No More Apologies
You need to read Jack Wheeler's freebie; it's a must read.
No Apologies
When I was a young boy, still just as big, just young, I had a dog named "Nicky" that was a great dog. Pure mutt, and fearless (able to kill skunks and hardly get sprayed, which is waaay cool!). The only thing that bothered me was that when Nicky would go next door to play with his German Shepherd buddy "Rufus" (I hated Rufus, and he knew it), when the two got to wrestling, Nicky would always roll over and let Rufus win. I kept thinking, "Nicky you big dope, take him. Rufus is practically in a wheelchair." But no, Nicky time and time again would do the 'roll over and don't hurt me' routine. Definitely a sign of weakness.
Which brings me to my point. The overuse of the apology. I'm not going to use the quote, "Never apologize, son. It's a sign of weakness," as a mantra for my life. Sometimes it is required. If you did something wrong, damn it, own up to it. But don't say your sorry when you're in a bad situation that was caused by someone else. It is completely illogical to apologize for that which you are not responsible. It is a favored method of appeasement, which always backfires against the apologizer. And yet, this is the left's modus operandi (for more information on this, go to my post "Watch out for the Evil Eye") to try and end the war on terror.
And now we have the august body of the U.S. Senate, who felt it there sacred duty to apologize to those families who lost loved ones in times past due to lynchings. Somehow, the world is a better place, for the ever sensitive Senate feels it was somehow responsible for its predecessors lack of caring for not outlawing lynchings. Er hum, isn't lynching like a form of murder? Do we have to have laws on the books now for every form of murder? So if Mrs. Jane Doe blungeons her no-good jerk of husband with a frozen salami, we need to have a salami law? How about a "lead pipe in the conservatory with Colonel Mustard" law?
Are you as sick of the illogicality of it all as I am?
For a great post, go to Saurkraut's blog and read her post on:
Senate Apologizes Pointlessly
Another useless article is a recent post by Helen Thomas, the White House "Boil on the Backside" reporter for Hearst, has great insights as to why the Arab world is mad at us: the invasion of Iraq. Why were they mad at us before Iraq, Helen? Why did we get two planes to down our twin towers? What did we do Helen?
Who's to Blame for Anger at U.S.?
Why don't we all do a "Nicky" and say "Don't hurt us Mr. Terrorists, we're sorry. And if President Bush doesn't say it, WE'LL SAY IT! He's a baaaaaad president Mr. Terrorist, and you'll see that we are truly sorry. We're going to be mad at Mr. Bush, and call him a Hitler, anything to keep you from hurting us!!!! Don't hurt us, Mr. Terrorist."
Phooey on it all!
posted by Underground Logician @ 6:34 PM
4 comments
4 Comments:
Underground,
You are correct. Oh, and thanks for mentioning my blog! Feel free to quote it anytime.
I think the biggest problem we are facing right now is that it is so very difficult to pinpoint a terrorist group. They are scattered everywhere. To be fair, we should attack every country that harbors them, but that would include Saudi Arabia. And the Sauds have been very close friends of the Bush family for a long time, which means they will be exempt. Other countries are exempt as well, for different political reasons, or because they are making faint efforts at eradicating the terrorists in their midst.
Our borders are virtually wide-open, so terrorists can easily penetrate our country through the Mexican border. Friends of mine went to Mexico a couple of weeks ago, and said that it was laughingly easy to smuggle someone through (they didn't do it, may I add).
So our policy right now is ineffective.
Don't get me wrong. I don't think Bush is all bad, and I don't think he is all good. The issue here is more complex than that.
I am considered by some to be very brutal when I say that what we should have done is drop an atom bomb in the midst of Iraq, instead of sending in our troops to die door-to-door by the thousands. It may not have been the popular choice, but it would have saved the lives of our boys. Why are their civilians' lives more important than our boys? Much of the world was uninterested in our civilians' lives in the 9/11 incidents.
But if I were suddenly elevated to President, I would now remove our troops from the middle east and bring them home. I would make it very clear that I would not sanction the harboring of terrorists, and if any government did that, I would strike first and ask questions later. And my strike would be brutal and memorable.
I would strengthen the borders. I would get ahold of the economy. As I wrote in another blog recently, we are at the threshold of economic disaster. We need to stop borrowing and begin to tighten our belts. That means no aid to any foreign countries. We need to use that money to pay off our debt and aid our childrens' futures.
Ah well, I see I'm getting off track...but I won't say 'sorry!' *g*. *stepping down from my soapbox now*
I would agree that your idea of massive destruction of a country is brutal; very practical, yet brutal. Whenever anyone tries to justify any past acts of war, whether they be the fire bombing of Dresden, Germany, or A-bombing Hiroshima or Nagasaki, I recoil abit. The only justification is its practicality in war. There is little moral justification, unless one believes the rhetoric of calculating the amount of American casualties if the above actions didn't happen. Intentional bombing of civilian targets is never justified unless the failure to do so would produce catastrophic results. Those alternatives are very difficult to prove.
As to an alternative to Hiroshima, why didn't they choose a substantial military target, or simply set up a "demonstration" as to what kind of bomb we had? Scare the crap out of 'em!
As to the current situation, could you imagine the repercussions in all of Arab world should we do what you have suggested in Iraq?
War is political...would this drastic measure be in our best interests?
Would it be practical? A very good question. Some people say that such drastic moves would lead to more terrorism, leave us with no allies, etc.
I will be extremist and suggest the possibility that we don't need allies and should be isolationistic. How much do I believe that assertion? Maybe 80-90%. I see both sides, of course. I've heard the argument that WWII proved we can't be isolationist, but I don't think that one example should create national policy.
Furthermore, I believe if we were isolationist, the world would leave us alone more than they do. Perhaps they wouldn't, but we'll never know until we try!
I know this: That I'm sick of world leaders castigating us because we don't spend enough money on other countries. I know that I'm sick and tired of the threat of terrorism. I know that I'm completely over illegal immigrants coming into this country and being quietly sanctioned by the government to the detriment of those of us who are here legally.
As for total destruction, I have also heard it argued that there are no innocents. Civilians openly or quietly support regimes or the regimes wouldn't exist. Look at what happened during the Vietnam war!
And I don't buy the excuse that those civilians are too scared to fight the regimes. We didn't have that excuse during the Revolutionary War. Did we expect China or France to come to our aid because we were oppressed? And our people were just as poor as their people are now. The only difference was our general foundation of a faith in the Judeo/Christian God. Perhaps we had his blessing. I don't know, and I don't have all the answers.
But, I also know that we can't be the World's Policemen. Not unless they pay us for the privilege, just as we have to pay our own police departments in our own cities.
I think if we, as a country stand for principle, especially during this war on terror, and it causes other countries to leave us, so be it. This liberal mantra of requiring the inclusion of other nations puts us in a position to sell out. I think you and I are on the same page. I don't think isolationism should be policy per se, we need to show we are not going to pussy-foot around.
If only we had a George Patton for president!
Post a Comment
<< Home