Master CraftsMon - Aired Monday, January 16, 2006 at about 11pm CST - Segment 2
Master CraftsMon - Aired Monday, January 16, 2006 at about 11pm CST - Segment 2
Every Saturday I put Alternative Radio on, then pass control to my replacement. This very angry guy came on frothing at the mouth about how Bush lied us into the war in Iraq.
I didn't listen long, because the 'Bush lied, people died' rant has always seemed nonsensical to me. Here's why.
It's the French and the Germans. In order for President George Bush to be lying the French and the Germans had to be in favor of the war in Iraq. I know what I just said sounds crazy. How could anyone read recent history and say that the French and the Germans were in favor of the war in Iraq?
What I'm getting at is that the French and the Germans were all over Iraq in the period of 1992-2003. They were selling the Iraqs lots of stuff both legally and illegally. The Oil for Food program under United Nations control had many European participants. They all had a chance to study Saddam Husein's weapons program up close and personal. If they knew that Saddam did NOT have weapons of mass destruction, then why didn't they say so in the Spring of 2003? Think about it. If the French and the Germans had information that Saddam did NOT have weapons of mass destruction, why didn't they refute Colin Powell's presentation to the U.N.? They had independent sources in Iraq. They had the contacts inside Iraq. Why didn't they know that Saddam's Weapons of Mass destruction program was a lie?
The answer is that they didn't. Saddam wanted weapons of mass destruction. He was buying the fixings to do acquire them from the French, the Germans and the Russians. All of the intelligence agencies in these countries believed that the Iraqis had weapons of mass destruction.
I know Bush did not lie about Iraq. He screwed up. He made a mistake as far as weapons of mass destruction. He surely did not take us to war for a light and transient reason.
When I sat through Colin Powell's presentation to U.N., I was impressed with the details and the depth of information on Saddam's weapons programs. The one I was most frightened of was the biological weapons one. The portable laboratories was such a weird concept. I mean, here was this French built vehicle that allowed Saddam to produce anthrax in mass quantities. Because it was portable, he could move it around and outfox the U.N. inspection teams.
The problem I am having here is that only a nation state can produce biological weapons. For a terrorist organization to do it without state sponsorship is kind of hard. I guess it could be done, but the laboratory would have to be in a place where there were NO nosey neighbors and I am at a loss as to where you could find such a place. What I am getting at is that a nation state can launch a program of biological warfare weapons and make sure that none of the neighbors complain or a nation state could simply ignore the complaints.
If Saddam HAD been left to himself, he would have tried for the biological weapons. We could have waited ten years, he could have passed the biologicals to some terrorist group and Americans could have died in mass quantities. At that point we could have invaded. George Bush made the point if that we know that someone wants to hurt us next Tuesday, then it follows that we should hit them this Tuesday to preclude that threat. The major sticking point in all the analysis is: Do you think Saddam meant it? Was Saddam really trying to get weapons of mass destruction?
I don't care. And I'll tell you why. There's a concept called friction put forwards by a guy named Carl Von Clausewitz. The idea is that in a conflict, you cannot actually fight if things become too chaotic. It would be impossible to develop biological or nuclear weapons if a nation state in the form of the police or army got in your way. We as a nation and a civilization have to make it hard for a terrorist organization to develop weapons of mass destruction. By going to war in Iraq, we served notice to other nations in the area that they could not expect us to stand idly by while they produced weapons of mass destruction. We needed to increased the friction to a point where Syria, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Iran couldn't create weapons of mass destruction and deploy them against us.
Our problem is that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. They found a fanatical idiot to lead them called Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He like Hitler and Tojo before him has the belief that we are not serious people. Normally invoking Hitler means that you have no argument and are tarring the other side with the sins of Hitler. In this case, I do not use Hitler's name to tar Ahmadinejad. I am simply pointing out that like Hitler and all the tyrants since the founding of America, Ahmadinejad assumes that because we argue all the time and are decadent by his standards, we cannot and will not fight. That assumption works great with the United States up until it stops working. Our country just has a tendency to surprise tyrants.
