them. Keep fighting yourself if they won't come. Keep fighting before they come. Find ways to be involved and do the right things.

And I hope that the United States will stop bending to the will of those who would have it commit suicide.

[Susanna]

Originally Posted by Volk
We went in, accomplished the objective, got out.

In response to nutjob's post, what Drummond seems to be saying is that they didn't get out.

[Volk]

In response to nutjob's post, what Drummond seems to be saying is that they didn't get out.

I already showed it earlier in the thread, with sources. The large force was withdrawn in about 2 weeks. Some small amounts of soldiers stayed at checkpoints and buffer zones around Abkhazia and South Ossetia until these were taken over by EU monitors, in accordance with the treaty.

[Drummond]

When a nation refuses to win a war decisively and overwhelmingly when it has the capability, it's warring poorly. If the people expect it, that nation must doom itself to perpetual conflict. Win it as quickly as possible -- War done, no more killing and dying. Whether the war is just is different. If a people want to create a loss or draw just to be fair to the enemy, well they deserve what they've got coming. If they think that winning makes one a war criminal, they deserve what they've got coming, which is failure. They can expect no one to take defense of their interests seriously afterward. Don't worry. There's plenty of it here too, and I think we've managed to show our own lack of interest in winning rather well, and the world is still unhappy with us. There's no real winning on that front unless we cower and cry inside a shell and do nothing.

As I'd have hoped to have made clear, I can agree with a lot of what you say. Nonetheless ... I am sticking to my previous comments, because - in the case of describing international reaction to such tactics - what I'm claiming to be true, IS, and WILL BE. There are many who'd enjoy painting the US as an aggressive bully, and in instances where the approach you describe are seen to be applied, that is just what they'll seek to do, to demonise you.

It isn't fair or reasonable, in my view. But it is the way of things.

And it remains very important to emerge from any conflict with the ability to prove convincingly that what WAS done, HAD TO BE done, that imaginable alternatives were unreasonable. A prime way our public have of demonising Blair is to claim that the consequences of invasion - because of the force used, and fatalities following - has no moral defence. Again .. whatever my viewpoint, this is what happens.

Obama - as I'm sure you know - was greeted upon his victory with what in many quarters in the world could be called a form of hero worship. And his efforts to express a degree of culpability on the US's part for past actions likewise went down well. Many, too, liked his diplomatic approach to people Bush wouldn't have considered trying that with .. such as the approach tried with Iran.

Obama is seen as 'enlightened'. Bush by comparison is painted as some sort of Neanderthal bully.

The thing of it is .. that, when diplomacy fails, those expecting and agreeing with it do not then review their own viewpoints. No .. they become disenchanted with those attempting it .. such as Obama. Obama still commands much respect internationally - though this has appreciably diminished. He is held to account for any failures - to some extent, anyway - though it's rarely thought that others' expectations of him beforehand were unrealistic or misguided.

As for Blair being branded a war criminal .. if you DID see that 'Big Questions' BBC link (- when it worked !! -), you'll have seen how irrationally that case was being advanced. The lady advancing it somehow managed to tie Blair in to every civilian casualty the entire invasion produced, even though we all know how small our true extent of participation in Iraq really was.

I had the impression that some sort of magical solution was expected. Saddam was a bad man, but apparently so was anyone who meaningfully took him on ...

Volk explained the proper way to conduct war once you decide to go to war:

I think I've exhausted what I'd say on this. I see the rationalisation. But I also see what the result would be.

Everything else is PR and politics, often for the benefit of folks who are too morally or mentally weak to want to actually win.

Oh, I think they want to win. They just want a form of 'feelgood' factor to also play its part, too .. which in the real world doesn't happen.

I don't mean to be insulting, Drummond, but I think it's reflected in British entertainment. Take a look at Dr. Who, for example. What do the common people do in these programs when confronted by an aggressor? They wait for the Doctor. They wait for help. They take no action on their own but stand like sheep "believing" in the Doctor or wishing the "authorities" would do something.

No insult taken, because I think you're making a fair point. But seeing why this is so, is surely obvious ? Dr Who comes from a society and social order in which it's hardwired into people to expect (a) help to come from an authority, and (b) for good to triumph, WITHOUT really doing anything to personally help the process along.

When you live in a Society which 'institutionally' disempowers people, like mine does .. where gun ownership is a rarity, and laws exist to protect a wrongdoer from the actions of a zealous defender of his/her rights .. then, over the generations this has been in force, the psychology which looks to higher authority to always save from harm just has to take hold.

And in such circumstances, individuals do not have personal experience of harsh realities implicit in self-empowerment, and where this leads. This in turn leads to the luxury of moralising without ever facing the realities that must determine success.

We've got plenty of folks like that, but in the United States, the average individual is likely to shoot the threat themselves before they're killed because they know the so-called "authorities" are minutes away (except at Virginia Tech where it's a microcosm of everything fail our liberals want to create and people die because guns are banned while the criminal uses the gun).

