“Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpation” -James Madison

Monday, December 19, 2005

WWII was illegal, badly run, and we lost!

Well, at least according to modern Socialist Democrats' logic. Consider:

1. We should not have declared war on Germany or Italy. After all, it was Japan who attacked Pearl Harbor, not Germany. Europe should have sorted that one out.

(update: Yeeesh....yes, I know Germany/Italy declared war on us. It was Dec. 8, the same day we declared war on their ally Japan. Had we not declared war on Japan, the rest of the Axis likely would have stayed out of war with us for the time being. This is how alliances work. One attacks us, we declare war on that one, and the others join in. It's de facto war on all. The statement also is indicative of how the moonbats miss important facts in their zeal to make a point. Finally, it's SATIRE, and spelling out the intermediate steps kills the rhythm, as it has here.)

2. The warnings of German scientists who fled to the US regarding Hitler's plans to develop a "superbomb" were most likely inaccurate -- everyone knows that political refugees can't be trusted. Roosevelt probably made it up and lied to us anyway.
3. Roosevelt's family was involved in defense businesses. No war for money!
4. Roosevelt and his advisers knew in advance of the Japanese attack but did nothing about it, giving him an excuse to go to war and enslave the rest of us.
5. Rumors of enslavement and genocide of a certain racial minority were likely overblown. Besides, they were only Jooooos and don't really count.
6. The evil US government rounded up innocent Japanese-Americans and put them in a prison in the desert because of race-hate politics.
7. US casualties numbered nearly 420,000 killed. Who should be the last to die for a lie?
8. We never caught Hitler -- the entire war is obviously a failure.
9. We used a WMD on the utterly innocent people of Japan and showed the entire world how the REAL fascists operate.
10. The US and its puppet "allies" occupied Germany for 7 years trying to set up a government despite the actions of noble patriotic groups (consisting of former Nazis and sympathizers) constantly disrupting peacekeeping activities. Assassinations of local political leaders, terror-inducing explosions, and general societal disruption were all designed to weaken the resolve of the Americans to see the operation to its end. Regrettably, we prevailed.
11. 60 years later, we still have troops occupying Germany. Quagmire!!!!!!!

I am sure there are more examples but that should suffice. If the current Socialist Democrats were around in the mid-20th century, we would have never been able to prosecute WWII to its successful conclusion, and the struggle against global communism would have been over by the 1970s.

The sad irony is that the very freedom to speak that so moves the MoveOn crowd would never exist in the systems with which they seek to replace our Republic and Capitalist system. With freedom comes responsibility, and to spout the incoherent nonsense such as the points above, let alone from the mouths of US Senators and Representatives, is the epitome of irresponsibility. Not only is it damaging to the will and morale of US servicemen and the public in general, it completely undermines the entire system.

These same moonbats weep at what a fascist dictator we have in the form of King George, yet their frightening ignorance of history shows that if Lincoln were president right now, there would be several Senators and Representatives in jail for treason, and personal rights to free expression greatly curtailed in the short term so as not to disrupt the government's ability to wage war properly.

Dissent is important, but it has to be rational and in the spirit of being for the good of the country. "I hate it because George Bush is for it" is NOT proper reasoning or discourse, and the compliance of the media in their attempt to take down this president sets dangerous precedents and ignores historical events. Once the decision is made -- with the full support of those now opposing it as detailed in earlier posts -- then we need to come together as a nation and do what we all agree need to be done: Get Iraq secure and get out at the earliest reasonable juncture. Rational opponents of the war have to recognize that even if they were against going in, we ARE IN, and therefore we must continue to the most successful conclusion possible.

Thought experiment: If President Clinton had decided to act in 1997/1998 on Iraq and/or Osama bin Laden (meaning a full-on invasion and military plan as opposed to lobbing a few missiles), would he have support from his own party and conservatives? How about the US citizenry?

