Thursday, November 16, 2006

The Will to Fight

Besides having my computer in the repair shop, I been writing less because others often say it better. Take Thomas Sowell:
Having overwhelming military force on your side, and letting your enemies know you have the guts to use it, is being genuinely antiwar. British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain's appeasement brought on World War II and Ronald Reagan's military buildup ended the Cold War.

The famous Roman peace of ancient times did not come from negotiations, cease-fires or pretty talk. It came from the Roman Empire's crushing defeat and annihilation of Carthage, which served as a warning to anyone else who might have had any bright ideas about messing with Rome.

How can a generation be expected to fight for the survival of a culture or a civilization that has been trashed in its own institutions, taught to tolerate even the intolerance of other cultures brought into its own midst, and conditioned to regard any instinct to fight for its own survival as being a "cowboy"?
Of course, the post-modern anti-American propaganda taught in our universities, during four of the most formative years of our children’s intellectual development, has created a demoralized population that lacks the confidence in our core values and undercuts the certainty that our nation is worthy of support in times of war. It is more felt than thought. But the telltale signs are the absurd condemnations of our lack of perfection in the face of the whitewash of the most savage and barbaric acts of others.

Sowell is one of today’s best writers exposing the double standards and hypocrisy of those who loathe our nation and hate the core values that underwrite our achievements in the face of what is unquestionably worse: socialism, theocracy, oriental despots, self-imposed poverty, and the primitive savagery that still grips many parts of the world.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes, its passed time to "Go Roman" on Islam...The contemporary Carthage...Destroy Islam and you create a "Pax Americana" for a couple of hundred years.

11/16/06, 9:47 AM  
Blogger Rancher said...

We may have lost in Iraq. The death knell sounded the night of November 7th and Iran, Syria, and Iraq all heard it. This is just like Vietnam when we cut their funding and the resulting mess left a legacy that all our future allies remember; America can’t be trusted. We will cut and run. Osama saw this and decided we are a paper tiger that can’t handle anything difficult. Nothing has changed, if anything its gotten worse. Today if we can’t win a war in a few months without casualties we will take our ball and go home. What’s different about Iraq is that the bully will follow us home.

Michael Ledeen points out today at NRO that the Iraqis are looking to mend any fences with Iran and now are afraid to be seen helping America because they know we have already abandoned them with this election. He also points out that until we face the fact that the war in Iraq encompasses Iran and Syria we can not win. The only solution is to take the war to our enemies, especially Iran, but instead what we will do is sit down with the Mullahs and discuss our surrender terms.

11/16/06, 1:25 PM  
Blogger Jason Pappas said...

Yes, Rancher, leaving will be seen as a lack of commitment but to whom? We got what we wanted: the removal of Saddam. The lack of commitment is to the Iraqi people. However, they don’t have the same level of commitment to fighting for their liberty. And they publicly sanction the targeting and killing of American troops. Many Americans don’t believe we need to honor a commitment to people like that.

Our only concern should be the neutralizing threats. Saddam, the Taliban, and Iran are or were threats. We proved ourselves by removing two of those threats. But then we decided to invest in Iraq instead of finishing the job. The only reason to help Iraqis is if they can help us by fighting Sunni jihadi or the Iranian regime. They haven’t proven themselves. We no longer owe them anything. We’ve given them an opportunity to become part of the solution but they’ve failed.

If I understand the situation, the Iraqi military is in shape while the police are corrupt. A military regime might be the right solution as we turn our attention to Iran. This regime will be brutal, no doubt, but they’ll be able to do what we by our training and inclination can’t. Ledeen is right, Iran is the problem. But I don’t think he’s right that liberation is the solution.

11/16/06, 3:56 PM  
Blogger (((Thought Criminal))) said...

I want to kill the enemies of the United States of America. I don't give a fuck if they're Muslim, Democrat, or just a faggot film teacher.

11/16/06, 6:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


The bottom line is our fight begins at home. There is no reason the Marxist peversion of our educational system should continue.

The left wants to bleat about statistical oddities in race. However, they have created exponential over representation of Marxists in University Faculty. If Higher Ed does not back reform then research grants and loans can be eliminated.

There is zero reason that terrorists should be teaching in Universities. The Administration should make an example of Ayers and Dorn and cut all loans to students in their Universities until they are terminated.

However, as the Internet becomes more available the number of Marxist Cranks calling themselves educators will diminish.

11/16/06, 7:42 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

How can you fight when being captured means being tortured to death?

In the present multi-culti environment, the ritual torture to death of captive warriors of other tribes, in honor of the victorious tribal god, is a feature of uncivilised savages which it is politically correct not to mention, especially as Native Americans such as the Iroquois delighted in these abominations.

Mercifully for the captives, death would normally occur within two or three days of continual torture, due to heart failure, dehydration, blood loss or infection.

