Gary Johnson's Not Playing With A Full Deck

Libertarian Presidential spoiler Gary Johnson tipped his hand in a major gaffe today when he responded "What is Aleppo?" to a question about the besieged Syrian city; and it turns out his hand has more than a couple Jokers in it.

This is a man who claims to be bidding for the highest executive office in one of the most powerful and influential international powers  and he was caught unaware by a question about the most important city in the most important conflict in the world today.

The Syrian Civil War did not break out yesterday. It has raged since 2011 - in other words, he should have started studying it the last time he ran for President. He has failed to learn anything of substance about it in half of a decade, instead choosing to fill his time with, from his personal presentation, biking and mountain climbing. Mike Barnicle of MSNBC had a spot on reaction to Johnson's bewilderment - "You're serious?" The internet community has seized on this gaffe precisely because Aleppo has become a household name - alongside Homs, Damascus, Raqqah, and Palmyra. Ignorance is not just no excuse: it is a liability.

Any candidate worth their salt must be familiar with the conflict. And yet the gaffe didn't end with "What is Aleppo?" Mike Barnicle had to provide three distinct prompts to Johnson before finally getting him on track by mentioning that it is not just a city in Syria, but the "epicenter of the refugee crisis." But to be honest, Johnson wasn't on track but on a parallel one. Rather than talk about the distinct dynamics in play in Aleppo, Johnson takes off on a talking point about Syria writ large.

The first two Jokers - Johnson hasn't been following the Syrian Civil War, and doesn't understand the importance of that conflict's most important city and the implications of the refugee crisis.

Johnson then makes some broad, half-true declarations about the war seemingly gleaned from headlines passing on his Facebook feed: that the Syrian Opposition is in league with Islamists. There are Islamists on most sides of the conflict, but there is no monolithic "Opposition" and there are more than the two sides he implies in his response. Third Joker.


Honestly, he'd have been better off leaving it at that punt - "I do think that it's a mess" - but he then goes on to show his fourth Joker, that he supports a "diplomatic" solution to the conflict in league with Russia.

At first blush, this seems sensible, save for the facts that "the Opposition" and the Assad regime are at loggerheads over who gets to rule the region and that Russia is committed to a military resolution of the conflict. Furthermore, it does not account for the loose cannon that is Turkey vis a vis the Kurds and Russia, it does not consider the ongoing security agreements in Iraq (under threat by the Islamic State which is taking advantage of an unenforceable border), and the lax environment and ample propaganda potential such a decision would create for the Islamic State as they move to increase their footholds in Egypt, Libya, Afghanistan, and Nigeria.

Ultimately, these are all symptoms of a core problem that Johnson suffers as a Libertarian: his approach to foreign policy seems to be right in line with Libertarian Party doctrine, to wit, that we shouldn't have a foreign policy. His solution to the Syrian question is to extricate by the most expeditious means possible, without regard for the outcome or the people involved. He even goes so far as to explicitly blame "regime change" for the entirety of the crisis, language which suggests an external hand rather than the Syrian people rising up in civil war.

This lack of a plan further suggests the restoration of Assad to power, a plan which falls right in line with Russian goals and will therefore likely earn Johnson accolades from Trump. This alignment also highlights a conflict within Libertarian philosophy. It seems that isolationism trumps a people's right to self-determination. This lack of a plan completely fails to address the millions of people who are displaced by the conflict; who have no homes to return to, whose nation is threatened by the Islamic State regardless of the diplomatic relations between Assad and the Opposition, and who likely would be in grave danger should they return to Syria under a restored Assad. This lack of a plan ignores the pressures which the conflict is placing on the politics of many nations, many of whom are dealing with a wave of terrorism and a rising tide of far-right nationalism in response. Disconnecting with Syria and disinterest in the welfare of countries with whom we have old and deep diplomatic and economic ties beckons disaster.

