May God grant that President Obama’s two daughters be the first to be drafted into a combat brigade to fight whatever war a republican starts.
Progressives love war. They see no differences between men and women, and the military is a great place to run social experiments. So when the pink “light” brigade comes up against some battle-weary-hardened enemy who do not share “western progressive” values, don’t be surprised at the shock they’ll express as their daughters suffer the “not-imagined” consequences of war.
There is no need for a draft in a truly free society. If our society were truly free, “people” would volunteer to fight for that freedom because it would be something of value they would not want to lose. Simply because we are not free, progressives want to reserve the right to conscript “women”.
Leftists/progressives never imagine what happens when republicans are the ones starting a war of aggression, using the option leftists have created, drafting their daughters into combat.
So I’ve decided to spend a part of my Thanksgiving morning debunking the blog of David Goetsch (I have connected his name to his website via Amazon) . He thinks that it’s a liberal myth that conservatives are warmongers.
He writes: “For example, one of the favorite myths of liberals is that conservatives are warmongers.”
I don’t consider myself a liberal by today’s standards. I actually consider myself quite “conservative”, but anti-war. By my own conservative standard, I argue conservatives ARE the biggest advocates of war, and have a Wilsonian impulse towards interventionism.
The definition of “warmonger” which will suffice from google:
“A political leader or activist who encourages or advocates aggression or warfare toward other nations or groups.” This definition is very appropriate for those on the right (as well as a some on the left). Who could ever be confused about this?
So Mr. Goetsch, argues ironically, that liberals are simplistic about war.
“There are things Americans can do to help prevent war, but they do not include displaying naïve bumper stickers or putting our trust in the United Nations.”
and the kind of war, liberals are naive about:
“Americans can help prevent war by opening their eyes and admitting what they see: a world filled with people who hate the United States and everything it stands for, people who are determined to bring our country to its knees. People who will gladly blow themselves up if they can kill innocent Americans in the process will not be deterred by bumper stickers or the impotent involvement of the United Nations.
So Mr. Goetsch argues for that which will prevent people blowing themselves up and bringing our country to its knees:
“….there is only one way to effectively prevent wars. That way is to field the best-trained, best-funded, best equipped, best-supported military in the world. To prevent war—whether conventional, terrorist, or nuclear—America must have a military that can quickly and effectively make the cost of attacking the United States too high to even contemplate.”
So this is logic from the warmongering right like David Goetsch. We don’t spend enough on the military and by spending more, it will prevent people from around the world from “gladly blowing themselves up taking innocent Americans along with them” because the cost of doing so will be too high.
Here are some basic facts for the warmonger David Goetsch. The US outspends its nearest competitor, China, by almost 3x. The Saudis are #3, on the list, and we outspend them by about 7x. Another potential enemy, Russia, has 1/9th the military budget. Iran is not even on the list.
Spending 100x any nation will not do anything from preventing enemies of the US from strapping on bombs and taking out innocent Americans. Suggesting otherwise is ridiculous since we already outspend these nations and it does nothing to prevent others from attacking soft targets.
It cost the US trillions to cross an ocean to invade little tin-pot dictatorship such as Iraq, ….What exactly would be the cost of any enemy of the United States trying to cross either the Atlantic or Pacific oceans with a ground force able to take the US or even Washington DC for that matter? It’s laughable. Even with a quarter of the US military, no country could invade us. And even if we wanted to invade and conquer China with 3x our present military, we could never do so. The cost and loss is just too prohibitive.
Frankly, we spend what we do on the US military to project power away from US soil. This IS expensive. And then we meddle in the affairs of other countries and their neighbors which which make us the target of retaliation, and does manifest itself attacks upon soft targets. Of course Mr. Goetsch can’t put two and two together.
And just for Mr. Goetsch information, I advocate we kick the UN out of the US. We have no business as a sovereign nation being involved with any organization that erodes our sovereignty and national interests.
The standard response to my arguments by the likes of Mr. Goetsch is that I advocate a foreign policy of isolationism. To which, I reply I advocate non-interventionism and not isolationism. Non-iterventionism IS the foreign policy of our founding fathers. I advocate a foreign policy that negotiates in America’s best interest without entangling alliances.
The advocates of war and interventionism come from the neoconservative right and the military industrial complex (which is basically a subset of the neoconservative right). Examples of the neocon right are the editors of the National Review and various national security think tanks such as PNAC and FPI. They occupy much of our federal government and control the republican party . Thankfully, since George Bush’s reckless war, they have been repudiated, and have been losing power.
In a closing note, bankrupting a country in support of war , for the pursuit of spreading democracy abroad, has in hindsight only weakened he United States economically, has resulted in Barrack Obama being elected twice, has eroded liberties at home, and has accomplished almost nothing it promised to deliver. A strong defense is needed, but I do not for a moment believe we need to project our power all across the world, nor do we need to meddle in other nation’s business.
“It’s time to toss empire and interventionism into the dustbin of history, once and for all. They have brought nothing but death, destruction, anger, hatred, resentment, and animosity abroad and a loss of liberty, privacy, and prosperity here at home. It’s time to lead the world out of the statist morass in which it is mired.”
What Trump did was exceptional. He defeated:
The Clinton Political Scam Machine.
Townhall.com Elites like Matt Vespa, and Bay Genson (Guy Benson), Katie Pavlich, and the whole swamp over there.
So-called conservative SJW “chicks” on the right…..Dana Loesch, SE Cupp, Mary Katherine Hamm, Mona Charen….etc. I regret buying one of Mona Charen’s books now……talk about a useful idiot. I’ll toss that promptly into the trash.
Has-been intellectuals like Thomas Sowell
Hollywood…..now won’t they fulfill their promise and leave the US?
Speaking of Mark Levin….what a creep. Today on the radio 11/9/16, I heard him taking credit for his listeners giving Trump the victory. That clown is the biggest con-man out there. Sorry pal, you disgust me.
I suspect this is only the beginning. We’ll have to endure 4 years of whining from these losers.
I got into match of insults with a lefty on townhall.com who claims to teach philosophy at some “esteemed university”. Of course there is no way to verify such a claim….but based on his maturity level, I suspect he is a young grad school student who doesn’t have much experience in the real world. (He used the typical canard that voting for Trump makes you a fascist, etc). Plus, he only claimed he taught philosophy, not that he was a professor of philosophy. Once called on this, he proceeded with a tirade of lies….of being tenured, and having taught for decades. I called him out on this saying he didn’t have a clue about the real world, and he had the maturity of a young punk….which he does. He certainly didn’t sound like any professor I ever had at a university. He was a child.
I thought I would post this video in honor of all academic ivory tower liberals who don’t have a clue about the real world. It juxtaposes “esteemed” University of Cal@Berkeley students and possibly at least one professor with as I say, the real world, blacks in Harlem.
Its funny and a classic, and shows just how privileged ignorant and insulated from the real world university students are….that is why they are called ivory tower liberals.
Jack Kerwick does a good job analyzing the #neverTrump movement. In short summary, the #neverTrumpers opposition to Trump has more to due with Trump’s lack of allegiance to neoconservatism, rather than conservatism.
I couldn’t agree more. This is a good article. Read it.
It is interesting how they cheer on Hillary over Trump simply, as Kerwick explains, “his neocon critics are aching for him to lose royally in November so that they can have the satisfaction, at long last, of saying, after nearly 18 months of being wrong, that they were right.”