Tuesday, September 4, 2007


Who are these Turtles?


I got to wondering the other day, does anyone in Santa Barbara know what a Conservative is? Are there any here?

Yes, some of us are still here, those that have weathered the hurricane of progressive liberalism that blew into Santa Barbara in the 60’s, 70’s, 80’s, and 90’s.

Have you ever walked by the little fountain pond in La Arcada Plaza and seen those strange, seemingly harmless, thick-skinned creatures? That’s us. The Conservative Turtles.

Not so many remain; we are nearly extinct. But we are here, some retracted into our shells, often hiding under rocks - those of us that have not thrown up their claws and left for the open sea, or for more tolerable and politically habitable ponds in other lands.



Those few that do remain have mostly been rounded up by the outspoken liberal and progressive activists and placed in a pond with high walls in an attempt to contain and control yet another endangered species. They have learned to control us with the walls of political correctness and intimidation. Despite the Grand American Ideal of free speech, we haven’t dared speak our mind for a while.

You may have forgotten us, you may not notice us, you may think we are insignificant. But we are here. We are watching, taking note, waiting for the political tides to turn.

Turtles are naturally shy and soft-spoken. Many consider our slow, cautious, thoughtful movements to be boring, dated, and out of step with the pace of modern life. Most of us are too busy with our careers and families to be active in politics. We like the way our life is. We don’t want to “progress” anywhere. Meanwhile the progressives and minority interest groups have wrested control, public safety is increasingly in jeopardy, and we have almost had enough.

But we have been afraid. The world has become a dangerous place for turtles. We don’t like to stick our necks out. We fear someone from another culture will come along and pluck us from our pond and maul and torture us, just because they don’t like turtles. This happened in Ventura a little while ago to our uncle, Bob the Tortoise, who was cut out of his shell by a sick punk teenager named Jose Mosqueda. We wonder how long before it happens to one of us - just because someone doesn’t understand turtles, or the way of life they and their Fore-turtles worked, fought, and died for.

The city and the world is not what we grew up with, not what we recognize, not what we any longer feel comfortable with. It is a different culture, polluted by the strange new worship of “multi-culturalism” and “tolerance”. We have watched from our pond as these ideas have come to dissolve the glue of a single culture and language that has in the past bound all that come from foreign lands into a single strong People of the United States of America. Instead, we now do everything possible to assure they remain segregated and disadvantaged by retaining only their native language and culture.

We dream of a world where political correctness is no longer the law that governs speech, and we can once again feel comfortable exercising the Constitutional Rights established by our Fore-turtles. A city where we can actually speak the truth and what we think, without the filter of the barking liberal and progressive media and the specter of political correctness, with it’s associated character assassination.

We reminisce and dream of a return to a city where the importance of law enforcement and public safety override the blind pursuit of fads and manias and the unwritten new rules of “tolerance”, “understanding” and “compassion and rights for criminals”.

We will no longer be intimidated. We will no longer be inhibited when our words are twisted by the slanderous name-calling left. We have come to expect that, and now we know the game. We have had enough, and we are now immune to names like “homophobic”, “sexist”, “racist”, “hater”, “right winger”, “hate monger”, “war monger”, or any and every other kind of monger. We are confident enough in our self beliefs to know that these names do not reflect reality, but are used by special interest groups in an attempt to intimidate us, and to discount what we have to say if we resist their agendas. We now consider these names badges of honor, because they show that we have successfully irritated another socialist political opportunist. The turtles will begin to remerge from their shells and take back America one city at a time.



Turtles of Santa Barbara, you now have a voice. Click the "View complete Profile" link above for our email address, to leave your feedback, thoughts, your concerns, your ideas, your support, or leave a comment to this post below. The rebellion has begun. Slow and steady wins the race.


34 comments:

David Pritchett said...

Do we need yet more anonymous sociopolitical commentary here to spew about what is wrong with Santa Barbara?

Why be afraid to be identified with an idea?

Anonymous said...

You play that same "woe is us" card that drives me nuts--the conservative movement hasn't ruled the roost since Newt's ascendancy in 1994? (Forget Clinton, who got neutered politically by what he did sexually.) Please. If us "politically correct" folks were so powerful, there never would have been an Iraq War.

Second, read this passage and tell me it's not frightening: "We are now immune to names like 'homophobic,' 'sexist,' 'racist,' 'hater,' 'right winger,' 'hate monger,' 'war monger,' or any other kind of 'monger'....We now consider these names a badge of honor."