While this blog has previously acknowledged the wisdom of status quo ante in Syria, that assessment was also made only one year into the conflict. In the last four years, the United States has committed to one side over the other and a reversal of that position out of misguided isolationist principles will do far more damage to American standing than holding course. Cooperation with Russia is possible with regards to defeating the Islamic State, but only insofar as the Islamic State challenges stability in Syria. The end-state of that Syrian stability is going to be the result of diplomatic negotiations between Russia and the United States - and will only include Syria as a matter of protocol. The problem is bigger than it used to be, and it requires a committed and nuanced approach. It will not go away for being ignored.

But a total lack of any nuanced foreign policy - or even evidence of a gloss on Syria - constitutes only the flagrant failures of Johnson. The final Joker is in what this gaffe shows about his overall skill as an executive.

Nobody is President alone. Every head of state has a team which they build to inform them of events and policy, to help them craft strategies and talking points, to groom their presentation.

This gaffe indicates a failure of Johnson's own interest in the conflict. It indicates that the failure was so total that he did not even instruct his team to get him a briefing on the topic. Furthermore, it indicates that the sort of people that Johnson has chosen to guide and aid him in presenting an executive presence ALSO failed to take an interest in the topic, to take initiative and prepare their candidate, to support him and make him competent. Instead, these are people who have let the campaign slogan be "Feel the Johnson," apparently oblivious to the fact that if you are feeling the johnson, you are getting fucked. Luckily, they made that clear today. The Johnson campaign is the blind leading the blind, no matter which way you look at it.

My Final Correspondence with the Libertarian Party

Dear "Chair"

I will not be renewing my membership at any level of the Libertarian Party. Frankly, I'm a little embarrassed that my membership took so long to lapse.

There are a variety of reasons for this.

First and foremost, as you may or may not be aware, the LPC is incapable of culling felons from its membership. Any political organization such as yours, which intends to break into the "two-party" paradigm, must be able to present a spotless face. That incidents such as those surrounding Matthew Barnes, a convicted child molester, should even be an issue within the organization is unacceptable. Violent crime is unacceptable to libertarians. Felons are unacceptable to voters. That the issue of such persons being members of the Party was even a debated subject is deplorable and comments rather strongly against the intention of the LPC to conduct itself with principle and with an intent to succeed. My dollars are better spent elsewhere and my integrity demands I associate myself with better people than the LPC sees fit to include.

Second, the LP as a whole seems to suffer from an exclusionary, extremist, fundamentalist mentality that may not be representative of the Party but is its most vocal component. The conspiracy theorists, the anarchists, the potheads and the racists have only grown more vocal and more powerful within the party since the death of founder, guide, and voice of reason, David Nolan. To be associated with the likes of Starchild at the state level and Jim Davidson at the national level is an embarrassment and a risk to me professionally.

I do not require a reply to this. There is nothing that can be said or done to regain my membership. It is due to the several years spent attempting to improve the Party that I have even dignified your letter from "Chair" with a response. Please remove me from your lists and do not contact me further.

Regretfully,

[TheMadJack]

On Iraqi WMD and the Justification for War

It is becoming public knowledge that there were chemical weapons found in Iraq during the 2003-2011 Operations Iraqi Freedom and New Dawn. On its face this contradicts the long-running script that "we were lied to" about the pretenses for the war.

As usual, the truth is not so pure and simple.

I heard about these a few years back from a couple different Iraq vets. I mentioned it in passing when ISIS overtook an old chemical weapons plant this spring. We had captured the same plant in 2003 when we first swept through.

There is a key point that needs to be made: The difference between "Saddam's WMD program poses a threat" and "Saddam has old, leaky, improperly stored and probably inert WMD from the 1980's" is not a small difference.

What many people fail to realize is that hindsight is 20/20. They think that the indicators are obvious, when in fact they aren't. We "should have known" the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbor. We "should have known" about the 9/11 attacks. We "should have known" that Saddam's WMD programs were in a sorry state.

Saddam was surrounded by enemies and fickle allies who would happily turn on him if they sensed weakness. His regime HAD to create the impression that they had WMD as a deterrent. It worked on Iran, it worked on Israel, it worked on Syria and Jordan and Egypt, and it nearly worked on us.

