I remember when Washington D.C.’s handgun ban was challenged in the Supreme Court. I celebrated the Court’s decision not because I wanted to carry a handgun in Washington D.C., but because of the implications for my Second Amendment rights, and for the Second Amendment rights of all Americans. I find it ironic that the nation’s capital, where countless patriots had fought for our rights and given us the freedoms we enjoy, is one of the most extreme examples of gun control in the country. Despite this, the violent crime in DC is one of the highest in the country.
The sad fact is that gun control will work TO AN EXTENT in a small place like Washington DC where there is high concentration of criminal elements. It is also a fact, however, that a complete ban on the private, personal ownership of guns will never eliminate violent gun crime. Anyone who claims otherwise needs to only look at places like the United Kingdom and Australia, in which private gun ownership is almost completely banned. Violent crime remains.
Since gun control legislation happens at both a federal and state level, it affects both areas which are plagued with crime and areas with no crime at all. In my home state of Maryland, for example, it is nonsensical to introduce gun legislation that affects both crime-ridden Baltimore City and northern rural/suburban Baltimore County. The gun control laws may make it moderately difficult for a thug in the city to legally acquire a firearm, but it also makes it difficult for the law-abiding hunter to do the same. Gun control legislation is always defended by claims that it is “for the greater good,” meaning that law-abiding citizens must forfeit their rights in order to reap the benefits of a safer society. This is the most fallacious argument in defense of gun control that I have heard. Any fool can realize that gun control only disarms the law-abiding citizen; if a criminal, actual or aspiring, wants a gun, he will find a way to get one, legally or otherwise. Gun control actually makes it more of a hassle to acquire a firearm than purchasing one illegally on the black market, in most cases. Why would a criminal wait for days of background checks to buy a gun which would be registered with local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies, and then use that gun in a violent crime?
Unfortunately, some criminals do just that. The South Korean maniac who shot more than thirty students at Virginia Tech purchased his guns legally. Of course, he had no intention or chance of surviving his rampage, so the legalities of his actions were irrelevant to him. Gun control wouldn’t have stopped him from massacring his fellow college students; it may have just impeded him. Of course, if Virginia Tech hadn’t had a complete ban of firearms on campus, specifically in regards to legal concealed carry, a brave student could have ended his rampage prematurely with a few well-placed shots.
People lament about the death of our nation’s students, and then support legislation that bans those students’ means to protect themselves. Such logic is so unbelievably flawed that it makes you wonder why these people are even allowed to vote.
Another purpose of the Second Amendment is to ensure the people’s right to rise up against their government if it becomes tyrannical; it is their last defense of freedom and liberty. This is the reason that our founding fathers had in mind when they wrote the Second Amendment into the Constitution. This is often derided by gun control advocates, who call the defenders of such a notion lunatic conspiracy theorists. Of course, those same advocates are actively pursuing legislation that will allow the government to take away the American citizens’ last defense against tyranny and despotism from that same government. Again, this logic boggles the mind; it is only defensible with the most extreme self-delusion and abandonment of good sense.
Many people in this country are actively working to destroy everything that our founding fathers cherished and fought for. The Second Amendment is the very last defense against such people; it is the last utility that patriotic Americans have to defend their freedom, liberty, and way of life, in addition to themselves, their property, and the well-being of their loved ones. Any encroachment on our Second Amendment rights must be challenged ferociously, because any ban or restriction on one type of firearm is a precursor to further gun control. Give gun control legislators an inch, and they’ll take a mile. Where will they draw the line? The answer is that they won’t draw a line; they’ll erase the Second Amendment altogether if given the chance.
As Charlie Daniels once sang: “They want to take my guns away, and that would be just fine; if you take them away from the criminals first, I’d gladly give you mine!” While I don’t think Mr. Daniels would give up his guns in any case, his logic in this lyric is solid. I know that I won’t be giving up my Second Amendment rights, come Hell or high water. Imagine an army of citizens with this resolve! The gun control nuts and the government would certainly have their dirty hands full.
December 19, 2008
December 10, 2008
The Case for the Legalization of Marijuana
My support for the legalization or decriminalization of marijuana perplexes a lot of people. Those who know that I'm conservative see this position as a glaring spot of Liberalism among my usually-spotless collection of conservative political positions. I counter such claims with the argument that the legalization or decriminalization of marijuana is no longer a conservative or Liberal issue, but rather an issue of common sense.
Many conservatives resist any attempt at decriminalizing marijuana because they automatically associate it with delinquency, crime, laziness, and moral corruption. They aren't too far off-base in those associations. I have several colleagues and acquaintances which match this description and who smoke marijuana. However, to claim a causal relationship between such lifestyles and the consumption of marijuana is fallacious. Why, you may ask? Because for every person I could name who smokes marijuana and matches the aforementioned descriptions, I could also name a person I know who smokes marijuana and is intelligent, morally sound, and hard-working. And, as with most groups of people, there is a middle ground into which many people I know fall.
First, the basics. The designation of marijuana as a Schedule One drug (high possibility of abuse with no known acceptable medical use) while alcohol remains 100% legal is confounding, to say the least. For one thing, it is nearly impossible to overdose on marijuana; a person will simply fall asleep before even approaching a lethal intake of marijuana. Deaths from alcohol poisoning, however, are much more common.
Furthermore, all the theories which claim that marijuana use leads to harder drugs, complete lack of motivation, total apathy, social delinquency, etcetera, are fallacious. Marijuana affects every single person in a different way, just as any drug does. A person who consumes marijuana and who then becomes a jobless bum hooked on all sorts of other drugs leads us to believe that marijuana was the cause of his downfall. If marijuana was the cause of his downfall, though, the millions upon millions of other marijuana users in the developed world would also be in his position. Reality clearly demonstrates otherwise. The useless, jobless, pot-smoking bum can blame marijuana all he wants, but it's certain that it was his personality and mental outlook that doomed him, and not a plant.
Marijuana needs to be treated just like any other mind-altering substance, including tobacco and alcohol. Such things must be consumed with personal and social responsibility. The legalization or decriminalization of marijuana does not automatically imply the right to endanger others or one's self while under the influence, just as the legal drinking status of a 21-year-old does not allow him to endanger himself or others while drunk. As with the other mind-altering drugs, there will be those who would abuse the right to consume marijuana. Those people are the outliers, though; it is highly probable that legalization or decriminalization would reduce risky behaviors while consuming marijuana. As gun control measures and the alcohol Prohibition of the 1930's show, prohibition measures, especially on a plant that grows naturally as a weed, are doomed to fail, and foster even more irresponsible behavior than the law was intended to prevent.