I guess you can't be a Conservative Turtle and be gay, a woman, a person of color, a Democrat, full of love, or pro-peace. But you can stand tall with the KKK and some other fine American traditionalists....

Turtle said...

Mr./Ms. Anonymous - Putting aside the fact that the article is talking about local politics, I would have to answer you by saying no. There is a difference between a Republican, and a conservative. There are liberal Republicans, just as there are conservative Democrats.

It is my opinion that true conservatives, as well as the troops in Iraq have been "nuetered" by the dictates of political correctness.

To say "there never would have been an Iraq War" denies history.
In 2002 the House was composed of 229 republicans and 204 Democrats, the Senate 51 Republicans and 48 Democrats. The Iraq War Resolution passed the House on October 10, 2002 by a vote of 296-133, and the Senate on October 11 by a vote of 77-23. Just how do we blame this on the conservative movement again? Apparently the liberals get amnesia when the War becomes unpopular.

You missed the point on the name calling issue. In a typical reactionary manner, you pulled this away from the context of the next sentence:

"We are confident enough in our self beliefs to know that these names do not reflect reality..."
You provided a perfect example of how speech is pulled out of context and used against the one that spoke them. This is exactly the intimidation tactic I was talking about.

Thank you, you have helped illustrate the point beautifully.

_Turtle

Turtle said...

The Turtle editor's name, as published in the Daily Sound, is Aaron Shaw.

Since this is a group project, not just one person's "spew" we post under the surname "Conservative Turtle" intended for group participation and input from local conservatives, not an individual commentary.

If you don't feel it is necessary, David, you are invited not to participate. Thank you for your comment.

Turtle said...

The other turtles would like to set the record after having words put in our mouths...

You most certainly can be a Conservative Turtle and be gay, a woman, a person of color, a Democrat, full of love, or pro-peace. And you are welcome.

The following sentence provided by "anonymous":

"But you can stand tall with the KKK and some other fine American traditionalists...."

is exactly what we meant in the article when we mentioned the "slanderous, name-calling left." We really didn't exepct such a perfect example quite so soon! Most excellent.

M.C. Confrontation said...

The "Anonymous" poster is George and these were his comments to me on his mostly liberal blog. Find them here:

http://imnotonetoblogbut.blogspot.com/2007/09/ive-got-nothing-to-say-about-nothing.html#comments

And David I have a question for you: do we need more subpar pseudo-news video taking up space on the internet? And have you ever heard the phrase "a face made for radio"? Just curious.

I withold my name and go by alias because the liberals have a mental disorder and I have a 5 month old baby. The last thing I'm going to do is put my name out there so some psycho can home invasion me and my family.

I put myself out there one time when a looney tunes poster that goes by "JQB" decided it was a good idea to call me a pussy, but he never showed up to the parking lot I invited him to. Shocking!

Turtle said...

Just for all to see how perfect an example "anonymous" provides, the "..." part intentionally left out when we were "quoted" reads:

"We are confident enough in our self beliefs to know that these names do not reflect reality, but are used by special interest groups in an attempt to intimidate us, and to discount what we have to say if we resist their agendas."

Turtle said...

It is interesting to see how George makes the automatic association of "sexist" with "anti-woman", "racist " with "anti-person of color", and "hate-monger" with "conservatives". This is exactly the stereotype we are referring to in the commentary.

I hate to be the first to point this out, but there are female "sexists", there are racists "of color", there are liberal "haters".

Despite the insinuation, we as turtles pay no attention to sexual orientation, race, party affiliation. Each of us falls into at least one of the categories you mentioned - "gay, a woman, a person of color, a Democrat, full of love, or pro-peace." And what genuine American is not pro-peace?

Both liberal and conservative Americans have this same goal, it is the approach that differs. Turtles don't believe we will be left in peace if we throw down our defenses and run, and go sit under a tree and sing peace songs. It just doesn't work, history shows us that.

We believe that weakness invites aggression, as it has throughout history, as it did on 9/11, as is demonstrated in the elementary school yard every day. Unfortunately, it is human nature for evil people to take advantage of the weak.

We believe in the successful Reagan philosophy of "Peace through Strength", and the Theodore Roosevelt policy of "Speak softly and carry a Big Stick". We also believe that since the re-election, El Presidente Bush has turned into a liberal and decided to begin enacting his corporate globalist policy, rather than doing all that can be done to protect America and end the war, so I think we can all agree to disassociate from Bush.

