Category Archives: Afghanistan

The Problem of Syria

 

 

Someone (we’re not sure who, Obama and Kerry say Assad, the UN says the rebel—I don’t trust either, so who knows) used chemical weapons in Syria.

 

Now it’s really funny how the left suddenly thinks that chemical weapons in the hands of a Mideast dictator is a bad thing that needs to be stopped.

 

Some might argue that we should punish those who have done so.  That we need to go in to save lives.

 

But they’re looking at it wrong.  While we do as decent people have a responsibility to stop genocide, that isn’t enough, we have to make sure we can actually improve the situation.  The question shouldn’t necessarily be is Assad (or the rebels) killing people, it should be, can we stop the killing?  In Germany, Iraq, and Afghanistan there were either prodemocracy forces (and in those last two I will fully admit we botched any attempt to rally those forces and form a real government)…and in Japan we had the wherewith-all to stay in charge for over a decade to ensure a stable government was left in place.  The problem with Syria is that it’s a choice between Assad and his Iran/Hamas terrorists backers and the Rebels (read Al-Qaeda)…if either side wins, they’ll use the chemical weapons and kill the people of Syria and probably other nations…and America at this point (even if we had a leader and not an idiot in charge) doesn’t have the resolve to stay the time needed and spend the money required to take over Syria and build a system that will end the killing of people.  The fact is that no matter what we do, people are going to die.  If we help people die, if we don’t help people die.  There is no way out of this that can stop the killing.

 

Kerry Syria

Kerry was against intervention over chemical weapons before he was for it…and he was for it before he was against it…

Now some people, whose opinions I respect, suggest we should go in and just bomb Assad’s ability for air dominance, level the playing field and let the rebels and Assad fight it out on equal terms.  I can see the wisdom in this…but this assumes a leader who knows what do to and how to handle such a campaign.  And here’s the problem if you had such a leader my NeoCon side might just say, why half-ass it?, go in occupy the nation and set up a democracy…but lacking such a leader I don’t know if I can even trust the idiot we have now to level the playing field…honestly has he done anything else right in foreign policy?  Which again leads me back to it’s best to stay out of this mess.

 

The silver lining to not doing anything at the moment is that this is Hamas and Al-Qaeda killing each other…which saves us the time and trouble of doing it.

 

But let’s talk about what we should do if reality had no bearing on this (or, say, if we had done the intelligent thing and elected a leader and good man and not a buffoon and corrupt hack).  Now Syria would present it’s own challenges but I think the best way we should do with Syria, if we were going to get involved is to look at our two most recent mistakes, Iraq and Afghanistan, and see where we screwed up there.

 

Now let’s first deal with some of the points of why we went.  We went to take out terrorist threats (and both nations did present such a threat), we went to do the ethical thing and stop genocide, and we went to spread democracy.  All could have been accomplished if Bush and/or Obama had had even half a brain between them…but Obama likes to grovel and apologize for America’s virtue and Bush was an isolationist (just look at his debate with Gore where he said he didn’t want to engage in nation building…so stop blaming NeoConservatives for Bush’s idiocy, he was never one of us and never will be).  It was the right war to fight.

 

It was also fought well.  The military is not the part to blame, it is the diplomats and politicians who screwed the occupation up, not the war itself.

 

Now let’s review what we should have done but didn’t.  And, in terms of full disclosure, I honestly thought we would have been bright enough to do these things when I gave my support for these wars…I thought that even if Bush was dumb enough to not know to do these, his advisors would at least be bright enough…boy was I wrong.

 

Obama moron

Do you trust this man to do anything right? Do you even trust to not make it worse?

The first thing we should not have done was turn over Iraq and Afghanistan to Iraqi and Afghani control so soon.  We were in control of Germany for year (and only gave them independence to gain their alliance in the Cold War) and were in complete control of Japan for nearly a decade.  We should have remained in political and military control of Iraq and Afghanistan for nearly a decade as well.  It takes time to rebuild the infrastructure of a nation, it takes time to get the culture used to the principles of rule of law and a democratic-Republic, it takes time to properly write a Constitution.  All of these were rushed for political convenience.  And that is partly what ultimately made these situations so terrible.

Someone should have gone to Congress to first get an act of war declared and second to get Congress to lay out in writing and law what defines success and when we can legally leave.  Right now we can leave whenever, whether we’ve finished the job or not, and it is largely up to the president and the president only. These are powers that Congress should have, and they should not have been given up, nor should any president have grabbed them.

The nations should have been broken up.  Their current borders are arbitrary creations of colonialism and forced numerous ethnic and religious groups that loathe each other.  Pluralism is also superior, but it grows best naturally when two group both doing well see each other as equals that both can grow and learn from, not from being forced together.  Iraq, should have been three nations (Kurds, Sunni, Shia)…Afghanistan should have likely been broken into a Southern and Northern part (although I’ll admit my knowledge of the breakdown of clans, ethnicities and religious divisions in Afghanistan is not as deep as it could be).  My point here being that smaller less diverse areas are easier to administrate, easier to work with, easier to maintain stability it…and if there is terrorist activity in one it does not mean that destabilizes the whole operation (for instance Kurdistan would have likely been stable, and possibly even economically prosperous very quickly which would have led to more stability in the whole area and an ally we can count on).

We should have never let the armies disband as quickly as we did.  We should have kept them as POWs vetting every single one of them before releasing them.  This would have delayed the terrorists attacks.

I agree completely with the surges, only disagreeing that they should have been done earlier and probably to an even greater degree.

We should have burned each and every poppy field in all of Afghanistan to the ground and shot any drug lord who complained.  The terrorists live off the funds of the drug trade and one of our first goals should have been to deny them any and all funds.

The Peace Corp should have been recalled for training in Arabic, Farsi, Pashto, Dari, (and anything else we needed) and then sent to Afghanistan and Iraq.  There is no point in having a Peace Corp in helping in social and economic development if you’re not going to use it where it was needed most.

Border walls.  As we have learned in the US, there is nothing so important as a border wall…more so when dealing with terrorists.  We should have been building walls on the border of every single nation, starting with the borders of Iran, Pakistan, Syria.  If we had done this the terrorist activity would have been drastically reduced (as most of it came from Iran, Pakistan and Syria)…and if there had been a division of the nations we should have had walls between them as well to help stop the spread of terrorism.

With staying longer, our first responsibility should have been building up roads, water, electricity, schools, hospitals and the basic of industry…the infrastructure needed to support a republic of law.  Training the military and police should have been a distant second (because when you rush that, you let the terrorist infiltrate easily and attack us from within, as we’ve seen all too well) as the military can handle that for a longer period as we’ll be there for a while.

There is no way we should have ever left Iraq without gaining a permanent military base and the same goes for Afghanistan. One of the only reasons why these invasions made sense in the long run from a tactical stand point was gaining foot holds to ensure stability in the area (would Syria be as violent as it is right now if there was a permanent US base with missile launch capability just a few minutes from it’s borders?)

Massacre of Syrian Christians

This is a picture of the handy work of Obama’s allies in Syria…the massacre of Christians for no other reason than their religion. Yes we should help these people.

Among stronger women’s right pushes than we made, we should have made it a requirement that both nations add full rights to women and some version of our burning bed justifications (which more or less makes it justifiable for a woman who is afraid of her husband beating or murdering her to kill her husband…and then we should have probably armed every woman as we could have). This would hopefully have cleared out a lot of the worst bastards we would have to worry about, and the scum who objected should have just been summarily shot as well because you know they’re shit who would be nothing but a blight on humanity. (And I can hear some liberal whiny about it’s their culture who are you to judge.  I’m a human being with a brain, that’s who.  Any man, any law, any religion that says women are inferior to men is shit and deserves to be wiped off the Earth with extreme prejudice.)  We should probably also have installed a lot of women in positions of power, those who objected can be shot.  (This is more to quickly identify the terrorist scum and quickly eliminate them).

We should never have stopped it being a major function of the military and CIA to gather intelligence.  We should be capturing terrorists leaders and water-boarding every last piece of information out of them.  The problem with drones isn’t their use or their death toll…it’s that they’re being used in lieu of gathering intelligence which actually (causes more death in the long run) kills even more people in the long run.

(On a side note) We should have backed, supported and armed the revolution that started in Iran.  Conversely we should not have given moral support to the largely terrorist led Arab Spring.

We should have gone in and still should be going in with the mentality that first and foremost this is a war.  If you are dealing with rational people then negotiate with them, but otherwise there is no retreat, no fallback, no quarter and all that is acceptable is either complete and unconditional surrender or every member of your opposition dead.  No negotiations with the Taliban, no playing nice for Iran and Pakistan.  This is a war, we are in the right (or at least we could have been) and we will not stop until every tyrant is dead or in jail and every innocent citizen enjoys full human rights.

 

Now, while Syria presents it’s own challenges and idiosyncrasies, but it is these general principals that should guide the occupation and rebuilding of any nation.  And the question you need to ask is, do you think Obama has the spine and intelligence to do any of this?  Do you think he even has the brains to carry out attacks on Assad’s military targets?

For me the answer is simple.  No.  I would love to spread liberty and end genocide everywhere…but from what I have seen of this nation, and especially Obama, we don’t know how to do it, we don’t have the patience it takes to do it, and right now we certainly aren’t in an economic position to do it.  In an ideal world intervention is what we should do, but the realities of the present state that our current situation will only lead to making things worse.

Leave a comment

Filed under Afghanistan, Congress, Conservative, Evils of Liberalism, Foreign Policy, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, liberal arrogance, Long Term Thinking, NeoConservative, Obama, People Are Stupid, politics, Tyranny, War on Terrorism

The Short-Term-Thinking Ideas of Liberals on Foreign Policy

Red Eye is the one of the greatest TV shows ever.  It is fun, witty, bizarre, informative in spite of itself, and a place where you will hear commentators be bluntly honest where in other formats they would be more reserved.  And then there is Bill Schulz, Bill is the liberal on Red Eye…most of the time he plays just a coked out hobo spouting idiocy…but sometimes he’ll tell you what he really thinks, and that’s when his spiel turns from funny to just plain stupid.  But it’s not that the real Schulz is particularly below average…in fact, I think his honest moments show us the level of idiocy of your average liberal (and probably some of your dumber libertarians*) on foreign policy.  So to give you an idea of how little your average liberal knows, let’s look at some comments made by Red Eye’s liberal voice.

So let’s start with a discussion about his opinion about Obama’s term in office so far.

Amb. John Bolton: And significantly in the days of the IRA terrorism, Britain was led by Margaret Thatcher—we’re led by Barack Obama.

BS: Who has got a really good record so far.

Bolton: Five dead in Massachusetts .  And four Americans in Benghazi.  All unanswered at this point. That’s the signal to the terrorists that it’s open season.

BS: I think so far that’s a great record.  You don’t want anyone dead, but those are the realities of our war on terrorism.  I thought he’s done a great job defending this country so far.  I have never understood that argument.

Bolton: The question is stability in the Middle East where the Arab Spring has turned badly wrong.  The loss of influence in Iraq.

BS: How is that his fault?

Bolton: Because of the policies he’s pursued.  The withdrawal from Iraq, the withdrawal from Afghanistan. And the unwillingness to take on the war on terror.  The unwillingness to go after countries like Iran and North Korea who are pursuing weapons of mass destruction.

BS: I think if you ask most Americans they’re going to say I want out of Iraq.  I want out of Afghanistan.  And I don’t see what the negative repercussions will be.

