The Anti-War Left

It’s not easy being a patriot to this country. The entire world seems to be against the United States. We have a few allies in Britain, Australia, Israel, Japan, South Korea, Poland and (mostly) Canada. However, is this alliance strong enough to battle our enemies across the world: Iran, Syria, China, Russia, France, Venezuela, Cuba, Mexico and Germany?

I say bring it on. Right now. We can obliterate these enemies if we attack now. However, political correctness will prevail and we will try to understand what the other side “feels”. The “other side feels” a defeat for the United States is in their own best (selfish) interests. The other side feels that a defeat of the United States will lead to a retraction of humanistic values and an advance of their preferred authoritarian rule. The other side wants to kill capitalism and freedom and all of the things it represents.

The anti-war left in America present themselves as defenders of liberty. They are, in fact, stooges of slavery. Their minds are so confused that they think aligning with America’s enemies is a legitimate form of protest. They do not realize (or Satan help them if they do) that our enemies want to kill, enslave or convert every one of us to their way of “thinking”.

I have heard every one of the anti-war left’s arguments against the war. All of them have a core common denominator. Whatever is good for America is bad. Look at the anti-war left through this prism and see if you disagree. The anti-war left is actually the anti-American left. Their opinions are only anti-American.

This does not apply to everyone who is against the war. Some of my friends have been against the Iraqi invasion from the beginning, feeling that it was a reckless military adventure. They still hold this opinion, although I disagree with them. However, these people are not protesting in the streets, providing support for the enemies of this county. They have their opinions and I can see how they formed them. Our core difference of opinion is in the nature and extent of the threat. However, these people in no way are intentionally attempting to harm America. (Other than by their obtuseness, which is helping the enemy).

The anti-war protesters, however, have a different agenda. These people want to show the world that America is indeed, a Paper Tiger, one that can be attacked and expected to run away.

There is a powerful Fifth Column in our country. This is a group of people who believe in a different form of government. As every type of government other than Capitalism has resulted in not only massive slaughters of civilians, but also a destroyed economy, that should be disturbing for those who don’t pay much attention to politics. There is a 2nd American Revolution going on as we speak, and it is a revolution designed to overthrow the ideas proposed by our founding fathers. However, it is covert, because the revolutionaries know that if their ideas were ever presented for a vote, they would lose.

The Fifth Columnist Socialists of this country bring themselves into the light in their anti-war movement. It is here that they think they can recruit slumbering Americans to their cause. Look at these people and understand what they stand for. They point out the deficiencies of America, without ever giving it credit for its successes. They point out the plight of the enemy, without ever giving acknowledgement to their threat against us. They point out all that is wrong with America, without ever giving credit to its tremendous successes.

The anti-war left is really the anti-American left. See it for yourself.

Patriotic Terrorists

I was doing some research on this subject, when I came across this essay, posted on the left-leaning Huffington Post. Apparently the Huffington Post occasionally allows a viewpoint from the other side. I thought that this guy made nearly every point I wanted to make, so why re-invent the wheel? I will shamelessly copy it into my own blog. By the way, the comments to this essay were hilarious (and a little scary). This guy really got the moonbats barking. “Methinks the moonbats doth bark too loudly…” or something like that. Enjoy:

-----------------------------------------------

Whenever I visit this lovely blog, I usually run into someone - a "leftist," if you will - who finds pleasure in things that make our country or the President look bad. I suppose I could say these angry types are no better than cheerleaders for terrorism. After all, both entities - the left and terrorists - seem to share the same desire: to put the US, humiliatingly, in its place.

But I would be wrong to say such things. Very wrong. Of course, "dissent is patriotic," and the left is only critical of America because it simply loves our country much more than I do.
That's why calling them terrorists would be intolerant and pretty shameful.

But what about "patriotic terrorists?" That's kinda neat. What is a patriotic terrorist?