Remember, there is a difference between a conservative and a Republican. Many Republicans are liberals, including Bush. Many Democrats are conservative, such as Joe Lieberman. Turtles are not Republicans, nor are they Democrats. Turtles support whichever party acts the most conservative. Traditionally this has been Republicans, since Bush, we are not so sure.

You're welcome to post anytime George, we need you, you don't need to be anonymous. Turtles are welcoming, friendly non-exclusionary folks, despite your prejudged assumption.

David Pritchett said...

How seriously should I or anyone take a personal attack or insult from someone who hides behind a pseudonym, such as the aptly names "McConfrontation"??

Is this the type of discourse that "conservatives" in Santa Barbara are trying to attain?

Not a good start to an upstart local political blog.

Turtle said...

Since that seems to be a question for the turtle, I would say take it as seriously as you want to David.

McConfrontation explained his reasons for the pseudonym, in his last post, apparently he has noticed a few whacked out leftists, (so have the turtles) and the Turtle agrees, a 5 month baby is worth protecting. Don't you?

Using a pseudonym does not make anyone's viewpoint invalid. We publish anonymous posts as well, understanding that not everyone wants to "stick their neck out" in order to be beheaded.

The Turtles assume no responsibility for the comments or insults posted by contributors, including your initial insulting post toward our "upstart local political blog", but we are happy to publish them.

You seem to have a double standard David, nobody can insult you, but you are free to insult others. Again, if you don't think our blog viable or worthwhile, you are invited not to read or participate.

Anonymous said...

I welcome the turtles to the wonderful and emerging blog community in SB. I try to read as many conservative views as I can in an attempt to challenge my left-leaning nature. But I too object to the anonymous posts and comments in ALL of our local blogs.

I don't think it should be a requirement to put your name on posts and comments, but it sure makes for a better discussion. I read "named posts" with a more serious eye. Turtles and all other local bloggers, don't you feel that it'd be more civilized if we attached our names to our thoughts and comments?

Don Lubach

Turtle said...

Thank you Don -

Yes we prefer that a name is left, at least a pseudonym. Leaving a name helps, it helps to track comments from one particular individual, to help follow threads (not sure about the civility, we want to hear from the uncivil too). It also adds to the credibility and consistency of what you are saying.

However, we feel it is a matter of choice, and better than no comment at all. Some people, Don, have experienced the bitter hatefulness of extremists, and are intimidated.
They prefer not to be a target.
They may have been discriminated against in the workplace, or certain social circles because of their political viewpoint.

That is exactly what the Turtle concept is all about, to bring out the viewpoints of those that are intimidated by the dictates of political correctness. We want to bring them out of their shells, by knowing there are others that feel as they do, but are afraid to speak out, and we provide a safe place to do that.

Everyone is a politician, not only public servants. Most people must be politicians at the workplace.
Those are the ones we don't hear much from in the public arena of ideas. Politicians must be extremely guarded in their speech, or they are the next victim of character assassination by extreme groups or the media or job discrimination. (Yes conservatives are now discriminated against in the workplace).

Having a name or pseudonym in a way makes you a politician, because you have to be guarded in what you say in order to protect your reputation. You have to play the politically correct game, which is the new unseen regulator of political speech. It has gotten to the point that nobody can say anything without offending someone and being harpooned by the media.

We want to hear from those other than the politicians, so anonymous input is welcome. We want to hear what you REALLY feel, not how you think you're supposed to feel.

Anonymous said...

This long diatribe whine about being referred to as an "upstart" is just confirming what the Liberals allegedly are doing.

The Conservative Turtle is all afraid of the hint of a name with double meaning, so just insults back, degrades the rhetoric intelligence, and then wallows in self congratulations.

Your Turtle discussions just ended, as an apparent Liberal person reaches out to figure what your Turtle concerns really are about, and you become a snapper and bite the offer.

What is the point here to devolve into a circular discussion limited among the small turtles in a drying pond?

The Blogabarbara comment is becoming more and more correct about these Turtles fearing The Bogeyman.

Turtle said...

Huh? This doesn't make any sense. rhetoric intelligence? rhetoric is a noun. Where do these nuts come from? And why would anyone think we want to be reached out to? Ewww....

Anonymous said...

Keep up the good work. I am a conservative in SB. I will also remain anonymous. Being a conservative is not popular in SB, it is not an acceptable position by the Progressive/Liberal minded populace. At times I too fear for my job, and safety if my personal opinions were known.

Anonymous said...

Dear Turtles,

Do any of you consider yourself Republicans and did any among you vote for our current ultra-unconservative president and if so, why?