The so-called War on Drugs is costing taxpayers billions upon billions of dollars to arrest pot smokers, and yet the availability of the drug (especially here in a school/college setting) is incredible. It is also estimated that the legalization of marijuana would pump an additional $6.7 billion into the United States economy, in addition to freeing up several billion dollars more that would no longer have to be used by law enforcement agencies to track, arrest, and prosecute marijuana users (stats from Harvard economist Jeffrey A. Mirons report, funded by the pro-repeal Criminal Justice Policy Foundation). For those conservatives still looking for a reason to legalize the plant, remember that marijuana trafficking from Mexico into the United States is an incredibly lucrative illicit trade, and that the legalization of marijuana in the United States would effectively kill any demand for Mexican pot. The Mexican drug dealers would lose a huge source of their revenue from such legalization in the US.
In short, the associations of marijuana with social delinquency and the breakdown of moral fiber, as well as other assumed dangers of the consumption of the plant, are largely unfounded. The breakdown of moral fiber comes from a person's lack of moral backbone, not from a plant. Social delinquency comes from the same thing in addition to lack of maturity and/or a poor upbringing. Therefore, conservatives should find no objective fault in the consumption of marijuana.
If anyone has any other questions about marijuana or its use, feel free to get in touch with me.
Many conservatives resist any attempt at decriminalizing marijuana because they automatically associate it with delinquency, crime, laziness, and moral corruption. They aren't too far off-base in those associations. I have several colleagues and acquaintances which match this description and who smoke marijuana. However, to claim a causal relationship between such lifestyles and the consumption of marijuana is fallacious. Why, you may ask? Because for every person I could name who smokes marijuana and matches the aforementioned descriptions, I could also name a person I know who smokes marijuana and is intelligent, morally sound, and hard-working. And, as with most groups of people, there is a middle ground into which many people I know fall.
First, the basics. The designation of marijuana as a Schedule One drug (high possibility of abuse with no known acceptable medical use) while alcohol remains 100% legal is confounding, to say the least. For one thing, it is nearly impossible to overdose on marijuana; a person will simply fall asleep before even approaching a lethal intake of marijuana. Deaths from alcohol poisoning, however, are much more common.
Furthermore, all the theories which claim that marijuana use leads to harder drugs, complete lack of motivation, total apathy, social delinquency, etcetera, are fallacious. Marijuana affects every single person in a different way, just as any drug does. A person who consumes marijuana and who then becomes a jobless bum hooked on all sorts of other drugs leads us to believe that marijuana was the cause of his downfall. If marijuana was the cause of his downfall, though, the millions upon millions of other marijuana users in the developed world would also be in his position. Reality clearly demonstrates otherwise. The useless, jobless, pot-smoking bum can blame marijuana all he wants, but it's certain that it was his personality and mental outlook that doomed him, and not a plant.
Marijuana needs to be treated just like any other mind-altering substance, including tobacco and alcohol. Such things must be consumed with personal and social responsibility. The legalization or decriminalization of marijuana does not automatically imply the right to endanger others or one's self while under the influence, just as the legal drinking status of a 21-year-old does not allow him to endanger himself or others while drunk. As with the other mind-altering drugs, there will be those who would abuse the right to consume marijuana. Those people are the outliers, though; it is highly probable that legalization or decriminalization would reduce risky behaviors while consuming marijuana. As gun control measures and the alcohol Prohibition of the 1930's show, prohibition measures, especially on a plant that grows naturally as a weed, are doomed to fail, and foster even more irresponsible behavior than the law was intended to prevent.
The so-called War on Drugs is costing taxpayers billions upon billions of dollars to arrest pot smokers, and yet the availability of the drug (especially here in a school/college setting) is incredible. It is also estimated that the legalization of marijuana would pump an additional $6.7 billion into the United States economy, in addition to freeing up several billion dollars more that would no longer have to be used by law enforcement agencies to track, arrest, and prosecute marijuana users (stats from Harvard economist Jeffrey A. Mirons report, funded by the pro-repeal Criminal Justice Policy Foundation). For those conservatives still looking for a reason to legalize the plant, remember that marijuana trafficking from Mexico into the United States is an incredibly lucrative illicit trade, and that the legalization of marijuana in the United States would effectively kill any demand for Mexican pot. The Mexican drug dealers would lose a huge source of their revenue from such legalization in the US.
In short, the associations of marijuana with social delinquency and the breakdown of moral fiber, as well as other assumed dangers of the consumption of the plant, are largely unfounded. The breakdown of moral fiber comes from a person's lack of moral backbone, not from a plant. Social delinquency comes from the same thing in addition to lack of maturity and/or a poor upbringing. Therefore, conservatives should find no objective fault in the consumption of marijuana.
If anyone has any other questions about marijuana or its use, feel free to get in touch with me.
December 9, 2008
The Dangers of Social Relativism
Sorry for the delay in posts! College is keeping me mighty busy these days.
I've noticed quite a disturbing trend among some of my fellow college students. While waiting outside one day for my 3:35 class to begin, I overheard a conversation between some students in a different class who were also outside. One of the students, a girl probably a year or two older than I (and possibly a teacher's assistant), was engaging the others in a frank discussion about sexuality and gender. Eavesdropping on others' conversations is not a hobby of mine, but considering this conversation was happening near my usual Monday/Wednesday-between-classes-cigarette-break-spot, I perked up an ear and listened.
The girl began to explain to her small audience about how gender and sexuality are socially constructed, and have very little meaning beyond what "society" gives them. The essence of her claims was that gender roles are something created by the society we live in, and in the same hand, sexuality (be it hetero, bi, or homo) is also socially constructed. According to her argument, the act of coitus has little to nothing to do with procreation, and the commonly-held belief that sex is for procreation is (surprise!) created by society.
I listened with growing alarm at her claims and arguments. Her audience of three attempted to offer timid challenges to her claims, for even their college-level Liberalism was mildly disturbed by such radical claims. Gender, sex, and sexuality aren't real? They're constructed by the society we live in, which we, as Liberals, hate? Oh my!
The conversation ended within ten minutes, and I was left dumbfounded. It was the first time I had heard the social constructivist position given in full on a position. It wasn't my first encounter with social constructivism and social relativism; such viewpoints are rampant on college campuses, where nihilism is an actual sustainable lifestyle. But this was the first time I had listened to a social relativist explain in person their position on an issue, and it sounded like nothing short of insanity.