Red Eye April 23rd

So so many stupid statements in such a short period of time.  Let’s deal with the last statement first.  That because people wanted out of Iraq then it’s a good thing.  Leadership is not about doing what the people want.  Leadership is about doing what is best for the nation in the long run. If those happen to match up, great.  But when they diverge leaders do the unpopular thing, they will try to convince the nation that it is the best thing, but if they can’t they will still expend all their political capital and even commit political suicide to do what is important and right .  But just doing what is popular is the base and cowardly move of hacks.  And to praise that is idiocy that only liberals can embrace.  It doesn’t matter if everyone thinks a course of action is wrong, if you believe it to be right and it is your job to set policy you do what you believe to be right.  Now there may be compromises here and there to ensure the most good comes about depending on the limitations of your power, but overall you do not care about what is popular if you are a leader.

But then let’s deal with the truly idiotic statement of “And I don’t see what the negative repercussions will be.”  Which pretty much sums up the rest of his comments and shows the differences between liberals and their opponents.  Liberals are too stupid to see any long term consequences.  They think only in the emotional moment.  Libertarians and conservatives on the other hand both consider the long term perspectives—where they differ is Libertarians focus on the consequences of action and conservatives point out that the consequences of inaction outweigh the negative effects of action.**

So let’s look over some of Obama’s foreign policy moves.

Iraq: Bush was an idiot who didn’t have a plan on how to rebuild Iraq.  But if I can lay into Bush for being short sighted, Obama was worse.  First off, did he do any of the right things and begin to rebuild Iraq?  Nope he left, and left it to crumble.  Yeah there are still US soldiers there (so if anyone tells you he ended the war in Iraq, they’re either lying or they’re dumb) but there are not enough there to do anything substantive…only enough there to get killed.  Great plan Barry.

Then he did something even more short sighted.  You don’t have to be terribly bright to realize that the Middle East is going to take up a large portion of foreign policy for a while.  Part of the reason to go into Iraq was not only to stop a dictator (something we should have done in the  early 90’s) and to stop support for terrorist networks…but one of the major reaons, long-term reasons, (besides stability, but you’d need a plan for that) was to establish a base from which we would be centrally located in the Middle East and thus have more effective influence on the entire area.  Right now our only major staging grounds (Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Israel) are kind of on the periphery of the Middle East.

So thinking short term Obama not only doomed the nation to chaos again but he also blew one of the most important long term goals of the war.  Also since problems you don’t fix always tend to come back, don’t be surprised to see that this is not the last of major US troop deployments in Iraq in your lifetime.

time.afghan

Even the liberals at time seem to have an understanding of exactly what will happen if we leave the Taliban in charge.

Afghanistan:  Initially I thought this might not be a complete cluster.  We were burning more poppy fields than under Bush, and the initial stories of the uptick in drone warfare were hopeful.  But then we found out drones weren’t being used to take out high value targets we couldn’t easily get to, they were being used without any concern.  No one was being captured, no one was being interrogated.  You run a war as much on intel as you do on manpower….yes you can perhaps keep the problem at bay by an unrelenting drone war, but that is like sandbagging a river that shows no sign of stopping its flooding, the minute you stop sandbagging the flood will break, the second you stop the drones the flood will break (keep in burned with acidmind Obama was planning on putting strict rules on how to use drones should Romney have won).  And then you will have no drone and no intel to work with.  Whoever takes over from Obama will have their hands tied on both fronts.  And not only that…we’ve been in negotiations with the Taliban.  That’s right we want to make peace with the people who throw acid in women’s faces for not wearing a burka and who shoot little girls in the head.  I want you to take a look at these pictures.  Those are the people Obama has tried to negotiate a peace with.  Take a long look.  You cannot, you must not negotiate with things that can do that to the innocent. The collateral damage of war is one thing, the intentional mutilation of innocent is another, and any society that can coexist with people who do this as typical means to get what they want has no right to call itself civilized.  And to negotiate with butchers like that sends a very clear message that America does not stand for ethics, values nothing but her own whims, and will tolerate any evil so long as it does not bother us.

Iran: Besides leaking information about the virus we planted in Iranian computers and probably leaking information of Israeli plans to attack to ensure everyone in Iran was safe.  But while general incompetence abounds in not seeming to realize psychotically crazy religious people with nuclear weapons is a bad thing (and I would like here to thank Bush for blowing all his political capital by not having a plan, thus not being able to deal with this before moron boy took over) it takes a special kind of stupid to consistently back the wrong horse.   In Iran that would be the uprising in 2009 where (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/15/iran-elections-protests-mousavi-attacks)  the people of Iran rose up against the government run by the Ayatollah…and the US did nothing.  Now you can argue to me all day long about how we couldn’t do much…but please consider that in the light of running guns to Al Qaeda backed rebels in Lybia and Syria…to using US intel to help these groups allied with our enemies…to giving money and weapons to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt…during the pro democracy, true pro democracy uprising in Iran, we did nothing.  No word of encouragement.  No behind the scenes support, not even running our jets and ships dangerously close to their border to remind them we are watching.  NOTHING.  When it is a real battle between tyranny and liberty, this worthless pieces of scum did nothing.  I can’t promise that there was any way for this uprising to succeed, there probably wasn’t, but because we did nothing we made it very clear to every real desire for liberty in the world that we will not back you.

Israel: Obama has made it clear time and again he will not defend the democracy of Israel, going so far as to compromise the safety of Israeli intelligence officers so he could appear like the leader he is not (notice also they haven’t gone after this and like leaks that they thought made them look good…but leaks that made them look bad hell they’ll bug the AP, call reporters criminals for reporting, and god knows what else in the days to come.

In each and every dealing with Israel Obama leaves no doubt that support for Israel will be tepid at best, and nonexistent at worst, only encouraging further buildup and, God forbid, aggression.

Arab Spring: So while the pro-democracy protests of Iran were left to die, the pro tyranny, pro-Sharia, pro-Al Qaeda uprising of the Arab Spring were praised, supported, encouraged, armed, supplied, and even given money after their reigns are in place.  I wonder if the long term consequences of this will be five countries supporting terrorism where we had just gone through so much in Iraq to get rid of one.  Again I feel the long term effects of this will be less liberty and more terror.

I could go on, but in every single move the Obama administration has taken it has set long term advantages for the very people who want to destroy liberty and held back the long term strength of those who defend it. Don’t believe me on the weakening of our side, well then I would suggest you take a look at the latest lawsuit against Obama by the families of some of the dead members of SEAL Team 6…they’re not happy.

(yes the video of the press conference is very long, you may want to come back later and watch it because it’s worth it…though infuriating).

But back to Bill Schulz, it’s not a one night occurrence.  Try this recent debate with former CIA Agent Mike Baker on the May 1st show.

BS:The congress thing is true.  When he ran in 2008 it was not a Republican led Congress.  It is now.  There is no way he can get this to happen.  You guys can complain about that but that’s the fact.

Mike Baker: You know why he’s not closing Gitmo.

BS: Because Congress won’t let him.

Baker: Bush spent several years doing what Obama found out is almost impossible to do.  Get someone to take these people.

BS: Well Yemen wants 90 of them why won’t we give them to them.

So Bill’s genius idea is to send them to a nation where terrorists are numerous and partly in control.  Can’t see the possibility of a jail break at all, can you?

Baker: The best way to end this prison let them die from the hunger strike.

BS: A lot of them have never been tried for anything and we don’t know if they’ve done anything.  I don’t necessarily know if that’ s a great idea.

This is the face of "You can't possibly be that stupid." brought to you by Mike Baker.

This is the face of “You can’t possibly be that stupid.” brought to you by Mike Baker.

Baker: I’m sorry what.

BS: None of them have been tried for anything and we’ve already released a bunch that were innocent.

Baker: We just randomly picked these guys up and threw them in there?

BS: A lot of people have admitted that we’ve done just that.  A guy working under Cheney said just that.

Greg Gutfeld: I think Baker’s going to kill you .

BS: No but isn’t that true?

I’ll agree Gitmo isn’t perfectly simplistic and that we probably did pick up a few innocent people (there is a reason we have the term “the fog of war”)…but the way Schulz is portraying it (especially if you watch the recording) is that everyone down in Cuba was just minding their own business and the US military randomly picked them up off the street (hence Baker’s face)…also the guy Schulz is likely referring to, Lawrence Wilkerson, who was on Colin Powell’s staff (yeah real conservative credentials there) is also on the record that we made up all the evidence against Saddam and he never had any WMD programs…which in light of the fact that we had to ship 500 ton of yellow cake uranium out of Iraq (according to CNN).  Also Wilkerson currently makes a living as a pundit who goes on left wing shows and says that the GOP is nothing but a bunch of racists.  Given that he’s clearly a liar (or too stupid to understand what 500 tons of uranium is) and he hates the party he supposedly is from (thought I doubt) his statements about us taking the innocent and shipping them to Gitmo so one finds that his statements may be more motivated by leftist ideology than those pesky things known as facts, which makes most of his points as being the kind you should take with a grain of salt.

Yes military tribunals would be nice…but Schulz in his hypocrisy has forgotten about the constant blocks from liberals who wanted to give them every single civil liberty of US citizens and all protections of the Geneva Conventions (this ignores that little point that the Geneva Convention only applies to those in uniform, and the uniform clause was put in there specifically to prevent the major kind of terrorism that these terrorists were engaged in.  The Geneva Convention wanted to set rules that you will fight in certain ways, or we will not guarantee your safety in the least and you’re on your own.  To offer this scum those protections only encourages the kind of behavior you don’t want to encourage…but there again we go back to Obama and other leftist). And their lack of understanding of all rules and regulaions, laws, constitution, etc.

And an earlier part of the conversation dealt with the foolish idea that Gitmo is something that makes us enemies…yeah cause our drone attacks are making us so many friends (I don’t buy into the pacifist BS that the drones do nothing but kill innocent children, I’m an adult and realize there is such a thing as unintended collateral damage…but on the same token Barry is rather haphazard in his use of drones and doesn’t seem to care about doing the normal thing and trying to limit collateral damage where possible).  But back to creating enemies. It’s not creating more enemies.  Religious psychopaths tend to hate whether they have a reason to or not.  Note they hated us before the first Gulf War, they hated us before the Shah was put into power, the Mufti of Jerusalem was conspiring with Hitler on how to kill all the Jew in the 1930’s before there was a major Western presence, they have waged endless and constant war on the west since, well, their founding. When you found a religion on an act of genocide (the killing of the Jews of Medina) the after effects tend to be people who find enemies whether you give them a reason or not.  If we pulled out every Western base from the Middle East tomorrow AND moved all of Israel here to America…I’d lay down my entire net worth on a bet that would say they would still be calling for death to the Great Satan.  We’re not making enemies by our actions, an ideology that hates reason is going to find any example of it as an enemy.

The fact of the matter is that no sane person thinks the people in Gitmo are a bunch of saints.  The fact of the matter is that liberals only care about what’s popular now and doing what they want now with no concern for long term.

Yeah Bush botched the job at rebuilding…probably because he wasn’t a real neoconservative (go back to the Bush/Gore debates, you will hear him say he doesn’t believe in nation building), it’s just that like his liberal sensibilities he did the only thing that made sense in the short term.  The fact of the matter is that we don’t have anyone in power right now in this nation who thinks long term, and we haven’t had one for a while (although we did blow the chance to have one very recently).  I’ve pulled out Bill Schulz  as the representative of liberal thought here, but you hear dumb shit like this all over the place, not just on the token liberal of one show, and it is an ideology of short term thinking that will always lead to problems.

*Honestly, libertarians, why are you letting your party get taken over by the whiny anti-war crowd. You used to be Ayn Rand and Barry Goldwater types who encouraged destroying tyranny.  What happened?