By the way, I'm pleased your group has created a local and open forum working to defend the radical idea of being slow and cautious. (I would assume your group extends this philosophy to important decisions like when to go to war.)

Turtle said...

Dear Worker Bee.

Understanding the obvious sarcasm, I will answer your question by saying that we are conservative, not Republican. We are not partisans, nor do we have any ties to any political party. Now if a candidate acts in a conservative sensible manner, we will support him regardless of party. We support the party that acts in the most conservative manner. Traditionally that has been Republicans, lately we are not so sure.

You may be surprised to learn that most conservatives are very disappointed in Bush, which explains his disapproval ratings. But we are probably not disappointed in him for the same reasons you are, and not nearly as disappointed as we would have been in Gore or Kerry. We mostly voted anti-Kerry in the last election (as opposed to pro-Bush) because of his extremely dubious "support" of the military at a time of War, and his anti- military history. At the time, 70% of the soldiers deployed to Iraq were in support of their Commander in Chief. Those men deserve at least two or three votes each.

Since the election we don't feel that Bush has been acting in a conservative, nationalist manner. We feel that he has shown himself to be a corporate globalist, and does not care enough about ending the war (by winning, not by running) though he has the power to. We feel the war has been mismanaged and the power and courage to end it has not been used. He is doing nothing to control the borders or protect the country internally.

We are outraged that a President would be selling out the country and taking great risks to the security of it's citizens by allowing unqualified Mexican trucks across the border for example, and his support of NAFTA and his push toward a North American Union.

I hate to get into this, but
as far as when to go to war is concerned, it was over a year from the time of 9/11 until the time of the invasion of Iraq. There were over 11 years of "negotiations" with Saddam through the UN that only ended with the discovery of the Oil for Food scandal. The U.N. proved corrupt and worthless.

This was not as you want to present it, a rushed decision. If you don't recall, it was believed by most in Congress, Republicans and Democrats alike, that Iraq was an immediate threat. Only the size of the threat was in question. For the Democrats with amnesia I repeat the facts:

The Iraq War Resolution passed the House on October 10, 2002 by a vote of 296-133, and the Senate on October 11 by a vote of 77-23.
Even Hillary voted for it, and John Kerry (who voted for it before he voted against it) Just how do we blame this on the conservative movement or even on Bush alone?

I know, I know, there were no WMD's and Bush lied. Even if they weren't taken out of the country or never existed, we had just witnessed the destruction that only 13 men had amassed. Is an airplane that can kill over three thousand US citizens not a Weapon of Mass destruction?

I know, I know, Osama Bin Laden did that, not Saddam.

However, I have a copy of a National Geographic documentary called "Inside Special Forces" showing US Special Forces soldiers in BAGHDAD shortly after the invasion breaking into a terrorist storehouse and discovering briefcases, training manuals, bomb making materials and devices to be smuggled onto commercial aircraft.
It's all right there on a video taken in 2003. There were in fact, terrorists harbored in Baghdad.

Saving just one American life on a commercial airliner was good enough reason for me to go to war against a defiant cruel dictator that raped and tortured his own people, obviously hated America, and used weapons of mass destruction against his own people. Just how massive does the threat have to be before defending ourselves is justified?

When you understand that the threat is not from a particular country, but rather is from an ideology and every country that may harbor or support terrorism, you will realize the danger we were in, and still are. When you have parents and grandparents who have witnessed first hand what evil ideologys can bring upon non-free people, then you might start to feel a little turtley.

Does that answer your question? Thanks for dropping in, you're welcome anytime.

Anonymous said...

Turtle,

Ok, now were getting somewhere as you've revealed yourself to be non-partisan, which I can see eye to eye with.

I'll keep my retort brief, and I'd like to take a poke at this one statement of yours:

"When you understand that the threat is not from a particular country, but rather is from an ideology and every country that may harbor or support terrorism, you will realize the danger we were in, and still are. When you have parents and grandparents who have witnessed first hand what evil ideologys can bring upon non-free people, then you might start to feel a little turtley."

My retort: When you understand that fighting an idea is a policy effort and a police effort, not a military one, you will see that dropping bombs on civilians in the middle east is an absurd solution and how such an act merely fans the flames of the ideas you detest.

So let me ask you: would you prefer our government shoot guns at ideas, or implement real security at our seaports and airports? Checking for hair gel doesn't count, by the way. As for putting your head in your shell, being aware of your surroundings seems to be the best defense against 18 men with box cutters who want to hijack our planes - not dropping bombs in foreign countries.

p.s. I'm fishing for your ideas - forgive me if I'm ascribing things to you you do not believe.