It is an American who claims to love his or her country while enjoying the enemy's success against said country. It is a person who gets deeply offended if you question their patriotism, while also appearing to share the same ideals of the more spirited folk who like to blow
up innocent people.

Patriotic terrorists love America with so much intensity that it appears to the untrained eye that they hate it. But it's actually the most powerful form of "tough love" known to man, woman and Rosie O'Donnell. Patriotic terrorists love America so much that they realize it needs an intervention - and real terror is the only way to enable that intervention. In fact, to keep a mammoth, arrogant superpower like America in check, terrorism is the only thing we've got.

Noam Chomsky knew this from the start, making him a patriotic terrorist of the highest order.
This is why he gets the chicks.

Hey, I bet you've probably wondered why Al Qaeda hasn't struck in the US since 9/11. They don't have to. It has its own offshoot franchise here at work already. Patriotic Terrorists. Think about how much both groups have in common!

-Both patriotic terrorists and Al Qaeda want the US to abandon Iraq, for that reveals Bush and America to be monstrous, laughable failures. It does not matter to either group that the
withdrawal from Iraq will make post-Vietnam look like an afternoon at Ikea shopping for a Hoggbo innerspring mattress.

-For patriotic terrorists and real terrorists, car bombs going off is music to their ears. It proves that you can't offer democracy to troubled countries, as long as you've got terrorists standing in your way. And that's great news for everyone who believes in checks and balances between the haves and the have nots! (Note: "haves" means the US. "Have nots" means those who hate the US)

-Patriotic terrorists and the more committed terrorists both believe that infractions at Guantanamo Bay are far worse than anything a genocidal dictator could muster, and such horrors possess far more PR potential in denigrating the US than anything involving Ed Begley Jr.

-Both patriotic terrorists and Al Qaeda terrorists believe the US desires to control the Middle East, empower evil Israel and expand it's power base at the expense of innocent Arab lives. But both groups also realize that the US is too stupid to achieve these goals - and that makes being a patriotic terrorist loads of fun!

Are you a patriotic terrorist?

If you are intensely critical of the US, while tolerating homicidal enemies who condemn everything you previously claimed you are for - human rights, voting rights, gay rights, women's rights, porn - then you're a patriotic terrorist.

If you talk about tolerance constantly - and hilariously tolerate genocide and suicide bombers because those actions undermine your more intimate opposition, the American right - then you're a patriotic terrorist.

The only difference between a patriotic terrorist and a real one? Real terrorists are simply patriotic terrorists who've taken the extra step - choosing to actually die for their beliefs -
rather than simply talking about them at Spago.

If Tim Robbins, Sean Penn, Michael Moore, and their ilk had real cojones, they'd all be wearing cute black vests - but stuffed with more than dog-eared copies of Deterring Democracy.

The State of the Union

My post-election depression is officially over. The Chinese have a curse that says “may you live in the most interesting of times”. I see that once again, we indeed have the most interesting of times ahead. The current State of the Union is that we are close to a civil war. That would certainly be interesting. Fortunately, we are still several steps away from the actual killing phase and will most likely never get there. However, passions are running as high today as they must have in the mid 1800’s, when the debate over slavery dominated politics.

The war in Iraq is about so much more than the war in Iraq. Why is there so much dissention about the war? There are deeply passionate feelings on both sides. How can that be, regarding a war fought with minimal casualties, with clear signs of victory, against an enemy in a distant land, with an all-volunteer military? Let’s see.

The side in favor will note that an ideology has declared war on Western Civilization, particularly the United States. The US has removed 2 hostile governments from power. The US has taken the fight to the land of the enemy, an enemy that killed 3000 civilians on US soil.

The opposition argues that any US casualties are too many. Iraq has no specific link to the specific murderers of 3000 civilians. The ideology in question is only a fringe group and is not a legitimate threat to the United States.

What is each side really saying?

