Plover has a magnificent post over at 3Bulls. Read it, read it all.
Then compare it with this piece of tripe by the self-so-called Socrates at Redstate, via Alicublog.
The erstwhile philosopher attempts to convince us that the purpose of war is "Victory!". How utterly fucking ridiculous. Victory might be the short term objective, but as any third grade student of history can tell you, the purpose of war is POWER. Pure, unadulterated power over the subjugated populace of the defeated and their land and natural resources.
Which is why a good and decent democracy has no business engaging in any war unless attacked. Period.
Which is why we had and have no business in Iraq. They did not attack us. We have no right to attack Iran or Syria. They have not attacked us, nor declared war upon us. Not even Korea.
Do I want Iran or Korea to possess nuclear bombs? Hell, no. Did I want the Soviet Union or China to develop nuclear weaponry? Obviously, no. Have any of these countries attacked us or declared war upon us? No. Which is why we never waged war upon them, save for the deplorable and largely unsuccessful proxy wars of the Cold War. Not even when the Soviet Union threatened us directly with the missiles in Cuba, though we came dangerously close to a mutual confrontation.
Holy mother of crap, can you imagine it if Bush and his neo-con madmen had been at the helm of this country in that time? No, because you wouldn't have ever existed or be long evaporated.
Should we negotiate with these entities on a diplomatic level? Absolutely. Diplomacy is war by other means, as someone, don't remember who, once said. And the diplomacy should be backed by the full power of our military capacity, had we any left. Bush and his ne0-cons have squandered our power by using it up, for true power lies in it's being held in abeyance. Once wielded, it becomes might. We have lost our might, wasted on an unnecessary and unjustifiable war. Therefore, we are a weak puppy, unable to even engage in beneficial diplomacy.
The Romans were no fools. They knew when to draw the line on their empire. They knew when the cost of conquest was not worth the expenditure. That is the lesson of Hadrian's wall. You would think that we would have learned that by now. There is no shame in knowing your limitations.
PS - I, too, cried for the elephants in Plover's post. It's too bad the Dems and Pugs can't switch mascots. The elephant's are dreadfully misappropriated, while stubborn jackasses couldn't be more apt for them rather than the Dems.
Democrat and Independent Thinker..."The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself." -Nietzsche
Commenting on many things, including..."A government more dangerous to our liberty, than is the enemy it claims to protect us from." - Keith Olbermann
Friday, January 12, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Thank you for the kind words about my post.
Also (as I should have said earlier): Welcome to Three Bulls!
They knew when to draw the line on their empire.
In order to draw such a line, we'd first have to admit we were engaged in an imperial war...
The book I quoted in my post by Tom Holland covers the end of the Roman Republic -- the events that lead to the Julius Caesar ascent to power and to the real start of the empire under Augustus. The book came out in 2003 and, though the author is British, it was written with an eye to drawing out the parallels between Rome and modern America. I have found it quite excellent. If it interests you, I have quoted it in other posts also.
That is the lesson of Hadrian's wall.
In the era talked about in Holland's book, another useful lesson is Crassus's military adventure in what is now south-eastern Turkey. A quite distinct case of arrogant overreach while attacking an ill-understood foreign people leading to unmitigated military disaster. Plus, Crassus himself is a figure of Cheneyesque amorality.
Post a Comment