Turtle said...

Worker Bee, Worker Bee …

To answer your question concisely, I prefer the government do all three. Implement real security, use the military, use police efforts, use diplomacy, use everything in the arsenal. When you are dealing with an irrational, uncivil, unreasonable, even primitive mentality, and ideology however, sometimes force is the only option, unless you just want to allow aggression and bend over and surrender.

But here is the long answer:

Nobody likes war. It sickens all of us. We as a nation don’t go looking for it. Sometimes it finds us. It normally finds us when we act weak and the attacker feels that we won’t do anything about it. It is unfortunately, human nature, you can see it on the school yard with the class bully.

Throughout history, weakness, or the perception of weakness, has invited aggression. As much as we like to think we’ve evolved as a civilization, the obvious fact is we haven’t gotten too far.

If you were to tell my nephew in the Armed Services that his job in Iraq was to “drop bombs on civilians” I think he would be very insulted, demoralized, and not pleased or proud to serve. The fact is, he is very proud, because he knows the threat we face and he is happy to fight to protect people like you and me. He knows the threat, he sees first hand the progress being made, and knows the disaster that would follow if we just abandoned these civilians, as happened in Viet Nam. Remember they are not fighting us so much as they are fighting each other. Us leaving does not instantly stop the killing of civilians.

Our Forces bend over backwards to avoid the killing of civilians. That is a large part of the reason we are having so much difficulty ending this thing. We devise and use technology that helps us isolate targets and focus any weaponry as much as technologically possible to minimize collateral damage. During the initial phase of the war, we issued warnings and leafleting and only focused on military infrastructure with precision weaponry. We did not go over there to bomb civilians. Had the Iraqis valued their own citizenry, and separated all citizens from anything military to protect them, do you think we would have avoided the military targets and went for the civilians instead?

The rules of engagement are cumbersome, against an enemy with none. Our men are forced to act in a politically correct fashion and tiptoe around the enemy in order to minimize civilian deaths while the enemy uses them as shields. They hide behind women and children, they hide in mosques and hospitals. If these people do not value the lives of their own innocent citizens, how are we supposed to effectively engage them, defend our own soldiers and completely protect citizens at the same time? We make every effort.

World War II only ended with the annihilation of two entire cities of civilians. Unfortunately that is what it took to end the war. The show of strength also was quite effective in causing the German surrender as well, without having to actually resort to using the weapon against them. The fact is, it saved more lives than it took, because it ended the war a lot sooner than it would have been ended if left to continue at the pace it was. The biggest difference, however, is that succeeding generations of Americans would all be speaking German or Japanese as an enslaved people. You and I would not be having this discussion on this blog, and if we were, we would probably be put in jail for speaking against the government. I sometimes wonder how many lives would have been saved if we did NOT have such high regard for innocent civilians in this war. We could have just leafleted the major cities, as a warning, flattened them and brought our boys home very easily.

Nothing personal, but the perception we can just withdraw to our own borders, and rely on police force alone to stop any further attack on this country is dangerously naïve, you’re mistaken if you don’t believe we are in more danger than we were in WWII. It is also naïve to think we are dealing with a rational civil enemy, that maybe if we just talked to them we could come to understanding... but that’s all another subject.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Turtle,
The question I believe that we must always ask before we go to war (or even after we become embroiled in one) is will the proscecution of this war achieve the goals we have for fighting it. In the case of Iraq we must ask ourselves if our involvement there will protect us from the terrorism of Islamic jihadists? If not, then what exactly are we doing there? If we are providing security for a government to allow them time to stabilize, isn't this a mission better suited to the United Nations? I don't believe that Bush went to war for nefarious reasons. I just think that he picked the wrong strategy to accomplish an ill-defined goal. Now the problem is how to back away gracefully without leaving too big a mess. That is where we can use the help of other countries.

Anonymous said...

In response to statements made by Turtle,

"Nobody likes war. It sickens all of us. We as a nation don’t go looking for it."

That’s pretty funny. Iraq was unquestionably a war of choice as Saddam posed no threat to our country. Some of us astute observers knew the war was wrong headed from the beginning (including Al Gore), but the fact that so many Americans are so easily duped is what's sickening.

"The show of strength also was quite effective in causing the German surrender as well, without having to actually resort to using the weapon against them."

Wrong. The Germans surrendered several months before the U.S. needlessly dropped atomic bombs on an already castrated Japan. Ye who loves facts would receive a Nobel Prize if you could produce some evidence that our use of the atom bomb actually prevented a worse calamity.