Those who support the war believe that Islam is on the offensive. Islamists are building an army and attempting to find the most devastating weapons possible, in order to inflict the most damage possible. Those who oppose the war believe that only fringe groups, with legitimate grievances, have expressed their anger.

Again, why the vast disparity in perspective? What are the goals of the opposing sides?

The pro-war side has explicitly said that this is a war against terrorists and any country that harbors or supports them is fair game for retaliation. The anti-war side has said that it does not support acts of terror and wishes to prosecute any individuals responsible for doing so. The pro-war side wants to promote freedom in places that freedom currently does not exist. The anti-war side wants to let sovereign countries decide their own fate through democratic processes. The pro-war side wants to protect the freedoms of people in places where it does currently exist. The anti-war side says that there is no threat to anyone’s freedom, other than from the pro-war side.

Is it possible for any group from the same sample pool, to look at the same facts and draw this dispersion of conclusions? Only if one side is intentionally delusional.

The pro-war side typically believes in America as the land of opportunity. The anti-war side typically believes in socialism. The pro-war side typically believes in fighting for what is right, regardless of the cost. The anti-war side typically believes in avoiding confrontation, regardless of the cost. The pro-war side is typically optimistic about the power of free people making decisions for themselves. The anti-war side is typically cynical about people making good choices and believe there should be safeguards to keep people from doing the wrong things.

Which side is more likely to be delusional?

President Bush showed great optimism in his address to Congress. Despite predictions that he and the pro-war movement were defeated, lame ducks. The Democrat opposition refused to stand or applaud when Bush mentioned victory in Iraq. Despite the 60 plus standing ovations for innocuous issues such as health care reform or a balanced budget.

The Democrats showed more than disinterest in victory in Iraq. They showed opposition. These people currently represent more than half of American voters. We are indeed living in the most interesting of times.

No-Win Scenario

Weapons of Mass Destruction have been found in Iraq. They are highly explosive, yet very unstable devices. They are called Democrats and they are on the verge of destroying one of the most powerful political parties in the world. Unfortunately, these weapons are not reliable in times of war and will therefore result mainly in the destruction of themselves.

The Democrats do not have a winning scenario remaining in the Islamic War. There are only a handful of ways the war can play out in the next few years and none of them favor the party of appeasement and surrender.

If the situation in Iraq and the rest of world does not substantially improve in the next 2 years, the Democrats will undoubtedly maintain control of Congress and win the Presidency in 2008. Then what? As their gains will have come from promoting “peace”, they will have no choice but to de-escalate the war in Iraq. Then what? Even the loudest of the howling moon-bats can’t possibly believe the violence in Iraq will decrease if the United States pulls out. Remember that in about a 24 hour period in March of 2003, the Iraqi military went from being the 5th strongest in the world to the 2nd strongest in Iraq. The United States is the only force in Iraq that actually wants to stop the violence. When this deterrent is gone, the resulting chaos will be gruesome. The Democrats can (and will) blame George Bush for starting this, but even their allies in the media will not be able to resist covering the mayhem. At some point, the “peace” crowd will become sickened enough to ask how we ever allowed this to happen. The Democrats will have no choice but to watch millions die (no exaggeration…see Cambodia, post-US pullout from Vietnam) or send troops BACK. Even Clinton’s slickest spin-meisters couldn’t turn that into a Democratic win. As the Islamic War will not end in Iraq, regardless of the outcome there, Americans will not trust Democrats again with leadership for the remainder of the war.

If the United States actually succeeds in concluding Operation Iraqi Freedom favorably, by establishing a stable government that is an ally in the Islamic War, the Democrats will lose credibility for wartime leadership, since they abandoned the cause so early and so easily. Ironically, this is not only the least-likely outcome and the only one that prevents total destruction of the Democratic Party, but it’s also the one that Democrats are fighting against the most ferociously. It would basically be a push, where the Democrats could plausibly make a case that their seditious behavior in a time of war was merely “loyal opposition”. Americans are still asleep enough regarding the impending threat to their lives and freedoms, that they will comfortably go back to watching American Idol and be glad this whole Iraq mess is over.

