Tuesday, March 15, 2005

Pushing the Left's Buttons (Part III)

Right Now I am writing a major paper for my Western Civilization 002 class which is due tomorrow morning at around nine am, so I am going to try and make this post as quickly as possible. I just wanted to take the time and catch you up on what is going with the blog site.

Collapsing a four-page response to Patrick Whitty's response to my response editorial (huh?) was harder then I thought it would be but I was able to cobble something together this morning after I failed to wake up in time to go to my 9:35am Theology class (I know, poor baby), but that is what you get when you have been staying up past 2am every day for the past week (Midterms, essays, etc.) - that's life though. Anyway, I will post that here either tomorrow or some time later in the week. Over Spring/Easter Break, I will take the time to respond to other liberal editorials aimed at yours truly (the count is now up to three - am I good or what?!) including my reason as to why it was not offense for me to have called the UN "scum". I am really looking forward to writing that one up!

Also, the editor for The Marquette Tribune has reserved an editorial spot for me on the March 31st, 2005, edition of the school newspaper. Though I had planned on using my response to Patrick Whitty's article, I was not quite as happy with as I originally thought and decided to go with the response to Miss Hamden's article on Isralie/Palestinian crisis instead, which, from my standpoint, sounded more poignant and less of feeling that I had to defend myself with a response to a response to my editorial (got that).

He then goes on to suggest that the push for freedom in Iraq only came about as a result of the “absence of WMDs materializing” in the country, which is laughably ignorant for several reasons. First off, the invasion of Iraq, let alone any military operation for that matter, is not solely bent on one reason alone. We took military actions against Iraq for three main reasons – Hussein’s WMD programs, the obvious connection to terrorism, and the oppression of the Iraqi people. Secondly, if this was the sole reason for invading Iraq, what is the problem with that? Every single reason given as to why we invaded Iraq, whether each on their own or grouped together, is justification enough for the United States to have taken action against Iraq. And lastly, if the reasons for military intervention against Iraq did change as you claimed, again, so what? For example, the original goal of the North during the Civil War was to preserve the Union but by the end of it, the goal of the war had evolved into a fight to abolish slavery from the United States. The freeing of the Iraqi people from the brutal grip of Saddam Hussein’s tyrannical regime is justification enough for our military intervention and the childish bickering from your side of the political spectrum should simply live with this fact.

One point of contention that I will criticize the current administration on was its underestimation of the Syrian regime in collaborating with the Iraqi regime, both in harboring Saddam loyalists and in hiding his cache of weapons of mass destruction, which were moved into the country during the mindless diplomacy efforts concerning the United Nations. This is why I lay blame for the deaths of our soldiers in combat following Bush’s declaration of the end of major military offensives in the country squarely on the shoulders of the United Nations, specifically France, Germany, China, and Russian, all of which were given underhanded oil bribes from Saddam himself to oppose US military intervention. Thanks to this five-month delay for the purpose of achieving UN approval, which the left whined we needed to have, this allotted Hussein and his followers enough time not only to hide the weapons of mass destruction but also to coordinate the insurgency campaign following the US occupation of Iraq as well. As Jed Babbin points out in his insightful book concerning the United Nations entitled “Inside the Asylum”, it was “Sun Tzu [who] wrote that surprise and deception are two key principles of strategy” in war, principles lost due to five months of vagrant pleading with nations that failed to budge. If the UN resolution was so desired by the left in properly giving justification for invading a particular country, why was the United States allowed to invade Afghanistan in October 2001 with so little much as a peep? Why were the French allowed to military intervene in the Ivory Coast without objection? Was this due in fact because they are the French? In the minds of the left, perhaps, but this doesn’t make it right or just.

But Patrick’s more naïve, border-line insensible, statements came about when he stated, “The quickest way to fill terrorist camps around the world is to exercise American military might with all but a handful of countries supporting our endeavor”. What is with you and your fellow treasonists believing that killing or destroying members of a particular evil organization automatically creates more of them? Did going after the Nazis create more Nazis? Did combating Communism create more Communists? Did attacking Klu Klux Klan members create more KKK organizations? No, this becomes the result only when the United States fails to take action, as was the case during the reign of Slick Willy, and Islamic children are allowed to be born into an environment where the belief that violent acts committed against innocent people can be conducted without fear of retribution or punishment.

And you want to know the funny thing about the left’s concept of equality amongst the nations of the world? They are full of it, which of itself is merely clarifying the obvious, but I digress. The left only believes in the concept of equality between nations, people as well, when it serves their interests, and smaller nations contributing to the war go against those desires, so they must be humiliated through public vitriol. Here is a complete of the slender list of twenty-nine countries that have made contributions, in some form or another, to the Iraq War effort – Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Rep, El Salvador, Estonia, Georgia, Honduras, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, United Kingdom, and Ukraine. But until the day France and Germany make contributions to the Iraq War effort, which will also be the day in which California … I mean, Hell freezes over, this will be nothing to the left then the ‘Coalition of the Bribed’, which begs question as what that would you designate those who opposed the war and accepted oil gratuities from Saddam as? The Axis of Turpitude?

And finally, one of the last statements he made that I felt compelled to respond to was where he cried, and I could imagine him balling his eyes-out in over-the-top display of liberal emotional appeal, even it was genuine, saying, “It has opened up a new battleground in the war on terror, one which is putting our troops at risk every day”. Let’s go back to my original article where I appeared to have answered this quite clearly …

“Let those fanatical Muslims who wish to ‘destroy the infidels’ waste their precious time, money, resources, and energy in combating the ‘occupation’ in Iraq who happen to be more prepared for such events then white-collar workers in office high-rise buildings. In bringing the fight to them they are less likely, though certainly not outside the realm of possibility, to attack us on our own soil"
I hate to play the role of the evil conservative here, but I will give it a shot anyway – so what if our troops are at risk? They volunteered specifically for military service knowing full well that they would be putting their lives on the line in order to serve and protect the interests of the United States of America by advancing the causes freedom and democracy throughout the world. If they did not know this going in then that is just too bad. I have come to the realization that there are Clintonites within the armed services, or in other words those who enlisted under the reign of Bill Clinton or in the hopes of having Gore continue his foreign agenda, who believed they would never be sent into actual combat. Then September 11th happened … suddenly they are against the ‘imperialist’ interests of the United States in the Middle East, not knowing what they are fighting for, more then likely because they never believed in the concepts of freedom and democracy to begin with so why should they know now. The majority of American soldiers on the other hand do grasp the idea of spreading democracy to those who want it through the elimination of tyrannical, oppressive regimes like that of Saddam Hussein, which may be why nearly sixty-five percent of the military personnel who voted in this election wanted to re-elect President George W. Bush, while only thirty-eight percent voted for Kerry.