"...the perception we can just withdraw to our own borders, and rely on police force alone to stop any further attack on this country is dangerously naïve, you’re mistaken if you don’t believe we are in more danger than we were in WWII."

Some questions for Turtle: Wouldn't a turtle retreat into its already well established and fortified shell if attacked? I’m not suggesting that should be America’s course, but it is what a turtle would do. And do you really think Islamic terrorism is a worse threat to the West than was Hitler, Mussolini, etc.? Really? Please provide some evidence of this. Your task will be difficult - there are entire libraries on the subject that would indicate the contrary.

Also, as a point of contention, I don’t think the military and American troops are above criticism – as someone who resents being labeled, the Turtle will appreciate my disdain for those who insinuate us peaceniks are un-patriotic or unsupportive of our troops by merely raising the issue of our troops killing civilians. They may go out of their way not to – BUT THEY STILL DO – and sometimes they do it explicitly. I don’t care whose troops you are, killing civilians is deplorable and criminal and to deflect criticism of war crimes by hiding in your shell of “patriotism” is indeed the slow minded act of a reptile. To support war is to directly support the slaughter of civilians – if you are happy with this arrangement, so be it.

Finally, I understand your desire to make this forum one that focuses on local issues. So I appreciate your willingness to discuss this global topic – at least it’s useful in staking out your ideological ground, which so far seems inconsistant, rambling, and woefully unencumbered by facts and accurate accounts of history.

M.C. Confrontation said...

Very well put Turtle. Instead of recognizing the challenges our men and women are facing over there, with the PC ROE, the lefties simply Bush bash. Honestly, if George Bush hadn't set it up so we were fighting the very real enemy overseas not only would we probably already have been attacked again, but I can bet that the left would be calling for war by virtue of the fact that GWB didn't. My point is that above all else the left is a simple contrarian when it comes to the Bush Doctrine. Whatever he says or believes, is wrong. Bush could have a news conference tomorrow and say "The sky is blue!" and the left would be squawking that it's green. It's America Last every time with these people, and it's why they choose not to pontificate on the successes the coalition has had overseas (schools, plumbing, elections) and in foreign policy (Libya, now North Korea anyone?). And guess what: their disdain goes all the way back to November, 2000. You know what I'm talking about.

Turtle said...

Worker Bee -

"Saddam posed no threat to our country"? I will leave that to the jury, because I already explained how I thought he was a threat. Highjacked commercial airliners (weapons of mass destruction) caused the death of over 3000 AMERICAN CIVILIANS. Do you think it would have stopped after 9/11 if we did nothing? If we demonstrated just how weak we are by doing NOTHING like Clinton did after the FIRST bombing of the Trade Centers? ? There were commercial airliner highjacking training camps in Baghdad. That's just one example, good enough for me, but I know there were others. You tell us how much you care about attacks on innocent civilians. How would you feel if one of your loved ones was on a highjacked plane? Do you only have compassion for civilians of other countries? Then I understand your position, but I'm sorry, it does sound a bit unpatriotic..

The words "correct me if I'm wrong" should always be assumed in my discourse. You forced me to check my history books.You have corrected me and I concede to the facts. The Germans had already surrendered and the Turtle has learned something, thank you. This is why we are open for feedback.

The dropping of bombs on Japan did in fact prevent a worse calamity, however, as the alternative was an invasion of Japan, which was already scheduled. The Japanese, if you recall, were suicidal in their refusal to give up their "honor". They were using Kamikaze pilots against our ships.

I found the following at www.atomicmuseum.com:

During the bloody struggle to take the Philippines and Okinawa, President Truman and his military were concentrating on an invasion of Japan. The U.S. Navy was cruising off the Japanese coast and submarines were patrolling the Sea of Japan. Those in power in Tokyo were making plans for a house-to-house resistance to any invasion. Japan had over 5 million men under arms, of which 2 million were stationed on the home islands. Based upon the dogged resistance at Iwo Jima and Okinawa, the allies determined that as many as 500,000 to one million allied soldiers would die if the invasion, scheduled for November 1, 1945 took place.

This would have been the worse calamity.

"Do you really think Islamic terrorism is a worse threat to the West than was Hitlar, Mussolini, etc?"

Absolutely. Before the War there were people just like you who didn't think Hitlar or Mussolini were threats either. There were those who tried to negotiate with him. Neville Chamberlain proclaimed "Peace for our Time" after returning to the UK with a non-agression pact with Germany in 1938, before they attacked England in 1940. The problem with negotiating with totalitarians, is that they lie, they deny. All I can say is keep a close eye on Ahmadinijad. Watch the parallels leading up to WWII. Tell us, what is your opinion of him, a misunderstood victim who only wants peace?

