House of Eratosthenes

Some guy named Christian Liberal entered a comment on my son’s blog. I wasn’t familiar with this character, but thought his arguments were interesting. You’ve seen this isolationist/pacifist stance before; it comes down to three words, “end the war.”

So because I’ve seen this asserted so much, and the debate that logically continues from that pursued so little, I thought I’d leave the following nugget as food-fer-thought.

When two sides are at war with each other, how many sides does it take to decide to end it? One side, or both?

The whole issue really comes down to just that. And you know, it’s a little bit silly to imply that when two sides are at war, one side can unilaterally decide to end the war.

It’s actually a easy line to follow. The Leftists who push this line believe in the U.S. military more then you or I do. Nothing bad can happen to us while the military is there, in their eyes. And if, God forbid, something came close to happening, they would call for the marines(use the nukes….). Remember, the Left is filled with the Soft people, the Rich and the Poor. People who are protected from the consequences of their actions, either by their money, by mom and dad, or by the government. It leads them to draw lines in the sand, and to get other people to deal with the fight they caused… They don’t themselves get blooded or hurt. Because they don’t use force as a rule, when they do, they get it wrong, like women getting into an argument with a man and stabbing or shooting him. Heck, there’s a legal defense based on that fact, the “burning bed” excuse. We’ve seen the same thing with the Democrat(Leftist) wars. The line of “unconditional surrender” was drawn by Democrat presidents, and millions died to make a peace guaranteed to fail. On the other hand, the Republicans tend to come from the Hard people, and because they understand how and when to use force, their wars are over quickly and cleanly. The Democrats have complained that many of the Republican actions were “unfair” because of how “easy” the Hard men won the fight, with a minimum of bloodshed. It’s one of the reasons I could never vote for a Democrat, even indirectly. I know if we are ever in a nuclear war, it will because one of the Leftists let it go, and then panicked when the U.S. was attacked. Can you imagine what a mess it would have been if Gore were President on 9-11? Any able to argue he wouldn’t have tried to negotiate? And when the loonies attacked again, seeing his weakness, I believe he would have launched a bunch of nukes…….
- Robert Mitchell Jr. | 09/10/2008 @ 00:03
it’s a little bit silly to imply that when two sides are at war, one side can unilaterally decide to end the war.

Well, it can happen if one side has the ability and decides to use overwhelming force against the other, i.e. the “nuke them ’till they glow” doctrine.

Of course, that’ll never happen so your point actually remains true.
- pdwalker | 09/10/2008 @ 00:07
That would be Things I Know #13 [Phil’s list]

13. You don’t get to decide when a war is over until you decide to lose it.

I suppose 100% annihilation of the other side would be the exception to this rule.
- philmon | 09/10/2008 @ 08:41

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

On Ending WarTuesday, September 9th, 2008

On Ending War
Tuesday, September 9th, 2008