**Libertarians may dispute the idea that they don’t see as far into the future as conservatives, but history backs up neoconservatives on this point in terms of foreign policy

***Anyone who thinks George W. —Let me expand entitlements, give federal control of education, sign stimulus bills, not worry about Tort reform, Social Security reform, cutting any part of the government, do nothing about Fannie and Freddie –Bush was a fiscal conservative in any way, shape, or form is deluding themselves.  But he lowered taxes!  No he didn’t, conservatives know that a temporary tax reduction has no lasting effect on the economy, so even that move wasn’t conservative.   The man was conservative only in the part of “conservative” that is a gross misuse of the word and that the GOP needs to drop, let’s the use government to promote social values.

Leave a comment

Filed under Afghanistan, Conservative, Evils of Liberalism, Foreign Policy, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Israel, liberal arrogance, NeoConservative, politics, Tyranny, War on Terrorism

Obama’s abysmal attempt to look like he understands foreign policy

So as we approach this last debate Obama is beyond desperate…he’s to the point where he is just making his ignorance his only argument.

Namely Obama’s latest ad makes 5 really stupid claims.

1. The first is that Romney got his facts wrong about Obama not calling Benghazi a terrorist attack.  Obama didn’t call it a terrorist attack, his people went on a major cover up to hide his incompetence.  They kept saying it was about a video…if you believe that please contact me I have some lovely bridges to sell at rock bottom rates.  Meanwhile here is a link to a lot of videos that show the cover up…also I have video of Candy Crowley admitting that Romney was right and Obama is a liar. 
So what are they covering up?  Oh just that they knew there was a riot going on at the time.

Just that they had a predator drone over Benghazi that could have done something to stop the attack and save our people.

 

That Ambassador Stevens constantly requested security time and time again.  Including just 2 hours before his death.

  Along with the military advising to not pull down security in Benghazi.  

 

Also you have the Libyan PM saying it was a terrorist attack and a bunch of other people.

That the CIA told them within 24 hours that it was Al-Qaeda so there is no excuse whatsoever for the two weeks of lies.

 

So why this massive set of lies, cover ups, and leaving our own people to be murdered?  Because if you admitted the truth that Al-Qaeda is stronger than ever you have to admit that Obama’s triple plan of groveling, drone strikes that yield no actionable intelligence, and killing Bin Laden did nothing, less than nothing actually and Obama is a miserable failure on the terrorist front.

…oh…by the way…it appears that the latest scandal is that Obama didn’t even order the Bin Laden raid…Obama, or more accurately Valerie Jarett who seems to be the one who wears the pants in the Oval Office, kept calling it off…so the military and CIA just did it themselves and only told Barry after SEAL Team 6 was already in Pakistani airspace and couldn’t turn back.  God bless the United States Armed and Intelligence Service…and the opposite to that worthless excuse of a president. 

 

Oh on a related topic, when Barry says he ended the war in Iraq, I would like someone to remind him we still have lots of soldiers in Iraq fighting terrorists. And dying.

2. Obama claims Romney has undermined our relationship with Britain because of his comment about worries about Olympic security…you know the same worries everyone in Britain had.

As opposed to Obama’s reprehensible treatment of Israel which borderlines anti-Semitic.

As opposed to giving the British PM DVD’s as present.  Ignoring the tackiness of giving DVD’s, he gave DVD’s that only work in the U.S.

Or returning the bust of Churchill, which is an absolute insult to the British.

Or his lack of knowledge about etiquette during a toast to the British Queen.

Perhaps his deferential treatment to terrorist organizations like Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.

Or how about back-stabbing Poland and breaking a treaty with them for missile defense.

Obama has pissed off all of our allies.  Romney has good relations with Britain, Poland and Israel.  Remind me again who is less qualified in foreign policy.

3. The ad then tried to hit Romney because he said as foreign policy issues come up he will consult experts for each area of the world.  Heaven forbid! Romney will seek out the advice of experts.  Truly the acts of a terrible leader.

Unlike Obama who consults Valerie and no one else.  I mean this is Obama, he knows so much he doesn’t need to ever consult his jobs council, or his economic council…and let us remember Obama is such a great leader he never needs to attend his daily security briefing.  Obama is just so great he doesn’t need to seek advice from anyone…and that seems to be working just horrifically.

Good leaders seek advice…they make their own choices, but they surround themselves with people who offer informed advice…meanwhile Obama surrounds himself with pretty much the same kind of people who were telling Mao that everything was working and going great and the people were happy and prosperous.  (Election day is going to come as a complete shock to Barry.)

And trying to hit someone for saying they would seek advice just seems beyond pathetic.  Oh, this is the Obama administration.  They have created whole new levels of beyond pathetic.

4. They of course claim that Romney and his advisors are war mongers (because Obama’s done such a bang up job to achieve security…see point 1).

From ancient Rome to Sun Tzu to Ronald Reagan there has always been the knowledge that if you want peace you prepare for war because nothing acts like a deterrent to war like being the kind of people you don’t want to attack.

But to make Romney sound like war monger both in this ad, and in various other articles I’ve seen they try to compare Romney to that evil Neocon Bush.  This is stupid as Bush wasn’t a NeoCon, he was a foreign policy wimp and idiot, just like daddy.  Yes Bush had a brief flirtation with Neoconservatism after 9/11 when it was clear to even idiots like Bush that Neoconservatism is the only policy that works…but he soon fell back on idiocy.   A Neoconservative believes in building democracies…not just invading and thinking a democracy will just magically spring up.

Yes Romney has a lot of Neoconservative advisors…advisors that Bush ignored.  Ones that say if you have to invade, oh, have a plan for rebuilding the nation.  Minor stuff like that.

And let’s keep in mind it was Obama, not Romney or Bush, who did nothing for the last four years while Iran built up a nuclear program.  It was Obama who did nothing when the pro-Democracy protestors in Iran were slaughtered.  It was Obama who supported the pro-Islamist Arab Spring.  It was Obama who did nothing about Syrian genocide.*  It was Obama that has never spoken out against the violence against women and children by Muslim Brotherhood, and pretry much all of Islam.  See 14 year old girl in Pakistand that just wanted an education – truly evil – I am still blistering from his speech against them about that – Oh wait – no he never said a word.

No one wants war. But there are things worse than war—tyranny and genocide for instance.  And the person who is really committed to peace and against war, does everything in their power to make sure the causes of  (tyranny, genocide, weapons of mass destruction) things and does build up and prepare.  Obama seems to have done everything he can, short of assassinating little known Austrian nobility, to ensure the world is unstable.

Remind me who is pushing us to war?

Oh and before you bring up that BS story that Iran wants to talk now (you know only a few weeks before the election) right when Obama most needs a foreign policy victory…do you think maybe it’s because Iran wants a weak president in the Oval Office who will do nothing to stop them from wiping Israel off the face of the Earth?

(Okay that’s unfair.  Obama won’t do “nothing” when Israel is destroyed.  He’ll probably cheer.)

5. Not knowing who the enemy is.

Then of course they try to make fun of Romney saying that Russia is our chief adversary is stupid.  You know that country

Is there anyone he doesn’t grovel to…oh year, democracy and non-tyrannical nations.

Obama want to be more “flexible” with…like FDR was flexible with Stalin…

You know Russia which is in good with our enemies in Syria and Pakistan.

Russia which is supporting Iran.

Russia which is in a new alliance with China (and they’re such a friendly, human rights respecting bunch)

Russia controlled by dictator Vladimir Putin (if you think he won an honest election, boy are you stupid) who locks up anyone who disagrees with him.

Russia which is trying to become friends with all those Islamist countries.

Russia that just bought the election in Georgia.

Russia which has been poisoning foreign leaders it doesn’t like.

Russia which is selling aircraft carriers to China so they can expand their sphere of influence. 

Russia which is right now doing tests of its nuclear arsenal. 

Yeah that Russia which any foreign policy expert with half a brain knows Russia is really missing its former glory and wants it back (the Obama video tries to show Romney for being an idiot by quoting Colin Powell…who advised which idiot?  Oh that’s right.  Powell the genius who backed invading countries when we had no plan on how to rebuild them).   Will they fail eventually?  Yes.  But that doesn’t mean they won’t slaughter scores if someone isn’t there to stop them.

 

———-

 

The fact is that Romney plans a foreign policy of actually knowing something and developing of strong alliances, actually backing our allies, showing strength, and backing up our values with action if needs be. You know, the policy which saves lives in the long run  and expands freedom….unlike Obama’s policy of groveling, cowardice, Chamerlain-esque appeasement,  and cutting the military in a way that Obama’s Secretary of Defense called “shooting ourselves in the head”.

With support from dictators like that, how could you possibly be opposed to Obama?

*By the way, where did Syria get a weapons program from.  I can find nothing about a Syrian weapons program from any source until everyone was worried that their biological and chemical weapons would fall into the hands of terrorists.  It’s as if this weapons program just appeared out of nowhere…I mean it’s not like someone drove a massive amount of chemical and biological weapons into Syria from neighboring Iraq right before the invas–…oh, so that’s where they went.

Leave a comment

Filed under Afghanistan, American Exceptionalism, Capitalism, character, Congress, Constitution, Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, Foreign Policy, Long Term Thinking, Mitt Romney, NeoConservative, Obama, People Are Stupid, politics, Tyranny

Faux Outrage at Romney Calling Obama on Being Inept

Liberals are in a tizzy.  How dare Romney critique Obama on apologizing for free speech.  How dare Romney criticize Obama when a U.S. diplomat is dead as a result of Obama’s complete incompetence.  How dare Romney push to get a man out of office whom he believes, justifiably so, is so inept at everything he does that to let him have another 4 years in the Oval Office would lead to irreparable damage to both this nation and our allies.  How dare he! For shame, Romney, for shame!

So no shocker liberals are idiots for multiple reasons, but let’s go over a few of them.

The first, and possibly my favorite:  How dare he use the murder of people to help himself.  The first thing I try to do in an argument, believe it or not, is to look at it from the other person’s point of view (you’d be surprised how this makes you feel other people are idiots more often than it builds tolerance, but that’s another discussion for another day).  So liberals from Romney’s  point of view Obama is inept, putting the lives of U.S. citizens at risk, and the first inclination of both he and his administration is to apologize to butchers at any and every chance.  If you were Romney, the only ethical thing to do is to get Obama out of office through any and all ethical means. * Bringing up Obama’s many failures is a an ethical and important way to get rid of the ass.**  To do anything less would be to allow such a terrible executive to stay in power—to not make a point of this would have been to allow Obama to stay in power, to actively work for what Romney believes will harm this country—in short to not bring it up would be unethical.  Yes, for shame that Romney did the only ethical thing available to him.

And both parties are guilty of this.  Right now, it’s being highlighted that the media didn’t throw this hissy fit when Kerry used dead soldiers in Iraq to hit Bush. ()  Yes some Republicans said it was classless and tacky, I don’t recall doing so myself because quite frankly if you think the war isn’t worth it that’s a damn valid point.  I thought the war was worth it, and it was—granted it would have been better if it had been carried out by someone with a brain, but just because Bush was a moron doesn’t negate the fact that Kerry would have been even more incompetent at bringing democracy to Iraq.  So Kerry bringing up dead soldiers or not isn’t relevant (the fact that Kerry seemed shocked that people die in war however might be a good point of showing how dumb Kerry was) to the argument, fewer people were dying because Saddam was gone.  Now any Republicans who had a problem with Kerry doing this back then would be hypocrites to complain about Democrats outrage now, just as the media is hypocritical of showing outrage for one but not the other.

