Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Vlad the Impaler, and George W. Bush

Wag the Dog

Vlad the Impaler, the real-life Dracula



There have been no presidents in history, including Nixon, who were actually willing to trade blood for any personal goal. There have been proofs of presidential lying (“I did not have sexual relations with that woman”), and of presidents exaggerating in order to get the U.S. into a war they felt needed to be waged. However, there has never been a demonstrated “wag the dog” scenario. Yes, Johnson used the phony Gulf of Tonkin incident to get the U.S. more deeply involved in Vietnam, but he did this to fight what he believed was a just war. Nixon was willing to execute the war in Vietnam on a grander scale than he was admitting to the public, but he was doing this, he thought, to win the war, and hence to save lives. So, even the evil Richard Nixon was never as demonic as conspiracy loving liberals imagine.

War for Oil

One theory of the whacky left (including the insane Michael Moore) that they believe wholeheartedly is that Bush entered the war in Iraq for oil. You see these loons at any peace demonstration carrying their inane signs that say “No War for Oil.”

click to show/hide the rest of the post

In order to posit this you have to believe that a church-going, family-loving man would knowingly slaughter American soldiers so that he could increase his already large fortune, or that of his friends. Or, that the most powerful man in the world believed somehow that he didn’t have enough power and wanted to start taking over the world. The guy would be worse than any mafia don. He would go around smiling while he was sending soldiers to their death for money or power.

The Theory

What is the basis for these whacko beliefs? Bush is an oilman, and Cheney. Plus, their buddies, like Halliburton and other oil related companies, have contracts in Iraq. And, the Bush family has connections with Saudi Arabia.

That’s it. That’s their proof. Since Bush knows oil, and oil people, and has connections with Saudi Arabia, he is guilty. He is sending people to their death for oil. Case closed.

Refutation

I’m not going to go into the whole proof why this conclusion is absurd. I’ll just make a couple points.

First, it’s good that Bush and Cheney are oilmen. Their knowledge, expertise, and connections in this area are one thing that has helped keep the world’s oil flowing in such dangerous times. Thank God they are oilmen. We ought to elect people who know business and oil and commodities, and are well-connected, as these are important to America.

Second, if we were after the oil in Iraq, we would have just conquered the country and taken over the oil fields. We could have built an impenetrable base around the oil fields, forgot about the rest of the country, guarded the pipelines, and took the cash flow. The heck with trying to help Iraq install a democracy. Who cares? We could have justified this by saying it was payment for our monetary and personal sacrifices in freeing Iraq. Instead, every dime of Iraqi oil goes to the Iraqis, and from them to the world market, not to the U.S; and the U.S. meanwhile spends more of its own money on Iraq than on Vietnam.

Yes, oil companies and weapons companies make money. This, I argue, is because we live in a dangerous world. We were attacked on 9/11, remember? Defense companies were going to make money in this environment anyway, without Iraq. Oil companies too, as the price of oil always goes up when there is international tension. 9/11 guaranteed the tension, without Iraq.

Third, Halliburton is the only company that can do some of the things they do. They are the best in their field. They will always get their share of government contracts whether the president is an oilman or not. Simply, the world needs what they do. Because Cheney was on their board before his election as vice president does not mean they need him to intercede for them in order to win contracts. They will win contracts in any free market system.

Delusions

Anyone who believes the War for Oil theory is worse than delusional. These people are guilty of projection. This belief is more of a reflection of their own personal problems than any guilt on the part of Mr. Bush or Mr. Cheney. (This is one reason why Michael Savage can write the book Liberalism is a Mental Disorder.)

The Slogan that Kills

The sad thing is that War for Oil makes an effective slogan for simplistic minds. Unfortunately, seeing this slogan on placards all over the world gives succor to terrorists as they sleep at night planning to bomb babies. Without meaning to, the perpetrators of this vicious myth are guilty of the crimes they accuse the president of doing—namely, of killing hundreds of thousands of people all over the globe. I am being more kind to these people than they are to the president. They accuse him of being a knowing murderer and terrorist; I accuse the holders of these theories as being unwitting accomplices in the death of human beings.

Rock

(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)

Subscribe to my feed
                                          

Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site! Wanna swap links? It’ll help us both. Truth—The No Spin Politically Incorrect Zone

Join Rock's Political Blog Ring. Both Liberals and Conservatives are Welcome. (see left side bar)

click to hide most of this post

Sergeant Charlie

Sergeant Charlie, I'm getting the emails saying that you've commented on my site, but then I click to publish, and it doesn't publish. I don't know what the problem is. I'll copy your emails and publish your comments from now on until the problem gets solved.

Rock

Secret Bush Administration Memorandum

New York Times Reveals Bush Administration’s Behind the Scenes Communications on the War in Iraq

The following link will take you to the full article, which I’ve teased below, that appears in today’s New York Times, purporting to expose a secret Bush administration memorandum about the Iraq war: Text of the National Security Adviser's Memorandum on the Political Situation in Iraq - New York Times: Published: November 29, 2006

Following is the beginning of a Nov. 8 memorandum prepared for cabinet-level officials by Stephen J. Hadley, the national security adviser, and his aides on the National Security Council. The five-page document, classified secret, was read and transcribed by The New York Times.

We returned from Iraq convinced we need to determine if Prime Minister Maliki is both willing and able to rise above the sectarian agendas being promoted by others. Do we and Prime Minister Maliki share the same vision for Iraq? If so, is he able to curb those who seek Shia hegemony or the reassertion of Sunni power? The answers to these questions are key in determining whether we have the right strategy in Iraq.

You can go to the above link to read the full article. It is fascinating.

Bush’s Big Mistake

To me, this secret memorandum reveals why the Bush administration has failed miserably in explaining the Iraq war to the American people. The memorandum reveals an honest, sophisticated assessment of the situation in Iraq. This is the kind of analysis I have been trying to conduct on my blog. It is also the kind of thinking my commenters have been positing, from the left and right. I believe the American people are adult enough, and sophisticated enough, to hear these kinds of thoughts and considerations.

click to show/hide the rest of the post

Instead of speaking the truth, as is the mission of this blog, the President continues to pronounce his talking points, like “Stay the course,” “We’re fighting for freedom,” and “We promise not to withdraw until the mission is accomplished.”

I don’t discount the legitimate need for slogans, propaganda, continued repetition, and so on. Just because the Nazis used propaganda successfully, and the Soviet Union, and North Korea et al, doesn’t mean it isn’t a good tool for democracy too. We used it successfully in this country during WWII. I’m not opposed to it, when it’s for a good cause.

On the other hand, I do believe the American people are more mature than politicians imagine. Yes, you can win them over with the hateful mantras of the left—which is exactly what happened in the last election. The reason these mantras worked, though, was that voters had no alternative. Bush has never explained to Americans, as mature adults, what is really going on in the world, and especially in Iraq. Bush has never been an articulate champion of conservative values.

Bush’s Theory of Politics

Bush, like a lot of other politicians, believes that the main function of a president is to be a diplomat. Diplomats are tight-lipped. They are aware of every word they speak; they offend no one; they are eternally positive; at the worst they are guarded. They reveal nothing when they open their mouths.

Bush is the supreme diplomat. He does this with the American people too. He is ultra-careful about what he says, for example, about Iraq.

Beyond being a diplomat, Bush tries also to be a champion of his causes, which are, among others: the war in Iraq; democracy in the Middle East; open borders with Mexico; tax cuts; and so on. In being a champion of causes, he is making arguments. He is communicating to sell his point of view. He is acting like a debater, taking one side of an issue and promoting it, stacking all the evidence to make the sale. He wants to win the war in Iraq, and get the American people on his side in this goal, so he pushes his selling points at all times, like a good life insurance salesman. He is our cheerleader-in-chief.

The Problem

I believe an American president needs to be a diplomat, yes, and a champion of causes, and a cheerleader; but he or she needs to be more than this. Like Ronald Reagan, or John F. Kennedy, or Franklin D. Roosevelt, he also needs to be a communicator.

