NRO excuses for war can be used to justify anything
Here is my translation of the latest NRO Editorial, "The Current Battle" (August 8 2006) byline "the ( NRO) Editors" ( http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OGVjYmUwM2RkMGM4NjY1NzUwNTE0NjgxZGFhZTA3Y2U= ):
HEZBOLLAH MUST BE DEFEATED OR IT WILL BULLY ARAB GOVTS AND UN PEACEKEEPERS AND SYRIA AND IRAN WILL BE STRONG
HEZBOLLAH MUST BE DISARMED OR PUSHED BACK OR FORCED INTO UNILATERAL CEASEFIRE AND ISRAELI OCCUPATION
THIS IS A BATTLE IN A WAR WITH ISLAM FOR CONTROL OF THE MIDEAST
(END OF TRANSLATION)
I don't get it. There are tons of powers in the world, who bully the governments of other nations and who push UN peacekeepers around, and still we do not insist on disarming them by force of arms.
There are tons of nations out there that we could weaken by doing something malicious, but still we do not go out and do these malicious things.
The world is filled with these situations where nations share borders over which rockets have been shot, but still, we do not demand that one of the sides in the conflict, be disarmed or pushed back from its own border or subjected to a unilateral cease-fire under the guns of the invaders from across the border.
The world is filled with moderately strong powers that are getting stronger and that have a history of mischief, yet we do not embark on bloody and expensive attempts to spank them into submission.
Throughout history, you can find examples of nations that: built up their strength, without getting involved in military expeditions designed to suppress foreign armed groups that bully foreign governments; that built up their strength, while refraining from engaging in military adventures simply because these adventures weakened competing nations; that built up their strength, without getting involved in disarming one of two nations sharing a border that were in the habit of lobbing projectiles over this border at each other; and that built up their strength while refraining from attempting to conquer moderately powerful and important foreign lands that happened to be getting stronger.
Throughout history, you can find examples of nations that: weakened their own position vis a vis the other nations of the world by: attempting to suppress foreign armed groups that bullied foreign governments; engaging in military aggression against foreign nations simply because these aggressions weakened foreign nations; attempting to disarm or force into retreat one of two foreign nations involved in a border conflict; and attempting to conquer moderately powerful and important foreign lands that were growing stronger.
This kind of ideology that NRO is advocating, is a war-like ideology that can be used to justify anything: almost any war can be justified on the grounds that it weakens foreign bullies who bully foreign governments; or on the grounds that it weakens foreign governments; or on the grounds that it will lead to the disarmament of a foreign government; or on the grounds that it will wrest power over a chunk of territory from those who heretofore have been in posession of it.
@2006 David Virgil Hobbs
HEZBOLLAH MUST BE DEFEATED OR IT WILL BULLY ARAB GOVTS AND UN PEACEKEEPERS AND SYRIA AND IRAN WILL BE STRONG
HEZBOLLAH MUST BE DISARMED OR PUSHED BACK OR FORCED INTO UNILATERAL CEASEFIRE AND ISRAELI OCCUPATION
THIS IS A BATTLE IN A WAR WITH ISLAM FOR CONTROL OF THE MIDEAST
(END OF TRANSLATION)
I don't get it. There are tons of powers in the world, who bully the governments of other nations and who push UN peacekeepers around, and still we do not insist on disarming them by force of arms.
There are tons of nations out there that we could weaken by doing something malicious, but still we do not go out and do these malicious things.
The world is filled with these situations where nations share borders over which rockets have been shot, but still, we do not demand that one of the sides in the conflict, be disarmed or pushed back from its own border or subjected to a unilateral cease-fire under the guns of the invaders from across the border.
The world is filled with moderately strong powers that are getting stronger and that have a history of mischief, yet we do not embark on bloody and expensive attempts to spank them into submission.
Throughout history, you can find examples of nations that: built up their strength, without getting involved in military expeditions designed to suppress foreign armed groups that bully foreign governments; that built up their strength, while refraining from engaging in military adventures simply because these adventures weakened competing nations; that built up their strength, without getting involved in disarming one of two nations sharing a border that were in the habit of lobbing projectiles over this border at each other; and that built up their strength while refraining from attempting to conquer moderately powerful and important foreign lands that happened to be getting stronger.
Throughout history, you can find examples of nations that: weakened their own position vis a vis the other nations of the world by: attempting to suppress foreign armed groups that bullied foreign governments; engaging in military aggression against foreign nations simply because these aggressions weakened foreign nations; attempting to disarm or force into retreat one of two foreign nations involved in a border conflict; and attempting to conquer moderately powerful and important foreign lands that were growing stronger.
This kind of ideology that NRO is advocating, is a war-like ideology that can be used to justify anything: almost any war can be justified on the grounds that it weakens foreign bullies who bully foreign governments; or on the grounds that it weakens foreign governments; or on the grounds that it will lead to the disarmament of a foreign government; or on the grounds that it will wrest power over a chunk of territory from those who heretofore have been in posession of it.
@2006 David Virgil Hobbs
posted by David Virgil at 5:16 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home