As Sun Tzu said, "All warfare is based on deception". It is the function of Intelligence to try and peel back the layers of deception, and sometimes Intelligence fails. Critics of the war conveniently forget the way that Saddam blocked and delayed inspectors and rattled his saber in the days leading up to the war.

These revelations do not fully vindicate the Iraq invasion, but it does lend credit to the posturing that Saddam did in 2002-2003. We did go to war in Iraq because we were fed falsehoods, but it looks more and more like those falsehoods were fed to us by Saddam, not by George W. Bush

Some Sense Regarding Syria

Given my line of work, I've been keeping abreast of the Syrian Civil War. My coworkers and I have formed some ...unpopular opinions about the best course of action.

To wit, we're rooting for Assad.

This is not because he's necessarily a great guy. We joke sometimes that he should get a nomination for Time's "Man of the Year" because he has managed (despite the claims every few weeks to the contrary) to avoid using his chemical stockpile in his efforts to maintain order in the country, and by extension maintain stability in Asia Minor.

That last little piece is what is most important here. In case you've been entirely ignorant of world affairs the last two years, the entire Middle East is in a bit of an uproar. Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Bahrain, and Afghanistan are either in the midst or on the brink of what we'll euphemize as "major paradigm shift"

In many cases, this is not necessarily a good thing. I'll talk more about it in another post, which will focus on Egypt, but suffice it to say that we, as a nation, have some very simple and idealistic notions which often serve to act counter to our best interests as a nation.

Were it not for the Syrian government's connections to Iran and Hezbollah, I firmly believe that our internal debate about which side (if any) to choose in the Syrian conflict would have been ended months ago in favor of Assad.

Syria was one of the most stable countries in the Levant. They had a mostly secular government which, due to its composition of a minority sect, served to protect the rights of both Sunni and Shia Muslims within the country. Sympathies towards Iran, Hezbollah, and Hamas comprised a known element which could be accounted for, which both the United States and Israel did.

The Syrian opposition represents not only an unknown quantity, but an unpredictable one. The rebels are not a unified group, but a loosely affiliated cluster of dissident organizations who have little in common but a mutual interest in the destabilization of the Syrian region. Many of the groups have terrorist support. Many of them are openly anti-US. These are important considerations for any aid: There is no way to control which aspects of the Syrian Opposition get support, but the Syrian Military, which is an organized and homogenous force, CAN offer that security. There is no way to know which faction of the Syrian Opposition will attain power should they win; but we know from experience EXACTLY how the Assad regime will behave.

To oversimplify, the Syrian conflict boils down to the old dilemma of "the enemy you know" versus "the enemy you don't". This is an oversimplification because we know, at least in part, a bit of the enemy we have in the Syrian Opposition, and it is an enemy that no country - not even Iran - has an interest in handing control of a nation and its resources.

The US Government has been wavering on the subject of intervention in the Syrian Conflict. Due to the pressures and misguided sympathies of an uninformed and capricious public, we have been supplying marginal amounts of aid to the rebels. But it is best that we remain uncommitted in this conflict, and deal with whoever the victor is from a neutral position. Fortunately, it appears the victor (absent US, NATO, or UN intervention) will be the standing Syrian government. They have the military hardware, the air supremacy, and funding from some of the greatest military powers in the world on their side. By withdrawing from the Syrian conflict, we all but assure Assad's victory and can resume diplomacy in the Middle East status quo ante.

And finally, someone in the US government has seen and heard reason, and has spoken in its favor.

http://news.yahoo.com/dempsey-syrian-rebels-wouldnt-back-us-interests-070802647.html

Men of their Word

Collected from my exploits on the internet: This was taken from a discussion of George Carlin's suggestion that if soldiers were to stop "showing up" to wars, then war would end. The discussion turned to the oath that every soldier takes to obey his orders, and whether or not a person should be reasonably expected to live up to that oath.

One more point of context, else some of my arguments will likely make no sense: This discussion was taking place in a Libertarian group.