There is no possible scenario of America “losing” in Iraq as long as we keep fighting. Body counts will increase, but American forces have not lost one engagement with the enemy yet and are not likely to lose one in the future. It is absolutely impossible for a military force stronger than the Americans to emerge within Iraq, as the infrastructure for an anti-American war machine could not possibly be built with our current, overwhelming, presence on the ground. The worst case scenario for America is an actual WMD that is used against our troops. Since Democrats know that “Bush lied, people died” and there are no WMDs in Iraq (or Syria…or Iran) this simply cannot happen. If it does, a lot of people will be scraping bumper stickers.

That covers Win, Lose or Draw over the next 2 years. However, since this is a regional war, there are other factors that can play in. The insurgency could not have lasted this long without outside support. Syria, Iran and al-Qaeda have all contributed to the on-going turmoil. There is no area I disagree with more in the handling of this war, than the administrations’ failure to define it properly. Calling it the War on Terror is bad enough (this is like referring to World War II as the War Against Surprise Attacks), but refusing to present the avalanche of evidence that Iran and Syria are active sponsors of this war to the American people is feeding into our greatest weakness. The dissent within our own borders is the enemy’s greatest asset. Osama has said, specifically, his vision of the Last Helicopter is how Islam will defeat the West. He refers to the American helicopter pushing Vietnamese civilians away as it hauls off the last U.S. soldiers. Helicopters burning in the desert of Iran after the botched rescue operation for the embassy hostages. Helicopters taking the last Marines out of Beirut, following the barracks bombing. Blackhawk Down in Mogadishu, which al-Qaeda is directly responsible for. Osama, al-Qaeda and all of our enemies in the Islamic War believe that America is a Paper Tiger, which will simply run away if it meets too much resistance.

The regional players in this war want weapons of mass destruction. Syria most likely already has them, as credible sources have said they were hidden there before the invasion of March 2003. Iran probably has some, but without question is pursuing the ability to build its own nuclear weapons. If one of these is used against Americans, how will the public react? This country actually came together for a few weeks after September 11th. What happens if it happens again? The Democrats and moon-bats will blame Bush, without question, but who will the American Idol audience hold responsible? I think it will be the bastards who did it. If we can’t identify them, then it will be the bastards who cheered after it happened. If they’re smart enough to stay quiet, it will be the bastards who have been chanting Death to America for the last couple of decades. Somebody is going to pay. Big time. The Democrats will have no choice but to hunker quietly in a corner, or oppose retaliation. Neither case has the Democrat leadership gaining the trust of the American people ever again.

There is not a winning scenario for the Democrats. They have rooted against the home team too early and too often. They are hypocrites, incompetents or traitors. As this war is likely to last for most of our lifetimes, this does not bode well for the future of that party. Congratulations on the mid-term election victory, Democrats. Sometimes, selling your soul to the devil is actually a higher price than it’s worth.

Islamophobia

Islamophobia is the cutest new word from the Thought Police of political correctness. Anyone who states an opinion or even points out a fact regarding Islam, in anything other than the Religion of Peace theme, is Islamophobic. Phobia means an irrational fear. I don’t think “irrational” applies to a fear of Islam.

The Thought Police tell us to ignore 9/11 in it’s relation to Islam, because it was carried out by Islamic Fanatics, not ordinary Muslims. True, it takes a fanatic to volunteer for a suicide mission intended to START a war, but the pool of available fanatics in Islam seems to be much deeper than any other pool of civilization.

Islam is to peace as liberals are to liberty. Most religions are peaceful, therefore it is intuitive based on prior experiences to believe that the religion of Islam is also peaceful. Liberals (who stole the name and forever discredited the word) would have people believe that they think like Thomas Jefferson, when if fact they are more like George Jefferson. An intolerant bigot who blames others for his bigotry.