I personally have not and would not label you unpatriotic or unsupportive of our troops by merely raising the issue of our troops killing civilians. I just question the practicality of your idealism. In an ideal war, that would not happen, but in every war it has. You can criticize the military all you like, but you have to concede that reason you can do that is BECAUSE of them. To be fair you also have to compare them to whom they fight, who have no regard for their OWN citizens. Who has the high ground? Those who take every effort to avoid the killing of citizens, or those who intentionally put them in harm's way as a shield? You are only unpatriotic when you criticize ours and support theirs.

If you say "sometimes they do it explicitly", you should define just who "they" is. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there have been any cases where soldiers have been ordered to seek out and kill civilians intentionally as an objective. If you are referring to Haditha, I believe those soldiers have been exonerated. This was an attempted lynching by Jack Murtha and Time Magazine, before it had even gone to trial! and it did not do much for the image of our military in the Islamic World, if that was supposed to be "supporting the troops".

Beside that, this was not the military, it was a few soldiers, just like Abu Graib. Why must the left always attribute the acts of the few to the entire military? Is this "supporting the troops"? Or is it attempts to undermine the military and embolden the enemy by showing what bad people the Americans are to the Islamic world? Bad publicity is support? If this is support, then I'm quite sure the troops prefer not to have your contribution. I'm sorry, but it is not possible to "support the troops" by telling them they are all murderers. Tell me worker bee what else you have done to support the troops. Have you sent them any care packages and told them you are proud of them and thanked them? Because that is the kind of support they need. They don't need you to tell their enemy they are justified in killing them. They want to know they are doing the right thing for you and me who support them.

Sorry to ramble, just answering questions here, and thanks for the compliments.

Turtle said...

I know exactly what you mean, McC. It's simply irrational hatred. I disagree with the man intensely on many things, but I don't HATE him. On Halloween, instead of saying "BOO" to scare anyone around here, I just say "BUSH"! It's much more effective at quickly raising blood pressure.
Thanks for covering our backs, here and elsewhere.

Turtle said...

Mr Eckermann:

I agree that the question we must always ask before going to war is "will the prosecution of this war achieve the goals we have for fighting it?". I believe the question was asked, and I believe we thought we believed the answer to be "yes".
Actually, the goal was accomplished, which was to remove Saddam from power. It's the aftermath that is the problem. I think we were surprised with what we uncovered there, and here in our own country. I think we were improperly prepared to handle both the brainwashed animals there who have no regard for their own, in addition to the opposition from within our own country.

Will our involvement there protect us from the terrorism of Islamic Jihadists? I am sure it will not completely, but so far so good. We have had no further attacks. Of course as McC points out above, if we do have an attack, it will be Bush's fault, just like Katrina was. If we don't have another attack, no credit will be given to our involvement there.

If we are providing security, I think yes, it is better SUITED to the United Nations, but the UN has shown itself to be an impotent corrupt entity that has no support of American interests.
We are obviously on our own, and I agree that the strategy is weak.

You are a reasonable man, even if you might lean some to the left. At least you acknowledge that Islamic Jihadists exist and are a threat!

Anonymous said...

Turtle,

Thanks for your reply.

We're getting into some meat now, and we clearly both enjoy this. That said, your remarks require a certain amount of reflexion in order to reply in a meaningful way. I'll keep our global sparring to this one post, unless you direct otherwise, and will reply here in the next couple of days after I've had the time and energy to give your nearly completely insipid and laughable remarks a just retort.

Best,

Worker Bee

Anonymous said...

McConfrontation,

You'd do best by halting a regurgitation of Rush Limbaugh's talking points, which misdirect attention from the failures of the current administration and onto some empty partisan talk-show entertainment hoo-hah, and focus more on issues.

Admit to me this:

We all love America. We differ in how to achieve its greater good.

We all support the troops. We differ on the meaning of support.

I understand your viewpoint, I only disagree. Your blanket statements reflect more upon your ability to parrot what you hear rather than exemplify what you've learned. And if these Turtles mean what they say, they will have very little in common with the right wing of our current politic.

Anonymous said...

In answer to a few Turtle's numerous questions (I'm going to chop this up a bit, because our rambling missive are getting harder to sort out):

Q: Do you think [further terror events] would have stopped after 9/11 if we did nothing?