---

"You need to be more specific , as I think an oath to an institution that theoretically exists to protect a collective abstraction is questionable"

What about non-competition or non-disclosure agreements? What about being contracted in any manner? Your signature on a contract is an oath to be bound by the terms of that contract. You ARE honor bound, as well as legally bound to abide by the terms of that contract.

Even if the other party in that contract is some Corporation or Organization or Government or any other "collective abstraction".

If I suddenly "Don't feel like" finishing paving your driveway, for instance, am I justified in leaving? Or are you justified in holding me responsible for *what I said I would do*? At the end of the day, what will a jury say? That a man who doesn't "feel like" being "forced" to be as good as his word should be allowed to just up and walk out; or will they determine that I am somehow responsible for the completion of the work, whether I do it myself or end up paying for someone more responsible than I to do it for me?

Or consider it in terms of something a goodly number of people here are likely familiar with:

"I, [your name here], do hereby certify that I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals."

Many people here doubtless signed their names to this pledge. Some of them even did so in sound mind and with witnesses. Such an oath is meaningless if people can say:

"Today, I don't feel like abiding by the non-aggression principle. Tomorrow maybe, but today it is inconvenient and perhaps I may even articulate that it is inherently immoral for me to swear such a thing or even for someone to claim that I be even remotely expected to abide by its language"

You simply CAN'T have a civilized culture without people being expected to maintain their oaths. Unless you're one of those "state's rights" folk who considers slavery "civilized". The Responsibility side of "Freedom and Responsibility" comes in many forms: one of those forms is being able to honor a promise, a contract, or an oath.

Rights and Right

In the days leading up to this most inauspicious of anniversaries there was a significant brouhaha over a Florida preacher's declaration of his congregation's intention to make of today the first annual "Burn a Quran Day" and to celebrate accordingly. Fortunately, just a few days ago he changed his mind, albeit in a rather snide and insincere manner by simultaneously demanding that the so-called "Ground-Zero Mosque" be moved to a new location. The Ground-Zero Mosque (which is neither at Ground Zero nor a mosque) and the idiocy surrounding it may warrant discussion another time, but they are not within the scope of todays article.


In a discussion of the planned Quran-burning activities I encountered a meme which I had encountered before. A person in the discussion declared that the church in question was right to burn the Quran, citing the First Amendment as his argument.


Now, I would like to be perfectly clear: there was not a difficulty in his syntax. He was not saying that the people have the right to protest and even to burn something like a book or a flag or an effigy; but rather that these people were granted either moral or factual rectitude by certain Constitutional doctrines.





The First Amendment only secures for people the Right to speak, to write, to gather, and to protest as they will and it only secures people from oppression by the government. It offers no protection from the natural consequences of your actions. Individuals are perfectly and legally capable of shunning and shaming a person who makes idiotic or dangerous statements. To find oneself unable to do business in a town, culturally and socially isolated and ostracized is not an infraction upon or a violation of one's rights. It is the natural consequence of being an ass and is a form of evil bringing about its own punishment.


I'm not sure where the idea that having a Right is equal to being right originated, but I've a sneaking suspicion it's due in large part to the failure of Civics instructors to actually impart an understanding of what a "right" is, what separates it from a "privilege", and what duties and responsibilities come hand in hand with such rights. But I digress. The point is that this idea is factually, semantically, basically, and totally wrong to a degree approaching, including, and probably exceeding absurdity.





And so, to recount for the benefit of those who never learned the full meaning and implications of the word "Citizen", I will offer this declaration: To have a Right is to be permitted to do a thing, no matter what abuses you inflict upon the good graces of the authority granting you this permission in the course of excercising it. It has nothing to do with factual correctness or with moral rectitude. Just because you CAN do something in no way means that you SHOULD, and that is the critical difference.