I remember taking a course on military history when I was a student at Creighton University in Omaha, Nebraska. The professor, a military man, said that the American soldier is unlike soldiers from totalitarian nations, in one way at least. In totalitarian nations, the commanders give orders and the soldiers execute them, period. The professor said that you can do this with American soldiers too, and get the same results. He said, though, that you can get even better results if you explain to your soldiers the reason for the orders. What are they fighting for? What is the mission? What are the risks and ways to handle them? What is the strategic situation? What are the goals, signposts, exit strategies, and so on?

Bush has done a miserable job of explaining the situation in Iraq. By limiting himself to the roles of diplomat and cheerleader-in-chief, he has failed to engage the American public in this vital war effort.

Lessons of the Memorandum

First, I think that the New York Times has done it again—come close to being treasonous in a time of war, revealing secret conversations about an issue of national security.

On the other hand, I don’t care. I’m glad the memorandum got out. It finally shows me what I’ve suspected all along—that there is sophisticated thinking going on about the Iraq war in the Bush administration. Bush’s big blunder, in my opinion, is hiding this kind of thinking from the American public. The public is scratching their heads, wondering if they’ve got a moron for a president. I’ve known that he is a bright man in many ways, despite his Bushism’s and his inability to communicate. He has made the biggest mistake of his presidency, however, in being tight-lipped about the complexities of this war, and about many other things.

If Bush ever wants the American people to understand why we are in Iraq, what to expect, and what will be the sacrifice, he needs to open up and become also another great communicator, like Ronald Reagan, JFK, and FDR. I know he, and most in the public, do not believe that he has it in him to communicate in this way, but I’ve seen him do it in some of his best speeches. He needs to trust the American people that they can understand the complexities he will explain.

If he ever does this, which I doubt he will—some people will begin to listen to what he says, trust what he says, and begin to have faith in him again.

Yes, the American people have underestimated George Bush; he is no idiot. Winning the American presidency twice, and running the country for eight years is impossible for an idiot. But George Bush has also underestimated the American people; they are far more mature and sophisticated than he imagines. They can handle the truth. They can understand the complexities.

Start telling the whole truth, Mr. President. Open up. Lay it out for us, in all its detail and uncertainty. Step out of your roles as diplomat and cheerleader-in-chief sometimes to become also the great communicator. Your poll numbers will rise, and you might get the public support for your worldview that you’ve always craved. This way, you can secure your legacy. Plus, this will squash the effect of the moronic left. They will be the ones, then, left with the simple pronouncements without substance.

Rock

(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)

Subscribe to my feed
                                          

Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site! Wanna swap links? It’ll help us both. Truth—The No Spin Politically Incorrect Zone

Join Rock's Political Blog Ring. Both Liberals and Conservatives are Welcome. (see left side bar)

click to hide most of this post

Can Jack Bauer Save the World?

24 is One Hollywood Production That Displays Conservative Values

Recently on C-SPAN Rush Limbaugh led a panel discussion on the hit television show 24. Why Rush would associate himself with the show in the first place is the fact that 24 is finally a major Hollywood production that espouses conservative principles and fundamentals that apply to our dangerous times. Another difference in this show, reportedly, is that many of the show's creators are actually conservatives, although which ones are not revealed.

The event was hosted by Limbaugh, sponsored by the conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation, at the Reagan Building. It also had Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas in the front row and Homeland Security director Michael Chertoff with the introductory speech.

Alongside the producers and cast members of 24 at the session were actual officials of Homeland Security, who said their work was not really like that of CTU – but they looked as if they wished it was.

The Show

24 is a current Emmy and Golden Globe award-winning American television series, created by Joel Surnow and Robert Cochran, and produced by Imagine Television. It is broadcast in the USA by the Fox Network and syndicated worldwide.

Each season covers the events of a 24 hour period in the life of federal agent Jack Bauer (played by Kiefer Sutherland) as he tries to prevent one or more domestic terrorist attacks, set largely in Los Angeles. The show also follows Jack's colleagues at the Counter Terrorist Unit, largely referenced as "CTU", Los Angeles office, as well as the actions of the terrorists or in some cases, actions of the conspirators, a civilian family and typically an important political figure such as a senator or president.

The Panel Discussion on C-SPAN

All of the actors on the panel deliberately stayed non-political in their responses. Two of the three actors on the panel, actress Mary Lynn Rajskub, who plays Chloe O'Brian, and Carlos Bernard, who plays Tony Almeida, seemed uncomfortable with the conservative implications of the discussion and diverted attention when asked anything political. Mary Lynn came off like a typical Hollywood liberal airhead, making it clear that she just wanted to look cute and avoid saying anything of substance.

click to show/hide the rest of the post

Carlos did a similar thing by turning every answer into a joke. “I do know more than you, Rush,” he said with a smile, letting everyone know he was half-kidding, but also saying nothing of substance. So, I got the impression that these actors were your typical Hollywood leftists, thrilled with the success of their show, but unsure what to do now that they were surrounded by the enemy—the dreaded conservatives.

Rush did not do a very good job emceeing the show. He appeared as if he was not prepared, repeated himself in his questions, gushed over the show and cast, and came off like a smart, tongue-tied schoolboy trying to impress his beautiful teacher. He had a difficult time too tying together the intellectuals on the panel with the two airhead actors. The conversation swung back and forth from the sublime to the ridiculous. A big moment was when Rush kissed Mary Lynn on the mouth. She rejected him at first, but then could not resist his good-natured insistence. This moment, by the way, got the most press for the event.

Conservative Principles Evidenced by 24

What are the conservative principles the show seems to follow? Just a few actually, but fundamental to the show’s outlook on the world.

1. The United States is the good guy. The terrorists are the bad guys. Jack Bauer, played by actor Kiefer Sutherland, the show’s star and Everyman, who everyone would like to be, is a conservative hero. He is willing to do anything to protect the people of the United States, and his friends and family. He will sacrifice himself. He will die. Anything that must be done.

2. There are forces of evil and corruption in the U.S. government, yes. Even the President (Charles Logan, played by actor Gregory Itzin, who is a Nixon on steroids type character who will even murder to get what he wants) is evil; but there are a core of good people, represented by CTU (which has its own intrigue) who are fundamentally good people, who believe in love and family and justice.

3. The United States, the good guys, are always resourceful enough to find a way to win, to beat the bad guys. The heroes in this show are the ultimate can-do people, from Chloe, who can work miracles with a computer, to Jack, who will always get there in the nick of time to torture the terrorist and get him to reveal where the ticking nuclear bomb is before it goes off.

4. The heroes of 24 realize that the first human right is survival. Survival of friends, family, colleagues, and country. Once that right is secured, you can fight for the other rights.

Conservative Excess?

One part of the show the liberals will glom onto is the fact that torture is regularly used, even and especially by the hero Jack Bauer, when information is needed now to save somebody. Conservatives are qualitatively different on the issue of torture, I have to admit. I, for example, am a moderate on the issue. I don’t believe in giving terrorists a spa vacation while they are incarcerated for doing things like blowing up babies, but I oppose torture because I don’t want our detainees tortured. I have no sympathy, however, for terrorists, and would not wince for a moment about the thought of terrorists suffering pain. I would restrain myself from inflicting it not for humanitarian reasons, but for the practical reason of protecting our troops.

Another part of the show the liberals will decry is that the hero, Jack Bauer, and a few other characters, are always ready to skirt and even break the law to save the world. This offends liberals, who want us to behave nicely to those nasty terrorists, and to follow the letter of the law always (unless a Democrat is in power. Then, it’s okay even to lie under oath.)

The Philosophical Debate

Though the show is popular with liberals and conservatives alike, liberals will be aghast at the underlying philosophy of the show. Liberals want to make nice-nice with terrorists, not kill them. They want terrorists to have prayer time five times a day, not be forced to tell the truth. Liberals want us to understand why these poor little baby-killers got the way they are because of American imperialism, instead of stopping these monsters from detonating their weapons.

24 is another example of how Hollywood gets it right sometimes in the movies or on television, but not in real life. Several Hollywood characters are conservative in their outlook, from John Wayne characters to Superman to Spider-Man, to Jack Bauer. Yet, in real life, many of the actors who play these heroes are liberal airheads—anti-American, moral cowards who badmouth America anytime it defends itself from the bad guys.

