Monday, November 30, 2009

Peace?

There is an old cliche' that says "Let's be reasonable. Do it my way."

There is another similar idea here. "All I want is peace so give in to every one of my demands and we can have peace, after all isn't that what we both want. Only a warmonger would resist me."

That's exactly what I hear when I hear a leftist or Jihadist talk about wanting peace. Their idea of peace is that we give up and let them walk on us. "Who speak peace with their neighbors while evil is in their hearts." (Psalm 28: 3)

We could have had peace in the mid 20th Century. All we had to do is surrender to Hitler. (I know it's beating a dead horse, but I consider Hitler a leftist because he believed in a state-run economy and wealth redistribution.)



Those who want peace at any cost will be a terrible price for it, and then will probably not get it. Those who have a price they are unwilling to pay for peace will ultimately get it at a much lower price.

15 Comments:

Blogger Joe said...

"Those who have a price they are unwilling to pay for peace will ultimately get it at a much lower price." What an absolute jewel of wisdom! Great line!

6:37 PM  
Blogger Tim said...

Hitler was a Fascist right winger. He wanted a state run economy because he wanted the state to run EVERYTHING. That's what totalitanarianism is all about. The redistribution of wealth was from the common man (he was anti trade union) to the wealthy indusrtialists like the Krupp family and the Quants (who were related to Magda Goebbels, wife of his propaganda minister)and his Nazi cronies. He was the polar opposite of a leftist. You can't just say that your definition of something is the ulitmate authority. That would be like the radical left calling Bush Hitler because, well, he's mean like Hitler and he kicks little dogs.

Currently we are at war with only Afghanistan. Iraq has for the most part been pacified. I say let's dust off W's "Mission Accomplished" banner and send those GI's over to Afghanistan, the country that they should gone to in the first place.

Are you advocating revolution in America because you lost the elections? You will get your chance next year to state your case to the voters and regain a majority in Congress. Until then I guess you'll just have to suffer.

And if you are refering to Iran, there's not a hell of a lot we can do to stop them from getting a bomb. Bombing them would wreck the global economy and drive gas to $8 a gallon while not doing anything to stop them from making a bomb. They also could lauch troops into both theatres of operation that we are currently engaged. They have none of the difficulties of long supply lines or lack of volunteers for their army that we contend with. Talk is cheap. If N. Korea can get a bomb, an oil rich country like Iran can (and probably will) and their is not much we can do to stop it. Otherwise Bush would have years ago.

6:38 PM  
Blogger Always On Watch said...

Peace paid for by appeasement doesn't last.

There is a world of difference between compromise and appeasement.

5:43 AM  
Blogger Ducky's here said...

What are you folks worried about?

President Empty Suit is sending another 30,000 troops to Afghanistan to do something. Of course it has nothing to do with al-Qaeda since what's left of al-Qaeda is everyplace else but Afghanistan but so what.

I suspect if you asked the average far right wing tool if they wanted affordable health care or another 30,000 troops standing around in Afghanistan holding their dicks the far right would pick the latter.

5:24 PM  
Blogger Tim said...

Ducky- Although I usually agree with you I disagree on Afghanistan. Al-Qaeda may be in Pakistan for now but they will just slide back in the minute we leave. Plus the Taliban are just as dangerous to us. I do agree with you on health care reform. it will pass. I think that we need a "war tax" for Afghanistan. Then the armchair chickenhawks can finally contribute to final victory. I think Rush should get a 50% surtax on his 40 plus million dollar deal, and don't forget Glenn Beck. Then let's see how fast they start demanding a pullout.

6:36 PM  
Blogger Tim said...

AOW- What "Appeasement" would you be refering to? Who have we capitulated to? The Taliban? Plus, we have given nothing at all to Iran, either.

6:38 PM  
Blogger Ducky's here said...

Well Tim, I would ask this. What do the Afghans say about this occupation (because that's what it is, no?).

We have never asked them except for a small circle of corrupt puppets in Kabul, so how can we really expect any kind of success?

Gorbachev doubled down in Afghanistan when he became premier, Johnson doubled down in Vietnam even though he knew the Southern government was corrupt and unpopular ... and here we go doing it again.

There is no chance of winning here. We are embedded with goat herders who haven't moved out of the 16th century and assume religious homogeneity as a matter of course (and folks like AOW and shoprat think all we need to change that is enough ordnance).

It's a mugs game and all we are going to end up doing is spending several hundred billion tossing the rubble again.

11:56 AM  
Blogger Ducky's here said...

A nation addicted to war is like a person addicted to gambling. They know if they can get one more bankroll they can turn things around and it will be all better.
One more war or a couple of years with this war and we can turn things around and it will be all better.

Can you say Cold Turkey?

11:58 AM  
Blogger Tim said...

