Archive for December 11th, 2006

Early Retirement

December 11, 2006

Brought to you by the Military of the United States of America. An all too real option for Jihadist looking for a simple path to 72 virgins.

What real war looks like

December 11, 2006
What Real War Looks Like

By Elan Journo
The Iraq Study Group has issued many specific recommendations, but the options boil down to a maddeningly limited range: pull out or send more troops to do democracy-building and, either way, “engage” the hostile regimes in Iran and Syria. Missing from the list is the one option our self-defense demands: a war to defeat the enemy. If you think we’ve already tried this option and failed, think again. Washington’s campaign in Iraq looks nothing like the war necessary for our self-defense.

What does such a war look like?

America’s security depends on identifying precisely the enemy that threatens our lives–and then crushing it, rendering it a non-threat. It depends on proudly defending our right to live free of foreign aggression–by unapologetically killing the killers who want us dead.

Those who say this is a “new kind of conflict” against a “faceless enemy” are wrong. The enemy Washington evasively calls “terrorism” is actually an ideologically inspired political movement: Islamic totalitarianism. It seeks to subjugate the West under a totalitarian Islamic regime by means of terrorism, negotiation, war–anything that will win its jihad. The movement’s inspiration, its first triumph, its standard-bearer, is the theocracy of Iran. Iran’s regime has, for decades, used terrorist proxies to attack America. It openly seeks nuclear weapons and zealously sponsors and harbors jihadists. Without Iran’s support, legions of holy warriors would be untrained, unarmed, unmotivated, impotent.

Destroying Islamic totalitarianism requires a punishing military onslaught to end its primary state representative and demoralize its supporters. We need to deploy all necessary force to destroy Iran’s ability to fight, while minimizing our own casualties. We need a campaign that ruthlessly inflicts the pain of war so intensely that the jihadists renounce their cause as hopeless and fear to take up arms against us. This is how America and its Allies defeated both Nazi Germany and Imperialist Japan.

Victory in World War II required flattening cities, firebombing factories, shops and homes, devastating vast tracts of Germany and Japan. The enemy and its supporters were exhausted materially and crushed in spirit. What our actions demonstrated to them was that any attempt to implement their vicious ideologies would bring them only destruction and death. Since their defeat, Nazism and Japanese imperialism have essentially withered as ideological forces. Victory today requires the same: smashing Iran’s totalitarian regime and thus demoralizing the Islamist movement and its many supporters, so that they, too, abandon their cause as futile.

We triumphed over both Japan and Germany in less than four years after Pearl Harbor. Yet more than five years after 9/11, against a far weaker enemy, our soldiers still die daily in Iraq. Why? Because this war is neither assertive nor ruthless–it is a tragically meek pretense at war.

Consider what Washington has done. The Islamist regime in Iran remains untouched, fomenting terrorism. (And now our leaders hope to “engage” Iran diplomatically.)

We went to battle not with theocratic Iran, but with the secular dictatorship of Iraq. And the campaign there was not aimed at crushing whatever threat Hussein’s regime posed to us. “Shock and awe” bombing never materialized. Our brave and capable forces were hamstrung: ordered not to bomb key targets such as power plants and to avoid firing into mosques (where insurgents hide) lest we offend Muslim sensibilities. Instead, we sent our troops to lift Iraq out of poverty, open new schools, fix up hospitals, feed the hungry, unclog sewers–a Peace Corps, not an army corps, mission.

U.S. troops were sent, not to crush an enemy threatening America, but (as Bush explained) to “sacrifice for the liberty of strangers,” putting the lives of Iraqis above their own. They were prevented from using all necessary force to win or even to protect themselves. No wonder the insurgency has flourished, emboldened by Washington’s self-crippling policies. (Perversely, some want even more Americans tossed into this quagmire.)

Bush did all this to bring Iraqis the vote. Any objective assessment of the Middle East would have told one who would win elections, given the widespread popular support for Islamic totalitarianism. Iraqis swept to power a pro-Islamist leadership intimately tied to Iran. The most influential figure in Iraqi politics is now Moktadr al-Sadr, an Islamist warlord lusting after theocratic rule and American blood. When asked whether he would accept just such an outcome from the elections, Bush said that of course he would, because “democracy is democracy.”

No war that ushers Islamists into political office has U.S. self-defense as its goal.

This war has been worse than doing nothing, because it has galvanized our enemy to believe its success more likely than ever–even as it has drained Americans’ will to fight. Washington’s feeble campaign demonstrates the ruinous effects of refusing to assert our self-interest and defend our freedom. It is past time to consider our only moral and practical option: end the senseless sacrifice of our soldiers–and let them go to war.