Salute to 24

Though of course I, and even Rush, do not condone torture, nor breaking the law, I salute the underlying premises that 24 represents. This is a “can-do” attitude that recognizes that the world is not nice, and that you have to play rough when dealing with bad guys. There really are bad guys out there, and they want to kill us, and we need to be willing to fight like the characters in 24, with every resource in our power, to stop this enemy, defeat them, and, if possible, kill them.

Rock

(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)

Subscribe to my feed
                                          

Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site! Wanna swap links? It’ll help us both. Truth—The No Spin Politically Incorrect Zone

Join Rock's Political Blog Ring. Both Liberals and Conservatives are Welcome. (see left side bar)

click to hide most of this post

Democracy, What Good Is It?

Does Democracy Bring Peace?

Is Democracy the best form of government? Will it work in the Middle East? Are democratic nations more peaceful than non-democratic nations?

One of my commenters, Tyk, a bright, peace-loving, open-minded Muslim from Lebanon, has made the valid point that democracy does not always bring the U.S. what it wants, which is a peace-loving member of the world community. He points to the sham democracy in Egypt, the election of Hamas in Palestine, and a poll in Jordan that says most Jordanians are against peace with Israel.

All these are valid points.

Flawed Democracies versus Dictatorships

Both Aristotle and Plato discussed the virtues and defects of democracies. I won’t presume to conduct a worthy examination of the issue, but I will posit my view, and I’d be interested in hearing yours.

click to show/hide the rest of the post

I think that in the short run, Bush’s theory that democracy will solve the world’s problems is probably naïve, and wrong. As Tyk has pointed out, democracies can be corrupted into false democracies, which are nothing more than phony elections to keep a dictator in power. This dictator might be benevolent, or not. Witness Egypt, Palestine, or even Venezuela. Egypt seems to be the more benevolent kind of dictator-democracy, but Palestine is a country that elected a terrorist organization to lead it. So, even if the democracy is legitimate, the people might choose war over peace, intrigue over cooperation.

The Long-Run Effect of Democracy

In the long run, though, I believe that countries that choose legitimate democracy as a form of government really do become more peace-loving, responsible members of the world community. Is this naïve? Maybe.

I will use the United States to make my point. This might be a poor example for many of my readers, since some of you envision the U.S. as warlike and undemocratic. I can see where you get the idea of warlike, but undemocratic we’re not.

I’m not going to prove that we are not warlike. Those of you who see us as warmongers will never buy my arguments anyway. I will say, though, that the U.S. has always had what it thought was a good reason for entering any war. Even Vietnam, Korea, and Iraq. In Vietnam we were legitimately concerned about the worldwide spread of communism—a reaction to the Soviet Union expansionism into Eastern Europe, and Communist China’s expansion into the Far East. Korea was a direct response to this, as communist North Korea was trying to take over South Korea. The Iraq War began in stages, first with the U.S. responding to the unlawful invasion of Kuwait, and then to Saddam Hussein’s desire for WMDs and his ignoring U.N. weapons inspectors, plus shooting at American planes. After 9/11, the United States was extremely sensitive to any terrorist or anti-American efforts, backed up by the possible development of WMDs.

The American people, in our democracy, were willing to support the war in Afghanistan, because it had a direct link with 9/11. It was even willing to support the war in Iraq, though Bush did a poorer job of making the link between 9/11, terrorism and Iraq. Support for the war has decreased, however, because the public perceives it as not going well. This, I argue, is the limit that a democracy can put on its nation’s war making. As a result, the Republicans were voted out of power, and the U.S. is scrambling for ways to fight the war more efficiently or get out. A dictatorship might just continue fighting a failing war, and even without fighting it more efficiently.

Democracy in Iraq

Bush’s stated goal in Iraq is to return the country to its people, with some form of democratic government.

We find legitimate democracy having trouble taking root there. So, is democracy right for Iraq? Plus, even if we get democracy there, will this mean that Iraq will be a better country—a more responsible member of the world community?

Bush’s theory is that all people deep down inside yearn for democracy. Is he correct? I believe he is, in the long run. I think such things as worldwide communication and even the Internet with its blogging will break down barriers and reveal to all peoples of the world how much better it is to be free. I can’t imagine living in a country where I am not free to go where I want, dress as I want, and speak what I want.

Still, even if Iraq forms a democracy, they might choose to ally with Iran, for example, which would not make the U.S. happy. They might choose to ally with Hamas, Hezbollah, a new totalitarian Russia, and so on. So, what good is a democracy?

Democracy and a Better World?

All this is true. Yet, the hope remains that people, out of self-interest, will eventually choose solutions that bring peace and prosperity. When they are tired of their children dying and living with hate, and when they see that peace brings greater rewards than war, democracy might then truly lead to a better world. Dictatorships can do this too, but are more susceptible to the corruption of a single man or party with absolute power.

The Iraqi Question: to Democratize or Not?

Are the Iraqi people ready for democracy now? No, the Iraqis don’t appear ready for democracy yet.

Can they get ready, fast? I hope so, but it looks doubtful.

What are the solutions?

1. Stick it out and help Iraq get ready for democracy.

2. Look for a strongman to lead a quasi-democracy, like Hosni Mubarak in Egypt.

3. Or, let them fight it out themselves. The logic here is that we have no business in the middle of a civil war.

Rock

(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)

Subscribe to my feed
                                          

Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site! Wanna swap links? It’ll help us both. Truth—The No Spin Politically Incorrect Zone

Join Rock's Political Blog Ring. Both Liberals and Conservatives are Welcome. (see left side bar or below these posts)

click to hide most of this post

Iraq, the Dream and the Reality

These are the goals of the United States concerning Iraq. Some of them are selfless; and others are related to U.S. safety or economics. As opposed to the propaganda of the left, there are no further hidden agendas, other than this list:

1. The formation of a free Iraq, so that its people can actualize their full potential as a nation and as a united people.

click to show/hide the rest of the post

2. The creation of a democracy in the Middle East, which can serve as a model for other dictatorships and kingdoms.

3. The creation of a democracy in the Middle East, which might make the region more peaceful. Democracies are generally less imperialistic than totalitarian forms of government.

4. The removal of Iraq as a haven for terroristic activities.

5. Preventing the development and spread of WMD in the hands of terrorists and rogue nations.

6. Helping U.S. allies Kuwait, other Middle Eastern partners, and Israel by creating a peaceful nation that won't attack it's neighbors.

7. Protecting the U.S. oil supply and keeping Iraq oil out of the hands of terrorists and rogue nations.

These are Legitimate Goals

There is nothing wrong with any of these goals. Protecting the U.S. oil supply, for example, is not a crime. Keeping the supply lines of oil open has always been a legitimate cause for war for all nations in history. One reason is that people actually die when this commodity is withheld. Furthermore, if the U.S. were to face a major disruption of oil, the first people to suffer in America would be the poor.

The Dream and the Reality

The U.S. cannot achieve these legitimate goals in Iraq if the Iraqis don't defeat their insurgents. Even if they do, there is no guarantee that the U.S. will achieve all these goals. On the other hand, again, it was worth a try. Plus, just by trying the U.S. has shaken up the Middle East. Libya has backed down from its aggressiveness of the past, and there actually has been talk of democracy throughout the region. What a miracle it would be should democracy take root there. Then the world would actually have a chance for some real peace.

Guerilla Warfare and the Ballot Box

Unfortunately, the war has served another purpose, by demonstrating once again to the world that the best way to defeat America is by guerilla warfare and the ballot box. The West does not yet fight effectively against guerilla fighters. Plus, the U.S. has a hard time motivating its people for sustained war efforts.

Achieving These Goals

The West needs to learn to fight guerilla wars more effectively. The U.S. needs to inspire its people in their just war efforts by involving them more in the sacrifice, as they did in WWII. Plus, it would help if the U.S. government tell its people all of their goals for the war, and dispel the false rumors of hidden agendas.

Rock

(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)

Subscribe to my feed
                                          

Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site! Wanna swap links? It’ll help us both. Truth—The No Spin Politically Incorrect Zone

Join Rock's Political Blog Ring. Both Liberals and Conservatives are Welcome. (see left side bar)

click to hide most of this post

How the World, and Liberals, View America

Be Nice and They Will Like You

One of the liberal theories on how the United States should behave in the world is that we ought to be nice to the rest of the world, and then the world will like us more and treat us better.