But consider the fate of a warrior captured by a savage tribe with the same Satanic ritual urge to torture in the name of their ‘god’, but with modern medical support to prolong the life of the victim almost indefinitely.

Such was the fate of William Francis Buckley, a US army officer who was ritually tortured by Muslims in the name of Allah continuously and unremittingly for 444 days before death finally claimed him.

William Buckley must have endured more suffering than any other human being in history, for despite agonising 24/7 torture for more than a year, the best doctors in Iran were on call to give life support to prevent his escape through death.

Buckley was captured in Beirut By Hisbollah on March 16, 1984. and was smuggled to Tehran via Damascus aboard an Iranian plane and taken to the cellars of the Iranian Foreign ministry, where he was tortured without respite or mercy until he died of a sudden heart attack despite best attempts at resuscitation. This abomination was carried out with the full support of the demonocratic Iranian government and the vile Islamic pedophile-worshipping ‘clergy’.

Buckley’s remains were then sent back to Beirut and dumped in an unsuccessful attempt to hide Iranian involvement. However during his torture numerous videos of the kaffir’s suffering and ‘humiliation’ (very important to the Muslim male) had been made and these eventually found their way into Mosques worldwide, where they were (and probably still are) used as propaganda to inspire youthful Jihadists.

Buckley’s appalling fate illustrates the Satanic nature of Islamic tribalism. He wasn’t tortured to extract information. Like the prisoners of the Iroquois, he was tortured to appease a sadistic ‘god’ - Allah, aka Satan.

11/16/06, 8:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dearest Mr. Duck Leftist Said:

You want to kill muslims. Just be up front about it and get a little respect for your honesty but when you try to couch that in these silly aphorisms it weakens your case considerably

I speak only for old Sergeant Ronbo when I say that if killing o a billion Muslims will save the Republic, then I'm all for it -- because, quite frankly, after five years spent in study of Islam after 9/11 -- I see no other viable option in dealing with an ancient Middle Eastern Death Cult other than by massive lethal force and megadeaths .....which means that at the end of the day, the so-called "Islamic Civilization" must rendered to ashes...and the ashes burnt...and salt placed on the ruins...

11/17/06, 5:06 AM  
Blogger Jason Pappas said...

Anonymous is correct about the torture used by the Iroquois. It is instructive to note that Washington fought the Iroquois, whom he viewed as savage, differently than the British, whom he viewed as civilized. With regard to the Iroquois, Washington ordered and supported a scorched-earth policy.

We have to adjust our fighting methods to take into account the nature of the enemy. We’ve been fighting them as if they were civilized; we expected a surrender and embrace of a civilized order. The savagery that prevails shouldn’t be seen as the exception, even thought only a few carry out the dastardly deeds, but as something that dominates these societies where support is widespread and opposition is minimal.

And yes, in war you kill, not liberate the enemy. But for civilized people to kill in war they have to understand not only specific acts that are the reason for the immediate mobilization (casus belli) but the full depth of depravity of the culture and people who allow their nation to fall into savagery. One has to understand that the threat isn’t accidental or out of character but is driven from the very core of an ideology that holds we must be brought into submission or be killed – the ideology of Islam.

This is my major complaint about Bush and his nations-building program. His propaganda about how great they are, how wonderful their beliefs are, and how much potential there is for sharing common values, has undercut his ability to martial our country into fighting the enemy. His “winning their hearts and minds” that nations-building requires is antithetical to properly vilifying the enemy that war requires.

11/17/06, 8:40 AM  
Blogger Allen Weingarten said...

Jason writes "We have to adjust our fighting methods to take into account the nature of the enemy. We’ve been fighting them as if they were civilized; we expected a surrender and embrace of a civilized order. The savagery that prevails shouldn’t be seen as the exception, even though only a few carry out the dastardly deeds, but as something that dominates these societies where support is widespread and opposition is minimal."

As usual, I completely agree with him, along with his recognition that we are misled by describing the supposed vitues of the enemy. Yet it begs the question as to why we, as a society, are so mistaken.

Part of our inability to deal with the enemy is our false picture of man, where we view him as essentially good. Here, some draw upon the Bible, where man is viewed as being created in the image of God. However, the Bible also recognizes man as having the capacity of evil. Other analysts view the goodness of man as stemming from all of us being essentially the same, and we ourselves are of course good.

To offset this, I submit the view that man is a hybrid, comprised of aspirations and passions. Here it is evident that he has the capacity for good or ill, where as with an alcoholic, he can become demonic. Then we can conclude that when man becomes demonic, we cannot love him, but can only counter his depredations.

11/17/06, 11:14 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ronbo, where did you study Islamic history?

Did you use Hodgson as a text or something more recent.

I studied Islam at the "University of 9/11."

Hodgson the philosopher? The guy who confused Kant with Aristotle and assumed room temperature in 1912? I was never that bored.

11/17/06, 1:43 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home