You might make the argument that had we just ignored Afghanistan and Iraq after 9/11, then Iran would not have come up with nuclear weapons. Iraq wanted nuclear weapons. Once Iran was convinced that Saddam was serious about getting nuclear weapons, they would have had to get serious about getting nuclear weapons as well. I draw your attention to the Pakistan/India nuclear standoff.
People on the Left make the point that, if Albert Gore had been elected, then the war in Afghanistan and Iraq would not have been necessary. I have to agree with them. My best guess is that Gore would have launched the largest police investigation in the history of the world and the terrorists would have laughed at him. In all probability Saddam would have gotten the sanctions against him lifted and proceeded to arm himself with weapons of mass destruction. Gore would have just sat there looking at him.
The Left has made a serious mistake in reading current events. Their assumption is that, if we stop pushing Islam, they will go back to sleep and all will be right with the world. They do not acknowledge something called demographics. America has a birth rate of about 2.04 children per woman. Europe has a birth rate of about 1.7 children per woman. People of Islam have a birth rate of above 5 children per woman. If in fifty years the people of Islam have many young people and we in the West have mostly old people, how could we possibly resist a take over attempt.
Western Civilization is dying. Islam is on the rise. The best guess is that within fifty years, Europe will look like Turkey. All the cathedrals of Europe will stand empty, tourist attractions without any worshipers.
For about four centuries, Islam has failed to provide a good life for its members. The members of Islam cannot figure out why. The Koran is explicit that Islam is the One True Path. The leaders of radical Islam have looked at the demographics and have decided that they have a shot at re-establishing the Caliphate. If you are not up on that concept, the feeling among many in Islam is there should be one government stretching from Algeria to Indonesia guided by sharia. They have looked back on past glory and assume that if they can re-establish the caliphate, then Islam will take over the world.
Now here's where the disagreement between the Left and the Right becomes nonsensical to me. Radical Islam is serious about taking over the world. They have looked at their birth rate and looked at ours and made the correct assumption that they can outgrow us. Look, if your side is growing and the other side is declining, why should you give up. The Right in this country has looked at radical Islam and decided that we have to fight now or we're doomed. The Left has... done something... I don't know how the Left arrived at the conclusion that radical Islam can be bought off or turned aside or basically that radical Islam will give up the fight if we give up the fight.
The question you should ask yourself whether you are on the Left OR the Right is: Why SHOULD they give up? By fighting us for the next fifty years they can have a reasonable expectation of winning. I mean, if members of Islam become something like 30-40% of a given country's population, then they have a shot at taking over the government. If they keep up the pressure over that period of time, why shouldn't they expect to rule in the end?
As far as I can tell, the Left does not believe that radical Islam is serious about their need to take over the world. And I do use the word, 'need', after much thought. Radical Islam's position is that they have a religious duty to take over the world. The so-called Arab street is absolutely convinced that if every country was ruled by people of Islam, then everything would be much better for them and their descendant.
As far as I can tell, the Left has aligned itself with Islam. A Christian tries to pray at a public event, the ACLU jumps on that individual hard. A Muslim tries to pray at an public event and the ACLU backs them. Why does that make sense?
Islam is on the march. They have about had it being poor and disrespected. The people of Islam are absolutely convinced that they have the One True Path. They are unable to understand why they are poor and we are rich. I mean, according to the Koran, they are supposed to be in charge and we are supposed to be at best second class citizens. How are we doing that? They have no answer except to go to war and fix the imbalance.
Why is the Left backing Islam? I don't understand that at all. One of the major pillars of Liberalism is that women should be treated equal to men. Islam teaches that before the law a woman's word is half that of a man.
Another big cause for Liberalism is gay rights. Islam says that gays should be killed. Why would Liberals back such a set of people?
One of the major tenants of Liberalism is abortion. Islam outlaws that explicitly.
And the one huge sticking point that I cannot understand is that Liberals want a separation of Church and State. Radical Islam says that separation of Church and State is explicitly forbidden in the Koran.
It all boils down to one thing, Liberals in this country don't believe that radical Islam can win. Conservatives are convinced that they are going to make the try. Whether radical Islam can win or not is considered a non-starter for Conservatives. We on the Right are convinced that they have a reasonable expectation of taking over the world because of demographics.