The fact is that there is really no shameful behavior in a campaign there is only a question of relevant and effective.  Bringing up Obama’s failures is relevant if you’re argument is that Obama is utterly incompetent, which he is.  Bringing up dead soldiers in Iraq is relevant if your argument is that the Iraq war was wrong, which it wasn’t (it was just managed by idiots).  Shame is only relevant when you’re acting against what you believe, which in both cases was not the fact.  However Kerry’s central argument was dumb so this point was irrelevant.  It’s just like liberals now bringing up Romney’s tax returns.  Their argument is they need to see them to determine if Romney has done anything illegal…which is dumb…if a candidate is that rich they’ve got good lawyers and accountants, which means even if they are doing as many illegal back door deals as say, Nancy Pelosi, their lawyers and accountants are not going to be dumb enough to put them in their tax returns.  Further you don’t think the IRS under Obama didn’t already go through them with a fine tooth comb?  Trust me if there was stuff there Obama would have already leaked it…I mean it’s not like Romney’s taxes are a classified state secret (and we know Obama has no qualms about leaking that).

Now you can argue that Romney doing this might not have been effective and counter to his goal of unseating Obama, as many in the McCain/RINO wing of the Republican party seem to be doing (yes because we should listen to McCain advisors on how to run a campaign because they clearly know how to win…) but really that’s tangential to the faux outrage by the Democrats.

Second you have people getting upset about insulting the president (yes Republicans were guilty of this too during Bush). I’m sorry but I live in a Constitutional Republic.  The president and politicians work for me, not the other way around.  They are not gods, they are not kings or nobility; they are human beings.  And they deserve to be called out on their failings. Due to their position of service they deserve to be called out on it even more as they are my employee and when they do such a terrible job they deserve to be told what utter !@#$ing scum and idiots they are.  And like the outrage over calling out people when others have died, the only question is, is it relevant.  Calling Bush Hitler for defending liberty…doesn’t quite make sense (an idiot he was, evil no…of course liberals were seldom calling him an idiot for the right reasons).  Calling Obama a socialist when he acts and says everything a socialist would, perfectly justified.  ()

Now, onto the real meat of the matter.  Obama’s foreign policy incompetence and Romney’s justified critique of it.

Let’s get our timeline set.

1.            The US embassy in Cairo issued an apology for free speech.

2.            Riots began in Cairo and Libya.  The embassy repeats the statement several times.

3.            It became known that a US citizen had died in Libya (it was not known at the time that it was the Ambassador).

4.            The Obama administration, after some dithering, has the initial apology removed.

5.            Romney issued a condemnation of the initial apology.

6.            The day after this all happens Romney gives a speech calling for leadership and condemning Obama for not offering any, and Obama gives a speech that once again apologizes for the fact that we have free speech.

The problem here for liberals is that because the apology came before the attacks that Romney’s statement is wrong and false.

Let’s deal with this.

I’ve tried to watch the video, I might condemn it for poor production value or the fact that it was clearly made by a moron, but by doing so I would be doing it as a private citizen.  A US Embassy has no right to critique, let alone condemn the expression of free speech by citizens of the US.  Furthermore as this was made by Coptic Christians who are being slaughtered by the Muslim Brotherhood, you might understand why they’re taking their frustration out on Muslims (it’s the only religion I know of that was founded by a child raping butcher who personally ordered the genocidal massacre of the Jews of Medina…but I’m sure it’s a religion of peace having started with such an upstanding beginning).  But my point in bringing this up is I’ve haven’t heard of any condemnations by the US Ambassador condemning the abuse of Jews, Coptic Christians, or hell even women by the Muslim Brotherhood…but let’s condemn people for using their Constitutional Rights.  It also makes such fascinating comments like “Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy.” (Didn’t notice much of it in Charlotte when half the party objected to the word God being put in the platform…that was unfair actually…they were booing the inclusion of Jerusalem being listed as the capital of Israel.  So I apologize for saying the Democrats are against religion.  They’re not.  They’re just against Jews.)  Also I hate to tell them this respect for religions isn’t a cornerstone of America (it’s also a republic not a democracy)…right to express your beliefs is a cornerstone, but I don’t have to respect you when you do.  I have every right to think you’re a complete moron or even evil (and before you begin to argue with me on that, you first have to tell me you respect the beliefs of the Westboro Baptists and that you would condemn anyone who would try to denigrate them for their batshit crazy ideas).  I will defend your right to express your dipshit ideas, so long as such expression does not harm me or others, but don’t expect me to respect you for being dead wrong.

And Romney’s response.

Okay so since the attacks occurred after the apology it might be a little out of line that Romney said the administration’s “first response” to the attack was not to condemn them but to apologize.  Yeah sure the embassy repeated the message after the attacks began but  I mean it’s not like the Secretary of State issued an apology of her own after the attacks had already begun at about 7:54pm…oh wait…what…she did?  Oh shit, I guess he’s right their first reaction was to condemn free speech rather than condemn the butchers who throw a hissy fit over a video that one would otherwise ignore if you weren’t crazy (you know the same butchers murdering Coptic Christians and putting Jews and women in their sights).

You can see the original at https://twitter.com/StateDept/status/245717059693080576 (but I expect that will be taken down soon.)

[Author’s note: it would appear I have my times a little mixed up, Hillary’s tweet came about 10 minutes after Romney’s statement…which is despicable in its own right…however as it also appears that the embassy twice sent out messages backing up their previous abhorrent statements, Romney is still correct in say that the administration’s first inclination was to apologize after the attacks begun…I messed up in my time lines, Romney did not. 9/13]

So then we had this morning where

Romney made the point that

“An apology for America’s values is never the right course”

And Obama again apologized for the First Amendment‎, “We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.”

Question, which of these two sounds closer to “I may not agree with what you say but will defend your right to say it to the death” which is supposedly the American tradition that keeps the Westboro Baptists from being beaten to death.

So all that is left is Romney right that this is symptom of a greater amount of incompetence on Obama’s part.  Yes it is.  Because it is Obama who has attempted 4 years of appeasement to no avail.  Because it is Obama who gave help to the Muslim Brotherhood in Libya and Egypt and allowed these al-Qaeda tied Islamists to take over (yes the two countries had dictators, but US policy should not be to change one dictator for a worse one).  Obama in turn left pro-democracy forces in Iran be slaughtered.  He is currently backstabbing our ally Israel at every turn.  He is chummy with a Russia that is giving nuclear capabilities to Iran and helping Syrian tyrants slaughter people (I’m not thrilled with either side in Syria, but that doesn’t mean I want outside forces helping to encourage the pointless slaughter).  He is the one giving money to the butchers in Egypt.  He and his administration are responsible for their not being a Marine contingent in Libya to defend the ambassador but only local hired help…who may have been involved in the attack. 

I could go on and I probably will later. But on numerous levels the administration may not have caused the riots but it has done everything in its power to make sure the butchers behind these riots came to power and even today this administration is giving them cover and blaming things like free speech as the cause, not a culture of barbarism in countries run by tyrants.

And to attack Romney and not Obama is either rank hypocrisy or utter cluelessness.   Either way, shame on you liberals.  Shame.  Obama created the situation that killed the ambassador by being weak, by backing butchers, and by apologizing for America.

*You could assume that Romney is not ethical, out for power for power’s sake, and has no principles…however, there is no evidence to justify such a claim.  He gives overly generously to charity and does not live in garish style, so greed doesn’t seem to be a factor.  I can’t find any evidence of cronyism in his administration as Governor.  Nor does he seem centered on himself at every moment, so ego doesn’t seem to be his motivation.  Now those things do seem to drive other people, but I see no evidence of it in Romney, so assuming he’s not acting out of what he believes to be ethical duty seems a foolish assumption.

**Democrats, don’t like being called asses or jackasses?  Too bad, you’re the ones who put it on the letterhead.  Or have you repudiated the jackass for the ostrich?

3 Comments

Filed under Afghanistan, American Exceptionalism, Anti-Semitism, Civil Liberties, Constitution, Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, Faith, Fear, First Amendment, Free Will, God, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Individualism, liberal arrogance, Mitt Romney, Obama, politics, Tyranny

Romney at VFW: America the Hope of the Earth



But remember we’re arrogant

But remember we’re not special in the world

And let’s not forget that we believe in American exceptionalism like Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism (yeah thanks Barry for comparing us to that excuse for a nation)…and that we should apologize to the butchers who kill our men but not when you slander a man and accuse him of felonies when you have not even an iota of proof (by the way we have tons of proof, the least of which is your Executive Privelage order, that shows you actually were complicit in the string of felonies known as Fast and Furious)…and that we should support every revolution backed by Al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood (Syria, Lybia, Tunisa, Egypt) but let people in Iran who want democracy to be murdered.
I’m ready for a change, how about you?

Also, Mitt is going to meet with anti-Communist figher Lech Walesa and the great Tony Blair, two men who understand what America is, and Obama isn’t (by the way Walesa has refused to meet with Obama).



1 Comment

Filed under Afghanistan, American Exceptionalism, Civil Liberties, Conservative, Constitution, Economics, Evils of Liberalism, Foreign Policy, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Individualism, Israel, Mitt Romney, Obama, Patriotism, politics, Tyranny

The Patriotic Films #13 Red Dawn

“I never saw the Eckert Brothers again. In time, this war – like every other war – ended. But I never forgot. And I come to this place often, when no one else does. … In the early days of World War 3, guerillas – mostly children – placed the names of their lost upon this rock. They fought here alone and gave up their lives, so that this nation should not perish from the earth.”

Let me start off by saying I’m not going to be defending the exceedingly high production standards or the Oscar quality performances seen in this film.  To do so would just be dishonest.  This is a B flick that became a cult classic.  (And I’m just going to ignore all the logistics and tactical issues).    (It will be interesting to see if the remake can maintain the same pro-American theme which is so unpopular in modern Hollywood).  But this is a beloved film of my youth and you know how those films always stay with you.

But it does show that America (more embodied in our teenage protagonists than the townspeople who behave in a strangely un-American fashion) does not roll over in the face of greater odds (or at least that was the intent, I really do have a problem with how the town seems to be rather passive…but I get that wasn’t the point of the film).

It’s either really bad writing or a very high opinion of America (or both), but you have to admit this small band is not only extremely good at laying traps and taking out superior forces…but they are truly spectacular at scavenging. Military camouflage for different season, fully automatic weapons, RPG’s—the very thing that turned the tide against the Soviets in Afghanistan and which has to be provided by us—the heroes of this film really know how to raid the good caravans and for great military equipment.

And while I’m on the topic keep in mind that this movie was made at the same time the very same thing was going on in Afghanistan, but not with such spectacular results.  The only reason the Afghani insurgents did well was American support, and I think writers were trying to show that Americans don’t necessarily need foreign support to defend their own nation.  (Oh, before someone chides me by saying backing the Afghan forces was a bad idea, it wasn’t. What was a bad idea was not going in after the Soviets left and helping them to rebuild their nation, rather preferring to let butchers and psychopaths take control of the nation.  What was Wilson’s quote “These things happened. They were glorious and they changed the world…and then we fucked up the end game.”* Thank Bush Senior for turning a nation that could have become a first world nation and ally into a complete clusterfuck.  It must be a genetic thing that the Bush’s have no ability to see the long game.)

But back to Red Dawn.