Had I more time, I would have turned around and immediately engaged in the conversation, even though I knew none of the people in the small group and was not in the class. Alas, I had to go to my next political science class, and duty to studies overrode my desire to destroy terrible claims.
Why is this girl's position so dangerous, you ask? Don't her claims have an instance of truth?
The short answer is that, yes, they do have an instance of truth. We as a society do, both subconsciously and consciously, define what it is to be a man or woman, and what it is to be heterosexual and homosexual.
The longer answer is more complex. The truths of this girl's position are completely overwhelmed and overshadowed by the enormous falsehoods therein and by the borderline-sociopathic attempts at morally justifying such a position.
Firstly, it is clear that biology (specifically genetics) affects human physical and mental characteristics such as race, appearance, gender, and, to a certain degree, sexuality. Social relativists such as the girl I overheard claim that these things are constructed by society, which deems certain variations of these human characteristics to be desirable. Western society, for example, assigns gender roles, defines race and sexuality, and assigns the variations in each category different value judgments. Until recent history, Western society defined heterosexuality as preferable to homosexuality for reasons varying from religious conviction to the assurance of a healthy family unit complete with children, which is necessary if a society is to survive. Men were expected to act a certain way, which included working (supporting the family financially) and being the head of the household. Women were also expected to act a certain way, which included raising the children and maintaining the health of the family.
In the last century, these things began to change. Women began to seek a change to their roles in society, specifically regarding their civil rights and their equality in the occupational world. Western society has shown that no ill effects come from women having equal rights as men; no family (or society) has disintegrated because the woman in the household also has a job, so long as the woman still fulfills her duties as a mother and wife. Men also began to broaden their horizons, albeit not to the extent of the women. Men started choosing to be the one who stays home while the mother works. This also is completely fine, so long as the man in the house fulfills his duties as a father and husband.
People like the girl I overheard, however, seek to change even that. To those people, the very concepts of motherhood and being a wife are socially constructed in order to prop up the paternalistic, chauvinist Western society, just as race is socially constructed to prop up the racist, discriminatory Western society. Such views are common among modern-day Liberals; any success demonstrated by Western society was made at the expense of minorities, and therefore cannot be considered true progress or success. In order to make up for such "oppression" and "discrimination", the social relativist seeks to dismantle and destroy every aspect of Western society that categorizes people, regardless of how tightly they are sewn into everything we as Westerners know and love.
Men should not have to act like men because such assumptions lead to the oppression and ostracism of feminine and/or gay men; the same (but reverse) goes for women. Men and women should be allowed and encouraged to not only adopt the other gender's mannerisms, but also to adopt the other gender's genitalia and other physical characteristics, if they have such desires. Race is based on hardly any physical scientific basis, but is rather constructed by society, and therefore should be ignored from all discussion in order to avoid the oppression or ostracism of the minority races.
Arguments such as these are the basis for the complete destruction of everything upon which our society still precariously stands. The basic, banal truths remain that society IN PART defines these things, but they are defined as such because of the natural manifestation of such things! History has clearly shown that the gender roles, preferred sexualities, and self-identification with regards to race are beneficial to society as a whole. Did Western society become the most successful society on earth by treating these basic traits of humanity as relative and unimportant? Of course not.
This is not to say that discrimination based on these categories is acceptable. No one should be denied opportunities simply on the basis of such categories, although this has happened in the past in Western society. The social relativist, however, seeks to completely destroy these natural foundations of our society in order to make up for such past discrimination and in order to prevent future discrimination. The social relativist is basically a hardcore Liberal whose main goal is to make every single person in the world equal to everyone else, regardless of what they destroy in the process. In order to do this, they must deconstruct everything upon which our society is based in order to make way for the new Utopian society in which race, gender, sexuality, and life choices are all equal, accepted, and successful.
Any sane, rational person must see the folly in such thinking. If the past several millenia have shown anything, it is that humans are inherently not equal, and that any attempt to make them such will only result in the complete self-destruction of a culture and nation (worse-case scenario) or a great averaging of everyone, leading to a bland, cultureless nation of average, adequate people (best-case scenario). In the Liberals' great quest for the Sacred Cows of Diversity and Equality, they will actively destroy one (Diversity) to attempt in vain to gain the other (Equality).
The social relativist opinion held by most Liberals can result in nothing less than failure, and is therefore completely indefensible. I wish I took that girl's class so I could tear her arguments apart limb from rotten limb.
I've noticed quite a disturbing trend among some of my fellow college students. While waiting outside one day for my 3:35 class to begin, I overheard a conversation between some students in a different class who were also outside. One of the students, a girl probably a year or two older than I (and possibly a teacher's assistant), was engaging the others in a frank discussion about sexuality and gender. Eavesdropping on others' conversations is not a hobby of mine, but considering this conversation was happening near my usual Monday/Wednesday-between-classes-cigarette-break-spot, I perked up an ear and listened.
The girl began to explain to her small audience about how gender and sexuality are socially constructed, and have very little meaning beyond what "society" gives them. The essence of her claims was that gender roles are something created by the society we live in, and in the same hand, sexuality (be it hetero, bi, or homo) is also socially constructed. According to her argument, the act of coitus has little to nothing to do with procreation, and the commonly-held belief that sex is for procreation is (surprise!) created by society.
I listened with growing alarm at her claims and arguments. Her audience of three attempted to offer timid challenges to her claims, for even their college-level Liberalism was mildly disturbed by such radical claims. Gender, sex, and sexuality aren't real? They're constructed by the society we live in, which we, as Liberals, hate? Oh my!
The conversation ended within ten minutes, and I was left dumbfounded. It was the first time I had heard the social constructivist position given in full on a position. It wasn't my first encounter with social constructivism and social relativism; such viewpoints are rampant on college campuses, where nihilism is an actual sustainable lifestyle. But this was the first time I had listened to a social relativist explain in person their position on an issue, and it sounded like nothing short of insanity.
Had I more time, I would have turned around and immediately engaged in the conversation, even though I knew none of the people in the small group and was not in the class. Alas, I had to go to my next political science class, and duty to studies overrode my desire to destroy terrible claims.
Why is this girl's position so dangerous, you ask? Don't her claims have an instance of truth?
The short answer is that, yes, they do have an instance of truth. We as a society do, both subconsciously and consciously, define what it is to be a man or woman, and what it is to be heterosexual and homosexual.
The longer answer is more complex. The truths of this girl's position are completely overwhelmed and overshadowed by the enormous falsehoods therein and by the borderline-sociopathic attempts at morally justifying such a position.
