About Me

Name: lge
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Blog Roll

Gresham's Law of Warfare

I think the current war in Iraq is an example of a sort of Gresham's Law of warfare. Just as Gresham's Law says "Bad money drives out good," so Iraq shows, "Bad wars drive out good."

I was not all that het up about attacking Iraq when it was under consideration. I had been all for war against the Taliban -- that sect was intimately connected with Al Quaeda. But I couldn't work up much enthusiasm for attacking Saddam.

And now that we've apparently adopted Iraq, now that she's our problem child to raise, I have even less enthusiasm. And that mess means other, more IMPORTANT, enemies will have to be put on the back burner. We'll have to put Iran on hold, or let the UN or Israel fool with the problem, or just let that raving maniac go ahead and develop nuclear weapons. Because seriously, do you think Bush is going to invite another war while he's still engaged in bringing the blessings of liberty to Iraq? Not bloody likely.

I would be all in favor of throwing a few cruise missiles Iran's way, if we could find good targets in their nuclear-development program. But they're apparently all dispersed, scattered around.

I haven't forgotten the "hostage crisis" in Iran. And Iran is part and parcel of the terror network. They're trying to kill us all. So what are we afraid of -- that they'll try to kill us deader?

We're engaged in a world religious war. We can't win until we fight all the countries and free-lance groups fighting us -- Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia.... In World War II, we fought ALL the countries in the Axis -- not a select group. We have to fight the whole enemy to win, and we shouldn't listen to cries that "we're making enemies." We HAVE enemies, and we have to fight them to win.

I would fight fanatical Islamists wherever they can be located -- in training camps in Pakistan, in madrassas, wherever. It may be cruel, but it will show the world that we're serious and that there's a price to pay for being a bloodthirsty medieval heathen religious warrior.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Protect "Abortion Rights" (and "Slavery Rights"???)

Why have so many people bought into the mindless phrase "abortion rights"? In the first place, whose rights does that refer to? The mother's? Or the child's right not to be aborted?

At least when this country was fighting over slavery, the Southerners had sufficient remaining scraps of human dignity not to invent the phrase "slavery rights"! They had more integrity than our abortionists.

"Abortion rights" is an attempt to finesse the issue -- to make you admit right away, from the outset, that there's a "right" to abort. But that's the whole issue we're arguing about! Don't "beg the question" by ASSUMING the point we're debating.

Left-wingers, abortion- and death-lovers, people who just want to stir up grievances and attack this society, spend ALL THEIR TIME thinking up cheap tactics like that phrase. They're busy little beavers, working away like moles all the time. Like the devil, they're very busy bodies. Too bad they can't use their powers for good instead of evil.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

"Iran is a sovereign nation; we have a right to the Bomb"

That's what Ahmadinejad says -- that Iran is a sovereign nation, just like all the others, and has a right to the Bomb.

Yes, Iran is a sovereign nation. And it's led by a homicidal maniac. Ahmadinejad is one rabid dog who really would drop the bomb, I think. So it's not a question of what Iran has a "right" to, it's a question of whether her neighbors and other nations (i.e., Israel and the U.S.) think it is prudent to let them develop the Bomb. And then it's a question of whether those nations are willing to fight about it.

That's why there's no such thing as "international law". That concept is a fiction; law stops at the water's edge. After that there is only international agreement (or disagreement), and force. 

In situations like this, Israel can't afford to let some international "jury"  decide whether Iran has a "right" to the bomb.  A randomly picked jury of twelve nations would most likely say, "Israel, go hang."  Or more precisely, "Our hands are tied. According to the  International Constitution and Statutes, Article LXXVIII Section  137.A, part  C, Iran has a right to nuclear weapons to defend herself. Whatever nuclear destruction follows is not our business."

What nation would submit its fate to such pettyfogging pedantry?  "International Law" exists only until some nation decides to break that law -- then it's  force against force, as it has been since there have even BEEN nations. The question before Israel, the U.S., and possibly other countries, is the same question that has faced nations since the world began --  "Is this a 'casus belli', something we need to go to war over, or can we afford to ignore it?" And the United Nations, Kofi Annan with his Napoleon complex, and all other would-be world-rulers are strictly irrelevant.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »