Cluemeter = 0

I was just reading at a gay news blog about the story of the two kids that were hanged last week for being gay (I'm still resisting posting the pictures).

They have a comments section, and from what I'm reading, the right wingers are asking if gays are now going to join the "war on terror" irrespective of our disdain for Bush.

Here's some typical comments:

And now do you understand what the war on terror is all about? When they bomb gay clubs and target gay men and women for killing, they are merely extending the hand of evil Islamo-fascism from their own society to ours. And of course who is doing something to combat this evil? Why it’s all those REPUBLICANS!!! How ironic!

GayPatriot wonders why more gays aren’t supportive of the War on Terror, given what Islamist terrorists intend to do to homosexuals, and what Islamist governments currently do to homosexuals.

and this nation of Iran is pursuing a nuclear program ..?? Does anyone really think diplomacy and sanctions will deter them?

The only reason I hope the U.S. wraps up our war in Iraq soon is so we can unleash the mighty fury of our military on Iran, it’s Mullahs and it’s “covert” nuclear weapons program.

It is interesting the way that the Iraq war has twisted from a war to "protect Americans" into a war to destroy Islamic governments. I simply do not see what the "war on terror" has to do with the barbaric act of the Iranian government.

Now, if you want to re-label the war as the "war on Islam", well then maybe it would have something to do with the barbaric acts of the Iranian government. I have a better label, which I'll get to shortly.

The Iraq war is not about changing the policies in Iran. It's really not even about trying to "spread freedom and democracy". The objective now is to stabilize the country, train the Iraqi police and military, and get the hell out of there. Will anything have been accomplished? Will they stop being religious extremists in Iran because of what has happened in Iraq? Hell no..

It's pretty simple. Bombing, invading, occupying, and changing "regimes" does not change a culture. It does not change the way they think. It does not change their religion. What it does is piss them off.

The only way to change the culture in the very short term is genocide. If the right wingers are really serious, the only way is to nuke the Islamic fundamentalist states and kill everything in them.

We all know that's not likely to happen.

What can be done is bring together a unification of Europe and America working together to economically twist the arms of the Islamic countries. Use technology to push a campaign of information, with the goal of inciting secular revolutions.

The populations of these countries are getting messages of hate from their religious and political leaders. Attack that connection. Attack religion world wide. Do it here at home, and export it to the Muslim nations, because it is religion that is carrying the message of hate today. It is what divides, and brainwashes, and kills.

It is religion that killed those two young men... and don't for a second think that if the religious right in this country had their way, the same thing wouldn't happen here.

And stop the President of the United States from holding hands and blowing the Saudi royal family already. Okay?

So I propose that we change the nomenclature. Stop calling it a "war on terror". I've always thought it stupid to have a war against a tactic. Lets have the "war on religion".

After all, how can we ask the Muslim populations to reject the teachings of their religious leaders if we're becoming more and more influenced by our own? How do we fight it? We turn our backs on them. No bloodshed. No IED's. No Mines. No 50 caliber machine guns. We simply reject the messages of hate.

If we win that war, there will be no more reasons to kill each other.

** update **

Holy cow. After I wrote the above, I went to Americablog to see what's new, and they just posted a quote from Gen. Myers who basically reinforces my points. Well, except for my hope to wage a war on religion. That's not a very PC thing to say.

Anyway, check this out.

In recent speeches and news conferences, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and the nation's senior military officer have spoken of "a global struggle against violent extremism" rather than "the global war on terror," which had been the catchphrase of choice. Administration officials say that phrase may have outlived its usefulness, because it focused attention solely, and incorrectly, on the military campaign.

Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the National Press Club on Monday that he had "objected to the use of the term 'war on terrorism' before, because if you call it a war, then you think of people in uniform as being the solution." He said the threat instead should be defined as violent extremists, with the recognition that "terror is the method they use."

Although the military is heavily engaged in the mission now, he said, future efforts require "all instruments of our national power, all instruments of the international communities' national power." The solution is "more diplomatic, more economic, more political than it is military," he concluded.

John goes on to point out that what Myers is saying here is EXACTLY the same thing that Kerry said during the campaign last year and was derided by the Republicans.

The Republican method is all about dumbing down and making things as simple as possible. It's all black and white with them. Read any right wing blog and that's apparent. It's also helpful if you can keep your catch phrases to 3 words. "War on terror!". "Support the troops!". It's all about Marketing with them, and the problem John Kerry had was that he tried to be more nuanced and honest.

Lets compare and contrast:

"In order to know who they are, where they are, what they're planning and be able to go get them before they get us, you need the best intelligence, best law-enforcement cooperation in the world," the Massachusetts senator said in an interview on NBC's "Meet the Press."

"I will use our military when necessary, but it is not primarily a military operation. It's an intelligence-gathering, law-enforcement, public-diplomacy effort," he said. "And we're putting far more money into the war on the battlefield than we are into the war of ideas. We need to get it straight."

Marc Racicot, chairman of President Bush's re-election campaign, said Mr. Kerry's formula won't work. "Serving terrorists with legal papers will not win this war. This is a pre-9/11 attitude that turns a blind eye to the threats that face our country," he said.

Isn't that just amazing?

Remember Kerry's ill fated "I voted for the war before I voted against it"? That was a really dumb thing to say, but it was a complex issue. Kerry would talk and talk about all the nuances of the conflicts facing the world today, but the Republicans had a simpler message. "Blow shit up!" Frankly, Kerry was too smart to be President.

Think about that for a while. Could a pure intellectual (not saying Kerry is that) be President? Hell no.

There are just too many Americans not willing to try and grasp the complex, and who think "it blowed up real good" is the way to win this fight. Now we are seeing the results of an administration that has the simple approach.

That's a big reason why I voted for Kerry and not Bush. It wasn't so much party affiliation. Kerry had a reasonable, sensible point of view. He wanted to make the effort more than a military operation. He wanted to address the reasons WHY the Islamic fundamentalists want to attack the west.

But noooo... that's too confusing for Joe American. That's all Ivy League thinking, and Joe just likes to blow shit up.

So I wonder if the Republican party is going to call General Myers "weak on defense." What Myers said is the polar opposite to what every right winger believes. They are totally and completely convinced that the military can win the "war on terror". They are completely convinced it's a zero sum game.

They are completely wrong.