The first assumption is that we aren't already being nice. The second assumption is that the world operates on this level. If you are nice to a country, that country will like you and treat you well.

I would argue that there has never been a country in the history of the world who is nicer to other countries than the U.S. is. From helping save the world in WWI and WWII to the Marshall Plan, to disaster relief, to money for charity, America leads the way.

There have been times in our past when we have meddled in the affairs of other countries, even to the point of trying to sway elections and up to and including assassinations. Those days are over and we live in a different world. It is a mistake to judge previous generations using present-day standards. The world is always evolving and, hopefully, growing more mature.

America at War

Every war we have entered has had a noble cause, from Vietnam to Korea to Iraq. These three wars were less than conclusive in their results. Maybe tactics and strategies were wrong, but the intent always was to help these countries and their people. We were not there to take over their lands. This automatically makes the United States nicer than all of the superpowers in history. Can you imagine Rome not annexing a foe, or Napoleon's France giving money to a conquered Germany, or Hitler setting up an independent Austria?

Evil America

The left has a long laundry list of things the U.S. is doing now to harm the world. The problem with their list, again, is that each point they make relies on conspiracy theories, things that go on behind closed doors, and negative assumptions about intent.

The Iraq War

The truth and the verified facts about Iraq, for example, are;

click to show/hide the rest of the post

1. Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait and the U.S. responded by invading Kuwait and expelling him. The U.S. did not take over Kuwait, but gave the country back to the Kuwaitis and helped put U.N. sanctions on Iraq, complete with weapons inspections for WMD.

2. The U.S. was attacked on 9/11 and responded by invading Afghanistan to remove the Taliban, which was the group directly responsible for the attacks.

3. Bush pledged to defeat the kind of terrorism that led to 9/11.

4. The U.S. was most alarmed by Saddam Hussein's unwillingness to cooperate with weapons inspectors. Plus, Saddam's anti-West rhetoric and ties to terrorist organizations created fear in America because of his proven willingness to use WMD's in the recent past. In addition, there were pleas from inside Iraq that Saddam was a butcher and that removing him would be a humanitarian gesture of immense proportions.

5. After Saddam's further repeated refusals to cooperate with weapons inspectors, the U.S. invaded Iraq and dethroned Saddam Hussein.

6. The U.S. again did not take over the country, but rather has tried to set up a functioning democracy there.

7. This attempt has failed so far, leading to a breakup into Sunni, Shia, and Kurdish factions and much bloodshed.

These are the facts: The U.S. has not taken over the oil fields. It has lost much treasure in fighting the wars on behalf of the Afghan and Iraqi people. A chaos might be brewing in these countries.

Still, the U.S. dethroned tyrants in both countries. It tried to set up functioning democracies in both. It has not taken over either country and does not intend to.

From all this, the left comes to the conclusion that the U.S. is not nice--in fact, that we are evil. I don't get it. Compare us to Rome, Napoleon's France, Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini; or even to any other modern country--we stand out as being good, and nice, and generous. The only way, again, you can differ with this assessment is to ascribe evil motives and believe in conspiracy theories.

So, Does Being Nice Make You Popular?

Evidently not. Why not?

The world isn't fair. It operates much like a corporation. A company cares only about one thing--profit. A company doesn't have a conscience. It doesn't mind who gets hurt or who benefits; it just wants to make money. It wants the reputation of being good, but only if this helps it make money. This is why the left hates business. We'll get into this issue on another post.

What do countries want? Countries are similar to companies. Countries want mostly to survive, and to gain influence, power, and control. In the past, this took the form of imperialism and taking over land and treasure. Annexing land is no longer approved, so most countries now confine their imperialistic urges to gaining influence, power, control, and money.

In short, the world doesn't care if the United States is nice. The world sees the U.S. as the most powerful country in the world, and wants to compete with it; to bring it down to size; even to destroy it. Russia wants to get back its lost power. Europe wants to rise again to world dominance. The radical Muslim world sees the West as sinful, decadent, evil infidels, with the U.S. as the leader.

Karma Will Manifest

There are a thousand and one reasons that point to why the U.S. is one of the nicest countries in the world, but it all makes no difference to some people and countries. As in the liberal world, black is white and white is black. Good is evil and evil is good.

Yet, in reality, it does matter. We are a good country, and it matters with God, with our fellow human beings, and even, eventually, with the world. The truth eventually does get out. Karma eventually does manifest. The guys in the white hats eventually are seen as the good guys.

For now, let us continue doing good things in the world, and speaking the truth to our detractors.

Rock

(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)

Subscribe to my feed
                                          

Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site! Wanna swap links? It’ll help us both. Truth—The No Spin Politically Incorrect Zone

Join Rock's Political Blog Ring. Both Liberals and Conservatives are Welcome. (see left side bar)

click to hide most of this post

San Francisco Values

Charm and Intolerance

I know that the term "San Francisco Values" is being bandied about by both sides, before and after the election. I've had a couple of requests to define what I mean by them, so I'll oblige. First, again, in the interest of disclosure, though I lean right on many issues, there are some issues where I lean left--so San Francisco values are not all negative to me. In fact there are a few of them that I believe in and am willing to promote.

In addition, San Francisco is, I admit, a lovely city and full of its own kind of charm. It has a kaleidoscope of humanity and an aura of goodwill. It does have conservatives in its midst too, although their voices are in the minority.

I'm going to list the "San Francisco Values" that conservatives assume when they use the term, and add my comments. I am aware that these are stereotypes, and some of the notions are wrong. On the other hand, there is more than an ounce of truth in them.

My major gripe against liberals in general, and some San Franciscans in particular, is their intolerance. I see their intolerance rising to the level of fascism. So lets start with this:

The San Francisco Values

1. Intolerance. From grade school to high school to college, there is an intolerance to diverging opinion that amounts to fascism. This is ironic since one of the main premises of San Francisco values is their tolerance. They tolerate gays and blacks and Hispanics and nudity and drugs and so on, but only as long as these gays and blacks and Hispanics are liberal. Conservative values are not allowed, are shunned, and even demonized, along with their spokespersons. Teachers are 95% liberal on all levels, and they aren't shy about expressing their views, and even imposing them on their students. Conservatives are not even allowed to speak at some venues, or pelted with eggs or pies if they do. The same goes for pro-Israelis, military recruiters, or even Christians.

click to show/hide the rest of the post

2. Anti-military. I'm not talking about just anti-Iraq war, I'm talking anti-military. The San Francisco Board of Education just banned ROTC from city high schools. City Supervisors voted not to allow the retired USS IOWA battleship to port in the city. Military recruiting is attacked on college campuses even though San Franciscans "say" they oppose the war but support the troops. In effect, they are telling the military, "We think your missions are evil, but you we support. We want you to be safe, but we won't allow the recruitment you need to shorten your stays in war zones." The people in the military can see through this ruse. San Francisco hates the military, and its personnel.

3. Anti-war. I'm not just talking about anti-Iraq war, I'm talking anti-any war. Every war is opposed in San Francisco. All of their rights to speak freely have been won in just wars, by the blood of young men and women who gave them their freedom. They choose to let others do their fighting for them, and to castigate those who do fight, and those that make the hard decisions to engage in necessary war.

San Francisco gives a welcome to such organizations as A.N.S.W.E.R. (Act Now to Stop War and Racism), with their quoted goal:

End the Occupation – Bring the troops Home NOW!” We support the right of the Iraqi people to self-determination; in solidarity with the Palestinian people and their right to self-determination, including the right to return; to overturn the “USA Patriot” Act, and to end the repression directed at Arab American, South Asian, Muslim and immigrant communities; to call for money for jobs, housing, health care and education, not for war and occupation; and to demand an end to U.S. intervention, occupation and threats against Korea, Colombia, Afghanistan, Cuba, Iran, Zimbabwe, Venezuela, Syria, the Philippines, Haiti and everywhere. Only the people’s movement offers hope that an effective challenge can be mounted to the Bush administration’s war drive.