One of my favorite lines in the film is when they are about to execute the Soviet solider whom they had captured calls out, “This violates the Geneva convention.”  It’s laughable.  From a man who had participated in the killing of civilians as reprisals for the acts of others.  From a man from a nation that has killed more innocent people than any nation in history, begging for following the rules of civilized society (also, it’s not a violation of the convention, guerillas aren’t covered by the convention and thus they don’t have to abide by it…but Communists aren’t real big on a actual understanding of law and natural rights).  Quite frankly, given what heartless genocidal lunatics the Soviets were (and it looks like they’re hoping for a comeback with strongman Putin) it only reminds me of a line from another film from my childhood, “You who are without mercy, now beg for it?” (Kudos, if you know the film).

Of course Red Dawn also points out that there are certain difference between America and most of Europe. When getting news from their downed Air Force Colonel, they ask

“What about Europe?”

…and get the response…

“I guess they figured twice in one century was enough. They’re sitting this one out. All except England, and they won’t last very long.”

And it’s sad how so true this is.  Most of Europe were cowards in helping us take down a dictator (except for a lot of Eastern Europe, I wonder if it might have something to do with the fact that Eastern Europe understands why dictators MUST be opposed) and for all their high handed morality in not helping with wars, they were also strangely silent in helping to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan.  Like the entire Greek population, most of Europe is motivated by short-sighted grasping and looking out for their own ends without any consideration of morality, a hallmark of their beloved socialist systems (as opposed to Capitalism which is self-interest tempered by foresight, reason and ethics).

Of course I do need to bring up a couple points about what bothers me more over the years…

Now there are a couple of problems that do need to be dealt with.  The first, which I assume was simply the nature of needing to have a movie in the first place.  Do you know how many privately owned guns there are in America, and especially in the Midwest which is where they claimed the Soviets were able to take a foot-hold.  I’d like to see someone try an invasion like this.  In a nation as well armed as the United States it would probably not go nearly as well as this movie suggested it would.

More than anything however, my biggest problem is the rather anti-American idea that it was just these kids.  Yes, I know it looked like they rounded up or killed half the town initially, and yes I know they had a throwaway line that from when Jed (Swayze) said he didn’t want to take on any more people…but the fact of the matter is that if you provide a rallying point, I would assume that you would see a good portion of Americans rise up should something like this ever happen.  History and the news tells us it’s damn near impossible to put down a guerilla revolt when the guerillas are fighting for oppression and tyranny…it should be damn impossible to do it if you actually have something to fight for, especially for a populace that didn’t grow up under tyranny.   I get that they were trying to show the character drama of what it was doing to these kids, but it does a disservice to the majority of the American populace whom I believe would never sit back and prefer to live on their knees than die on their feet.

*Before you ask Charlie Wilson’s War while a great story is about the man not the nation which is why it will not be officially on this list.  But I must ask, what happened to Democrats like Wilson who actually loved their nation and freedom?

1 Comment

Filed under Afghanistan, American Exceptionalism, Art, Capitalism, Civil Liberties, Conservative, Evils of Liberalism, Foreign Policy, Government is useless, Individualism, Movies, Movies for Conservatives, NeoConservative, Patriotism, politics, Tyranny

Some thoughts on Foreign Policy

Sad how this is still very relevant (just add Beijing and Teheran to Moscow)(sorry about the music, I couldn’t find this part of the speech on it’s own)


Over the last 4 years:

A dictator has returned to the Russian Presidency

China is building it’s Navy and saber rattling

Pro-Democracy forces were slaughtered in Iran and the U.S. did nothing

Anti-American Islamists have taken over Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, and are about to take over Syria (and yes these psychos

are worse the bastards they booted out)

We abandoned Iraq

Israel backstabbed at every opportunity

Pakistan is actively supporting Islamists

We are in talks to give Afghanistan back to he Taliban

But, it’s not our problem…just like Kaiser, the Red Army, the Fuhrer, the Ayatollah, Mao, Tojo, Ho, the Khmer Rogue, all of Africa were never our problem.

1 Comment

Filed under Afghanistan, American Exceptionalism, Anti-Semitism, China, Civil Liberties, Conservative, Constitution, Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, Foreign Policy, Founding, Free Will, Goldwater, GOP, Individualism, Israel, Libya, Long Term Thinking, Mitt Romney, Natural Rights, NeoConservative, Obama, philosophy, politics, Ronald Reagan, War on Terrorism

I agree, America is not and cannot be the Policeman of the world….

But we are a decent people.

I bring this up because I have been getting a lot of people telling me that “The U.S. is not the policeman of the world” in that snide way only a coward can manage.  And again let me say, I agree with you, America is not and cannot be the Policeman of the world….but we are a decent people.

What do I mean by that?

Well think about it this way.  If you are walking down the street and you see a woman getting raped in alley.   Do you just walk past?  I hope not.  I hope you at least scream, although it’s not quite as effective as looking for a piece of rebar and, in the parlance of Pulp Fiction, going medieval on someone’s ass.  You do it not because of some rule or regulation, not because of some obligation, but because you are ethical, we feel empathy and we understand a basic concept of natural rights.  You of course could walk by, but that would mean you are unethical, have no ability to feel empathy or any respect for another person’s natural rights.   But I assume you are a decent person and will stop evil when you see it and are in a position to stop it.  Now what if it wasn’t one person you had to fight off but a large group who caused not a single act of violence but were terrorizing your neighborhood.  I believe a neighborhood watch would solve that issue.  And the larger the problem the larger the group we form to counter that evil (I remember a couple hundred militias being formed to fight the greatest empire on Earth and their lobster-backs).  We as individuals know that we should stop evil when we find it and are in a position to do so.  We don’t do it for a reward or even to secure our own safety, as often ignoring the problem would put us at less risk…yet somehow we know that it is wrong to ignore evil and do nothing.

Yes we have police, country sheriffs, state troopers, and federal special agents…but we don’t say that these people make it ethically acceptable to walk by when we see evil right in front of us, we hire these professionals to be available to protect not just us, but those around us when we can’t be everywhere.  We believe everyone is entitled to be free of the threat of violence, even if we have never met them.

And we would rightly judge anyone who did walk by and ignore evil in front of them morally reprehensible.  Yes we might forgive someone if the problem was too big for them to deal with personally and if they did contact the police, but otherwise there is no ethical excuse.

Now some will say: Isn’t what you’re describing an ethical duty?  Something you claim to hate?  No, no it is not.  A duty is a moral obligation, a concept that you have to do this, not because is good for you, not because it brings you pleasure or makes you feel good, not because to not do it will bring you emotional pain…no a duty is done because that is the rule, that is what you do, and you don’t question it.  (Notice duty, when properly used is often in the context of a military organization, a place where you don’t get to question why, yours is but to do and die.  Improperly duty is often misused in the place of “virtuous.”)  We have a choice we can do something or not.  There is no rule or obligation or duty toward one side or the other.  But to do nothing does not mean we condone, we allow, we support that evil because we did nothing.  And we are thus guilty for doing nothing.   But we do act and stop evil where we find it, because we are a decent people.

But I go back to my original example.  There are times and places where there is no authority, no cop to call upon to stop evil and it falls unto you, the person who sees it and has the power to act.

And as this is true with individuals, and groups of individuals, so it is true of governments.  When a government is a tyranny, it is evil—the worst evil known, which commits as standard operating procedure the worst atrocities on a daily basis.

We as individuals see these evils, and we know our government is not ignorant of them.  There is no police force of the world (if you even thought the U.N. you clearly don’t know how corrupt, evil, and ineffective that organization is) thus there are only individual nations.  Nations which can act, which have the resources to act.  They just lack the will.  The world knew what Hitler was up to, maybe not down to the details of human skin lamp shades, but they knew he was killing people by hundreds of thousands and enforcing slave labor.  That alone should have necessitated attacking Germany, but everyone waited until it was their own country being invaded before it became an issue…and millions of innocents died because no one had the will to challenge what they knew to be evil.  Innocents were sacrificed, no one wanted to be viewed as acting unilaterally or being called the policeman of the world, no one wanted to take responsibility and say “This is wrong and it must stop.”  (At least nowadays.  Back in the old days Jefferson, the most anti-war of the Founding Fathers, would use the cutting down of a flag by the Bey of Tripoli as the justification to invade not just Tripoli, but Algiers and Tunis and bring the Barbary pirates to their knees.  Not because they were a direct threat to U.S. interests, hell might have been cheaper to pay them off…no, because they were engaged in piracy and extortion and they needed to be stopped.  And that was over piracy, nowadays we turn a blind eye to genocide, how distorted a policy is that?)

Nations like individuals have an ethical choice to make.  Do they stop the evil which they know about and have the power to do something about, or do they ignore it and thus condone and agree with it.  This is a choice every nation faces.  When the U.S. acts “unilaterally” as the misnamed “policeman of the world” it’s not because it’s our job, it’s because we recognize evil when we see it and choose not to stand by and willingly let it happen.  (I put unilaterally in quotations because I recall there being about 40 other countries that joined us in Iraq and Afghanistan, other nations that made the correct ethical choice to not sit quietly by and do nothing.)

Should the people in these nations rise up and overthrow their tyrants as the people of other nations have done.  Yes, they should.  But either they haven’t or they’ve been killed when they tried.

Does that mean we shouldn’t first try negotiation and diplomacy?  No. We should because we are the reasonable ones…but don’t expect it to do much.  Please tell me of the last time a dictator reformed when there wasn’t a threat or implication of force but just out the warm fuzziness of their cuddly heart?

Does that mean we should attack and not care about rebuilding?  No.  You do this to help the victims of evil, not because you enjoy beating up people.  That means, unlike the actions of Clinton, Bush and Obama, when you invade a country the first thing you do after you beat them militarily is you rebuild the nation.  Energy production and delivery systems, roads, plumbing, water…all the infrastructure we take for granted.   And creating government.  Notice that the biggest problem with Afghanistan and Iraq was we tried to immediately give control of the government back to the people (both within Bush’s first term).  I love democracy as much as the next sane person, but shoe horning it in before the people have the structural and local infrastructure necessary to support it is insane.  It was 4 years before we returned control of Germany to Germany (and that might have been rushed due to the Cold War) and 7 years before Japan was under self rule after their surrender.  Classical liberal democratic-republics take time and support, they cannot be rushed and that is one of the biggest flaws of our invasion and occupation of these two nations.  Oh, and why do we have a Peace Corp if we don’t use them in nations we’re helping to rebuild?…you know kind of what they’re supposed to be there for.

Now does this mean we should we invade every dictatorship this second?  No, are you out of your mind!  I said what you are aware of AND IN A POSITION TO STOP IT.   Right now we first need to disentangle ourselves from our current exploits abroad which have either been bungled to the point of being irreparable in the immediate future (Afghanistan) or simply it was pointless to be there (Libya, Yemen, Uganda).  I would say personally we should drop a massive amount of ordinance on every Taliban controlled area, carpet bomb (and possibly Dresden-style fire bomb) the hills where they are hiding (yes even in Pakistan), burn every poppy field, and send special forces in to kill every drug lord in the country and the get the hell out of there.  We screwed up Afghanistan so badly I think the best thing we can do is destroy the worst aspects of the evil still left in the country and try to let them find their own way at this point.  Had it been done better at first I would be having a different argument, but the actions of Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama in regards to that country had been so stupidly incompetent we need to disengage from there for a while.  Yes, right now the U.S. and the Western World need to re-embrace capitalism and get their economies straightened out, because then and only then will they be in a position where we can help others, but putting first things first does not mean we are not committed to the goal of stopping evil.