By way of example, the outrage surrounding our much-too-silly friends in Florida stemmed not so much from a belief that they had no permission to do such a deed, but that such a deed was offensive and could incite retribution and vengeance. The deed expressed ignorance and utter disregard for human thought (as that is what a book burning sybolically destroys, is human thought; as burning a flag symbolically destroys a nation and burning an effigy destroys a person) and there was no concievable benefit to be gleaned from such an act. In short, the act would have been immoral in almost every system of mores and ethics prevalent in the world today, excepting certain fanatical dogmas (which as I have argued before, are immoral in and of themselves anyway).


To put it in terms not so heavily vested with the emotional tinge of recentism, we could stipulate that Freedom of Speech was protected to such a degree that yelling "Fire!" in a crowded building or "Bomb!" in an airport were not illegal, it would be the height of negligence and recklessness, if not outright immorality (which it would be if done with malice) to do so. Once the proverbial smoke cleared, the performer of such an action would doubtless be ridden out of town on a rail, literally or figuratively. If the ensuing stampede had caused death or grievous injury, such a person might rightly be put to death or imprisoned indefinitely. This course of action would surely not constitute a breach of Constitutional Rights, but rather would be the natural and just consequence of that persons careless, thoughtless, and dangerous actions. That people are thoughtless in such a manner with such frequency that these actions are explicitly illegal is a testament to the enduring and pervasive stupidity which informs such actions.


Still, I must give credit where credit is due, to the Pastor who heard reason (sort of) and called off his plans and encouraged others to follow his lead in abandoning their hateful actions; and to the great majority of Americans who not only refused to engage in Quran burning but openly expressed their disapproval of such abuses of the Rights we all enjoy.

Whatsoever a Man Soweth, That Shall He Also Reap

Evil is easy.

It is easier to steal than to earn, to force than to convince, to rape than to seduce. It is easier to look the other way when you see these things happening. It is hard to stay honest, truthful, and moral. It is hard to have empathy for strangers, a sense of duty to self and society, and integrity in the face of temptation. It is hard to turn and face evil and stop it.

Evil is the path of least resistance, the low road, a gently downward sloping path. Evil does not need proponents, advocates, supporters or proselytizers to thrive. All evil needs is for people to do nothing. Do nothing, and a serial killer can terrorize a neighborhood until he dies of old age. Do nothing, and gangs control whole cities. Do nothing, and corruption consumes the police. Do nothing, and we have Ayatollahs, Pinochets, Pol Pots, Kim Il Sungs, Idi Amins, and Hitlers taking power.

Good requires active dedication. Every day, good is presented challenges and temptations. To be good demands that we choose, consciously, every minute and every second, to do the right thing. It is more than choosing not to do the wrong thing. The right choice is often difficult, unpleasant, and unpopular.

And so, there will always be evil in this world.

Always.

It is necessary, then, to be prepared to deal with evil. A good person will not initiate force against people, but that means nothing to an evil person. It is said that "War is the result of failed diplomacy," and the axiom scales to a personal level, too. What can peaceful measures accomplish when peace is the last thing in your opponents mind? When evil people attempt to threaten us with force to their whims, the only appropriate response is the threat of force. When force is applied, the only appropriate responce is force. When that force is violence, the only appropriate response is violence. When that force is deadly, the only appropriate response is death.

It is necessary, then, to be prepared for violence. A good person will not initiate force against people, but it is a duty of all people to stop force and avoid escalation Violence must be employed to stop violence until the desire to act evilly and violently has been destroyed and not one iota longer. We meet force with force so long as the will to fight exists in our enemies. In this way, evil acts are met immediately with retribution. In this way does evil beget its own punishment.

This is no mean excercise, no abstract experiment. If you are approached by a mugger, surrendering your wallet is only certain of encouraging the activity further. That mugger will rob again. Surrendering your wallet does not even guarantee your safety. This is how inaction permits evil to thrive.

Rather, suppose you met the threat with appropriate force. At the production of whatever weapon accompanies his demand for your wallet, you instead reach for a pistol*. If the mugger's hands go up, call the police. No further violence is needed. If not, the mugger's life is forfeit. The right thing to do is to continue shooting until the mugger no longer has the will or ability to fight - whichever comes first**. It is paramount that you stop shooting once the threat is neutralized: to kill a wounded person in the heat of passion is no more excusable than to steal at gunpoint. On the other hand, at no point should you take dangerous cautions to preserve that criminal's life. If the situation appears at any point that, of the two of you, one will likely die, it is imperative that every effort be made that it is not your life given up.

And what of stumbling across the commission of a crime? We exist in a society, nothing happens in a vacuum. Evil anywhere is a threat everywhere, and it is therefore our duty to address and meet the evil of others, whether by police or vigilante action, where ever it is encountered. Some months ago I wrote of a series of violent episodes wherein I proponed the idea that we must all take a stand to improve the society in which we live. The same is true of evil and violence as it is of ill mannered people: their behavior is only rewarding if it is permitted, and it is permitted so long as nothing is done to stop it. We have a duty to confront evil. The morality of the victim is irrelevant: the commission of violence must be met with instant retribution whenever possible.

Further, there are instances, as I've also said before, of people who are irrevocably evil. Such people constitute a constant and looming threat, even when they are not actively engaged in their predations. Serial killers and rapists, child molesters and pedophiles - who, oddly enough, seem to have considerable overlap within their fields - constitute individuals who can be said to always be a danger. These individuals have no claim to the rights of life, liberty, or happiness: Their actions are a threat, their lives are forfeit. Their presence in society is a bane, they deserve no libety. Their proclivities are anathema to all that is good - their happiness is misery, violence and death. Should they be caught in the commission of one of their acts, summary death is appropriate. Should they be proved guilty of these acts, life imprisonment is the only mercy they should be granted.

Evil and violence will always be a part of the world. It is a foolhardy and dangerous naivete that informs pacifistic approaches to these problems. It is essential that good people are prepared, not only to deal with the personal consequences of their chosen life, but to deal with the darkness to which they have become opposed.

---

*While we are talking in hypotheticals, I feel it is necessary to express that life and death situations should be left to as little chance as possible. Therefore, I provide some small tactical advice, firstly: A pistol should be kept concealed in a location easily mistaken with a place you might keep a wallet whenever possible. To this end, Seecamp provides some excellent concealed carry options.

**It should go without saying that, in the event your opponent is also using a firearm, offering an opportunity to surrender is a foolhardy move almost certain to result in your own injury or death. Shoot first and shoot often.

Resolution Regarding North Korean Hostility

WHEREAS the United States has attempted diplomatic solutions to North Koreas' many grievous sleights to the United States and its allies;

WHEREAS the United States has patiently suffered international hostility for many years;

NAMELY the taking hostage of Diplomats in Iran, an act of war; the bombings of embassies and miltary bases abroad in Somalia, Beirut and others; multiple acts by foreign state sponsored terrorists against United States soldiers and civilians both on United States soil and abroad;

WHEREAS the fact that many of these offences have gone unpunished;

WHEREAS United States has suffered both politically and militarily from its failure to incur retribution;

WHEREAS THEREFORE it is in the best interest of the United States to take a firm and unforgiving postion of proactive defence;

WHEREAS North Korea is guilty of innumerable human rights violations;

NAMELY, the complete restriction of free speech, religion, press, and also of movement; forced prostitution; the existence and practice of a eugenics program; denial of food and other necessities to its citizens; and the implementation of concentration camps for political enemies, the mentally and physically disabled, and foreigners;

WHERIN ALONE even further abuses occur, not the least of which include forced abortions, beatings, torture, public humiliation, and public execution;

WHEREAS these transgressions are among the worst in the world committed by a government against its people;

WHEREAS a ceasefire does not designate the end of hostilities;

WHEREAS we are therefore still legally engaged in hostilities with North Korea;

WHEREAS we are allied with South Korea against North Korea;

WHEREAS regardless of any declaration or absence thereof on behalf of South Korea and the remainder of the Western world, North Korea has described relations as a state of war;

WHEREAS North Korea engages in hostile diplomatic posturing;

NAMELY declaring its sovereignty over the entire Korean peninsula, threatening to preemptively reduce South Korea to "debris" and a "sea of fire", refusal to engage in nuclear disarmament,

WHEREAS FURTHER North Korea has repeatedly engaged in hostile actions;

NAMELY the placing of artillery along the DMZ in order to make good on their aforementioned threats of preemptive strikes; the repeated testing of short-range missiles capable of striking as far as Japan; their repeated development and testing of nuclear materials and weapons; hostile naval border disputes; and repeated attempts to assassinate South Korean officials;

WHEREAS repeated attempts by the international community to censure and sanction North Korea have failed to produce any desireable results;

WHEREAS Pyongyang announced to its country that "It is a laughable delusion for the United States to think that it can get us to kneel with sanctions";

WHEREAS FURTHER Pyongyang has threatened that"armed forces will deal an annihilating blow that is unpredictable and unavoidable, to any 'sanctions' or provocations by the US" and a "fire shower of nuclear retaliation";

WHEREAS a conventional military action against North Korea would be extremely costly, as South Korea itself would be severely damaged, as well as the armies of both South Korea and the United States and all other allies who desire to rid the world of the North Korean pestilence;

WHEREAS combat operations are made more difficult when dealing with fanatical populations spurred on by a cult of personality;

WHEREAS the Laws of War further complicate operations in such situations and will contribute further to the death tolls of the forces liberating the Korean peninsula;

WHEREAS the North Korean citizenry have largely had their free will subjugated to a fanatical cult of personality;

WHEREAS the North Korean Army will draft any and all able bodied persons in defence of Kim Jong Il;

WHEREAS empirical experience shows the preservation of life to be impossible when dealing with these fanatics;

WHEREAS these fanatics often engage in suicidal defence of their oppressors at great cost on both sides of the engagement;

WHEREAS the persons enslaved in North Koreas concentration camps will be put to death at the first sign of an attempt to free them;

WHEREAS it is therefore reasonable to assume that, in order to neutralize the North Korean threat, the majority of its population will be annihilated;

LET IT BE RESOLVED that as North Korea constitutes a hostile, unreasonable and belligerent nation; that North Korea is a threat to all free countries in Eastern Asia and seeks to threaten the entire Free World;

LET IT BE FURTHER RESOLVED that the United States will temporarily cease combat operations abroad in order to bring the entirety of its air power to bear on North Korea. The United States will strike without warning and will commence saturation carpet bombing of every inch of North Korea's 46,528 square miles, without respect or regard to the targeted area, whether it be military, civilian, or undeveloped;

LET IT BE FURTHER RESOLVED that this operation will attempt to maximize the demoralizing effect of aerial bombardments by approaching from as many sides of the nation as possible so as to prevent retaliation or escape, by using all variety of armament excluding nuclear weapons, by repeating strikes so as to ensure complete destruction of North Korean infrastructure and military material, and by broadcasting Richard Wagners' "Flight of the Valkyries" and Jimi Hendrix's rendition of "The Star Spangled Banner" on all frequencies and from loudspeakers on our bombers and at the DMZ;

LET IT BE FURTHER RESOLVED that these actions should be construed to impart to other entities currently engaged in hostilities with the United States the generosity and good-will of the United States when our military actions do not involve complete destruction, but rather a precise, surgical invasion seeking to minimize civilian death and loss of infrastructure.

שלום דרך עוצמת אש טובה ביותר

It has been in the news a fair bit lately, people protesting Israel, people saying that neither the US nor anyone else should be backing Israel, that maybe we should be backing Palestine instead. Or, perhaps, we should back neither. We should go in and "enforce peace" or let Israel and Palestine and Jordan and Syria and Egypt duke it out and then we talk to the winner.

These people suck. I do not get a lot of modern entertainment these days. I do not watch TV, I do not go to the theatre, and I do not listen to the radio. What I do is I watch Israel. Israel rocks. Forget for a moment whether or not Israel SHOULD exist. That is ancient history, it does not matter any more. The fact is, these people are here now. And they have every right to live there now. They were born there. They have families there. They might just grow old and die there. That is what makes them our protagonists.