Vietnam and the Watergate episode have proven to be the most damaging time in our history, not so much for the actual events, but for the ripples which have crossed 40 years. That time emboldened anti-establishmentarians and the media in general, giving rise to several beliefs such as the government is always corrupt, war is wrong, if we scream loud enough we can force the war away and take a president down. Now this president is feeling the full effects of that time, and it takes tremendous will to face it and not cave in.

This essay has sprawled somewhat. My apologies; I'm getting a flu and am a little scattered. Anyway, hippies have always been a pox and need to be treated as the loud pottymouth children they are -- an irrational shortsighted unpatriotic minority who should never ever be given power. They would have lost WWII and the rest of the 20th Century and the US might not even exist today. The fact that so many of them are now Senators, Representatives, and presidential candidates is the real danger.

Monday, December 12, 2005

Print for a liberal

An earlier post, Dems' case for war 98-99, consisted mostly of the raw data (so to speak) taken from the Mudville Gazette's highly complete history of the Iraq conflict. I received mixed reviews -- people like the info/quotes, but "it was just too long" for comprehension/interest.

Here's the narrative version based on these facts. Please hit both links above for the details.

Iraq has been a problem for a long time. More specifically, Iraq with Saddam Hussein in charge has been a problem for a long time. It is inarguable he was a totalitarian dictator, ruling autocratically in the style of Stalin complete with state-mandated terrorization of his own people. He invaded his neighbors Iran and Kuwait, using chemical weapons in both instances. He continued the reign of terror after Gulf War I by gassing Kurdish villages in his own country following a 90's version of the Bay of Pigs. In leaving Kuwait he committed major acts of environmental and economic terrorism by setting the wells on fire.

The Gulf War was never officially over -- following the bombing campaign and four-day ground action in 1991 there was a ceasefire predicated on Iraq's commitment to destroy all existing WMD's, discontinue work on developing and acquiring WMD's, and cooperating fully with UN inspectors. The ceasefire was understood by all concerned (the US, the UN, and Iraq) to be binding and inarguable -- do it yourself or we come back in and do it for you. And we're checking your math.

Saddam of course did not follow through on the good faith required by the ceasefire, and the Clinton administration did not enforce the ceasefire until forced to do so. Even then it was timid and had suspicious timing. Random airstrikes during periods of presidential scandal hardly mattered to Saddam's weapon machine. Other terrorist incidents (1993 WTC bombing, USS Cole bombing, Black Hawk Down, various attacks on civilian and military installations through the middle east) went largely unpursued and unpunished, giving rise to the notion that the US was weak and could not or would not follow through when confronted by muslim terrorism.

Saddam continued to develop chemical and nuclear weapons and was known to pay the families of Palestinian suicide bombers in Israel. He also provided training camps and had known contacts with al Qaeda and other muslim terror groups.

While he did not share religious fervor with these groups, he still had the same goal -- destruction of Israel and the erosion of western and US influence in the region. The subjugation and terror of his own people continued, and the oil-for-food scandal allowed him to align western powers with him in secret. There is no doubt the man was preparing to build an arsenal of chemical and nuclear weapons and either use it or sell to the highest bidder.

We knew this at the time. Democrats, Republicans, inspectors, the UN, President Clinton and his the quotes. They all speak of the need to reign in Saddam and disarm him. They all speak of the surety of his use of these weapons. They all speak of the horrors he visited on his people. The Iraq Liberation Act was passed unanimously in the Senate.

9/11 was a distraction from this situation, and confused the issue and has led to the current crisis of debate. Saddam may or may not have had anything to do with Atta -- it has not been proven either way, although we know he met with Atta at one point. After 9/11 we had to act, and Afghanistan was the result. When GWB returned to the issue of Iraq, it was not as a result of 9/11, it was despite it. The policy was not formed in 2001, it was formed in 1998 and he was pursuing it in accordance with his position, urged on by the serious nature exposed by 9/11.

