Tuesday, May 1, 2007

The Definition of War

Today George W. Bush vetoed the Iraq War Bill that was designed to fund the troops with conditions (including pork that has nothing to do with the conflict) attached.

In Bush's speech where he explained his decision to veto the bill, I agreed with the President across the board.

Because of this position I have been called a war monger, occupier, rightwing loon, etc. And over at Sky Dive Rick's site, Tom the banned liberal commenter and Rick have been going back and forth over the issue of the war. I've been paying attention, fascinated by the interplay, and surprised at how often Tom dragged me into the discussion.

Tom accused me of not taking a specific position, or answering his question regarding how the war should be run.

So here's my answer:

Political Correctness has everyone worried about what they say or what they do to the point that even the Bush Administration has fallen victim to it. The liberal Democrats have pounded it down our throat so much that we have forgotten the history of America that has made this nation so great.

It seems to me that the past definition of war was not what it is now. Today's definition is heavily influenced by Vietnam and the hippies that marched against it. Before the Vietnam War was fought war was waged in a different way. We went in and fought the enemy. We didn't dance around politics.

Right now we are essentially dealing with a termite problem by waiting for the termites to show themselves before we blast them. We fear attacking the problem because a few other bugs may be wiped out as well.

From the beginning we should have gone in with guns blazing, destroyed a few cities, turned some sand to glass, allowed for collateral damage, and showed the world that if you screw with the United States your nation is going to suffer. We should have went in from a position of strength. We should have went in as the Superpower that we are.

Now, with us tippy-toeing around all of this politically correct B.S., we have lost the war because we have refused to fight it. Bush has allowed himself to use rules of engagement that handcuffs our troops because he's worried about what the Left may say. And we have allowed the Media and the Left to dictate the direction of the conflict, and to prosecute our troops through court martials for them doing their job.

Screw the Left, screw political correctness, and fight the damn war! Don't quit until victory is achieved!

That's my answer.

Oh, and yes, for those of you that give me grief, I do think you are unpatriotic for calling a war a lost cause as our troops fight it. To say otherwise would be like tossing a life preserver to a person in the water, and then telling them it doesn't matter, because they are going to drown anyway.

I have a post about the MayDay Immigration rallies at my Right Angle site.

This post is cross-posted at SkyDiveRick's.

3 comments:

Tom said...

I posted this at Doug's blog, but just in case he deletes it, I'll post it here as well..

I assume that since Doug is directing this post at me, my response will not be deleted. I guess we shall see.

I guess you like the Dresden model. Firebombing works to demoralize the civilian population of a nation with which we are at war, right? You assume we are at war with the Iraqi people much the same as we were with Germans in WWII? Alrighty..

I also see that you included an image of a nuclear bomb detonation, and describe turning "sand to glass", which is a euphemism for a nuclear weapon attack. You didn't actually say "use nuclear weapons", and I'm not sure why you still are not plain speaking. I'll asume you advocate nuking Iraqi cities.

What you don't understand is that the Iraq people have no complicity what-so-ever with the attacks on 9/11, nor are they substantially involved in terrorism. Iraq was not involved in the 9/11 attacks in any case. And you want mass slaughter of civilian Iraqi's as a demonstration that if you mess with the United States, you get nuked.

Honestly.. that's why I call you a right wing loon.

There are no parallels between WWII era axis nations and the war in Iraq. We are not "at war" with Iraq. The mission, as explained by the President over and over, was to remove the regime, secure WMD's, remove the "threat", and bring "democracy". Not only was destroying the nation as some sort of payback not part of the mission, but the mission is actually accomplished, hence why we advocate getting out.

By destroying cities, the United States would have found itself alone in a horrified world. To you, that doesn't matter, but it does matter.

It really does amaze me that your issue is with the "definition of war". You don't seem to understand the differences between state aggression with a standing army, and a tactic (terrorism). It's obvious that you cannot wage a military campaign on a tactic. Even the current military leadership in Iraq has said that there is no military solution.

Finally.. I find this amusing.

Now, with us tippy-toeing around all of this politically correct B.S., we have lost the war because we have refused to fight it.

Oh, and yes, for those of you that give me grief, I do think you are unpatriotic for calling a war a lost cause as our troops fight it.


If I tried, I couldn't make up something that priceless. Yes Doug, I think you're "unpatriotic" too.. so there!

Tisha! said...

oh my!

I'm all for a war against terrorism living in the mid-east for so long made me realize that force is the only thing some people understand.

having said that fighting the Iraqi people in my view is not and should not be part of the agenda and thus we should do everything possible to avoid harming innocent citizens but that also means that they have to do their part to fight extremists!

Anonymous said...

Hi to every body, it's my first visit of this weblog; this weblog consists of amazing and really fine stuff for readers.
Also see my webpage: seo in der schweiz