Our protagonists are surrounded on all sides by evil neighbors. Malicious, theocratic, self-entitled, whining Muslim nations who are so pissed over losing 8,000 square miles and one holy city that they have sworn their treasuries, their policies, and the welfare and lives of their citizens to getting it back or destroying it in the process.



But Israel is not our ordinary peace-loving nation. The Israeli people understand that they are in a fight for their lives and they will NOT be robbed of them. They do not fight weak wars. They do not occupy and set up provisional governments. They do not do the Cold War Berlin thing. They kick ass in ways so painful that their neighbors will not even look at them cross-eyed. Oh, sure, they talk the bad shit to eachother or to the rest of the world, but soon as Israel walks into the room they sit up a little straighter and start saying "Sir". Why?



Israel is a nation composed ENTIRELY of badass. Israel is a country whose military's mission statement, as it's first item, says "Israel cannot afford to lose a single war".

In 1967, Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Iraq decided they were going to have a little gang-bang. Israel got wind of this, and literally DESTROYED the main opposing air force in the early hours of the morning. By the end of the first day, they had TOTAL air superiority. 5 days later, they controlled the ENTIRE Sinai peninsula and were well on the path to Cairo before everyone said "Uncle". They call this the Six Day War.



6 years later, almost the same group of belligerents (whose name for the "6 Day War" is "The Setback", just to give an idea of their learning curve) decided to make a sneak attack on one of Judaism's holiest days, Yom Kippur. Things went well, at first. Then the Israeli Defense Forces finished lacing up their ass-kickin' boots and made for a total reversal. They regained all of the territory that had been invaded and even EXTENDED it by the time the war ended.



This is a government that is so dead-set on peace with their neighbors that in spite of controlling Jerusalem, one of the holiest, most ancient cities on the planet, and controlling the site of some of the holiest ground in THREE religions, the Temple Mount, that they have turned over administration of the Temple Mount to a group so intolerant of other beliefs that nobody not of this belief is permitted to worship there. Muslims ONLY, and everyone else, in their minds, should be grateful to be granted visitation. The good graces of the Israeli people made a gift of this holy place, and they are trying to hurt not just the Israelis, but EVERYONE with that gift. The goodwill of teh Israeli government even helps to enforce this petty ban. It is not even the holiest site in Islam, like it is for the Jews and Christians. That honor is reserved for Mecca, a city that forbids entry to non-Muslims. Are we sensing a pattern here? Israel is right to fear for its safety. Israel has shown remarkable maturity and restraint in its diplomacy. And as far as I am concerned, Israel is right to strike at their foes, preemptively or no, and I will side with them by default.



This is a country composed of people who can work a 9-5, Monday through Friday workweek, punch out Friday night, go to a party, get drunk, and decide to invade Palestine over the weekend. So they do. They march over the countryside, do some off-roading with their tanks, and are back in time to shower and be back in the office Monday. And I LOVE to watch them do it. It gives me a warm fuzzy. It is my favorite thing in the news, on television, or to hear on the radio.

And these people want to cancel my favorite show.

Now do not get me wrong. I would never reduce the valiant struggle of the Israeli people to little more than a TV show. What I find, however, is that I get as excited about the news of Israel kicking ass as some people get about their football team winning the Superbowl - when the IDF lays the smackdown on Palestine, gives Iran the finger, laughs at Syria's pathetic chest thumping, or when they effortlessly defuse another attempt by Muslim fanatics to start a war over the Temple Mount, part of my rejoices like a stadium full of Argentinians whose team just won the World Cup. Because what we get with Israel is a fight that matters, a fight for the right to live and exist, a fight against some of the most pervasive religious intolerance in the world, a fight against some of the most belligerent, violent, stubborn governments on the planet. Were I Jewish, I would join that fight without a second thought. Outside of that, I have little choice but to cheer these people who understand, above all else, that if you want peace you must prepare for war.

A people who truly understand that Peace is won through Superior Firepower.