Elan Journo is a junior fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute ( in Irvine, Calif. The Institute promotes Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand–author of “Atlas Shrugged” and “The Fountainhead.” Contact the writer at

While I am not 100 percent in agreement with the above I do have to support it in a general sense. What would a viable solution to Islamic aggression be? Americans spent billions of dollars developing a nuclear strike capability. Why not use it when an identifiable major threat to our existence can be targeted? Produce evidence that is incontrovertible, say in the case of Iran. Tell friendly nations to get their diplomatic corp out and any resistance forces within to get very busy very fast and that failing turn the damned place into radioactive glass. The proceed in the same manner to the next nation that sponsors our eradication.

Some will undoubtedly say that I am proposing a bloodthirsty solution. Admittedly, it is. The question being whose blood will spill? Theirs in a nuclear flash? Or ours via the sawing off of our heads? I seem to prefer them to us being killed. Imagine that?

Old Sayings

December 11, 2006

I got these from a friend, enjoy!

These have been around before, but it’s been a while.

>> \The next time you are washing your hands and complain because the
>> water temperature isn’t just how you like it, think about how things
>> used to be. Here are some facts about the1500s:
>> These are interesting…
>> Most people got married in June because they took their yearly bath
>> in May, and still smelled pretty good by June. However, they were
>> starting to smell, so brides carried a bouquet of flowers to hide the
>> body odor. Hence the custom today of carrying a bouquet when getting
>> married.
>   Baths consisted of a big tub filled with hot water. The man of the
>> house had the privilege of the nice clean water, then all the other
>> sons and men, then the women and finally the children. Last of all
>> the babies. By then the water was so dirty you could actually lose
>> someone in it. Hence the saying, Don’t throw the baby out with the
>> Bath water..
>> Houses had thatched roofs-thick straw-piled high, with no wood
>> underneath. It was the only place for animals to get warm , so all
>> the cats and other small animals (mice, bugs) lived in the roof When
>> it rained it became slippery and sometimes the animals would slip and
>> fall off the roof. Hence the saying . It’s raining cats and dogs.
>> There was nothing to stop things from falling into the house.. This
>> posed a real problem in the bedroom where bugs and other droppings
>> could mess up your nice clean bed. Hence, a bed with big posts and a
>> sheet hung over the top afforded some protection. That’s how canopy
>> beds came into existence.
>> The floor was dirt. Only the wealthy had something other than dirt.
>> Hence the saying, Dirt poor. The wealthy had slate floors that would
>> get slippery in the winter when wet, so they spread thresh (straw) on
>> floor to help keep their footing. As the winter wore on, they added
>> more thresh until, when you opened the door, it would all start
>> slipping outside. A piece of wood was placed in the entranceway.
>> Hence the saying a thresh hold.
>> (Getting quite an education, aren’t you?)
>> In those old days, they cooked in the kitchen with a big kettle that
>> always hung over the fire. Every day they lit the fire and added
>> things to the pot. They ate mostly vegetables and did not get much
>> meat. They would eat the stew for dinner, leaving leftovers in the
>> pot to get cold overnight and then start over the next day. Sometimes
>> stew had food in it that had been there for quite a while. Hence the
>> rhyme, Peas porridge hot, peas porridge cold, peas porridge in the
>> pot nine days old..
>> Sometimes they could obtain pork, which made them feel quite special.
>> When visitors came over, they would hang up their bacon to show off.
>> It was a sign of wealth that a man could, bring home the bacon. They
>> would cut off a little to share with guests and would all sit around
>> and chew the fat..
>> Those with money had plates made of pewter. Food with high acid
>> content caused some of the lead to leach onto the food, causing lead
>> poi soning death. This happened m ost often with tomatoes, so for the
>> next 400 years or so, tomatoes were considered poisonous.
>> Bread was divided according to status. Workers got the burnt bottom
>> of the loaf, the family got the middle, and guests got the top, or
>> the upper crust.
>> Lead cups were used to drink ale or whisky. The combination would
>> sometimes knock the imbibers out for a couple of days. Someone
>> walking along the road would take them for dead and prepare them for
>> burial. They were laid out on the kitchen table for a couple of days
>> and the family would gather around and eat and drink and wait and see
>> if they would wake up. Hence the custom of holding a wake.
>> England is old and small and the local folks started running out of
>> places to bury people. So they would dig up coffins and woul d take
>> the bones to a bone-house, and reuse the grave. When reopening these
>> coffins, 1 out of 25 coffins were found to have scratch marks on the
>> inside and they realized they had been burying people alive. So they
>> would tie a string on the wrist of the corpse, lead it through the
>> coffin and up through the ground and tie it to a bell. Someone would
>> have to sit out in the graveyard all night (the graveyard shift.) to
>> listen for the bell; thus, someone could be, saved by the bell or was
>> considered a ..dead ringer..
>> And that’s the truth.Now, whoever said History was boring ! ! !

%d bloggers like this: