In his regular column at Human Events this week, Ted Nugent says the only path to peace for Israel is through use of massive violence against Israel's enemies, in the short term. From HE:
There comes a point when violence is clearly the only answer. Peace most often throughout history is achieved through the application of relentless and superior firepower. Now is such a time for Israel.Read the full column here.
Israel must defeat utterly the rabid, voodoo vermin known as Hamas. After launching more than three thousand rockets and mortars into Israel within the last year, Israel has every right and obligation to destroy Hamas. No nation can be expected to tolerate such a bombardment.
Let us be honest: mankind will be much better off when Israel destroys Hamas' strongholds in Gaza and captures or kills all of the Hamas militants and those who support them. Like all cockroaches, the only good terrorist is a dead one.
Total warfare is the answer if Israel is committed to protecting its people and breaking the back of the Hamas terrorists and the network that supports them. Not the kind of Donald Rumsfeld "Shock & Awe-shucks" selective warfare, but rather the General Sherman "scorched earth" military policies that broke the back of the Confederacy during our Civil War.
28 comments:
Hamas, like Hezzbollah two years ago(both Iranian puppets) are playing the media like a fiddle though. Hopefully they are just willfully blind as oppossed to the alternative..
notice also that Putin is starting to cutoff oil/gas supplies to Europe. Going to be a rough few years coming up.
Human Events started off as such a good magazine.
Ted Nugent for President 2012!!!
Gotta love those draft-dodging chickenhawks.
And here I thought you respected people in the military, Eric.
Oh right, it's okay if they dodge the draft as long as they agree with you.
4....3...2...1.. and here comes the psychopaths to denounce the denounecers of filth!
Close Nemo. As a Veteran I have 1000 times more respect for someone who avoided Military service, but is very supportive of the Troops, than I do for someone who avoided Military service, and disrespects the Troops.
So yes, would have been better for Ted to have served. But he does his service now, but supporting a Pro-Military stance, and giving free concerts to the Troops, as he has done repeatedly these past few years.
Ditto for Gene Simmons and KISS.
Eric - most libertarians on the internet are anti-military. How do you resolve that quandry?
No, not true Alex. Most "leftwing libertarians" are anti-Military. But my definition of libertarian includes rightwing libertarians such as Ed Morrisey, and the Hot Air crew, American Spectator, Pamela Geller at Atlas Shrugs, and so forth.
Yes, if one believes that libertarians consist of only Cato, Reason, the LP, and Lew Rockwell/AntiWar.com, you could get that view.
But that's where you can make a mistake. The libertarian movement includes both left and right wings.
Eric - my whole point is what do young people perceive the libertarian movement to be about. I think the main perceptions are:
* legalize drugs
* close the borders
* isolationism
For better or worse, that is the mass public perception of movement.
And Alex, my good friend, I'm working day and night, 7 days a week, 365 days a year, have dedicated my entire life, to changing that perception.
I'm working to make the perception of the libertarian movement:
Tax cuts!
Property Rights
Strong on Defense
Stop the Nanny-State
And I believe I'm succeeding. Look at the latest article I posted above. 52% of the Libertarian Party membership favors Israel fighting the War in Gaza. That's amazing!!!
And don't forget, I'm the guy who recruited Wayne Root for the LP, and was partly responsible for the Libertarian Party having a moderately Pro-Defense ticket in 2008.
Eric - my whole point is what do young people perceive the libertarian movement to be about. I think the main perceptions are:
* legalize drugs
* close the borders
* isolationism
Errrr, no.
More like this:
* Abolish the Fed
* Non-Interventionism
* End the Drug War
Libertarians are against all forms of government intervention in both economic and social issues. They are against all government socialist plans be they welfare or the military industrial complex.
What Eric is proposing as the libertarian platform is basically just the Republican platform. He doesn't want the Libertarian Party to be libertarian in nature, he wants it to be the same as the GOP with added bonus of the State allowing him to hire a prostitute once in a while. Which begs the question as to why he thinks a Libertarian Party should exist at all.
Scott - should we maintain any military and navy at all?
Speaking from a pragmatic point of view, something along the lines of a militia like the Swiss have would be much more beneficial to the security and liberty of Americans. It would also provide a national DEFENSE rather than our current plan of OFFENSE that warmongering Republicans like Dondero prefer.
Scott - your ad hominems contribute nothing to the debate. But then again, you never came here for debate for your own sadistic pleasures.
Oh, I don't think Eric would consider me calling him a warmonger as an ad hominem. He'd probably consider it a compliment in fact.
Scott - so you think the average American soldier is a "warmonger"? You are truly beneath contempt. What an asshole.
No, not all of them. But I'm thinking of adding you to the list Alex. Don't tempt me.
Ohh I'm so scared to be added to your famous list of warmongers. Fuck off jerkoff.
Well this is the easiest time I've ever had making a grown man cry in my life. You should make it a little more challenging next time Alex.