A: This question is absurd, and the answer is, who knows? Neither you or I can prove anything either way on this front. I thought you were hung up on facts and not speculation? Are you saying you support Middle East conflict because of what you imagine an alternate course of action might have brought? But, to answer your question, I do think going after Bin Laden in Afghanistan was justified. Too bad Bush let that go to seed.

Q: How would you feel if one of your loved ones was on a highjacked plane? Do you only have compassion for civilians of other countries?

A: Of course, I would be horrified if a loved one was on a hijacked plane. As for civilians, I think all civilian lives are equally valuable regardless of nationality. Do you think an American life is more valuable than any other sort? If not, you can understand that 3,000 killed in 9/11 is a pale comparison to what a 2006 M.I.T. study estimated as 655,000 Iraqis slaughtered as a result of our invasion. I think each death is a waste and I'm ashamed my country is responsible for vastly contributing to the much greater share. (Also, you misspelled hijack.)

Q: Tell us, what is your opinion of [Ahmadinijad], a misunderstood victim who only wants peace?

A: You misspelled Ahmadinejad. He is threatening, but I think his posturing is to gain political favor with extremists. Iranian cities are among the most modern in the region, and its peoples among the most liberal and educated. Therefore, I'll refrain on judging the civilians of this country based on their absolutely awful leader, as I would hope they reserve judgment on us as a whole based on Bush.

If you are leaning into the camp that thinks we ought to be ready to bomb Iranian cities, I beg you to consider that survivors who once stood neutral in their opinion of the United States will no longer be neutral and their new-found hatred of America will fester for generations.

I believe this may be one the central problems with what I perceive as your position. You do not mention that the U.S. is in any way culpable for its actions overseas. I do not think any action deserved the retaliation of 9/11, but I am extremely interested in learning what that action was and in the very least trying very hard not to repeat it. My sense is this will be a major friction point between you and I, with you arguing the U.S. has the right to do whatever it wants without expecting recourse and me saying the U.S. needs to stop generating enemies. I'd enjoy hearing your take on this.

I'd move on to some other question regarding the troops, but that's a whole other kettle of fish we can grapple with later - same goes for parallels to WWII.

Turtle said...

Worker Bee - I'm not ignoring your posts, just not sure how far down the road I want to go with a discussion that could escalate a long debate on global affairs. I did have to get on to some other business (including editing our next column) after using my weekend responding to bloggers. Keep checking back but I don't think I can get to this for a while, at least until I see what aftermath comes from our next column, due out Thursday . Thanks for participating and presenting your views.

Anonymous said...

I don't doubt Islamic Jihadists exist. How many are there? Christian and other extremes also exist, can you acknowledge? I like facts and footnotes.

I was moved by Ms. McCaw being in public and exposing herself. Will you write about what it means to you?
Is she an Ayn Rand libertine?

Anonymous said...

Turtle,

My last comment was not published on your blog, which is your right, although I thought some decent points were raised that might have served the thread well, and I would have appreciated a response. But no matter.

Where can I find your Daily Sound column online? I don't regularly pick up the paper version, and I'd be happy to engage you on local topics, assuming there is anything to disagree about. Can you create a direct link to your column?

Why don't you link to current columns from your blog?

Turtle said...

Note to those awaiting comment moderation: Patience please, Turtles have jobs and families and had to focus on getting a column out. We will publish and respond to comments this weekend, but we are going to begin filtering depending on whether or not the comment is civil and constructive to the debate. If it is just someone "blowing off steam" or being insulting we will likely not publish it.

Wheeler family said...

Whoever is behind the turtle no doubt has the iq of their animal icon. Rather than spew ignorant commentary, why not get outside the narrow minded box in which you live and look at the bigger picture. Intellectual conservatism from the likes of William F. Buckley and others introduces a welcome dialogue and provides food for thoughtful discourse. Your ignorant and angry commentary adds nothing to the process.

Steve (not afraid to reveal my name)Wheeler
Santa Barbara

Turtle said...

With all due respect Steve, what does your ignorant and angry comment add to the discourse? It would be more helpful if you would tell us how Mr. Buckley might deal with these local issues. We are going to soon stop publishing comments that only insult and critique the host without any rationalization for the insults, without constructive input.
It is easy to attack other's positions, a little more difficult to present your own.
We do not claim to have all the answers but we are hosting a forum so that answers may be found. Let's be constructive. You are exhibiting the exact behavior we predicted and talked about, which is, if you don't like the message, discredit or attempt to intimidate the messenger instead of bringing your own ideas to the table.