But we can’t act unilaterally, some say.  The hell we can’t.  Just because a group of people can watch a single woman get raped and murdered doesn’t relieve you of the ethical call to be the one person who actually does something.  If the whole group does nothing, then the whole group deserves to be damned.  And if one person chooses to act unilaterally, then they are the only good person among the group and the fact that they went against the will of the crowd does not condemn that one, it condemns the group.  The same applies to nations.  Every free nation on Earth should be doing all they can to end tyranny (granted, a lot aren’t exactly in an economic position to do so right now, that doesn’t exactly excuse the last 70 years of being complacent about evil).

There is no policeman of the world.  There are merely free nations that have a choice.  And because, on occasion, we are a nation made up of decent people who act to end evil rather than condoning it we act in a way that cowards label us as unilateral.  (Again I would like to point out that other nations were with us in the Balkans, in Iraq, and in Afghanistan…so we are not alone in knowing right from wrong, the media just likes to paint it that way.)

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”—attributed to Edmund Burke (he didn’t actually say it, but it is a nice summary of a large point he was making).

1 Comment

Filed under Afghanistan, Evils of Liberalism, Foreign Policy, Free Will, Long Term Thinking, Natural Rights, Patriotism, Tyranny, War on Terrorism

A video that reminds me why I love this country, and why we’re better than everyone else.

Take a moment and watch this video…

Yes, if you have even a shred of a brain and a shred of conscience you probably would love to see a sequel to this video where someone punches this girl so hard that she loses several teeth and is permanently disfigured. Sadly there is no such video of someone making her external appearance match the sick black hole that passes for her soul. But once the rage has passed let me remind you that a moment like this should be cherished for the many reasons it reminds us of why America is so great…

Let the cognitive dissonance pass, and let me explain.

First I’d like to point out something about her courage. She says what many liberals think but are afraid to say, and she should be commended for that. Granted she doesn’t have the stones that her hippie forefathers had to actually go up to a soldier spit right in their face and call them a baby-killer, but we must give the devil his due. She is leagues ahead of many of her liberal colleagues. But why is this one of the reasons why America is great? Well just imagine if she had tried this in one of those countries which, according to her, are not our enemies. Iran, Saddam’s Iraq, Libya (pre and post Kaddafi), Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan (again, pre and post), Pakistan, China, North Korea, Tunisia, and Russia (yes even still to this day). Well first, half of those countries as a woman she would never have even been allowed near a computer and even if she had posted a video about how great Allah was (while wearing her legally required burqa) she still would have been stoned to death. If she had said the same things about any of those countries’ soldiers as she said about her own country’s she would likely have been kidnapped in the night, probably raped and tortured before being killed herself. If she was lucky she would have a show trial. And in China they’d charge her family the cost of the bullet used to shoot her. But not here in America. This is a country where you can literally go up and spit in a soldier’s face and at most face a misdemeanor assault charge.

What other country lives so fully the ideal of “I will defend your right to say things I find morally abhorrent to the death” as the United States. Granted we’re not too hot on libel, slander, fraud, inciting violence that present a clear and present danger, obscenity (which is rather haphazardly enforced) and…and…I think that’s about it. What other country does that. Even most of the other nations of the Western world have some limitations on free speech, usually in the areas of racism and hatred against religions…but only one has to look at how such P.C. speech codes protect the truly violent and vicious from being attacked and cause true and civil discussion to be gagged. What other country does that?

And what other country can trust its soldiers to control themselves well enough that they don’t immediately rip out the throat of wretches like this girl with all of that deadly force we have trained them to have. Few and far between.

Now granted, she is right to point out that there has been some atrocious behavior committed by members of armed services.  But two things should be noticed. One we don’t go to the lengths other governments do to cover these things up (destroying documents, threatening news outlets, etc.). UN troops (read not US) have a history of raping and murdering the population they’re supposed to be protecting. (also see Eric Shawn’s the UN Exposed if you want to know how corrupt this organization is). The difference is that while our military has a few bad apples (show me any group of over a 100,000 people who are all saints) other governments actually dedicate themselves to butchering others. The difference is that we know about all of our atrocities (which are few and far between compared to other countries) because we don’t go to great unethical lengths to hide them (yes there’s always some idiot in the government doing a half-assed job, but it’s nothing compared to the evil of other governments). And we’re one of the few governments that prosecute those who defile the uniform of our military—and last time I checked military prisons were not pleasant places. Again you don’t see a lot of that in most of the world. The fact is that even in many countries that profess free speech, this girl would be dead. But not in America.

Still on the freedom of speech side you have to love the fact that you can make wildly inaccurate statements and not have the government coming for you and throwing you in prison. You have the right to be wrong in this country. For instance she says we’ve killed millions in Iraq, it’s closer to a hundred thousand or so …but liberals were never very good with numbers. She is right that it’s offensive with what we pay over half of every tax dollar on. But actually we don’t spend 51% of the government’s money on the military (that’s about 20% of the budget) we spend over half the budget on inefficient, evil and destructive socialist programs. But when did liberals ever let little things like facts get in the way.  Oh and her statement that the troops are dumb, as I pointed out in Republicans and Reincarnation, the average person in the military actually scores higher on every test of intelligence than their civilian counterparts. As to evil, yes it’s so horrendous wanting to defend people like her so you have the liberty to smear the people who make you safe at night. As for morally compromised, show me one reservist who is making more money being in the military, show me one person who signs up for a second tour who couldn’t find a better paying job with their highly trained skills. To find someone dumb and evil I would suggest this girl buys a mirror, to find morally compromised I would suggest she goes to a DNC meeting where people say they support the troops and then create policy that does the opposite (not that Bush not having a plan for occupation was particularly great either). But only in a country like this, where people have near unlimited freedom of speech, do we know that someone like this is a vile excuse for a human as she really is. In no other country would there be such a wonderful sign for all other human beings to ostracize someone like this or the Westboro Baptists. How would we know if they weren’t allowed to express their filth.

And because of this freedom to express evil and ignorance we know when people are stupid and horrendous, only in America, which is why I support this dimwit’s right to not support the troops, and why this is a great nation.

5 Comments

Filed under Afghanistan, American Exceptionalism, Budget, China, Civil Liberties, Constitution, Declaration, Evils of Liberalism, First Amendment, Individualism, liberal arrogance, Libya, Patriotism, politics, Tyranny, War on Terrorism

The Palestinians demand a state…and I want a pony.

 

The Palestinians are demanding full recognition as a state by the U.N. which is pretty much the standard by what is and isn’t a country these days. (Just so you know how f-ed up a process this is that it considers that Tibet, a country invaded by a bloody genocidal army who still use crucifixion as a punishment isn’t recognized as a country because the butchers who tore apart Tibet without any consideration for human rights have a seat on the U.N. Security Council and Human Rights Council. A democratic-republic like Taiwan isn’t recognized either for the same reason.) They will then try to use this to A.) restrict Israel’s control in these regions (read: strip Israel of all ability to defend itself) and B.) take control of their own borders (read: ship in thousands of terrorists and weapons and prepare for a full on assault of Israel).

But ignoring the obvious problems with this toward Israel let’s take a look at some of the other reasons why this is just about the dumbest idea known to mankind.

What laughably passes as a government.  If you will recall the last time the Palestinian people voted for a government they voted in Hamas. You know the same Hamas that calls for the death to all Jews in the world…yes that Hamas. They’re not thrilled with the U.S. either…(although, three guesses as to which U.S. president they really like,  … the U.S. public should probably be weary of a man whom terrorists feel comfortable with). This has to be the worst moment in the history of honest democracy since it was invented. The Germans at least have the excuse that Hitler didn’t actually come out and literally say he was going to kill the Jews (it might have been under the thinnest veneer in history, but as far as I know he never stated “We’re going to kill all the Jews,” not that the Germans couldn’t have figured that out by just listening to what he was saying, still he never stated it in precise uncertain terms), Hamas’ actual charter literally calls for killing all the Jews. And these are the people the Palestinian people elected—a political party with an actual charter that calls for mass genocide. Would you give a country to a group of people who when actually given a choice freely and willing chose evil? I know I wouldn’t.

But this is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the Palestinian government. Because Hamas then just took over Gaza. Which is why Gaza is now under complete lock down and the comically named “Freedom Flotillas” full of terrorist sympathizers and weapons keep trying to get into Gaza. If the West has any real morals we would sink the next one for Israel (preferably with an explosive that leaves no survivors…it’s a pretty clear line if you support the butchers in Gaza, you’re about as Anti-Semitic a son-of-a-bitch as they get, and I live by the general rule that the only good Anti-Semites are dead ones) long before it got anywhere near Gaza. Now some may claim that these flotillas were bringing humanitarian aid. It’s interesting how weapons now qualify as humanitarian aid. But if you still believe that the Freedom Flotillas were carrying only humanitarian aid please contact me—I have some lovely bridges to sell at rock bottom rates that I’m sure you would be interested in. But back to Hamas. After staging their little coup in Gaza the Palestinian government in the West Bank threw Hamas out and put in a bunch of non-Hamas members into the role of Prime Minister, the cabinet and parliament. In real governments when something this major goes on you hold elections to replace the vacant office…but as we already proved the Palestinian people to be morally bankrupt and fairly dumb by their last democratic vote we couldn’t do that so President Abbas just appointed a bunch of people (and that doesn’t sound at all like a petty dictator, no not at all). (And dare we mention that Abbas was a lackey for mass murdering terrorist Yasser Arafat?) And no new elections have been held. Half the so called country is in the hands of insurrectionists, the other half has a government which exists on shaky legal footing. Yes, let’s grant these jokers full status as a real country.

Oh and let’s talk about the Palestinian economy. It doesn’t have one. There is no real industry to speak of. Half the population works in Israel. The entire country would be starving to death if it weren’t for U.S. aid to these terrorists (and who’s bloody brilliant idea was it in the first place to give these idiots money?) Israel has said they’re going to have no choice but close the borders completely if Palestine is granted full recognition (I say they should have done it years ago) and there is no way to ethically justify supporting a country so founded on terrorism and tyranny so the U.S. should pull out every single cent we send to them (and for good measure send them a bill for everything we have paid saying we want it all back).

Oh but the poor Palestinians, you say. These are people who dress their babies up as suicide bombers and release those pictures. These are the people who danced in the streets on 9/11. These are the people who have made suicide bombing a recreational sport. And, oh yeah, these are the people who freely elected genocidal butchers as the government they wanted. Forgive me if my heart does not bleed for those who choose evil.

And then of course there is that tiny problem of where exactly is this country. There haven’t exactly been set borders. Now some terrorists, Anti-Semites and idiots have argued that Israel should go back to the so called green line of its original borders. This is stupid for two reasons. One, because those new borders that Israel has are because they won that land in the 6 Day War. For those of you who have been raised in an academic setting all too friendly to Palestinian terrors, let me give you a refresher on what the 6 Day War was. In 1967 Jordan, Syria and Egypt (with the help of Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Algeria, Libya, Kuwait, Tunisia, and the Sudan) attacked Israel with twice the number of troops that Israel had. Of course the advantage of being civilized and not barbaric terrorists is that you can defeat a force of superior numbers in only six days. And on the other side of this war where basically Israel stood against the ENTIRE Arab world by itself (because U.S. President LBJ was beyond a coward and worthless piece of crap to give any help…no he would rather destroy the U.S. economy with his War on Poverty…in case you’re wondering we’re still using his tactics and good lord are we loosing that war, might have something to do with the fact that socialism does and can never work) and they won. And they won land too. Now traditionally, to the victor go the spoils, especially when you weren’t the one to start the war. For instance if tomorrow Canada decided to invade and we beat them back but decided to keep lovely British Columbia, that would be more than ethical. (I choose the preposterous example partly because A.) it is silly and B.) because we already have invaded Mexico, we took one look around and left). To go back to the green line is to say, we’re sorry that those countries invaded you with genocidal goals, but the land you took from them in a very unfair fight against you was theirs, and they shouldn’t be punished for acting like pure evil.