There are people throughout history who distorted teachings from the Bible to commit evil acts. However, the key word is distorted. The Islamic Koran leaves no room for mis-interpretation. The path to heaven, according to the Koran, is through jihad (holy war). Infidels (non-Muslims) must be either converted, killed or enslaved. These are the holy words from the Islamic holy book.

Generations of Muslims have lived by this philosophy. Muslims have expanded their empire from the 70 losers who followed Mohammad out of Mecca to the 1.3 billion followers today. Islam grew through war against the infidels. It is a religion that spread by the sword. Islam has not changed. Unfortunately, weapons have. In Mohammad’s time, infidels were killed, converted or enslaved one at a time. In the era of weapons of mass destruction, that equation has changed.

Anyone who doesn’t fear this is an Islamo-Idiot. Muslims have no problem with even killing each other. Just look at the war between Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq. When the holy book tells you that killing is good, it’s tough to draw a line on where to stop. Muslims have expanded by this philosophy and it would be foolish to dismiss them because they seem so 7th Century. They may indeed be, but there is historical proof that these tactics work.

Weapons of Mass Destruction in the hands of Islamic Fanatics are a little worse than tax-breaks for the rich. Infidels of the world, especially the United States, should unite against this problem before we find ourselves praying 5 times a day in a language we don’t understand and seeing our women wearing burkas. While many of us will die fighting before this happens and leave the rest to a hell on earth, it would be better to stop it while we still have a chance to do so.

Islamophobic? Maybe I am. However, I’ve seen the lessons of history and can guess at what will happen next if the Islamic Fascists get the weapons to expand their jihad. I would rather be a dead Islamo-phobe than an enslaved Islamo-Idiot. Most preferably, I would rather kick these guys’ asses.

Ban Islam.

The Empire Strikes Back

If the United States is going to be accused of being an Imperialistic country, it should at least have the luxury of acting like one upon occasion. Especially when it is in the country’s best interest to do so. The US is most definitely not interested in becoming an Empire. If it were, the War would look much differently than it does today. However, the Fifth Columnists inside and the anti-Americans outside of the country insist that building an empire is what the “war on terrorism” is all about. If only…

Empires are built on overwhelming military force, not on capturing “hearts and minds”. Grab people by the balls, and their hearts and minds will follow. The war effort that saw the United States dropping food and blankets by parachute in Afghanistan, before the Taliban fell and building schools and power plants in Iraq, before the insurgency ended, is not the model followed by prior empires. If we really invaded Iraq for its oil, why am I still paying $2.50 a gallon for gasoline?

I don’t know if the new plan for Iraq is going to work. I suspect that it won’t. An additional 20k troops, with expanded rules of engagement, will indeed make an impact, but I don’t know if it’s enough to “win” the hearts and minds of the Iraqis. The cool part is…I don’t give a shit. I want us to win, but I don’t think we will ever win in the traditional sense. The world may think that we “lost” or more likely, fought to a stalemate, but that doesn’t matter. The only thing that matters is that we take advantage of the opportunity that is sitting in front of us.

The Arab world has a low standard of military victory. President Nasser of Egypt was a hero after the Israelis kicked Egypt’s ass in the Six Day War, even though Egypt lost the entire Sinai Peninsula. Anwar Sadat was a greater hero after the Yom Kippur War, even though Egypt made minimal gains and lost over half of its military combat power. Iraq and Iran both claimed victory after their horrendous 8 year war in the 1980’s. Saddam claimed victory again after Gulf War I because he was still in power. Hezbollah celebrated victory over Israel last summer because they weren’t annihilated, as many analysts expected. The Sunnis currently claim victory in Iraq, because they are still “resisting”. Even if resisting means killing other Iraqis, even fellow Sunnis, instead of the evil “occupiers”, the Americans.