Every Saturday I put Alternative Radio on, then pass control to my replacement. This very angry guy came on frothing at the mouth about how Bush lied us into the war in Iraq.
I didn't listen long, because the 'Bush lied, people died' rant has always seemed nonsensical to me. Here's why.
It's the French and the Germans. In order for President George Bush to be lying the French and the Germans had to be in favor of the war in Iraq. I know what I just said sounds crazy. How could anyone read recent history and say that the French and the Germans were in favor of the war in Iraq?
What I'm getting at is that the French and the Germans were all over Iraq in the period of 1992-2003. They were selling the Iraqs lots of stuff both legally and illegally. The Oil for Food program under United Nations control had many European participants. They all had a chance to study Saddam Husein's weapons program up close and personal. If they knew that Saddam did NOT have weapons of mass destruction, then why didn't they say so in the Spring of 2003? Think about it. If the French and the Germans had information that Saddam did NOT have weapons of mass destruction, why didn't they refute Colin Powell's presentation to the U.N.? They had independent sources in Iraq. They had the contacts inside Iraq. Why didn't they know that Saddam's Weapons of Mass destruction program was a lie?
The answer is that they didn't. Saddam wanted weapons of mass destruction. He was buying the fixings to do acquire them from the French, the Germans and the Russians. All of the intelligence agencies in these countries believed that the Iraqis had weapons of mass destruction.
I know Bush did not lie about Iraq. He screwed up. He made a mistake as far as weapons of mass destruction. He surely did not take us to war for a light and transient reason.
When I sat through Colin Powell's presentation to U.N., I was impressed with the details and the depth of information on Saddam's weapons programs. The one I was most frightened of was the biological weapons one. The portable laboratories was such a weird concept. I mean, here was this French built vehicle that allowed Saddam to produce anthrax in mass quantities. Because it was portable, he could move it around and outfox the U.N. inspection teams.
The problem I am having here is that only a nation state can produce biological weapons. For a terrorist organization to do it without state sponsorship is kind of hard. I guess it could be done, but the laboratory would have to be in a place where there were NO nosey neighbors and I am at a loss as to where you could find such a place. What I am getting at is that a nation state can launch a program of biological warfare weapons and make sure that none of the neighbors complain or a nation state could simply ignore the complaints.
If Saddam HAD been left to himself, he would have tried for the biological weapons. We could have waited ten years, he could have passed the biologicals to some terrorist group and Americans could have died in mass quantities. At that point we could have invaded. George Bush made the point if that we know that someone wants to hurt us next Tuesday, then it follows that we should hit them this Tuesday to preclude that threat. The major sticking point in all the analysis is: Do you think Saddam meant it? Was Saddam really trying to get weapons of mass destruction?
I don't care. And I'll tell you why. There's a concept called friction put forwards by a guy named Carl Von Clausewitz. The idea is that in a conflict, you cannot actually fight if things become too chaotic. It would be impossible to develop biological or nuclear weapons if a nation state in the form of the police or army got in your way. We as a nation and a civilization have to make it hard for a terrorist organization to develop weapons of mass destruction. By going to war in Iraq, we served notice to other nations in the area that they could not expect us to stand idly by while they produced weapons of mass destruction. We needed to increased the friction to a point where Syria, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Iran couldn't create weapons of mass destruction and deploy them against us.
Our problem is that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. They found a fanatical idiot to lead them called Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He like Hitler and Tojo before him has the belief that we are not serious people. Normally invoking Hitler means that you have no argument and are tarring the other side with the sins of Hitler. In this case, I do not use Hitler's name to tar Ahmadinejad. I am simply pointing out that like Hitler and all the tyrants since the founding of America, Ahmadinejad assumes that because we argue all the time and are decadent by his standards, we cannot and will not fight. That assumption works great with the United States up until it stops working. Our country just has a tendency to surprise tyrants.
You might make the argument that had we just ignored Afghanistan and Iraq after 9/11, then Iran would not have come up with nuclear weapons. Iraq wanted nuclear weapons. Once Iran was convinced that Saddam was serious about getting nuclear weapons, they would have had to get serious about getting nuclear weapons as well. I draw your attention to the Pakistan/India nuclear standoff.