4. Anti-American. There are a large group of people in San Francisco who think that America is a bad country. To them, America is homophobic, racist, war-mongering, imperialistic, greedy, exploitive, plundering, and even terroristic.

5. Racist. Racism to me means ascribing goodness or badness according to color or race; or affording privilege based on color or race. San Francisco promotes affirmative action to the point that you needn't apply to one of their major universities if you are white, unless you have a near perfect GPA and a volunteer record to rival Mother Teresa. The same goes for city contracts for small businesses. One underlying assumption is that whites are racists, or carry with them the "original sin" of racism from the past. The worst pejorative is to be called a "rich, old white guy." So, add sexism to the list.

6. Pro-Drug. On this issue I am a true conservative. I think the government should stay out of people's lives. I believe in the legalization of marijuana, for example. So I guess I'm with some San Franciscans on this. I'm not really pro-drug, however, in the sense of wanting people to take recreational drugs, as I've seen what they can do to destroy people's lives.

7. Pro-Criminal. Mumia Abu Jamal, the black journalist convicted of killing a police officer, is innocent, according to the whacko left, Hollywood airheads, and many San Franciscoans. Why is he innocent? Because he is African-American, and he has a great sob story. All the evidence points to his guilt, but facts never get in the way of a liberal's religion. Again, racism here is involved. Everyone who commits a murder is innocent, and in fact is framed, as long as the murderer is a minority and the victim is white. They're even more innocent if the victim is a police officer. San Francisco is big on prisoners' rights, but not very concerned with victims' rights. The prisons must be humane, the gangs must be "negotiated with," and mercy must be shown to all offenders. Except, again, if the offender is an old, rich white guy, or the worst, an old rich white businessman.

8. Anti-Business. San Francisco loves taxes and hates capitalism. They prefer socialism and some even admire communism. Castro is a good guy, and business people are bad. There will be no oil-drilling off their coast even as they castigate oil companies for the rising gas prices that occur due to increasing demand for oil. They oppose the World Trade Organization (WTO), the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the World Bank and any economic organization that is connected with "evil" American capitalism.

9. Pro-Palestinian and Anti-Israeli. San Franciscans tolerate Palestinian bombing of Israeli schools and markets, but castigate Israel whenever it responds to a terrorist bombing. Just as they condemn America for responding to 9/11. San Franciscans buy in to the myth that the Palestinians are the underdog in that struggle, ignoring the fact that Israel is surrounded by enemies that want to destroy it, and is isolated in the world by an unjust U.N.

10. Pro-U.N. San Franciscans basically see the U.S. and Israel, and maybe Great Britain, as bad, and the rest of the world as good. They don't care about terrorism and the bombing of babies as long as the victims "deserve it," like the U.S. or Israel. They don't even care much about the victims in Darfur, because the perpetrators there are Muslims, and San Franciscans do not want to offend Islam. Christianity they can offend, but not Islam. San Franciscans don't care about U.N. corruption or oil-for-food scams, because again the perpetrators are the good guys. If the U.S. did it, they'd be screaming.

11. Anti-Christian. Nativity scenes cannot be displayed, but menoras and crescent moons can. Christians cannot congregate on campus but Muslims can.

12. Pro-Environment. Everybody's pro-environment. It's just that San Franciscans might carry it a bit far, with tree-hugging, spotted-owl saving eco-terrorism sometimes.

13. Pro-Gay Marriage. I'm pro-gay rights, and am in favor of civil unions and all the rights a gay couple might want, like hospital visitation of partners, inheritance and so on. I am opposed, however, to gay marriage. I've been called a "racist" for having this view. This is an example, I think, of San Franciscan and liberal tactics of demonizing anyone who disagrees with them. Another instance of intolerance. I don't know how the gay marriage issue will work out in the long run, but at present America has come a long way even since the Matthew Shepherd incident in its tolerance of this kind of diversity.

The Gay Question

In short, again, all these are stereotypes. Yet, they have enough basis in reality that when you hear the phrase "San Francisco values" you know what it means. Yes, to some the term is code for anti-gay. It's not for me. I am aware that San Francisco is a major center for gays. This does not bother me.

I do hope, though, that gays, who are predominantly liberal, will begin to examine some of their values and learn to appreciate conservatism. The Log Cabin Republicans, and other gay Republicans who haven't "come out," are true heroes to me. They resist the fascist pressure to conform that liberals apply in every sphere of life. They know that conservative values are better for society at this time in our history, and stand up against the stereotypes that liberals have fostered about Republicans.

I am told that things are different in the South. If this is still true, then I will join with gays and blacks and Hispanics, and all good people in the South, to rectify this. On the other hand, I know that where I live, in Los Angeles, the only racism I see on a daily basis is against whites.

Why Conservatives Abhor "San Francisco Values"

San Francisco Values, to conservatives, mean a whacky leftist, fascist, anti-American, anti-family, anti-traditional core of values that sees good guys as evil and bad guys as good. It lets others die so they can have the freedom to demonize them for their sacrifice.

Rock


(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)

Subscribe to my feed
                                          

Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site! Wanna swap links? It’ll help us both. Truth—The No Spin Politically Incorrect Zone

click to hide most of this post

God Bless You All

Happy Thanksgiving.

I want to give thanks to you God for giving me life and the chance to make a difference in this world. I thank you my readers for taking your precious time to read my posts. I especially thank you who contribute to the debate by adding your comments.

I am grateful to the blogosphere for giving all of us bloggers the outlet to express ourselves. I thank the bloggers for the investment in time and passion they give to make the world more beautiful, funny, or just.

A special thanks to the troops overseas, as with Sgt Dub in Afghanistan. May you be safe and God bless you for your sacrifice. Bless you too Tyk, my Muslim friend in Lebanon. Our prayers are with you in hoping that peace will one day come to your land.

God bless Muslims, Jews, Christians and Buddhists throughout the world. May you find it in your hearts to help mankind evolve into a more peaceful kind of existence.

God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.

Rock

Saving the World: Michael Richards to Guerilla Warfare

Michael Richards and his Biiiiiig Mouth

Michael, Kramer on Seinfeld, not only used the N word at his recent appearance at the Laugh Factory, he repeated it several times so that we would understand him clearly. I would be inclined to accept his apology on David Letterman, except he had to bring Katrina into it.

click to show/hide the rest of the post

The thing that is galling is that he said such racist things, and then he goes and blurts another racist thing—implying that the reaction to Katrina was based on race. Unacceptable racism followed by politically correct racism. I can only come to one conclusion now. Michael Richards is a racist to the bone.

click to hide most of this post

Pelosi and Ethics

Nancy Pelosi has gone and wanted to do it again. She wants to appoint Alcee Hastings to the Intelligence committee chair.

click to show/hide the rest of the post

This guy was impeached for unethical conduct while he was a judge. So much for Pelosi’s pledge to make this the “most ethical congress in history”—first trying to appoint the unethical John Murtha, and now Hastings.

click to hide most of this post

Moderate Muslims

I have to admit, though I was busy when I heard these, and wasn’t near a recorder or a pen at the times, I’ve begun to notice some moderate Muslims starting to speak out. There are a couple books out there—I’ll bone up on this as soon as I can. Plus, there are some Muslim leaders in the world and in America who are beginning to appear on talk shows. This does my heart good.

click to show/hide the rest of the post

On the other hand, they purport to speak for the majority of Muslims and I wonder about this. I hope they are accurate, but you hear so much about radical Islam in Europe, as in England, and even in the U.S., like in Dearborn, Michigan. I hope the new voices prove me wrong, as might Tyk, one of my commenters, from Lebanon, who also believes the majority of Muslims are like he.

