Wednesday, December 29, 2004

Themes that I am afraid will be recurring ones ...

... because many among us still don't "get it":

>A truce is worth the character of the man on the other side of the table (Tsion Ben-Judah in the LaHaye/Jenkins novel Armageddon). There are adversaries who have so little respect for us, they will use diplomacy as "war by other means" and turn our good faith against us. With such adversaries, war is inevitable, if we are to protect our freedom. Saddam & Sons *were* one such enemy. Al Quada and other terrorist groups are another.

>911 was not an isolated criminal act -- it was one of many attacks (both before and after 11 September 2001) by a loosely-allied set of adversaries who used lethal force on a mass scale, to further their agendas ... primarily the imposition, by force if necessary, of a religious/political system that does not acknowledge our inalienable rights. Yet there are some who do not see the War on Terror as a real war, simply because our adversary is not a soverign nation ... even though in terms of tactics, objectives, and lethality, the characteristics of this conflict are identical to those of "traditional" wars.

>Weapons and transportation technology have made it an unacceptable risk to wait until the enemy strikes first before we act. While we are still responsible to choose wisely, the wise choice is often preemptive.

>The Leftist refusal to accept the above makes the inevitable war more protracted, more costly ... and more deadly; their reflexive opposition to the decisive use of American force is actually counterproductive to the achievement of their stated aims of peace. We have tried it their way for five decades ... even though there have been conflicts, most were not dealt with decisively ... and the problems persisted.

Winning the War on Terror comes down to one word.


No matter what they throw at us ... we cannot let those who would use lethal force with the intent to deny others' their inalienable rights (and replace those rights with their dominance) get their way.

This is not about "freedom fighters" fighting for their rights ... for our adversaries seek to take away those very rights from others.

This is not about preventing "American imperialism" ... for if we were imperialist, Kuwait, Iraq, (and possibly Saudi Arabia) would have been American territories for over a decade.

This is not about corporate greed ... for greed takes the easy way out (see: UN Oil-For-Food).

This is about protecting our rights in the best way we can ... by the transformation of dysfunctional nations into rights-respecting, representative, limited-government ones, so that no one any longer has the combination of capability and will needed to hijack those nations once again, to further agendas based on the denial of individual rights.

Yes, rights-respecting democracy can, and sometimes must, be imposed on an unwilling people ... for it is a vital component of that "best way". It levels the playing field, giving individuals the ability to override the passions of religion and ethnicity that drive the herd ... or can allow evil "shepherds" to lead it over a cliff ... and guides diverse individuals to the realization that their self-interest resides in the mutual preservation of their freedoms.

If you have a better way to prevent the hijacking than this, bring it on.

Comments: Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?