You forget the nearly 3,000 people who died in New York and DC. While I agree that Iraq was stupid I have always believed that Afghanistan was more than justified. Bush stupidly wasted years, lives and treasure on Iraq because of a personal vendattea while Afghanistan (and now Pakistan, Ducky. Are you ready for a nuclear armed Taliban?) was ignored. Our best chance to stop the Taliban and Bin Laden is for us to secure the border with Pakistan while the Pakistan Army roots out Al-Queada and the Taliban. We being the "anvil" and Pakistan being the "Hammer". While it is true that trying to secure all of Afghanistan is a fool's game, we can root out the Taliban sanctuaries in Pakistan, round up the last remnants of Al-Queada in both countries, and hopefully put enough pressure on the Afghani Taliban that they will form a coalition govenment with Karzai after renouncing violence and terror. If that's not in the cards we stand down in a year and a half. Just giving up when we have lost less than 1,000 soldiers over 8 years just shows our enemies that we are soft and unable to win anywhere because we are unwilling to take casualities. We lost more men in one day on D-Day than we have lost in both of these wars. We did not start this war (unlike Iraq) and if we leave now we will be vulnerable to further attacks.
I do not like to see our soldiers in harm's ways but there is no alternative that would not put us at further risk of another terrorist attack. I do not subcribe to the notion that there is no just cause to fight a war. Sometimes there is just no other way.

1:18 PM  
Blogger Bloviating Zeppelin said...

Interesting debate. Peace at any price has never, to my knowledge, resulted in actual peace.

BZ

1:58 PM  
Blogger Tim said...

If there is any nation that is addicted to war it must be Afghanistan. They have basically been at war for thirty years. I think we are their best hope to finally put an end to it. Just quiting because we have been there for 8 years (without much in the way of serious engagements until the last 7 months or so)would be wrong. Ducky and I agree that Iraq was totally not worth fighting, but saying Afghanistan is unwinnable would have been like saying we can't beat Japan because they use Kamikazis and don't fight fair like we do. Like WWII, we did not start this war (unlike Iraq), but we need to finish it. WIth a victory.

9:45 PM  
Blogger Tim said...

Also, to use your own analogy, I think it is ridiculous to say that the world's greatest superpower can't beat a bunch of goat herders stuck in the 16th century. There were lots of reasons not to escalate in Viet Nam that are not present here. We have a free hand vis a vis China and Russia and don't have to worry about starting WWIII. We have NATO allies. We even have a partner in Pakistan (because the Taliban stupidly went in there and pissed them off with all the suicide bombings and terrorism). It's our turn to put some major hurt on them now. Enough so that they'll give up and come to the bargaining table. Maybe we need a "Linebacker 2" in their strongholds until they have had enough.

9:54 PM  
Blogger dmarks said...

Hitler was also a Socialist. His regime was typical socialism: an abusive government taking property and rights from the people.

Retaliating against the terrorists in Iraq was also more than justified.

Ducky asked: "Well Tim, I would ask this. What do the Afghans say about this occupation (because that's what it is, no?)."

They said "yes" to occupation when they attacked us, and forced us to invade as a last resort.

There is every chance of winning. I think Tim described the reasons pretty well.

Back to Tim, though, he said: "We did not start this war (unlike Iraq) and if we leave now we will be vulnerable to further attacks."

Iraq started that one too, with numerous significant cease-fire violations which included his launching actual military attacks.

5:38 PM  
Blogger dmarks said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

7:20 PM  
Blogger dmarks said...

Reading more closely, Tim said: "The redistribution of wealth was from the common man (he was anti trade union) to the wealthy indusrtialists like the Krupp family and the Quants (who were related to Magda Goebbels, wife of his propaganda minister)and his Nazi cronies. He was the polar opposite of a leftist"

Except for the specific names, that is exactly what leftists do (right down to being anti-trade union: the far left quickly eliminates independent trade unions when it comes to power). In this aspect, anyway, they are not polar opposites.

There are in reality few substantive differences between the far (left and the far right). Between left-wing fascism and right-wing fascism:

1) The far left justifies its tyranny through the psuedo-science of Marx and related social "scientists", while the far left justifies its tyranny through other psuedo-science, religion, or they don't bother to explain it.

3) Both the far left and far right exterminate people for racial reasons. But the far right talks a lot more about it and the need for it. Even though the socialists have a much worse record for racial "eugenics" and genocide.

4) The far left tends to cause just a little less damage than the far right (compare socialist Cambodia to Franco's Spain).

5) While both far left and far right do the same thing, the far left ideologies excuse it with a veneer of "we are doing it to help the poor". This successfully fools otherwise well-intended people who would not support far-left fascism otherwise. Mao got a long way along in his goal of killing many tens of millions of individuals by saying he was doing it all to help the "workers".

7:23 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home