The upshot of all this is that liberals need to think hard on how the facts reconcile with the popular positions of Bush lying about WMD's or starting a war for oil buddies/Halliburton or the ever-popular World Domination fantasy (complete with 9/11 conspiracy theories). The information above and in the other links all took place during President Clinton's watch, under UN oversight, long before GWB came close to being in power. The major players in the Clinton administration and Senate, including Kennedy, Kerry, and Hillary, were all in agreement in 1998 and 1999 that Saddam was in violation of the ceasefire agreement and was setting up for military action on our part.

The House and Senate passed a bill in 1998, the
Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, which declares that it should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government. Read that again.

"It should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government."

1998. The Senate passed it unanimously. Kerry, Kennedy, Biden, and all the other Senate dems who are now yelling about evil Bush's war were in favor of removing Saddam and replacing his regime with a democracy. Never mind that they again voted for the secondary resolution after 9/11 authorizing the use of force against Iraq.

It is not about oil. It is not entirely about WMD's. It is not a conspiracy to make war profits. It is the result of a responsible president upholding his duties to follow through with decisions made not only by his administration, but also to carry out existing US policies as determined by his predecessors. It was decided by our government in 1998 to plant democracy in Baghdad.

Regarding the WMD's -- yeah, we haven't officially found much in Iraq, but keep in mind we spent 18 months arguing about it following Bush's speech saying that we were coming. That gave Saddam a year and a half to dismantle and move the stuff to Syria and elsewhere. There is also some speculation that our government is not broadcasting all that we have learned in order to catch the upper-level people involved. But ultimately, it was not about WMD's...they were a part of it, but the real issue has always been Saddam and the need to supplant him with rule of the people. That is what is occurring now. What exactly is the problem with understanding this?

Friday, December 09, 2005

One Marine's observations

Over at Atlas Shrugs I found a great
post on one Marine's view of various US weaponry, insurgent tactics, and overall morale. Some great info there, especially for Og, Grog, and Zog (inside family joke).

I found the most interesting part to be the soldiers' preference for the WWII/Vietnam-era weaponry over the more modern tech. Reliability is the key to survival in close-quarters fighting, and the old stuff simply works better, doesn't jam up as easily, handles the elements, and kills more bad guys. Yeah, I love the videos of push-button videogame weaponry as much as the next guy, but when the guys in front are asking for old-fashioned Killems, one should pay attention.

Thursday, December 01, 2005


The "A" word.

A knotty problem, to be sure. It is a topic that when fully argued has roots necessarily in philosophies of governmental power/limits, personal freedom/responsibility, protection of privacy, protection of rights both for a legally responsible adult and a legally vulnerable entity that cannot even speak for itself. Others have brought a religious angle in, but as this is a side of the argument that cannot be proven, I choose to leave it out of my discussion and focus more on the philosophical and practical points, relative to governmental power and responsibility.

My libertarian instincts knee-jerk toward the position that no government has the right to tell any woman whether she can be allowed to abort or not. However, that simplistic position is faulty. Our constitution seeks to codify and limit the power of the government in accordance with the Declaration of Independence, namely that we are all endowed with the natural right to LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Life -- the first right mentioned. This goes in hand with the premise that among other functions, government is designed to protect the weak and vulnerable. At no time in life will anyone be more weak and vulnerable than in the womb. The libertarian argument is too weak to be consistent with the role our founders already laid out for governmental protection of life.

As a result, IF the government is to be involved at all, it should then be involved in the protection of life and the vulnerable infant still coming into being.

I oppose elective abortion. This does not come from a religious perspective, as I am in no way religious. Science increasingly pushes back the viability factor of prematurely-born infants, which in turn shows the increasing unjustness of abortion as gestation progresses. In late 2005 a pregnancy interrupted as prematurely as nine weeks is able to become a living baby. This is well before the timelines of viability as determined by 1970s technology. As time goes by and science pushes the viability backward, we may very well be able to determine a definite Yes/No point for Life and Personhood. Or not. At any rate, the technological developments of the 20th and 21st centuries have made childbearing a relatively safe endeavor, both for mother and child.