Well, quite. I mean, what more can I say to this ?

I just posted this elsewhere, but it may be of interest to study it here .. a timeline of events concerning one Tony Martin, a farmer who owned a shotgun and used it to defend his farm from invasion (and I've posted this before ..). See from it just how villified Martin was for acting as he did .. what he suffered.

[Note that your own Charlton Heston offered him support at one stage ..]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/norfolk/3087003.stm

In the last episode, the show portrayed every citizen tuning into a speech by President Obama where he would explain how he was going to "save" the economy and all of us. In our most lefty movies here, it would have been a speech with some kind of argument built into the plot to explain why Obama's plans are correct. Fiction reflects the society around it. Does this TV show reflect British society and their mental state? It sounds to me like it does.

I saw that episode. I laughed at that when I saw it ..

My answer .. perhaps to some extent, yes. I think it's more accurate to say that it reflects what the BBC wants to portray .. for reasons best known to them, they very obviously have a high opinion of Obama and a correspondingly low one of Bush. And the BBC, being as institutionally Leftie as it is, somehow believe that answers to the world's ills can be plucked out of thin air, because suits their 'enlightened' viewpoint to believe that issues can be magically solved purely by an act of will.

Added to this is a perception that the world's economic ills stem from America anyway, so therefore it should stand to reason that any real answer would ripple through the world's economy through a few 'right decisions' being taken at a high-enough level.

Yes, it's a downright moronic mindset. But America abroad is viewed as many times mightier than those viewing it. So, expectations from it are accordingly higher. Factor into this the added thought that 'if only the Americans would adopt the enlightened approach WE have, and stick with it, all things are possible ..'.

It reflects a loser mentality where the proper order of things eventually saves the people. Yet that proper order in this fictional world is the Doctor, who must use the superior ability at his disposal to win the day and save the British people year in and year out.

.. oh, and the world and the wider Universe, too ...

But do you see the sub-plot ? All that the Doctor does, all he achieves, comes from a certain superior position .. BUT .. backed up by a 'universal moral right' as well. There was one episode, 'The Waters of Mars', where the Doctor forsakes this 'higher moral right' for a 'smaller moral right' of simply saving a few scientists from their predestined deaths.

... the outcome, the 'moral', was ... ?? That the Doctor became flawed, did wrong, 'was a broken figurehead', by for once independently breaking free of those higher moral and universal imperatives. One breaches those enlightened imperatives at one's peril, becomes smaller and flawed, by acting outside the greater 'universal power'.

The bottom line is you cannot win without having some form of superiority, whether it's in technology, numbers or other strategic consideration. To demand "fairness" in the fight is to demand suicide or at best a double suicide as both sides of the conflict lose and continue to lose as their battles are dragged out for years on end.

I'd love to see you argue that one out with BBC programme producers ..

If the British have reached a suicidal state, it saddens me. It worries me that Americans may do the same. The Russians, Chinese and Muslims won't (and that statement does not equate any of the three to the others). All of them will decide what to do and do what it takes to achieve it. When one becomes an aggressor, the west will apparently stand around shaking its hands in moral uncertainty crucifying its leaders for getting involved or fighting too hard.

Quite. Though we'll never see it as suicidal, but always as 'enlightened'.

As for what you can do about it, Drummond, I don't know. Michael Moore is not remaking your nation. He is preaching to the choir, reinforcing weakness and self-loathing.

Agreed. HOWEVER ... it isn't so much what Moore is doing that's the issue .. but, that he gets so little meaningful opposition. He is preaching to a choir that's in sync with him, and will remain so, unless sufficient countering influences are brought to bear.

I repeat an earlier point. You have Right-wingers who would give us one massive jolt where and when we most need it. But they are 'conspicuous' by their persistent absence here.

Your nation has banned Michael Savage from setting foot there, all for speaking.

Here I must correct you. No, my nation did not (Savage is generally NOT discussed at all in our media). My GOVERNMENT DID .. and that in order to help protect a mindset which they are determined to see maintained here in any way possible.

What happens to Sean Hannity or Ann Coulter if they start? Perhaps you should write to these folks and tell them. Keep fighting yourself if they won't come. Keep fighting before they come. Find ways to be involved and do the right things.

Basically covered already. I don't believe they ever will come here - more's the pity. Would our Lefties ban them ? I'm betting they would Ann Coulter .. Hannity, I'm not so sure (but probably yes). BUT .. what if your Right-wingers tried to come here at the same time, and were all refused simultaneously ? That would just have to appear like the tactics of a police State, and make people question !!

And I hope that the United States will stop bending to the will of those who would have it commit suicide.

... again, I offer no real argument, not as such, anyway. Enemies MUST be defeated. But as well as real battles, propaganda battles also rage. Courtesy of the Left ...