Firstly, it is clear that biology (specifically genetics) affects human physical and mental characteristics such as race, appearance, gender, and, to a certain degree, sexuality. Social relativists such as the girl I overheard claim that these things are constructed by society, which deems certain variations of these human characteristics to be desirable. Western society, for example, assigns gender roles, defines race and sexuality, and assigns the variations in each category different value judgments. Until recent history, Western society defined heterosexuality as preferable to homosexuality for reasons varying from religious conviction to the assurance of a healthy family unit complete with children, which is necessary if a society is to survive. Men were expected to act a certain way, which included working (supporting the family financially) and being the head of the household. Women were also expected to act a certain way, which included raising the children and maintaining the health of the family.
In the last century, these things began to change. Women began to seek a change to their roles in society, specifically regarding their civil rights and their equality in the occupational world. Western society has shown that no ill effects come from women having equal rights as men; no family (or society) has disintegrated because the woman in the household also has a job, so long as the woman still fulfills her duties as a mother and wife. Men also began to broaden their horizons, albeit not to the extent of the women. Men started choosing to be the one who stays home while the mother works. This also is completely fine, so long as the man in the house fulfills his duties as a father and husband.
People like the girl I overheard, however, seek to change even that. To those people, the very concepts of motherhood and being a wife are socially constructed in order to prop up the paternalistic, chauvinist Western society, just as race is socially constructed to prop up the racist, discriminatory Western society. Such views are common among modern-day Liberals; any success demonstrated by Western society was made at the expense of minorities, and therefore cannot be considered true progress or success. In order to make up for such "oppression" and "discrimination", the social relativist seeks to dismantle and destroy every aspect of Western society that categorizes people, regardless of how tightly they are sewn into everything we as Westerners know and love.
Men should not have to act like men because such assumptions lead to the oppression and ostracism of feminine and/or gay men; the same (but reverse) goes for women. Men and women should be allowed and encouraged to not only adopt the other gender's mannerisms, but also to adopt the other gender's genitalia and other physical characteristics, if they have such desires. Race is based on hardly any physical scientific basis, but is rather constructed by society, and therefore should be ignored from all discussion in order to avoid the oppression or ostracism of the minority races.
Arguments such as these are the basis for the complete destruction of everything upon which our society still precariously stands. The basic, banal truths remain that society IN PART defines these things, but they are defined as such because of the natural manifestation of such things! History has clearly shown that the gender roles, preferred sexualities, and self-identification with regards to race are beneficial to society as a whole. Did Western society become the most successful society on earth by treating these basic traits of humanity as relative and unimportant? Of course not.
This is not to say that discrimination based on these categories is acceptable. No one should be denied opportunities simply on the basis of such categories, although this has happened in the past in Western society. The social relativist, however, seeks to completely destroy these natural foundations of our society in order to make up for such past discrimination and in order to prevent future discrimination. The social relativist is basically a hardcore Liberal whose main goal is to make every single person in the world equal to everyone else, regardless of what they destroy in the process. In order to do this, they must deconstruct everything upon which our society is based in order to make way for the new Utopian society in which race, gender, sexuality, and life choices are all equal, accepted, and successful.
Any sane, rational person must see the folly in such thinking. If the past several millenia have shown anything, it is that humans are inherently not equal, and that any attempt to make them such will only result in the complete self-destruction of a culture and nation (worse-case scenario) or a great averaging of everyone, leading to a bland, cultureless nation of average, adequate people (best-case scenario). In the Liberals' great quest for the Sacred Cows of Diversity and Equality, they will actively destroy one (Diversity) to attempt in vain to gain the other (Equality).
The social relativist opinion held by most Liberals can result in nothing less than failure, and is therefore completely indefensible. I wish I took that girl's class so I could tear her arguments apart limb from rotten limb.
November 4, 2008
The Obama Circus
Well, I voted today! For Chuck Baldwin, of course. I was juggling back and forth between Baldwin and McCain. "How on earth can you juggle two candidates who differ so much?" you ask.
A simple truth is that every vote for Chuck Baldwin takes away a vote from John McCain. While it does not "give a vote" to Barack Obama, like one person I know claims, it does give Obama a greater chance of winning the state.
I voted for neither major candidate because neither candidate represented my views on the issues. This is how democracy should work, and it's very sad that I even considered voting for one of them merely because one was the "lesser of two evils."
I've heard a quote, though, that more accurately describes it: it's not a vote between the lesser of two evils, but rather a vote for the evil of two lessers. I like that.
I consider myself a rather principled person, and every day I become less ashamed to voice my opinions associated with those principles. I learn more every day about how to argue, debate, and talk to people who disagree with me, especially liberals and leftists. I'll address that more in a future, upcoming post.
But, anyway, after I voted today (which took about 15-20 minutes, by the way), I grabbed a free coffee at Starbucks (which they gave to you if you voted), walked to a popular place on campus, and watched the Obama circus. I thought I hadn't seen as many Obama stickers in my life before today; the sheer volume of Obama litter that I saw today made my head spin. The Obama stickers, pins, posters, flags, doorknob hangers, flyers, patches, hats, shirts, sweatshirts, wristbands, hats, and banners spawned like rabbits, with the core of the circus at this central point on the University of Miami campus. I was wearing my "Ron Paul 2008" T-shirt with a little "I Voted Today!" sticker, graciously supplied to me by Miami-Dade County. I got dirty looks; not just because of my blasphemous shirt, but also because I refused every piece of Obama garbage that was pushed into my face. I stood amongst the throng of Obama sheep, stubborn as an ox, even when one of the Obama-paraphernalia-pushers walked up to me and said to me:
"That Ron Paul shirt is just...like..."
That's all she said. I stared at her for awhile, waiting for the completion of a full sentence that was never to come. I finally broke the moronic silence by saying "Oh yeah? I figured I'd try to balance all this out at least a little bit." She walked away after scoffing. It was priceless.
One of the Sex and the City girls was there supporting Obama (Cynthia something?). While it was cool to see an actual celebrity up close, I stopped short of hugging her and getting a picture with her for fear that she'd put a hit out on me or something for my lack of support for her show, her movie, and/or her presidential candidate of choice. You never know with these well-off elitist Obama worshippers.
After my coffee (and after the circus died down a bit), I returned to my room to buckle down and begin the two weeks of ass-busting that's ahead of me. More posts to come soon, though, especially after the election results are in.
A simple truth is that every vote for Chuck Baldwin takes away a vote from John McCain. While it does not "give a vote" to Barack Obama, like one person I know claims, it does give Obama a greater chance of winning the state.