I’d feel more comfortable if I saw as much outrage from the Muslim community about suicide bombings, Osama bin Laden, and the shelling of innocents as I’ve seen about statements by the Pope, or Dutch cartoons. Another issue I have is, why wouldn’t Muslims want Iraq to be free of Saddam and running their own country with a democracy? Why are they so against this? Fine, they want Americans out of a Muslim land—then what? Also, why do they view the Americans as invaders rather than liberators? These things I don’t understand. It just all seems to point to the fact that it remains easy for the majority of Muslims to believe that the West, led by the U.S., is evil.

click to hide most of this post

60% of Iraqi’s Think It’s Okay to Kill Americans

This I heard on one of my radio talks shows (Michael Medved). If this is true, then we may have to oblige them. I realize that “cut and run” might lead to an Iran-dominated area there. What is the alternative, though?

click to show/hide the rest of the post

Regardless of denials, this situation is starting to sound more and more like Vietnam. In both cases, in my present view, the U.S. waged war for honorable reasons; but in both cases, too, we did not get the rabid support we needed in order to help the locals fend off tyranny. We can’t do it alone. The geo-political situation is always a chess match, and we either have to come up with some new moves or live to fight another day.

click to hide most of this post

Towards a New Style of Fighting Guerilla Warfare

I still believe that we need to come up with a new style of fighting our guerilla wars. Our present way of doing it truly reminds me of the British and Americans in the Revolutionary War, and of the Americans in some of the Civil War. In those wars it was usually considered the “honorable thing” to stand up in full sight and fire your weapons at your enemy, also standing up and firing at you.

The first successful guerilla fighters were the Native Americans, who hid behind trees and used camouflage.

click to show/hide the rest of the post

Modern insurgents and guerilla fighters like Al-Queda do not wear uniforms, which is against the Geneva Conventions, and hide among the populace, also forbidden. Whether it is forbidden or not, they do it. The good guys, the U.S. and its allies, abide by all the Geneva Conventions, and are at a disadvantage.

I think that the Geneva Conventions need to be revisited for “asymmetrical warfare” like we have now, fighting people that do not honor the codes. I also think that new tactics and strategies need to be devised so that our soldiers do not keep following our present strategy of winning the conventional part of the war but losing the guerilla part of the it. We can beat anyone in a conventional war, but our model of “standing guard” does not work once we’ve conquered the physical territory.

click to hide most of this post

Muslim Ingratitude

While Bush behaves like a perfect gentleman, he is cast as a living Satan. This man has more patience than Job. The press reports the "facts." The liberals join the radical Islamists in their propaganda. Even Bush supporters seem intimidated by all the negativity. There remain only a few lonely voices standing up for truth.

Anti-Bush protests hit Indonesia - CNN.com: JAKARTA, Indonesia (AP)

Thousands wound through the streets of Indonesia's capital and gathered at mosques Sunday to protest U.S. President George W. Bush's visit to the world's most populous Muslim nation, some chanting "War criminal" and "You are a terrorist!" Bush's arrival Monday comes amid mounting anger over U.S. policy in the Middle East and the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan -- seen by many here as attacks on Muslims.

To the Muslims and Americans that hate America, George W. Bush expelled a terrorist organization in Afghanistan, and a tyrant in Iraq. He did these things to protect America and to help Muslims. The dual purpose was to defeat terrorists who were killing civilians, and to enable Muslims in this area to have freedom under governments and systems they choose. Muslims, and leftists, should thank President Bush and the Americans who died for them in this noble endeavor to bring peace and freedom to the world.

Maligning the Just

To Americans who don't understand why "the world" hates us, and why half of our country seems to join "the world" in this, this is one of those times in history when goodness is rewarded with hatred. Why do human beings do this? I don't know. Why were many of the saints killed or persecuted? I don't know. Why was Copernicus persecuted for saying the earth revolves around the sun? I don't know.

What I do know is that victory has a thousand fathers, but defeat is an orphan. Lies will travel around the world twice before the truth has a chance to put on its pants.

Iraq, Bush, Oil and Muslims

Iraq is perceived as a mess, now even by the military leaders. So, people look for someone to blame. Fine, blame Bush. I join you in saying that it was an ill-conceived war. On the other hand, it was always worth the try, and it was always the right thing to do. The world, and liberals, are so wrong in perpetrating the myths that the war was waged for oil, and that the war is against Muslims.

click to show/hide the rest of the post

The U.S. has not profited from this war. In fact, it has now spent more treasure on it than in Vietnam. If Bush did it for oil, why hasn't he seized the oil fields to pay for the war? It just doesn't make sense to make this accusation.

It is also obvious that this is not a war against Muslims. In fact, it is the opposite. Bush has freed two Muslim countries from tyrants. He wants to create a free Iraq. Why can't he do it? In my opinion, it is because the people of Iraq are not willing to fight for their own lives and freedom. They are grown so used to being subjugated by a strongman, and so filled with sectarian hatreds, that they can't envision anything better. Is this Bush's fault?

The One Product of Radical Islam

The only product that Middle-Eastern radical Muslims create in the world is hatred. Hatred for everything good. Ingratitude for help. With all the wealth in that area there should be a flowering of Islam. Where is it? Tiny Israel is stopping the Middle Eastern Islamic states from becoming great countries? The U.S. is preventing these Islamic nations from flowering? No. These countries teach their children hate and nothing else. They will become great again when they stop demonizing Jews and Americans and start loving their children, and teaching them to be doctors, and artists, and scientists. They've got the wealth. Let them use it for the good of the world instead of for bombing babies.

Speak Out

For good Americans, the people that love this country, it is important that you join together to condemn the misinformation and bullying that we are experiencing. Just simply speak the truth. You don't have to defend Bush for things you think he has blundered, but it is vital that you defend him for his goodwill. He is a good man, and you ought to be proud to say it. Iraq and Afghanistan are noble endeavors, if ill-conceived and unfinished.

Although protest is fair game, we are free also so say how we feel. I feel that these anti-Bush protests shame the protesters more than they shame Bush. Shame on them for their ingratitude. Shame on them for wasting the lives of their people with irrational hatreds and scapegoating.

OJ Book and Show Cancelled!

Sometimes human nature surprises me. All of you people who pressured Fox and Judith Regan to cancel the book and show succeeded, whereas I was one of the morbidly curious. Again, you are better human beings than I, and I salute you for getting this thing quashed. The good guys and girls won one. Thank you all.

Rock

click to hide most of this post

Good and Evil

Targeting Civilians versus Collateral Damage

Propaganda versus Truth

A couple of recent comments serve to highlight the job we good, truthful people have on this earth. We are up against a propaganda machine that is fueled by ignorance and psychological factors beyond our control. Unfortunately it is a real battle between good and evil.

Liberals tend to feel, not think. They cannot distinguish between websites, for example, that are propaganda tools and those that are informative and objective. One sign, for example, that a site is a propaganda machine is that it is one-sided. If you land on a site that is only, for example, anti-Bush, you are on a biased, probably liberal, propaganda smear site. Go ahead and read, but the site is looking for evidence to support its theories. Compare that with this site. Here, you'll find good and bad things said about Bush. This is one sign that the site is seeking truth.

Moral Equivalence

Left-wing sites constantly promote moral equivalence. They propagandize, for example, that collateral damage is the same thing as targeting civilians.

click to show/hide the rest of the post

They cannot understand the difference between flying planes into towers full of innocent people in order to kill those people and a bomb going astray that was targeting a terrorist encampment. It is evil to walk into a market full of shopping housewives with a bomb strapped to your body. It is a necessarily unfortunate part of war, though, that innocent civilians will be killed. Terrorists are aware of leftist sympathy for them, and use this to develop new tactics, such as using human shields to protect themselves.

There is no moral equivalence. Here is the difference. One person dresses in civilian clothes; lobs mortars at civilians; hides among civilians; and tries to get the opposing army to attack them while they are in the midst of civilians. The other person wears a uniform; does not hide; seeks out military targets; and tries to kill the person who is killing civilians. Sometimes this second person unfortunately kills a civilian--the one the terrorist is hiding behind, or near. The first person is evil. The second person is good. Period.

Leftists demonize America and Israel, and excuse Palestinians, Hamas and Hezbollah. Their moral universe is warped.

click to hide most of this post

The Nuclear Conundrum

List of States with Nuclear Weapons

There are currently eight states that have successfully detonated nuclear weapons. Five are considered to be "nuclear weapons states," an internationally recognized status conferred by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). In order of acquisition of nuclear weapons these are: the United States of America, Russia (formerly the Soviet Union), the United Kingdom, France and the People's Republic of China. Since the formulation of the NPT, three non-signatory states of the NPT have conducted nuclear tests: India, Pakistan, and purportedly North Korea. Additionally, Israel is also strongly suspected to have an arsenal of nuclear weapons though it has refused to confirm or deny this, and there have been reports that over 200 nuclear weapons might be in its inventory. This status is not formally recognized by international bodies as none of these four countries are currently signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Iran has been developing uranium enrichment technology and stands accused by the United Nations of doing so for weapons purposes.