Offense and "Warmonger" are terms used for individuals who support invading and conquering other countries for expansion of territory, and extraction of valuable goods and natural resources like gold, or oil.
Within the last two decades not only has the United States NOT invaded other countries to expand the boundries of the country, but insanely, we have GIVEN UNITED STATES TERRITORY AWAY!!!
Three instances:
Clinton - Gave 5 Alaska islands over to the Russians in 1995, despite a unanimous vote in the Alaska Legislature against it.
Clinton - Gave 5 islands in the South Pacific to the tiny Nation of Kirabati despite the loud protestations of both the VFW and the American Legion. The US Military lost thousands of lives on those islands fighting the Japs in the 1940s. The largest of the Island Chain has a very large US Marine cemetary. Still, Clinton, handing US Territory over to another Nation without blinking.
Clinton and Bush - Seranilla Banks & Bajo Nuevo, were essentially ceded to Columbia. The Islands were give to the US in the Guano Acts Treaty of 1857, along with Navassa off the Coast of Haiti. The Columbians moved in in the middle 1990s and occupied the Islands. Clinton did not dispute their Territorial claim. Neither did Bush do anything to re-assert American sovereignty on the Islands.
Fortunately, Navassa still remains US Territory.
Is ceding Territory, massive amounts of Territory, the act of a "Warmonger" Nation?
I don't see "Warmonger" Ted Nugent advocating that we take some chunks of northern Mexico, or invading the Bahamas.
Scott is just dead wrong.
"Offensive" means to conquer other lands to steal their Territory.
We're so nutty as a Nation, that we invade them, only to give them democracy, freedom, and liberate them from terrorist thugs, and murderous dictators.
Where's all the oil revenue from the Iraqis? Weren't all those liberal War critics, crying "No blood for oil... no blood for oil..." All the while not noticing that it was the blood of volunteer Military personnel who WANTED TO FIGHT! Not their blood. Even so, we got no oil revenues.
What I'm proposing is the Libertarian platform is "basically the Republican platform"?
Really Scott? It's libertarians in the GOP who are pushing for repeal of seat belt laws. It's libertarians in the GOP who are opposing smoking bans. It's libertarians in the GOP who are leading efforts nationwide to repeal affirmative action laws. It's libertarians in the GOP who are standing up to political correctness and against the Fairness Doctrine and politically correct speech codes on college campuses. (In fairness, there have been a few conservatives who have joined us on the latter.) It's libertarians who beat the drum for legalization of marijuana within the GOP.
Imagine for a moment the entire libertarian wing of the GOP just dissappearing over night. Do you honestly believe our conservative friends would have any motivation to push on any of these issues?
Sure, if pushed they'll side with us in getting rid of Nanny-State retrictions like seat belt laws. But without us there to breathe down their necks, it's mandatory seat belt laws in all 50, just fine and dandy with them.
So No Scott. I am not advocating that the Republican platform adopt the Republican platform. Rather, I'm advocating that the Republican platform, adopt much more of the LIBERTARIAN agenda.
Hey Scott, how would that Swiss army type deal protected us from 9/11? And don't give me some bullshit answer like "Well, golly gee, they only attacked us cause we were intervening in their country..."
BULL-FUCKING-SHIT!!! They attacked us cause of our culture. Bin Laden said so himself, repeatedly. They attacked us cause of MTV, HBO, Madonna, our big-breasted blonde women, Hip Hop, ect...
How would that Swiss army of yours been able to respond to 9/11?
We would have not responded. Which would have emboldened them even more to attack again.
Recall, Bin Laden famously said, that one of the biggest reasons he invaded on 9/11 was because he witnessed first hand our weak response pulling out of Somalia, and he wanted to embarass the US as was done there, and in the Kenya and Tanzania embassy bombings.
BTW Scott, I've been to Switzerland. All over the country, in fact. Have you?
Their Military there is all over the place. They have Troops all over the train stations carrying M-16s, when you first come in country. They board the Trains and walk around checking everyone's passports, asking where they are from, where they are going and such. It's all quite Militaristic.
Something tells me you wouldn't like the Swiss system as much as you think.
Hey Scott, how would that Swiss army type deal protected us from 9/11?
heh, well look, the obvious answer to that question is that our own expansive and oversized military did not protect us from 9/11. I guess the Swiss Army has done pretty well protecting them from terrorist attacks since they haven't had any.
So I guess I won that debate.
Ohh I'm so scared to be added to your famous list of warmongers. Fuck off jerkoff.
Oh look, it's the LR lolcow at it again. You know, we should get you a little bell to hang around your neck. I always think cows look so adorable in those.
Alex has a fragile mind Bint, be gentle.
Also, just for the sack of accuracy, a warmonger is someone who favors and advocates for war. Has nothing to do with land or resource grabs. Look it up, son.
"I don't see "Warmonger" Ted Nugent advocating that we take some chunks of northern Mexico, or invading the Bahamas."
Why bother? The USA has already taken huge chunks out of Mexico...
Post a Comment