I voted for neither major candidate because neither candidate represented my views on the issues. This is how democracy should work, and it's very sad that I even considered voting for one of them merely because one was the "lesser of two evils."
I've heard a quote, though, that more accurately describes it: it's not a vote between the lesser of two evils, but rather a vote for the evil of two lessers. I like that.
I consider myself a rather principled person, and every day I become less ashamed to voice my opinions associated with those principles. I learn more every day about how to argue, debate, and talk to people who disagree with me, especially liberals and leftists. I'll address that more in a future, upcoming post.
But, anyway, after I voted today (which took about 15-20 minutes, by the way), I grabbed a free coffee at Starbucks (which they gave to you if you voted), walked to a popular place on campus, and watched the Obama circus. I thought I hadn't seen as many Obama stickers in my life before today; the sheer volume of Obama litter that I saw today made my head spin. The Obama stickers, pins, posters, flags, doorknob hangers, flyers, patches, hats, shirts, sweatshirts, wristbands, hats, and banners spawned like rabbits, with the core of the circus at this central point on the University of Miami campus. I was wearing my "Ron Paul 2008" T-shirt with a little "I Voted Today!" sticker, graciously supplied to me by Miami-Dade County. I got dirty looks; not just because of my blasphemous shirt, but also because I refused every piece of Obama garbage that was pushed into my face. I stood amongst the throng of Obama sheep, stubborn as an ox, even when one of the Obama-paraphernalia-pushers walked up to me and said to me:
"That Ron Paul shirt is just...like..."
That's all she said. I stared at her for awhile, waiting for the completion of a full sentence that was never to come. I finally broke the moronic silence by saying "Oh yeah? I figured I'd try to balance all this out at least a little bit." She walked away after scoffing. It was priceless.
One of the Sex and the City girls was there supporting Obama (Cynthia something?). While it was cool to see an actual celebrity up close, I stopped short of hugging her and getting a picture with her for fear that she'd put a hit out on me or something for my lack of support for her show, her movie, and/or her presidential candidate of choice. You never know with these well-off elitist Obama worshippers.
After my coffee (and after the circus died down a bit), I returned to my room to buckle down and begin the two weeks of ass-busting that's ahead of me. More posts to come soon, though, especially after the election results are in.
October 22, 2008
Who's Voting For Obama? An Eyewitness Report
Here on the University of Miami campus, it's pretty clear on which side of the political bread most people put their butter. One cannot walk twenty feet without seeing an Obama sticker, banner, flag, T-shirt, pin, or sign. This doesn't surprise me, obviously. The utopia of an oasis-like campus in between Miami and Coral Gables easily fosters rampant liberalism. It can be disheartening, though, for a realist conservative.
My mind seems to run at about 10,000 RPM's, when it's working properly. While this sounds desirable, I'd rather it slow down and not run at the red-line point all the time. I guess you can call it ADD or whatever (although I'm hesitant to use that term, since it's so overused these days), but it's difficult to focus my mind on one matter, especially when that one matter revolves around something important that I have to do, like schoolwork. It's less bothersome when I'm doing something mundane, like walking back to my dormitory. So today, as I was walking back to my dorm, I started listing the types of people who I saw supporting Obama. Here's the list, written to the best of my memory.
Nota Bene: Don't think that these categorizations apply to ALL people of these descriptions. If you think that's what I mean, then you need to realize that, no, I don't mean everyone of that group thinks this way or that way. Get a grip.
Black People
Obviously. African-Americans vote, as a bloc, mostly Democrat, but Obama has brought out those blacks that usually don't vote, adding to the percentage. Obama also enjoys the support of some black conservatives or black Republicans, such as Colin Powell. Are blacks voting for Obama because he's (half) black? Yes, that is one undeniable reason. Is it the only reason? No, absolutley not. The fact that he's (half) black just sweetens the pot. He's a chance to get "one of them" into the White House. The messianic comparisons are not so absurd as some people think. A lot of black people really do believe that he will solve all of America's problems. "Change" is not just an alternative to George W. Bush, as Obama supporters say, but in addition, it's a change of race, which excites black people, for obvious reasons. I've yet to witness a black UM student who doesn't support Obama, and if someone finds one for me, I'll give them a nice firm handshake and a pat on the back.
Gay People
Another obvious one. I don't think I need to get too far into this one. Homosexuals feel repressed, and, like most diehard liberals, think that Obama will end this oppression and empower them. Gays believe in Obama's other positions, too, of course, but their main bone of contention is gay marriage.
"Cool" People
Being conservative isn't cool. Don't believe me? Watch MTV, VH1, BET, all those channels, and tell me who pretty much EVERYone supports. Many people I see wearing the shirts or brandishing the pins most likely couldn't have a serious conversation about politics, but hell, Obama seems like a really nice guy, and everyone popular is really into him, and, oh, did you hear?? He's BLACK!! That's so cool! These people make me sick because they'll ruin a nation just to go with the cool crowd. You all fail.
Pansies
What's a pansy, you ask? It's a pretty broad concept, but here, it means physically (and usually mentally) weak people. I'm not talking about physically or mentally handicapped people. I'm talking about the people who really don't seem to eat much, who never seem to make it to the gym (or any sporting event in which they participate), and who wear clothes that enhance this weakness. People who fall into this category are emo kids, goth kids, hipsters, and anyone else who doesn't fit into those categories, but fits the description.
I've always maintained that those who are weak and slow in body are equally weak and slow in mind and morality, so these people are going to vote for Obama because conservative people are such fucking asshole Nazis. Any manifestation of solid principles or moral backbone makes these people suspicious because everything is relative to them: culture, gender, race, society, religion, EVERYthing. When you take a definite stance on any of these things, these people will be quick to jump on you and call you bigoted, even when your stance is completely valid. I have little respect for these people because their beliefs are so indefensible. How can you defend belief in nothing? How can you believe in non-belief? How can you even take a definite stance that everything is relative, or constructed by society, and is therefore not real? Absurd. Completely absurd.
Older Liberals Who Still Think They're Doing The Right Thing
These people are thirty years old or older, and still think the way that the above-mentioned people do, for whatever reason. These people are the hardest to debate with because they're so stubbornly set in their ways due to years of crippling liberalism. Everything that goes wrong is the fault of Republicans and conservatives, even though the liberal politicians they supported in the past clearly initiated the problems (read: The current subprime mortgage/recession crisis). I respect these people for their age, but time spent on the earth doesn't always make you wiser.
