Sunday, August 28, 2005

Opinion - The Constitution

Our first constitution failed. It was replaced just 6 years later.

Of the 73 delegates named to the Constitutional Convention, only 39 signed the Constitution...53%.

Less than 100 years later, civil war broke out..

From the Federalist Papers, #2:

With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people--a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.

This country and this people seem to have been made for each other, and it appears as if it was the design of Providence, that an inheritance so proper and convenient for a band of brethren, united to each other by the strongest ties, should never be split into a number of unsocial, jealous, and alien sovereignties.

If it takes Iraq 15 years to reach some point of stability, they shall have done so faster than we did...and if perchance they do choose a different path, let us know that we have acted nobly to 'establish general liberty and independence'.

Position - Noble Cause

The PS crowd (you know, Patti Sheehan's band of anti-war/anti-Americans) has asked this question (reiterated on Fox News Sunday by a mother of a soldier killed in Iraq):

What is the noble cause our children are dying for?

Ma'am: For the removal of an oppressive dictator and his regime, one that invaded two neighbors, killed hundreds of thousands of it's own people, so that his nation of 26 million could have the freedom to vote to give themselves democracy and liberties unavailable to almost anyone else in the region, yes, even if that choice is to have a theocracy.

But the PS crowd will not accept my answer. They do not believe our soldiers should die to give others freedom. They do not believe we have any RIGHT or OBLIGATION to impose OUR way of life - democracy and freedom - on other cultures. They do not believe our way of life is better than the Iraqis under Saddam, or the people of Afghanistan are better off out from under the Taliban. As a matter of fact, they think our way of life is VERY MUCH WORSE than that.

The PS crowd does not accept that there is any answer to their question that is satisfactory. Either we did it for oil, for greed, for imperialism, for revenge, or for religious reasons, but no matter the reason, it is not worthy of dying for.

Another point raised by the mother on Fox and the PS crowd is the moral of our troops. They don't think their questioning the deployment of troops is in any way demoralizing the troops. They think they are supporting the least they say they are.

Here is a suggestion. If you believe questioning the purpose of our deployment in Iraq is not demoralizing - find a soldier on R&R from Iraq and ask them face to face if we are doing the right thing. Make sure to point out that you believe Iraqis were better off under Saddam....

I have thanked soldiers for their service several times over the last 3 years...have you?

Thursday, August 25, 2005


I just added my "blog roll". From the 40 or so that I have bookmarked and check in with regularly, this is a list of blogs that I follow just about daily. If you have to select only one to read, I would choose Michael Yon from Iraq.

Every blog has its style. I do not like the aggregators like Daily Kos and others...if I want a quick splash of the daily news, I will catch the news on the hour. I want commentary...opinions on events. My list includes a very geographically and politically diverse group...except in the Iraq....that is direct reporting from the scene.


Thursday, August 18, 2005

Opinion - The Future

Three items conspired to push this issue: the powers that be pushing on China to revalue the yuan; Cindy Sheehan; and Ohio's Governor Taft. Now, you might wonder what these three items may have in common? Political expediency.

First. When countries depend on the dollar for their economic wellbeing, they have a tendency to be more...pliable...when it comes American desires. Forcing the Chinese to revalue the yuan has pushed China away from a more involved position with regard to the US. The WSJ expounded upon this today and gave substance to my concern that our "insistence" that China revalue it's currency to make our trade deficit look better was extremely SHORTSIGHTED.

Second. Cindy Sheehan and the anti-war left continue to call for a withdrawal of troops from Iraq. Mrs Sheehan (soon to be divorced from a husband that apparently disagrees with her as does much of her family) dishonors her son's sacrifice by using his death to drumbeat for withdrawal. Her son volunteered - after combat had started - to continue to serve in his country's military. Her dishonesty might be forgiven because of her grief, however, her apparent desire to engage with the anti-war left seems calculated. Both the anti-war movement and Mrs Sheehan are politically motivated and extremely SHORTSIGHTED.

Third. Ohio Governor Taft has been charged with taking gifts...frankly, it is a wonder that EVERY politician is not similarly charged...however, there is no doubt he will remain in office. Politicians of virtually every stripe and of every political party take "gifts". In polite circles it is called lobbying. Among most Americans, we call it graft. In the Bush administration (someone can correct me if I am wrong) we have seen very little of it compared to previous (R or D) administrations. But the bar was lowered considerably by a certain NJ governor that refused to resign after considerable ethical violations in order to retain political control. The fact that average America seems willing to give these guys a pass is...extremely SHORTSIGHTED.

It seems we have learned a lesson in the last 20 years or so...never consider for tomorrow what you can benefit from today....and extremely SHORTSIGHTED.

Sunday, August 07, 2005

Opinion - Pacificism

Those that proclaim their pacificism and declare those that do not share it warmongers, militarist, murderers...are of the same ilk as isolationists and anti-immigrants...we have ours, you can't have yours.

Suicide bombers are given a pass...they have no other means to deliver their bombs...unfortunately they have other targets but choose innocents instead. They are true murderers whatever excuse some may have for supporting them.

The claim that war is indiscriminate and more innocents get killed than combatants ignores several millennium of human war. The fact that more civilians have died in the last 100 years than combatants doesn't change, in fact adds to, the need for war.

I have dealt with pacificists for the last 20 years of my adult life. I served in the military out of a sense of moral obligation in addition to the benefits it conferred upon me. When I served, 1977 to 1981, military service in this country was very much out of favor. When I finished and attended college 5 years later, I found many people willing to enjoy the benefits that war had brought them, but unwilling to support the concept that it might be necessary again some day. That day did not long delay in coming.

The pacificist seeks to claim a high moral ground. Unfortunately, that high ground is defended by us warmongers, us militarists.... Once I asked, if someone were to attack you with a knife, would you not defend yourself? NO. If someone were to attack your wife with a knife, would you not defend her? NO. If someone were to attack your child with a knife, would you not defend it? NO. Coward. COWARD. You do not stand on any moral high justify your cowardice as honoring life, yet you would stand by and watch it destroyed.

That is the problem with pacificism....your position encourages more death, more destruction. If a murderer knows you will stand by and allow them to kill, they can ignore you and focus on their destruction. Do you think they will stop, and seeing your stance, realize their folly? No. They will kill and then laugh as they wipe the blood of your loved ones in your clothing and walk away.

The soldier is always blamed by the coward for his lack of perfection in killing. The soldier can not defend himself from the charge of killer. He/She knows they are killers. They must live with that all their days.

The coward, the pacificist, can praise his position as morally superior, but it is repugnant. Cowards...

Pacificists, like those that excuse the suicide bomber, do not prevent war, they encourage it...and the sooner we warmongers, we militarists, acknowledge that we kill, the sooner we can stand and blame war on those most encouraging war...the pacificists...


see my posts in religious agnostic for comments on intelligent design

Monday, August 01, 2005

Opinion - August Rant #1