The Choice side works on the libertarian principles that the government does not control a woman's womb, along with some fuzzy math on 'Life Begins At' points of view to make it sound less horrific. Utlimately it is late contraception, a way for women who have been irresponsible with their sex to "get rid of the problem" and to shelter their existing lifestyles from the new reality of pregnancy and childrearing. It is not a new phenomenon. Women have been throwing themselves down stairways and having a friend hit them in the tummy for centuries. But these were the aberrations, and were done in secret. They knew what they were doing was wrong. If abortion is made illegal, there will undoubtedly be back-alley coathanger abortions. Fair enough -- maybe these women will catch an infection and be rendered infertile or even die. If the object is to terminate or prevent future pregnancies, it is certainly effective. But this again will be the aberration, since most women would probably make the proper sexual choices if this is their only option.

Choice: it seems to me and most rational people that the Choice was made when the woman engaged in sex. Whether contraception is used or not, whether the intent is pregnancy or not, we all know that Sex Can Lead To Pregnancy. She took the risk, she ended up pregnant, and now she uses a specious Right to Privacy argument to kill the child she created. As demonstrated above, the woman's right to her body was abbrogated BY HERSELF to the protection of the vulnerable infant inside and that protection must come from the governing authority if necessary.

Looking past all Choice arguments, abortion is murder, plain and simple. In performing an abortion, a woman is utilizing the services of a medically-trained professional to take the life developing in her womb, a life that if left alone would most likely gestate and be born successfully, and extinguish it. Although it is currently impossible to do so, the act is performed with no consultation with the fetus. The issue has become clouded over the years with feminist propaganda, junk science, political cowardice, and the burgeoning profit margin for medical practitioners. In no other instance is anyone allowed to decide that another person is a "problem" and coldly murdered without benefit of due process and trial.

I propose that the issue become what it should be -- a State issue. Roe was a poorly-decided and hamfisted approach to creating law out of whole cloth by an out-of-control activist Supreme Court. It should be subject to judicial review and then thrown out, which then allows each state to set up its own laws pertaining to abortion. Obviously California would have a different set of rules and laws than Kansas, and that is wholly consistent with each state working out the issue as it should -- from the people of each state in referenda.

Within the state debate, my position would be that abortion should not be legal, with the very narrow exception of outstanding circumstances:

1.) Parent mortality: Abortion would be allowed only if carrying the pregnancy to term would verifiably place the mother's life in danger. It would be a good idea to require at least 2 independent confirming physicals (suspended if emergency situation) prior to allowing the abortion. The main philosophical problem here is that in many cases the danger to the mother might not be detected until well into gestation, but if there is a true danger to the mother's life then I believe she has the right to decide to terminate the pregnancy, as her individual survival (right to life) trumps that of the infant.

2.) Rape/incest: While it seems unfair to force the young lady to carry to term, it seems even more unfair to me that the innocent 3rd party to these crimes should deserve to be executed without benefit of trial. If abortion in either of these cases were to be allowed, I would think that it should only occur within the first four weeks, and only in conjunction with a police report for the rape or incest complaint. The Supreme Court decided long ago that executing rapists was unconstitutional; how on earth can it be constitutional to execute the child that the rapist has wrought?

That's it. Pregnant and don't meet either exception? Better plan on the next 9 months being uncomfortable and then deciding to keep or adopt. Or go to Mexico. Maybe next time think about personal responsibility more when engaging in a act designed to create offspring.

Where does life begin? I don't know. Neither do you. We have our opinions, which may or may not agree. Ultimately to legally deny the life of another, an innocent, without due process, is clearly not in the intent of our Founding Fathers. To argue otherwise is to show a disconcerting lack of knowledge in the various philosophies of government, personal responsibility, and morality. One need not be a Religious Nut to be against murder, right?