Ex-Communist/Socialist Citizens
These people used to live in socialist or communist countries and then immigrated into the United States. Included in this list are the offspring of these immigrants. In contrast to many Cubans who have thrown off the yoke of collectivist leftist oppression in return for the GOP, though, these people still think that socialism and communism are still viable, good solutions for America's problems. They neglect to realize that, if those leftist ideologies were so great, they'd probably still be in their places of origin! Oops!
Well, that wraps up the list. I'm sure you can find your own unique groups of people in your area who are supporting Obama! Let me know, I'm interested to see what you find.
My mind seems to run at about 10,000 RPM's, when it's working properly. While this sounds desirable, I'd rather it slow down and not run at the red-line point all the time. I guess you can call it ADD or whatever (although I'm hesitant to use that term, since it's so overused these days), but it's difficult to focus my mind on one matter, especially when that one matter revolves around something important that I have to do, like schoolwork. It's less bothersome when I'm doing something mundane, like walking back to my dormitory. So today, as I was walking back to my dorm, I started listing the types of people who I saw supporting Obama. Here's the list, written to the best of my memory.
Nota Bene: Don't think that these categorizations apply to ALL people of these descriptions. If you think that's what I mean, then you need to realize that, no, I don't mean everyone of that group thinks this way or that way. Get a grip.
Black People
Obviously. African-Americans vote, as a bloc, mostly Democrat, but Obama has brought out those blacks that usually don't vote, adding to the percentage. Obama also enjoys the support of some black conservatives or black Republicans, such as Colin Powell. Are blacks voting for Obama because he's (half) black? Yes, that is one undeniable reason. Is it the only reason? No, absolutley not. The fact that he's (half) black just sweetens the pot. He's a chance to get "one of them" into the White House. The messianic comparisons are not so absurd as some people think. A lot of black people really do believe that he will solve all of America's problems. "Change" is not just an alternative to George W. Bush, as Obama supporters say, but in addition, it's a change of race, which excites black people, for obvious reasons. I've yet to witness a black UM student who doesn't support Obama, and if someone finds one for me, I'll give them a nice firm handshake and a pat on the back.
Gay People
Another obvious one. I don't think I need to get too far into this one. Homosexuals feel repressed, and, like most diehard liberals, think that Obama will end this oppression and empower them. Gays believe in Obama's other positions, too, of course, but their main bone of contention is gay marriage.
"Cool" People
Being conservative isn't cool. Don't believe me? Watch MTV, VH1, BET, all those channels, and tell me who pretty much EVERYone supports. Many people I see wearing the shirts or brandishing the pins most likely couldn't have a serious conversation about politics, but hell, Obama seems like a really nice guy, and everyone popular is really into him, and, oh, did you hear?? He's BLACK!! That's so cool! These people make me sick because they'll ruin a nation just to go with the cool crowd. You all fail.
Pansies
What's a pansy, you ask? It's a pretty broad concept, but here, it means physically (and usually mentally) weak people. I'm not talking about physically or mentally handicapped people. I'm talking about the people who really don't seem to eat much, who never seem to make it to the gym (or any sporting event in which they participate), and who wear clothes that enhance this weakness. People who fall into this category are emo kids, goth kids, hipsters, and anyone else who doesn't fit into those categories, but fits the description.
I've always maintained that those who are weak and slow in body are equally weak and slow in mind and morality, so these people are going to vote for Obama because conservative people are such fucking asshole Nazis. Any manifestation of solid principles or moral backbone makes these people suspicious because everything is relative to them: culture, gender, race, society, religion, EVERYthing. When you take a definite stance on any of these things, these people will be quick to jump on you and call you bigoted, even when your stance is completely valid. I have little respect for these people because their beliefs are so indefensible. How can you defend belief in nothing? How can you believe in non-belief? How can you even take a definite stance that everything is relative, or constructed by society, and is therefore not real? Absurd. Completely absurd.
Older Liberals Who Still Think They're Doing The Right Thing
These people are thirty years old or older, and still think the way that the above-mentioned people do, for whatever reason. These people are the hardest to debate with because they're so stubbornly set in their ways due to years of crippling liberalism. Everything that goes wrong is the fault of Republicans and conservatives, even though the liberal politicians they supported in the past clearly initiated the problems (read: The current subprime mortgage/recession crisis). I respect these people for their age, but time spent on the earth doesn't always make you wiser.
Ex-Communist/Socialist Citizens
These people used to live in socialist or communist countries and then immigrated into the United States. Included in this list are the offspring of these immigrants. In contrast to many Cubans who have thrown off the yoke of collectivist leftist oppression in return for the GOP, though, these people still think that socialism and communism are still viable, good solutions for America's problems. They neglect to realize that, if those leftist ideologies were so great, they'd probably still be in their places of origin! Oops!
Well, that wraps up the list. I'm sure you can find your own unique groups of people in your area who are supporting Obama! Let me know, I'm interested to see what you find.
October 16, 2008
Understanding the Case for Staying In Iraq
We’ve heard from the neocons that we, meaning the American military, need to maintain a presence in Iraq “until the job is done”. This opinion is often derided by both the political left and constitutionalist conservatives, albeit for different reasons. The leftists use their typical anti-war knee-jerk response to any conflict, alleging that the current administration is involved in the conflict because of reasons varying from the administration’s desire for control over the oil reserves to the advancement of the interests of big businesses to outright racism. Obviously, the constitutionalist conservatives have differing reasons for opposing a continuing American presence in Iraq. These reasons usually involve the lack of constitutionality in the current campaigns in which we're involved.
The current War in Iraq is unique in that it has placed the constitutionalists and the political left on the same side of a major issue, isolating the neoconservatives as essentially the sole supporters of the conflict. This is even more interesting because the constitutionalists usually consider the neoconservatives and the leftists to be different sides of the same coin on most issues. As a traditional conservative myself, I would sooner ally myself politically with a neoconservative before a leftist, so what makes my alleged fellow “conservatives” support this conflict?
One main argument that I hear from neoconservatives is the claim that there will be “chaos” when the US military leaves. This claim always neglects the fact that it was the toppling of Saddam Hussein’s government and the dismantling of the Iraqi Army by US forces that brought about the current state of chaos in the first place. Most neocons will admit that there were no weapons of mass destruction, as claimed by George W. Bush prior to the invasion. Their claim is then based upon the opinion that America has a commitment to uphold, namely the establishment of a secure, safe, and democratic Iraq, since we upended Iraqi society in almost every way.