History of Nuclear Weapons

The United States was the first country to develop nuclear weapons with the Manhattan Project, from 1942 to 1946, where they won the race for the weapon with Germany and Japan. The United States was the first and remains the only country to have used nuclear weapons, in WWII, on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, on August 6, 1945, and August 9, 1945. The bombs together killed roughly 214,000 people, the majority civilians. Dropping the bombs arguably ended WWII early, preventing the planned invasion of Japan and saving many American and Japanese lives.

MAD

In the Cold War that followed WWII, Russia first developed nuclear weapons in 1949. Eventually, Russia and the United States had so many nuclear weapons that they could destroy each other in any all-out nuclear confrontation. This led to a kind of uneasy peace guaranteed by MAD (mutually assured destruction), the fear that the use of nuclear weapons by any country will also lead to its own destruction, by the sure retaliation of the attacked state.

click to show/hide the rest of the post

Since this time, the rest of the nuclear club has developed its nuclear weapons while avoiding using them again because of MAD. MAD has worked so far because all the countries with nuclear weapons, however illogical they may seem at times, appear to fear being destroyed. Another thing that has kept nuclear weapons from being used is that people all over the globe have come to the conclusion that Hirhoshima and Nagasaki were so horrible that nuclear bombs should never be used again. Plus, the civilized world now believes that targeting innocent civilians in war is no longer acceptable.

The Breakdown of MAD

Despite several attempts at curbing the development and spread of nuclear weapons, there are still enough of them in the world now to destroy the earth several times over. Plus, as was mentioned in the opening paragraph of this post, these kinds of weapons are now in the hands of eight or nine states.

MAD is still working, evidently, but the big fear is that one day soon it will no longer apply. When North Korea and Iran develop their full arsenals of nuclear weapons, these WMD's will be in the hands of rogue states, who have disregarded world opinion and appear unpredictable and even dangerous in their aggressive postures toward their neighbors. Iran, for example, has vowed to destroy Israel, another nuclear state.

Plus, terrorists like Al-Queda have been trying to obtain nuclear weapons for some time now. Unscrupulous characters in Russia, Korea or Iran could sell or give nuclear weapons to the terrorists. The terrorists, as evidenced by the 9/11 attacks on the U.S. World Trade Center Towers, seem unconcerned with killing innocent civilians, and unafraid even of their own destruction. They effectively lost a whole country, Afghanistan, but continue to proliferate underground. MAD does not seem to work with them.

It would take one nuclear bomb to destroy Israel. It would take about eight to effectively cripple the United States. It would take one in the U.S. to effect a catastrophe bigger than Katrina.

Iran and North Korea

Present world tactics to stop Iran and North Korea from developing and stockpiling nuclear weapons are useless. Both countries have every reason to enter the nuclear club, and the world is not united enough to punish them to the point where they will give up their ambitions. Both Iran and North Korea see what happened in Afghanistan and Iraq, and figure that this could not have happened had these countries possessed nuclear weapons. They are correct. Plus, having nuclear weapons gains a country respect and financial reward. Unfortunately, this is the truth.

Solutions

Our present solution to the nuclear problem is to try to keep the number of nuclear weapons in the world stable, or decrease it; and to stop nuclear proliferation, especially into the hands of rogue states. This tactic clearly is breaking down.

If the world bans nuclear weapons entirely, will this help? The problem is that some countries will not go along with this, or will keep nuclear weapons secretly. Then, the countries that gave up their weapons will be at a disadvantage. This will be the worst case for the world. All the good nations will be defenseless and all the bad ones will be able to destroy the good ones.

What is the solution? I am not smart enough to say. There is no country on earth that has been smart enough to say.

The United States continues to tilt at windmills in its quest to keep Iran and Korea out of the nuclear club. I wish us well in this, but I don't see that we will succeed. These two countries will have nuclear weapons.

Plus, MAD will no longer work with the terrorists.

So, we're in an impossible situation.

I suggest we continue to think. We must come up with a solution. We should not give up in trying to keep Iran and North Korea out of the nuclear club, but we also need a vision that goes beyond this. It is not enough for us to pray, since I believe that God has given us this conundrum as a test whether we deserve to survive as a species. The answer to our prayers, I believe, is that God wants us to solve this problem ourselves.

Rock


(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)

Subscribe to my feed
                                          

Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site! Wanna swap links? It’ll help us both. Truth—The No Spin Politically Incorrect Zone

click to hide most of this post

The Problem with Democracy

Benevolent Dictatorships Always Work Better than Democracies

Things were better for some Iraqis when Saddam was in charge. If you were a Sunni, and you kept your nose clean, life was pretty good for you at that time. Now, after those nasty Americans invaded your country you can’t even go out for a cup of coffee without worrying about being blown up.

Dictatorships are always better than democracies at keeping the peace. Hitler could just cremate the “troublemakers” in Germany; Mussolini could hang anyone who didn’t make the trains run on time; Saddam could drop poison gas on trouble-making Kurds.

These dictators were not benevolent. What if you could find a benevolent dictator, like Napoleon Bonaparte maybe? Let’s say, for example sake, that Jesus himself would become your dictator. That would be a pretty good deal. The trains would run on time, and you would be treated humanely and fairly.

One problem with dictatorships, though, is that true benevolent dictators are rare. Maybe King Hussein in Jordan comes close to this ideal. There are other problems too, though. Power corrupts, as they say, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Even the benevolent dictator can be tempted to abuse his power. If King David, for example, wants another man’s wife, he can send that man off to certain death in battle. Another problem is how can you find the next benevolent dictator when this one dies or retires? One further problem is that a single man, or woman, cannot be an expert in all matters. This is why Germany lost WWII. Hitler’s war strategies led to disaster for his country.

click to show/hide the rest of the post

So, the final word on kingdoms and dictatorships is that they can work very well if you have a brilliant saint in charge. If you have less than a brilliant saint in charge, though, these forms of government lead either to human rights abuses or worse, or at least to decision-making that threatens the survival of the nation.

Even in Saddam’s Iraq, even if you were a Sunni, the quality of life was severely crimped by the fact that you always had to fear offending Saddam. No one was safe from his moods or whims. Your wife and children weren’t secure. There was no real protection of the law. That’s no kind of life.

The Problem with Democracy

Democracy is inherently more disorderly than any kingdom or dictatorship. It is always closer to mob rule. The trade-off is freedom.

In a democracy, the rights of citizens are protected, so that, for example, criminals have the right to defend themselves. You can’t torture someone to get a confession. You can’t hang a man because he looks at you funny. You can’t even search a man’s property unless you have a warrant. All in all, it’s a safer environment for criminals. So, there’s more crime, more disorder, more protests in a democracy.

Democracy and War

Democracies have a more difficult time sustaining war efforts than dictatorships. The terrorists, for example, can kill you if you don’t join them in bombing the local hospital. They can pluck your eyes out if you don’t chop off the head of the hostage you just captured. They can throw your children in a ditch and cover them up if you don’t join the street demonstration against the “awful” American devils. Dictators can whip up and sustain a fever war pitch in their populaces by brainwashing their subjects, threatening them, torturing and killing them if they resist.

Democracies go to war following major events, like the bombing of Pearl Harbor or the toppling of the World Trade Center towers. In these instances, they are so incensed by something that their anger can only be assuaged by military effort. Democracies can then maintain their war efforts only as long as the populace believes in the justness of the war. If they see their young men dying, and forget the reasons why, they begin to withdraw their support for the effort, and then can stop the war by the power of their vote or collective opinions.

Dictatorships understand all this. They know that one part of every war with a democracy is to fight the propaganda war too. All you need to do is convince about 60% of the citizens in your enemy’s democracy that the war is not worth it in order to win.