The only thing that would constitute a defeat in the Arab hearts and minds, would be a total nuclear annihilation of a country. And even then, I’m not so sure they would admit defeat. They would probably praise the “martyrs” who went to their reward (at 72 virgins per martyr, shouldn’t Allah be running out by now? Unless he meant goats). Anyways…the Arab mindset will never admit defeat. This is why they blame the Jews for all of their societal problems. Arab pride and Islamic arrogance will never allow them to admit to a mistake.

The political battle for the Arab world is a waste of time. These people only respect force. Anything else is seen as weakness and an opportunity for further expansion of the Islamic caliphate.

The surge in American forces proposed by President Bush will put pressure on the Iraqi resistance. The bulk of this force will focus on the areas surrounding Baghdad. The resistance forces in Baghdad are not only primarily Shia, they are sponsored by the Iranian regime. Iran has invested everything in the United States’ defeat in Iraq. Including Iran’s own future.

The United States is doing more than just increasing the combat power in Iraq by 20,000 soldiers. It has sent an additional aircraft carrier fleet into the Persian Gulf and a 2nd amphibious assault group (in addition to the one already there) just within the last few weeks. The US is putting the pieces in place for an invasion of Iran.

Whether Tehran responds militarily or rhetorically, the United States is in position to do what it should have done in 1979. As Iran is the primary sponsor of global terrorism and the key instigator of civil war in Iraq (supporting both the Shias and the Sunnis), may Allah prepare a lot more goats for his incoming martyrs.

The capital of the real war, the one that brought al-Qaeda to the streets of New York, lies in Tehran. The United States is in a position to defeat the real enemy. While Iranian President Ahmadinejad blusters about Iran’s nuclear program and the eventual annihilation of Israel and a world without the United States, Iran does not currently have the ability to back up his words. I only hope that we take advantage of this opportunity before it’s too late.

To the Shores of Tripoli...

If you ask any Muslim, or even a Democrat, why Islam is at war with the United States, he will say it’s because of our support of Israel or our presence in the Middle East or our exploitation of Muslim resources. However, this is not true. Islam has followers at war all over the world and not all of Islam’s enemies support Israel, have a presence in the Middle East or even have the ability to “exploit” (i.e. purchase) Muslim resources.

It would be more accurate to state the reason Islam is at war with the United States like this:

… it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Muslim who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.

This should sound familiar to those who listen to or read reports coming out of Iran or from al-Qaeda. However, this particular quote was stated over 200 years ago. By Thomas Jefferson.

The Barbary States of Morocco, Algiers, Tunis and Tripoli were part of the Ottoman Empire and were ruled by Muslims. Their primary source of income was piracy. After the Revolutionary War, American merchant ships were no longer protected by the Royal Navy and were subject to raids by the Barbary pirates. As the ambassador to France, Jefferson was well aware of the problems in the Mediterranean.

Jefferson strongly objected to the practice of paying tribute for protection. He knew that appeasement would only encourage more attacks. When he became President of the United States in 1801, he ended the practice of appeasement and sent the young US Navy into the Mediterranean for the 1st Barbary War.

The war ended in 1805 with a treaty that called for the return to the United States of all property and prisoners taken by the pirates. The peace lasted as long as the US was able to maintain a credible military threat. When the Brits attacked in the War of 1812, the Navy no longer had the resources to patrol the Mediterranean and the piracy resumed. In 1815, the US had to go back and fight the 2nd Barbary War. It too ended with a treaty that restored stolen property and returned prisoners.

The French and Italians finally solved the piracy issue by colonizing all of North Africa. This more or less settled the Muslim problem for Europe and the United States, until they were given their freedom back in the mid 1900’s. When Muslim states regained their sovereignty after World War II, the cycle began the repeat phase.

The problem today is no longer piracy. However, the arrogance of Islam and disdain for others that Jefferson noted in 1790 are still true today. Islam has been at war with the United States since the United States has been a country. Appeasement has always led to more war. Military force has always led to peace. Will we ever learn?