From a military perspective, this opinion is valid; a military perspective eliminates the feel-good alleged moral obligation that neoconservatives like to cite. Parallels have been made between the current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the Vietnam War. There are many parallels that can be validly drawn, but militarily, the conflicts are very nearly interchangeable: the mighty American military is in conflict with a shapeless entity that does not follow the rules of conventional warfare, thereby causing the American military to have a lot of trouble gaining ground and winning decisive victories. This is because the American military is not fighting an organized army, like in the two World Wars. America is, again, in conflict with guerrillas, insurgents, and terrorists, who are essentially different names for the same type of enemy.
In conventional warfare, two organized armies seek each other out and fight each other with the purpose of either eliminating the opposition or driving them out of key strategic locations until the capitulation of the opponent. In conventional warfare, America is still unmatched. America’s combination of massive potential manpower, cutting-edge technology, and rapid deployment of forces on a global scale essentially assures a victory over any other conventional fighting force.
So why, then, is the American military having such a difficult time adjusting to IED’s (Improvised Explosive Devices), of all things? To put it simply, the American military still needs to improve its counterinsurgency tactics. Guerrilla warfare is nothing new; we as Americans used it in the French and Indian Wars, and in our own Revolutionary War, to some extent. After we established ourselves as the premiere conventional fighting force in the first two World Wars, we started getting involved in conflicts against guerrillas and insurgents. The difficulties fighting against this enemy came to a head in the Vietnam War. We did learn many lessons about this new unconventional style of warfare, though, and General David Petraeus, who wrote his dissertation on those lessons learned, began applying those lessons in Iraq during the so-called surge.
Conflicts which pitted guerrillas against a conventional army have proven this quote: “A guerrilla wins if he does not lose; the occupying force loses if it does not win completely.” At first glance, this quote seems extremely obvious. However, the underlying meaning in that quote explains fully the reason to remain in Iraq.
If the occupying forces in Iraq are withdrawn before the newly-formed Iraqi armed forces are prepared to deal with the insurgency, it will only be a matter of time before the insurgents inflict enough damage to force a capitulation by the Iraqi army and an abdication by the current Iraqi government. The greatest threat to a victory by the occupying force is rarely the insurgency itself; rather, it is the loss of political will that will lead to the withdrawal of the occupying force that usually grants the insurgents victory. Through perseverance and attrition, the occupying force can win the war against the insurgents. When the political leadership of the occupying military and the people back home are detached from the conflict, however, political will is always in danger of slipping away as more soldiers in the occupying force are killed and more resources are used in the conflict. One can observe this very thing happening during the Vietnam War and the current Iraq War.
In hindsight, we can safely say that the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was a mistake. George Bush made a bad call based on faulty intelligence. No matter how much of a mistake it may have been, though, it was indeed a commitment, especially after we completely dismantled Iraq’s government and military. So what, now, do we do? We could pull out all forces as quickly as possible, as advocated by many constitutionalists. It’s highly probable that the Iraqi security forces will be unable to deal with insurgent forces, and the characteristics of the Vietnam War would have been successfully and wholly repeated. In Vietnam, even when we and our allies were within sight of victory, we pulled all support before our South Vietnamese allies were adequately self-sufficient (because the US lost its political will to continue the fight), and they were eventually destroyed. The same could very well happen in Iraq, resulting in another potentially radical Islamic state in the Middle East.
Despite this, though, how many more Americans will we have to sacrifice before we can consider Iraq “secure”? We all have a tough choice to make. If Iraq collapses into a radical Islamic state, then the trillions of dollars and the thousands of American lives lost would be for naught. And, no, “taking out” Saddam Hussein doesn’t level that field. What would have been the point of removing Saddam from power and having him executed if his oppressive, secular regime is replaced by an even more oppressive Islamist one?
There is the undeniable fact that the United States faces no direct attack from any state in the Middle East. The threats to our national security come from groups such as al Qaeda, an organization without borders or uniformed armies. Our options are threefold, as I see it. The first two options could lead to the destruction of al Qaeda; the third option does not.
Option 1: An all-out, no-holds-barred offensive. No punches will be pulled. Wherever a single al Qaeda unit resides, we will decimate them and anyone supporting them, without regard to the sovereignty of the nations in which al Qaeda is operating. It would essentially boil down to an unprecedented assault on the entire Islamic world. Combined with a ruthless crackdown on Islamic populations in Europe and the US, we would strike the hearts of all Islamic people with the fear of God. It would be the ultimate example of preemptive warfare, and with our current nuclear and conventional warfare capabilities, we could do it. The draft would have to be reinstated and the cost could reach the hundreds of trillions. We would probably have to do it alone, too, although a few allies might pop up. However, this option would be the most surefire way to eliminate a very real enemy to the Western world. Our ways of life and cultures will be much more preserved and secured.
Option 2: Continue on our current policy path. Confront Islamic/Muslim states diplomatically when they do something that threatens our interests, attack al Qaeda when they pop up into our sights, and promote pro-Western democracy. This option leaves open the possibility that we will never get out of the region, and the increasing assertiveness of Muslims in Europe could prove a huge problem to these efforts in the long run. This option also does not guarantee that we won’t be attacked by Islamic fundamentalists again.
Option 3: Withdrawal all military assets from the area. Reduce (or even eliminate) military aid to Israel. Basically give the Islamists nothing to complain about, nor anything to fight with us about. Like Option Two, this option does not guarantee that we won’t be attacked by Islamic fundamentalists again, but no more Americans will die in the immediate conflict, and huge sums of American money will be saved in the coming years.
Which option is the right option? Unfortunately, only history will tell us that. Option Three most certainly seems to be in the best interest of Americans. Option One has the potential to eliminate a great threat to the entire Western world, but at a potentially great cost. Option Two is proven by history to be the most sensible path to achieve an acceptable balance of peace and prosperity (specifically for Americans), albeit also with a cost.
It’s all mighty complicated, for sure. It’s very easy to get caught up in the rhetoric of politicians who call for the entire spectrum of options, but every option has positive and negative consequences. An appropriate balance must be found, because getting bogged down in a counterinsurgency war could possibly be eclipsed by us all getting bogged down in indecision and doubt about what to do.
- Alex Lee
The current War in Iraq is unique in that it has placed the constitutionalists and the political left on the same side of a major issue, isolating the neoconservatives as essentially the sole supporters of the conflict. This is even more interesting because the constitutionalists usually consider the neoconservatives and the leftists to be different sides of the same coin on most issues. As a traditional conservative myself, I would sooner ally myself politically with a neoconservative before a leftist, so what makes my alleged fellow “conservatives” support this conflict?