The Value of Democracy

All this, in my opinion, nonetheless lends support to the value of democracy. It is a trade-off. We give up some order in our society in order to have freedom. We give up some staying power in war in order to ensure that our cause in any war is just.

This is why democracies are safer for the world. Democracies rarely can sustain a war effort that proves ineffective or unjust. This is a good thing. It means futile wars end sooner than later, and it discourages adventurism and imperialism.

Lessons for Iraq

It would be great if we could install democracy in Iraq. This would indeed make the world safer. The trade-off, though, is less order there. In the present, it even means chaos. Iraq is in the same place America was during our Civil War, or in the darkest days of our Revolution. It is a place of chaos. This is the price of freedom. This chaos will end if and when the Iraqi people decide to fight, die, and win for freedom.

If democracy takes over in Iraq, things might never be as orderly as they once were when Saddam was in charge. On the other hand, people then will be able to go out for a cup of coffee, and relax while drinking that coffee, without having to worry that their daughter will be raped by a soldier with a whim.

click to hide most of this post

O.J. and Pelosi

These two are not related news stories, except that conservative Republicans like me, and even some other Americans, think both characters are bad for America.

If He Did It

I said before in a previous post that one of my IQ tests for any American is to ask them if they think that OJ is guilty. If they say Yes, then they have at least an average or above average IQ. If they say No, then they are morons—and this includes the racist jury that found him innocent.

click to show/hide the rest of this OJ segment

I’m no longer passionate about the case, except my feelings against any American who persists in ignoring the mountain of evidence against Mr. Simpson. This kind of willful negligence is the real continuing tragedy of the case.

I know the Fox channel is going to broadcast this upcoming event in a few days, where OJ is interviewed by Judith Regan. I’m not as incensed about the show as much as other Americans. I respect anyone’s right to be furious about this show, but I guess I’m too jaded at this point. I feel deeply sorry for the Goldman family that they have to sit through this. Plus, I think that Ms. Regan and Fox should have been careful to ensure that any profits from the show go to the Goldman’s and not to Simpson.

Also, airing of the show will hurt the Simpson children. It can’t help but mess them up further psychologically. Their father has proven by doing the show and book that his murdering of their mother was not a one-time fit of anger, but the mark of a sociopathic or psychopathic heart, mind, and soul.

Still, though I feel all this, I’m going to watch the interview anyway. I have no moral ground on which to stand with this. I will watch for three reasons:

1. morbid curiosity;

2. I want to see how this murderer explains his actions and watch how a psychopath expresses himself about his crime; and

3. I want to see O.J. Simpson “confess,” and watch him struggle and squirm on national TV.

A side benefit of this for me is that I hope this demonstrates to the remaining O.J. supporters what kind of human being they have been defending all these years. I know that every accused person deserves a defense in America, but I’ve always disliked, and have been on the verge of hating, the people that defended him, especially since they went above and beyond by playing the race card in this case, and stood up for him even after the trial was over, when they could have stopped their pretense.

I hold people like attorney Leo Terrell in particular contempt since they defend OJ to this day, and I assume it’s for racial reasons, which I find despicable.

click to hide most of this OJ segment

Nancy Pelosi

I was easy on Ms. Pelosi when she first got elected, but now she has disappointed me already. She seemed like she was going to be a sensible leader by reaching out to the moderates in her party, who are the ones who just won the House for her, but I see I was very wrong on this. She tried to get her radical leftist friends chosen for the important posts, like Congressman John Murtha from Pennsylvania (defeated by Rep. Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland for the position of the new majority leader) and now another, and presently gives every indication that she will indeed be fighting for the San Francisco values that moderates, independents, and conservatives feared.

click to show/hide the rest of this Pelosi segment

So, it looks like San Francisco values will be worth an upcoming post. In the meantime, she has been defeated twice by her own party, and we’ll see if the moderate Democrats continue to beat her.

I still judge that she must have enormous political talent, but I think her gut feelings are overwhelming her political savvy, and she will not be able to withstand her socialist, anti-American sentiments. Which means we are in for a nightmare with her in control. Hold on to your wallets, America, and your values. Look out for your weapons and your status, military, and be afraid America. Without the political acumen and restraint she seemed to have right before the election, she is a danger to everything we hold dear.

click to hide most of this Pelosi segment

Truth and Democracy

Nothing is More Important than Truth in a Democracy

A Good Blog Is:

A good blog of any kind must be simple and unified, even relentless. It must have a central theme and support this theme with every word, picture and even advertisement. This kind of thing you can see in The Daily Kos, Anne Coulter’s site, Michelle Malkin, Rush’s site, any number of successful political blogs and sites.

My site is unified around truth, in politics, news and entertainment. It leans right, but seeks truth from the left and right wing. My blog is unique in that I am eager for all kinds of truth, including philosophical truth, and truth about God and life. This opens my blog up to the great philosophical questions mankind is always asking. I don’t propagandize for a particular viewpoint; rather, I ask my audience to think, hard. I challenge them to become good Republicans, Democrats, citizens of the United States and of the world, and good human beings.

Mixing Messages

Political pundits rarely mix their messages. Rush delivers red-meat right-wing propaganda. Ann Coulter offers cutthroat controversial anti-left attacks, with humor. Michelle Malkin presents well-researched politically incorrect right-wing stuff. Bill Maher performs drive-by anti-right humor and mantras that make leftists feel they are cool, hip and smart.

A couple of pundits are in a category by themselves. William F. Buckley, for example, is one of the fathers of modern conservatism. Instead of talking down to his audience, he maintains a lofty level of language and ideas that challenge people just to understand what he is saying. His message is simple, pure conservatism, but his delivery is highly intellectual. On the left is Buckley’s counterpart, Gore Vidal. Then there is the faux intellectual, Noam Chomsky, who speaks nonsense every time he opens his mouth, but with great flair and elevated vocabulary, so that he sounds like he is smart.

Back down to earth, there are some pundits who get away with mixing their messages. Dennis Prager successfully mixes religion and politics. Michael Medved has created a niche relating popular culture and politics.

I mix philosophy and politics.

click to show/hide the rest of the post

Philosophy and Politics

I think philosophy and politics are a natural duo. Plato, Socrates and Aristotle started it all with such works as The Republic, with the first recorded discussions about the philosophy of democracy and other forms of government. Then, of course, we’ve had all kinds of philosophers who talked about politics, from Adam Smith to John Stuart Mill.

One reason why we don’t do this anymore is that America is relatively settled. It has chosen its political philosophy, which is a democratically representative republic. We’ve got all our political traditions in place, and there is no need for a revolution anymore, unless you listen to the far left rhetoric about the matter—the radical leftists, socialists, anarchists, One-Worlders—the ones who demonstrate against the World Trade Organization and The World Bank and so on. They would love a revolution. Some days I would love one too, a revolution to install common sense back into politics.

I do think, though, that there is a need now to once again start exploring the philosophy of politics. Not because this is a time for a revolution; rather, because the world has gotten so complex, fast changing, and small. Whether we like it or not, we rub up against all the cultures and governmental systems of the world now, with extensive travel, instantaneous communication, and relentless immigration.

Why Philosophy is Important in the Iraq War

Part of the reason, I think, we fail in some of our wars, like Vietnam and Iraq, is that we lack an expert knowledge of the cultures of these lands. You can’t install a Western-style democracy in a land that doesn’t want it or isn’t prepared for it. If your theory is that all people hunger for freedom, this might be true; but it is also true that freedom must be earned; it cannot be imposed. Iraqis must be willing to die for freedom, or they won’t get it. Plus, freedom can have many faces. Freedom in Iraq might look different than freedom in America.

Black and White versus Relative Truth

My blog is an attempt to deal with the complexity of our world through the simplicity of truth. As I will continue to say, some things are black and white, and some things are relative.

America is good. This is truth.

Our soldiers are heroes. Truth.

Republicans are mostly good people. Truth.

Democrats are on the wrong track. Truth.

Islam is on the wrong track. Truth.

George Bush is a good president. Relative.

If you have read this whole post to the end, you are brilliant. Truth. At least, that's my opinion.

Thanks.

click to hide most of this post