The other problem with the green line it’s insane from a defensive position. I could go on for a while on why this is or I can show this video. I apologize for the over the top narration and music, it’s still completely accurate.

Oh and one more thing. Since any reasonable person knows that Palestine will just become a base to launch terrorist attacks against Israel with the intent of full on war against Israel (Egypt seems to be preparing as we speak) this is only going to lead to an all out war. You may complain, foolishly, about the destabilizing nature invading Iraq and Afghanistan (destabilizing really, yes Iran is more powerful today than before the war, it was a trend they were on for two decades before we invaded, do you think they’d be less powerful today if we hadn’t tied up all their funds in supporting terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq?) Giving the Palestinians full recognition is just asking for an all out war to break out.

I know my attitude has a distinct “kill them all, God will know his own” feel, and I know if I were in a position of power and not just venting on a blog my actions would be a bit more measured than my words, but it is getting infuriating to deal with people who at every turn support terrorists and tyranny. There are only so many chances you can rationally give someone before there is no choice but to put them in a position where they can never harm you or anyone else again. And sadly when it’s a whole country that seems to have lost its mind on repeated instances I can’t help but get overly upset.

4 Comments

Filed under Afghanistan, Anti-Semitism, Evils of Liberalism, Foreign Policy, Israel, Obama, politics, Tyranny, War on Terrorism

Isolationists and the moral requirement to act

At a recent dinner I got into an argument with a couple of libertarians (well one was a libertarian, I’m not quite sure what the other is) (and I would like to point out that I was nicer there than I am here). It started somehow with a discussion of Ron Paul and my saying that he was an isolationist and Anti-Semite (he is). The rebuttal came that all the quotes attributed to him aren’t true. Well I’ve read his chapter on “Zionism” in his book Liberty Defined. After reading that I feel comfortable calling him an Anti-Semite, don’t believe me, go read it yourself, it should be in most Barnes and Nobles in the Current Events Section…just don’t buy it, just read it there, there is no need to encourage such degenerate filth as Anti-Semitism by giving it money. Then of course I was then told that he never said we were responsible for 9/11. Let me quote to you from the Republican debates back in 2008:

 

Ron Paul: They attack us because we’ve been over there, we’ve been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We’ve been in the Middle East. I think Reagan was right. We don’t understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics.

Now, I’m only a simple English teacher, but that reads like a simple conditional clause. “They attack us BECAUSE we’ve been over there.” Any logical interpretation to this would suggest that he is saying that IF we weren’t over there THEN they wouldn’t attack us. But I’m just using simple things like grammar and logic to interpret Ron Paul’s words. Perhaps if I drank the Kool-Aid his followers have I might see the mystical other way to interpret those words. “We’ve been bombing Iraq for 10 years” suggest if we had just left that nice Hussein alone, we wouldn’t have had any problem. If we had just let him invade Kuwait and subjugate the people there obviously the world would be a better safer place. You believe that don’t you? Now I’ll grant you oil would be cheaper, but we would have let tyranny expand further in the world (not exactly worth the cost of saving a quarter on a gallon of gas). The next two sentences are kind of non-sequitor, but I’m going forgive more of it because when speaking on the spot it takes a while to collect your thoughts (if you have any). But my favorite is the last sentence is “We don’t understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics.” Ignoring the racist overtones of the suggestions that Arabs are too stupid to be rational, it suggests that because we can’t understand Middle Eastern politics we shouldn’t get involved. Which leads to the question, because it was almost impossible to understand the insanity of communism, should we have just let the rest of the world fall to Soviet expansion? Because we couldn’t grasp the pure evil of National Socialism should have just ignored it until it came to our shores (oh, wait that’s effectively what we did!)?

But let’s ignore Ron Paul for the moment and go back to my conversation. I pointed out that yes my interlocutors had a point that we have botched and screwed up a lot in our recent endeavors overseas. The monster that was Bush/Clinton/Bush/Obama seems to have no idea of how to conduct foreign affairs (although each retarded head of that beast has its own unique flaws—cowardice/indifference/idiocy/evil). But no matter how bad our screw ups, not doing anything would have been far, far worse.

My opponents tried to then point to Israel as part of the problem and our help in creating it. That if we just didn’t back it we wouldn’t have had all these problems with terrorists attacking us. Really? So to protect ourselves we should betray the only democracy in that part of the world. Our survival is more important than the lives of others. What a moral stance isolationists take. This is preposterous for two reasons. The first is sanity. While I do not believe in an inability of Arab cultures to create democratic regimes, I believe that those cultures have become infected with a perverse belief system (to call it a religion would be overly generous). And those who subscribe to this sick ideal hate us not because we support Israel, or because we have economic prosperity, or because we support the Saudi regime, or because we supported the Shah or this or that…they hate us because the kind of evil they subscribe to is based on hate. Hate of that which is different and until everyone is under the yoke of their perverse system they won’t have their blood lust satiated (even then it will just turn more on itself until nothing that resembles anything human remains). If Israel falls, they will still hate Europe. If Europe falls, they will still hate the US. If we paid exorbitant tribute to them they would still hate us. There is no dealing with this or any evil. P.J. O’Rourke offered one of the most insightful comment of the century when he noted that “Evil is an outreach program.” By its nature it can do only one of two things spread or die. The only sane option is that we choose the latter, because it can never be appeased, never satiated, never halted. Your only choice with evil is to surrender or kill it. The second reason is that it’s evil. To withdraw support for Israel would be condemning thousands if not millions to death. I think the blood of 6 million Jews is enough on the hands of our country. (And yes I will maintain we are responsible for the death of the Holocaust victims because we knew that something was going on, we knew how evil Hitler was, and we did less than nothing. I say less than nothing because we didn’t just ignore the problem, we denied Jews attempting to escape entry on numerous occasions condemning them to torture and death. That’s the legacy of the so-called greatest generation, electing leaders who turned a blind eye to genocide.)

I was then treated to a statement about how I shouldn’t support Israel because they have a very liberal/pseudo-socialist economy. Which they do. I will admit that. But I would also point out two things. One, liberal economy with democratic-republican system is still better than psycho-evil-fascist-theocracy any day. Second, I will actually say something nice about socialism so get ready because this is a once in a decade event. Socialism is an excellent economic system when at war. (And by war here I mean more the Von Clausewitz concept of total war where you are in a life or death struggle.) When you are at war you have to control industry, resources, and capital if you’re going to survive. And guess what, Israel has been in this state of total war since the first day they were created. I may not like their economic system, but I understand why it’s necessary.

So seeing they weren’t going to make headway on the Israel point, because it will be a cold day in hell before I turn my back on Israel (in case you’re wondering it will be a cold day in the Arctic before Obama or just about any non-Jewish Democrat turns their back on Israel) my dinner companions tried to go with history. They tried going to our support of the Shah as the reason that Iran hated us. No, actually it was their embracing a religious lunatic. Under the Shah, bad as he was, Iran was Westernizing, it was becoming exceedingly civilized and would likely have naturally done away with the Shah and adopted a democratic system, or at least something less corrupt if the Ayatollah hadn’t taken over. Besides as bad as the Shah was, there was a lot worse….like the Ayatollah. We backed the lesser of many evils and it took a gutless wonder like Carter to do nothing when the country fell to absolute insanity. (One wonders what would have happened if Reagan had won in 1976 the first time he ran…oh wait, I don’t have to wonder, the armed services would never have atrophied due to lack of care that Carter gave them, they would have gone in, rescued all the people in the embassy and killed everyone who was about to plunge Iran into 30 years of medieval nonsense and tyranny. Then the terrorists of the world would have had no one to turn to in order to fund their constant attacks on the U.S., Europe, and Israel. Thanks Jimmy it’s amazing you won a Peace Prize for being the person most responsible for letting tyranny and terrorism thrive. I hope the Ant-Semitic bastard that Jimmy Carter is, and yes he is a goddamn Nazi at heart and I don’t mean that in any exaggerated or hyperbolic way, rots in hell.)

Then they tried to go back further all the way to WWI. Saying that our involvement in WWI was wrong. That we should have stayed out. Yes, when the Ottoman and German empires are engaging in such horrendous behavior that words like genocide and crimes against humanity need to be invented because nothing else quite fits how sick these people are…yeah we shouldn’t have chosen sides. And dare we forget that it’s our isolationist behavior during the treaty talks and after the conclusion of the war that caused WWI…it wasn’t because we were too involved in world affairs. (I’ll also blame Wilson’s gross incompetence in his stupid 14 points plan).

The fact of the matter remains that even at our worst when we get involved in world affairs it is always better than when we don’t.

When we are involved we stop the genocide of the Ottoman Empire. When we don’t the Reich takes its place. When we are involved fascism dies. When we aren’t communism thrives. When we are involved we have Mi Lai. When we’re not we have the killing fields of Cambodia. When we’re involved we have slow progress in Iran. When we’re not we have them reverting to barbarism. When we’re involved we have Afghani’s killing Russians! When we’re not we have the Taliban take over. When we’re involved at least now that there is a way for people to get out of Afghanistan even if we’ve screwed everything else up over there. But then again all of the enemies time and money seems to be concentrated over there and not here (it’s cynical but it’s true). The world is better when America acts even on our worst day than any day we don’t act to draw a line in the sand and tell evil that it will not move one step further (even when we don’t succeed).

To deny this is to be like Ron Paul who best belongs with Neville Chamberlain and the apologists of the 1930’s who seek only Peace in our Time. When you try to deal, to reason, to appease evil you will always find that our time only lasts a few days. The only sane, rational, and morally correct way to deal with evil is to oppose it. Better to do with it with forethought, planning, and a somewhat cold calculation that innocent dead today is better than twenty at the hands of tyranny. No matter the cost the only sane reaction is to oppose evil and tyranny with everything we have. To do less is to sign our own death warrant.

7 Comments

Filed under Afghanistan, American Exceptionalism, Anti-Semitism, Capitalism, Civil Liberties, Conservative, Death, Economics, Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, Fear, Foreign Policy, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Happiness, Israel, liberal arrogance, Libya, Long Term Thinking, Natural Rights, Obama, Patriotism, People Are Stupid, politics, Racism, Tyranny, War on Terrorism

10 Years Later

Anniversaries are strange things for me. As a New Ager I find the very concept of time kind of fictional and arbitrary, but usually anniversaries are happy occasions to remember that which we should be deliriously happy about and recall all we are grateful for…anniversaries of terrible events however don’t make as much sense to me. As in the case of parents who every year go to the place their child died and leave flowers (not the place they’re buried, the place they died…because theoretically we’re leaving the flowers for the dead so let’s leave it at the literal site of the most pain they ever experienced…yeah, that’s psychologically healthy). Grief is a natural process, and an important part of loss, but after grief comes acceptance, and not moving into acceptance is a serious sign of psychological unbalance and in some ways dishonoring the dead by not getting on with your life. However this is 9/11 this is more than just the death of a close loved one, this is the single largest attack on America ever, just ignoring this would be disrespectful, but if anniversaries of terrible events are for anything they are for looking at what we have learned, how we have changed (preferably for the better), and most importantly what do we still need to do to make sure this never happens again.

So what have we learned?