People on the Left make the point that, if Albert Gore had been elected, then the war in Afghanistan and Iraq would not have been necessary. I have to agree with them. My best guess is that Gore would have launched the largest police investigation in the history of the world and the terrorists would have laughed at him. In all probability Saddam would have gotten the sanctions against him lifted and proceeded to arm himself with weapons of mass destruction. Gore would have just sat there looking at him.
The Left has made a serious mistake in reading current events. Their assumption is that, if we stop pushing Islam, they will go back to sleep and all will be right with the world. They do not acknowledge something called demographics. America has a birth rate of about 2.04 children per woman. Europe has a birth rate of about 1.7 children per woman. People of Islam have a birth rate of above 5 children per woman. If in fifty years the people of Islam have many young people and we in the West have mostly old people, how could we possibly resist a take over attempt.
Western Civilization is dying. Islam is on the rise. The best guess is that within fifty years, Europe will look like Turkey. All the cathedrals of Europe will stand empty, tourist attractions without any worshipers.
For about four centuries, Islam has failed to provide a good life for its members. The members of Islam cannot figure out why. The Koran is explicit that Islam is the One True Path. The leaders of radical Islam have looked at the demographics and have decided that they have a shot at re-establishing the Caliphate. If you are not up on that concept, the feeling among many in Islam is there should be one government stretching from Algeria to Indonesia guided by sharia. They have looked back on past glory and assume that if they can re-establish the caliphate, then Islam will take over the world.
Now here's where the disagreement between the Left and the Right becomes nonsensical to me. Radical Islam is serious about taking over the world. They have looked at their birth rate and looked at ours and made the correct assumption that they can outgrow us. Look, if your side is growing and the other side is declining, why should you give up. The Right in this country has looked at radical Islam and decided that we have to fight now or we're doomed. The Left has... done something... I don't know how the Left arrived at the conclusion that radical Islam can be bought off or turned aside or basically that radical Islam will give up the fight if we give up the fight.
The question you should ask yourself whether you are on the Left OR the Right is: Why SHOULD they give up? By fighting us for the next fifty years they can have a reasonable expectation of winning. I mean, if members of Islam become something like 30-40% of a given country's population, then they have a shot at taking over the government. If they keep up the pressure over that period of time, why shouldn't they expect to rule in the end?
As far as I can tell, the Left does not believe that radical Islam is serious about their need to take over the world. And I do use the word, 'need', after much thought. Radical Islam's position is that they have a religious duty to take over the world. The so-called Arab street is absolutely convinced that if every country was ruled by people of Islam, then everything would be much better for them and their descendant.
As far as I can tell, the Left has aligned itself with Islam. A Christian tries to pray at a public event, the ACLU jumps on that individual hard. A Muslim tries to pray at an public event and the ACLU backs them. Why does that make sense?
Islam is on the march. They have about had it being poor and disrespected. The people of Islam are absolutely convinced that they have the One True Path. They are unable to understand why they are poor and we are rich. I mean, according to the Koran, they are supposed to be in charge and we are supposed to be at best second class citizens. How are we doing that? They have no answer except to go to war and fix the imbalance.
Why is the Left backing Islam? I don't understand that at all. One of the major pillars of Liberalism is that women should be treated equal to men. Islam teaches that before the law a woman's word is half that of a man.
Another big cause for Liberalism is gay rights. Islam says that gays should be killed. Why would Liberals back such a set of people?
One of the major tenants of Liberalism is abortion. Islam outlaws that explicitly.
And the one huge sticking point that I cannot understand is that Liberals want a separation of Church and State. Radical Islam says that separation of Church and State is explicitly forbidden in the Koran.
It all boils down to one thing, Liberals in this country don't believe that radical Islam can win. Conservatives are convinced that they are going to make the try. Whether radical Islam can win or not is considered a non-starter for Conservatives. We on the Right are convinced that they have a reasonable expectation of taking over the world because of demographics.
posted by aRandomTexan at
3:21 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home