December 21, 2005


Why Liberals Hate War (via RWN)

The Democrats can see the writing on the wall. They know that if we stick around and maintain our will there is no way we can lose this conflict. We shall prevail! And that idea is terrifying to the Democrats and the rest of the American left. Why? Because it shows that war CAN solve problems. That with our overwhelming technical skill we can invade and secure just about any other country in the world, and not only that, but we can get a democratically elected government in place within just a few years.

War never solved anything? My fat ass it didn’t. In the last four years two wars have liberated two countries, and we are in the process of getting those countries on their way to prosperity and self-sufficience. In terms of the cost of life, especially when you look at the numbers for previous wars, we have suffered quite a low number. While the death of any man or woman is tragic, they should be honored to the fullest for their sacrifice to this nation, and to the people of Iraq.

The Democrats and the left cannot have this. The US has been in the “lose” column for so long now, That’s been one of their main sources of political strength. They must prevent, at all costs, the US from getting to a point where this was can be chalked up as a win. If we get a win then we negate the rallying cry of Vietnam.

The Roots of Anti-Americanism

The Constitution of the United States of America is a greater achievement than the ancient pyramids of Egypt.

Our brilliant forefathers got it right the first time, and it was the very first time, because they were inventing the wheel. The Constitution of the United States serves as the foundation for the world's oldest democracy today. Consider that: This country that Europeans regard as so young and immature is by far the oldest and most stable democracy in the world. Consider France: it followed suit and threw away its kings shortly after we did. Then came the emperor Napoleon. France is on its fifth republic (fifth constitution) today. We got it right the first time.

Now let's put ourselves in Europeans' shoes. How do you think they're going to react? Are they going to acknowledge this brilliance that puts their own stupid and immoral feudal system to shame? I don't think so.

You've Got Male: How about a little fair play in the battle of the sexes?

The clout of female voters has been transmuted into a strangely pervasive inattention to the legitimate needs of boys and men. While there remain grating sources of unfairness to women, the community is in the process of steadily creating a new legal and educational structure that generates new gender unfairness: 90% of the victims of Ritalin and similar drugs prescribed for schoolkids are boys; but even drugged they perform less well than girls. A 2005 study at Yale found nationally that even in prekindergarten boys are nearly five times as likely to be expelled as girls.

What is going on in this country?

Of course those who can do the work should receive the rewards. However, the broader question is: Who defines the work and evaluates it? The drastic occupational and familial situation of especially minority males suggests the urgency of a hard review of this issue. Were females the victims of such apparent sex-based unfairness, the legal paper attacking the matter would cloud the air like flakes of New Hampshire snow. But since it's only males . . .

Posted by Sarah at December 21, 2005 10:37 AM | TrackBack


I believe you are correct that we are making it much harder on boys than ever before. But it has been the lot of boys throughout the ages to have to shoulder that burden. What doesn't kill us, does indeed make us stronger. Boys today are very strong willed individuals. That makes us strive for success at whatever we find ourselves good at. However, it also means we need women much less than we used to, especially for long term relationships.

The thing I fear most for my son is that he will be used and abused by women for most of his life. That he will strive so hard to satisfy her every need and desire, only to inevitably fall short because women today demand more of a man than he can humanly provide. So he will realize he doesn't need her trouble and will go through life alone.

Most of my peers are in this situation. They either live in unhappy marriages with their wives demanding attention constantly to the exclusion of their owns needs, or they have learned they need time for themselves and hobbies they can do alone, and they leave the women who crush them under the burden of constant demands.

Be careful what you wish for ladies. When you no longer need or care for us as we care for and need you, we will have nothing to live for, and we will not be around long.


Posted by: Subsunk at December 23, 2005 08:57 PM

Please avoid running together Democrats, most of whom (like me) opposed the Iraq War but support the use of force in other instances, with the Michael Moore/Green Party/Cindy Sheehan crowd that very likely does have a "war is always wrong" mentality. If there is one historical figure who has influenced my thinking about politics it is John Stuart Mill, and I think that at one time you had up his quote about about an unwillingness to fight for anything being worse than war itself. (That came from an essay on the American Civil War, buyt he way. He was trying to buck up the North.) If there is one more contemporary person whose judgment I most highly regard in military matters it is Colin Powell, who is a reluctant warrior but can hardly be called a pacifist. (How many of the current problems we face in Iraq are due to Rumsfeld's need to prove that he was smarter than Powell and did not need to follow the Powell doctrine of using overwhelming force?)

Most Democrats wholeheartedly suppored the invasion of Afghanistan. HOWARD DEAN supported it. I know it makes it much easier for you to defend the war if you can depict everyone who opposed it as coming from the looney left, but here is your chance to atone for your decision to study French and eschew the intellectually lazy option. :)

Posted by: Pericles at December 24, 2005 02:50 PM


"(How many of the current problems we face in Iraq are due to Rumsfeld's need to prove that he was smarter than Powell and did not need to follow the Powell doctrine of using overwhelming force?)"

Let's ask this another way. How many of the current problems in Iraq are due to the fact that we don't have a military sized to handle a long occupation and fight a war of attrition without Reservists and Guardsmen? Since we began the downsizing in 1991 and accelerated it in 1993 (with 51 percent of the combat arms MOSs in the Reserve and Guard by 1995), I guess the answer would be all of our problems in Iraq are due to not having 2.5 million men in the Army and Marine Corps on active duty. And who's fault is that?

The American people's fault. They have consistently chosen to do things as cheaply as possible. Imagine that. And our military leaders have consistently refused to ask for more than they need to do the bare minimum of our estimated job (they aren't clairvoyant either). So the problems in Iraq are not due to George Bush, Bill Clinton, Donald Rumsfeld, or Jesus Christ. The blame lies with a philosophy that cheaper is better until someone dies. And then, since it takes 3 years to increase the size of the military significantly, it is too late to do anything about it.

You can't predict the future any better than I can. In WWII we made do with what we had. It wasn't perfect. This isn't either. But it's a damn sight better than doing nothing. So unless you, the American public, are willing to take responsibility for not throwing a lot more money at defense, and giving up Social Security and Medicare for Defense, quit blaming people who are only human and are doing their best with what they are given. That includes Colin Powell and Donald Rumsfeld.

If 2160 men dead is too much for America to handle, then quadruple the Defense budget. Quit arguing over whether we have enough F-22 Raptors, submarines, destroyers, carriers, tanks, and UAVs. Buy them all and use them and train in them. Give us enough Men to keep them running 100% and always hit the right target. Since the country can't survive that kind of expenditure, we are doing a great job with what you've given us.

A little history of the sacrifices of the home front in WWII should be reviewed before casting aspersions on how this war is prosecuted. Until you are willing to give up your coffee, gasoline, rubber, tin, scrap metal, and live with significant shortages in most consumer goods, then shutup about how smart someone who is guarding your money, your economy, your security, and your life is doing. You ain't got it all that bad. You still got your life.

Our soldiers are offering theirs so you won't have to be inconvenienced at all. That makes them, not Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, Bill Clinton, or even George W Bush, more important than anyone else in this country. Unless you think their lives are less important than your own job, savings account, favorite charity, or next meal.


Posted by: Subsunk at December 24, 2005 11:36 PM