Well, we learned that contrary to Francis Fukuyama’s 1992 “The End of History and the Last Man” we have yet to reach the end of history. At the fall of the Soviet Union Fukuyama predicted that this was the essentially the final moment before all humanity progressed into Classically Liberal Western Democracies and that what existed remained of history would be small wars and conversion of every remaining country into a liberal democracy. 9/11 shattered that belief. However unlike most I don’t think that Fukuyama’s original thesis is wrong. I think we are on the brink of universal democratic-republics, but that we pushed tyranny into a corner and we are witnessing it’s last violent death throes in the form of Islamofascism/China/North Korea/a few Latin American dictatorships that haven’t got the message that Marxism doesn’t work/the radical left. Total political freedom is so close that those who oppose it are like cornered wounded animals, desperate, violent, irrational and at their most dangerous…and it is only if we do not have the courage to push through this last obstacle and break the neck of tyranny and tyrants once and for all that could jeopardize seeing tyranny become something that exists only in books on history and political theory. (To be honest, right now best case scenario I will never see that world, but I think my grandchildren—if I ever have any—would like live to see it, so it you want a guess on time there it is).

We have learned that there is still evil in the world. Or at least we should have. Anyone who denies that Islamofascism is a problem and does need to be wiped from this Earth is deluding themselves. A disturbing portion of the world’s Muslims are advocating pure evil (not that the Westboro Baptists and various other zealots don’t also need to go too). We may need to be at war with all of Islam, but we NEED to be at war with Islamofascism (in fact we NEED to be at war with all forms of tyranny); It is a belief system that denies reason, denies the value of human life, denies liberty, denies knowledge, truth, justice, honor, virtue, and praises only the mindless submission to ignorance and cruelty. Islamofascism may be only one of a few forms of this degenerate philosophy (Communism, Nazism, Anti-Semitism, racism, and a few others included), but if we aren’t at war with this belief system, then we stand for nothing. If you can’t declare war on unadulterated evil, what is the point of good?

We learned that government can still do nothing right.

Remember when it took 410 days to build the Empire State Building? Granted the new world trade center is a bit bigger…but have we even broken ground on this project? Shouldn’t this have been shovel ready project number 1 for the Obama administration? I mean if we’re going to spend shitloads of money on construction, even I’ll get behind putting up a giant F-U to bastards that attacked us in the New York skyline for the whole world to see is better than most of the stuff we spend money on. Yet nothing has been done.

We learned that even when doing the right thing (invading tyrannies like Iraq and Afghanistan) government can’t be trusted to come up with even the semblance of a plan that works. However, since letting that pot simmer on its own for 10 years is what gave us the mess of 9/11, not doing anything at all is still not an option. We need to do the right thing for the right reasons in the right way. Afghanistan and Iraq failed on that last point, so two out of three ain’t bad. (As opposed to helping genocidal butchers take over Libya which was the wrong thing for the wrong reasons carried out in entirely the wrong way.)

We learned we need to have plans that go beyond defeating the army of our enemy. Occupations and rebuilding a country after it has been recently attacked and under the heel of a tyrant for years, perhaps decades, is a long, expensive, and difficult process. It needs detailed plans with lots of contingencies for multiple possibilities. Bush apparently thought that we would show up and democracy would magically appear (and I’ll be honest up until about the 5th year of the occupation I thought we had a plan it just was taking time to take form…you would think with all the money we give to think tanks we would have plans in a drawer somewhere and what we need to do if we need to invaded ______ country, with options going from Abkhazia to Zimbabwe…with plans even for the tiny countries that live in their own little universe like Vatican City, Lichtenstein, and California…how wrong I was).

We learned that government doesn’t do security better. I’ve yet to have it explained to me why we didn’t just roll everything into the FBI and the Department of Justice, why did we need to create the Department of Homeland Security (Homeland, by the way, is still the single dumbest name for a federal department I have ever heard of).

We’ve learned that as much as I used to like and trust police and give them the benefit of the doubt, it seems all over the country they’re becoming little Brownshirt wannabes with whatever extra powers they’ve been given. For instance, where did cops get the idea that they can’t be videotaped?  This is just one of many problems of increased misuse of police power over the last few years…not that we didn’t have theft, drug running, murder, illegal immigration, terrorism, IRS agents and other various crimes to worry about.

We’ve learned that more security doesn’t equal better security…after all, we feel safer knowing that the bright eyed and bushy tailed high school graduates (most of them anyway) of the TSA are providing a higher level of security by taking lewd pictures of us followed by getting to third base….don’t we all feel safer? (At least we now know that perverts who can no longer get past the screening to become a teacher or priest will still have a job).

We’ve learned that some people, like Mayor Michael Blumberg, can’t seem to distinguish between insane religion and all religion.

We’ve learned that people can be just utterly classless when choosing where to build their mosque.

We’ve learned that some people will never learn….or at least not in this life time. That’s really sad, but true.

And for all of these flaws I have been pointing out we have learned that there are people of character and personal strength who should be admired and respected.  The stories in this category are too numerous to list.

So in your moments of reflection for today don’t forget that if we don’t learn, change, and make the world better that would be a far greater sacrilege to memory of those who needlessly died than not remembering this day.

1 Comment

Filed under Afghanistan, American Exceptionalism, Civil Liberties, Congress, Fear, Foreign Policy, Government is useless, Libya, Patriotism, politics, Tyranny, War on Terrorism

Libya: Waste of Money

Wow.  Last night I was almost getting ready to write a blog saying, okay, I’ll give Obama some credit for helping get rid of Gaddafi…but that I was going to have to hold off actually congratulating Obama because I would have to wait to see if the new rebel government would actually turn out to better than Qadhafi and his sick regime.  I’m glad I didn’t post that last night.  Why you ask?

Have you read the new Libyan Constitution?  You know the one that states Sharia is the basis of all law.  You know Sharia, that wonderful legal philosophy that women are somewhere below shit, and non-Muslims are somewhere below women.  There’s also some Draconian legal codes and rampant animal abuse in terms of health codes.  I’d call it barbaric, but frankly historically most barbarian tribes were more civilized than the codes set down in Sharia.

I’m glad we just spent a BILLION dollars to get rid of a tyranny so that we can replace it with a tyranny.  Oh wait, maybe I shouldn’t be so glad about that.  In fact that’s more like a complete waste of money.  Thanks Obama, because you weren’t wasting money in enough places as it was.

Yeah Afghanistan is as much a waste…but at least we tried to create a democracy…failed miserably, but we tried.  And Iraq actually looks kind of  stable at the moment, so the investment there might not be a complete waste.  But in Libya we spent a billion dollars just to trade tyrannies.  And I’m a little worried we may not have backed the lesser of two evils.

You we could have spent nothing and still have had the same outcome, a tyranny.  Who knows maybe the fighting would have gone on longer and more tyranny supporting people would have killed each other.  It’s like the battle of Stalingrad, it’s doesn’t matter who loses, because so long as the two tyrannies fight and kill each other the rest of the world wins.

This is what happens when you enter a war without an actual purpose.  You need a purpose (Obama) and need a plan to get to that goal (Bush), in the absence of one or both you’re an idiot (Obama and Bush).

1 Comment

Filed under Afghanistan, Constitution, Debt, Economics, Evils of Liberalism, Foreign Policy, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Libya, Obama, War on Terrorism

What to do with Libya? Part I: We first need to figure out what to do in Afghanistan.

Now I’m going to be the first to admit that Libya is not an area of expertise for me (yes I’m actually admitting I don’t know something), so I will preface this that specifics of the culture or the current situation could change.

But the question remains, what do to with Libya?
Actually this is a two part question, because before we answer what should we do with Libya and its revolution is what can we do? And right now that is just about nothing. Why? Because, we’re in Afghanistan.

Now to be honest I supported the invasion of Afghanistan. I thought it was the right thing to do. This was a country that had been on its way to becoming a western nation in the 1970’s and was first under the oppressive rule of the Soviets and then under the oppressive rule of the Taliban. I thought we owed this to Afghanistan. First because we had abandoned them in the 70’s when Carter did less than nothing to help them fend off the Soviets and then we didn’t help them recover after they drove out the Soviets (remember the last scene’s of Charlie Wilson’s War)?

The problem is that I assumed we had a plan. (I also assumed we also had a plan in Iraq). I had this silly idea that the Pentagon, the CIA, and the State Department all have these thick files full of “What if we invade this country…” that covered everything from the likely invasion of Iraq to highly unlikely invasion of Canada. I thought we had a plan and contingency plans and thought all the way from the first landing to leaving a fully functional democracy behind us. I thought all the money we spend on think tanks was for something. I mean we clearly have outlines with how we developed Germany and Japan and the rest of the Marshall Plan’s success.

Boy was I wrong.
I was left feeling like Bruce Willis in Armageddon being told he’s the best plan they could come up with to save the world: “And this is the best that you can – that the-the government, the *U.S. government* can come up with? I mean, you-you’re NASA for cryin’ out loud, you put a man on the moon, you’re geniuses! You-you’re the guys that think this shit up! I’m sure you got a team of men sitting around somewhere right now just thinking shit up and somebody backing them up! You’re telling me you don’t have a backup plan; that these eight boy scouts right here, that is the world’s hope, that’s what you’re telling me?”

We apparently had really good military plans. We beat both the Taliban and Saddam’s army in record time. But the Bush administration’s plans seem to have read: (1) Beat opposition forces, (2) Democracy magically springs up.

So we really botched in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Now, while I don’t think Iraq is a complete loss, it’s still nowhere near as stable as it possibly could be. But as much as I think not leaving a permanent presence in Iraq is a mistake, actually going back in right now would be an even bigger one. Which leaves Afghanistan.

So we’re stuck with either two options. (You will notice that Obama’s I don’t really know what I’m doing here plan is not on the list). Either (1) we admit that we’ve really f—ed up so badly that there is nothing we can do at present to fix this situation and leave. On our way out burn every poppy field, carpet bomb every Taliban controlled area, and shoot every politician we know is on the take so that we can give the Afghani people a chance, but other than that leave; or we can (2) redouble our efforts, continue to worry about the military side, but also send a massive amount of workers over to Afghanistan to build a fully functional first world infrastructure and the services needed to maintain that life style. (I’m talking, roads, plumbing, electrical grids, hospitals, schools, public transportation systems, the whole nine yards of first world infrastructure). The first problem to this is where would we get the people needed for such a massive project? This is the easier one to answer—we reassign the entire Peace Corp to Afghanistan and, well, I recall that there were some unemployed people here in America looking for a job. The second problem to this is, of course, money. And I have no idea where would get the money for this. (I am however, open to ending Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare to pay for this as a stable nation would yield far better results for the world in general than paying off the whiners and losers of America). Regrettably I think we have dug ourselves such a hole in Afghanistan right now that option 2 would be throwing good money after bad. If we had started with option 2 right after we went in to Afghanistan it might have taken 10 years for it to work. However, between Bush and Obama, given how much we’ve ruined any good will we might have had in Afghanistan it would take us another 3 decades to do this right. As remiss as I am to say this, we need to offer every woman who wants to leave a ticket to the U.S. for asylum reasons and go with option 1. Maybe if we give them 10 years on their own they can pull themselves out enough that we can go back with only aid and support and help them return the near first world status they had back in the 70’s—but right now we’ve botched this so much it’s next to hopeless.

Now if the entire international community was willing to go in on option 1, it might work. But even for the theoretical nature of my blogs, that seems a bit unlikely.

So if we aren’t busy in Afghanistan, we can actually worry about Libya (and Egypt, and Tunisia, and the Sudan, and, well you get the point)…
…to be continued.

Leave a comment

Filed under Afghanistan, Foreign Policy, Libya, Long Term Thinking