One main argument that I hear from neoconservatives is the claim that there will be “chaos” when the US military leaves. This claim always neglects the fact that it was the toppling of Saddam Hussein’s government and the dismantling of the Iraqi Army by US forces that brought about the current state of chaos in the first place. Most neocons will admit that there were no weapons of mass destruction, as claimed by George W. Bush prior to the invasion. Their claim is then based upon the opinion that America has a commitment to uphold, namely the establishment of a secure, safe, and democratic Iraq, since we upended Iraqi society in almost every way.
From a military perspective, this opinion is valid; a military perspective eliminates the feel-good alleged moral obligation that neoconservatives like to cite. Parallels have been made between the current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the Vietnam War. There are many parallels that can be validly drawn, but militarily, the conflicts are very nearly interchangeable: the mighty American military is in conflict with a shapeless entity that does not follow the rules of conventional warfare, thereby causing the American military to have a lot of trouble gaining ground and winning decisive victories. This is because the American military is not fighting an organized army, like in the two World Wars. America is, again, in conflict with guerrillas, insurgents, and terrorists, who are essentially different names for the same type of enemy.
In conventional warfare, two organized armies seek each other out and fight each other with the purpose of either eliminating the opposition or driving them out of key strategic locations until the capitulation of the opponent. In conventional warfare, America is still unmatched. America’s combination of massive potential manpower, cutting-edge technology, and rapid deployment of forces on a global scale essentially assures a victory over any other conventional fighting force.
So why, then, is the American military having such a difficult time adjusting to IED’s (Improvised Explosive Devices), of all things? To put it simply, the American military still needs to improve its counterinsurgency tactics. Guerrilla warfare is nothing new; we as Americans used it in the French and Indian Wars, and in our own Revolutionary War, to some extent. After we established ourselves as the premiere conventional fighting force in the first two World Wars, we started getting involved in conflicts against guerrillas and insurgents. The difficulties fighting against this enemy came to a head in the Vietnam War. We did learn many lessons about this new unconventional style of warfare, though, and General David Petraeus, who wrote his dissertation on those lessons learned, began applying those lessons in Iraq during the so-called surge.
Conflicts which pitted guerrillas against a conventional army have proven this quote: “A guerrilla wins if he does not lose; the occupying force loses if it does not win completely.” At first glance, this quote seems extremely obvious. However, the underlying meaning in that quote explains fully the reason to remain in Iraq.
If the occupying forces in Iraq are withdrawn before the newly-formed Iraqi armed forces are prepared to deal with the insurgency, it will only be a matter of time before the insurgents inflict enough damage to force a capitulation by the Iraqi army and an abdication by the current Iraqi government. The greatest threat to a victory by the occupying force is rarely the insurgency itself; rather, it is the loss of political will that will lead to the withdrawal of the occupying force that usually grants the insurgents victory. Through perseverance and attrition, the occupying force can win the war against the insurgents. When the political leadership of the occupying military and the people back home are detached from the conflict, however, political will is always in danger of slipping away as more soldiers in the occupying force are killed and more resources are used in the conflict. One can observe this very thing happening during the Vietnam War and the current Iraq War.
In hindsight, we can safely say that the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was a mistake. George Bush made a bad call based on faulty intelligence. No matter how much of a mistake it may have been, though, it was indeed a commitment, especially after we completely dismantled Iraq’s government and military. So what, now, do we do? We could pull out all forces as quickly as possible, as advocated by many constitutionalists. It’s highly probable that the Iraqi security forces will be unable to deal with insurgent forces, and the characteristics of the Vietnam War would have been successfully and wholly repeated. In Vietnam, even when we and our allies were within sight of victory, we pulled all support before our South Vietnamese allies were adequately self-sufficient (because the US lost its political will to continue the fight), and they were eventually destroyed. The same could very well happen in Iraq, resulting in another potentially radical Islamic state in the Middle East.
Despite this, though, how many more Americans will we have to sacrifice before we can consider Iraq “secure”? We all have a tough choice to make. If Iraq collapses into a radical Islamic state, then the trillions of dollars and the thousands of American lives lost would be for naught. And, no, “taking out” Saddam Hussein doesn’t level that field. What would have been the point of removing Saddam from power and having him executed if his oppressive, secular regime is replaced by an even more oppressive Islamist one?
There is the undeniable fact that the United States faces no direct attack from any state in the Middle East. The threats to our national security come from groups such as al Qaeda, an organization without borders or uniformed armies. Our options are threefold, as I see it. The first two options could lead to the destruction of al Qaeda; the third option does not.
Option 1: An all-out, no-holds-barred offensive. No punches will be pulled. Wherever a single al Qaeda unit resides, we will decimate them and anyone supporting them, without regard to the sovereignty of the nations in which al Qaeda is operating. It would essentially boil down to an unprecedented assault on the entire Islamic world. Combined with a ruthless crackdown on Islamic populations in Europe and the US, we would strike the hearts of all Islamic people with the fear of God. It would be the ultimate example of preemptive warfare, and with our current nuclear and conventional warfare capabilities, we could do it. The draft would have to be reinstated and the cost could reach the hundreds of trillions. We would probably have to do it alone, too, although a few allies might pop up. However, this option would be the most surefire way to eliminate a very real enemy to the Western world. Our ways of life and cultures will be much more preserved and secured.
Option 2: Continue on our current policy path. Confront Islamic/Muslim states diplomatically when they do something that threatens our interests, attack al Qaeda when they pop up into our sights, and promote pro-Western democracy. This option leaves open the possibility that we will never get out of the region, and the increasing assertiveness of Muslims in Europe could prove a huge problem to these efforts in the long run. This option also does not guarantee that we won’t be attacked by Islamic fundamentalists again.
Option 3: Withdrawal all military assets from the area. Reduce (or even eliminate) military aid to Israel. Basically give the Islamists nothing to complain about, nor anything to fight with us about. Like Option Two, this option does not guarantee that we won’t be attacked by Islamic fundamentalists again, but no more Americans will die in the immediate conflict, and huge sums of American money will be saved in the coming years.
Which option is the right option? Unfortunately, only history will tell us that. Option Three most certainly seems to be in the best interest of Americans. Option One has the potential to eliminate a great threat to the entire Western world, but at a potentially great cost. Option Two is proven by history to be the most sensible path to achieve an acceptable balance of peace and prosperity (specifically for Americans), albeit also with a cost.
It’s all mighty complicated, for sure. It’s very easy to get caught up in the rhetoric of politicians who call for the entire spectrum of options, but every option has positive and negative consequences. An appropriate balance must be found, because getting bogged down in a counterinsurgency war could possibly be eclipsed by us all getting bogged down in indecision and doubt about what to do.
- Alex Lee
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
