On the War and Other Casual Topics

So before, the reason we shouldn't be in Iraq was because it was primarily a civil war. Now the complaint is that it was drawing more terrorists. So which is it? In addition, as I heard today on the Bill Press show (a liberal talk radio show of the Sirius satellite radio liberal talk station), most of the people now being targeted by the "insurgents" are American soldiers. Does that sound like a civil war to you? When the primary target is not your fellow countrymen, are you really engaged in a Civil War? My memory may be faulty, but the one shining example of a Civil War that comes to my mind was our own. In that conflict, it was American fighting American. Should the South have fired first on, say, Mexico City, rather than Fort Sumter, would it have been a Civil War?
So in the wake of the surge beginning in earnest, this liberal talker was also quite distraught that the majority of those being attacked now are American soldiers. And this is news to him? Hey, big news to you libs out there who are wholly ignorant of what happens in a war. When you have two sides attacking one another, most of your casualties are going to come from those two sides. Thus, during the Battle of the Bulge, during World War II, the majority of casualties inflicted by the Germans were Americans and British, and not Argentinians. During the Battle of Gettysburg, lo and behold, the Northern Armies primarily targeted the Confederate Armies, and not the Canadians. Stop me if I'm going too fast for you. Obviously the number of American casualties will increase when our offensives increase. Thus it was that we also saw a significant increase in American casualties during World War II after we got into the fight. Funny how that works. You cannot have a bloodless war. Only completely intellectually dishonest people think that you can stage such actions without loss of life. Don't bother sending me your tired old chickenhawk accusations.
War is not the answer? Well, now, that really depends on what the question is, doesn't it? It certainly seemed to be the right answer for solving the question of Hitler and Nazi Germany. Your much beloved diplomacy worked wonders there. Diplomacy got us the enabling of Hitler and his "Final Solution" for the Jews, the takeover of Czechoslovakia and Austria, and the launching of World War II. The actions of the Allied forces did more to restore peace to Europe than all the diplomacy. Diplomacy has given us a nuclear North Korea. Diplomacy is very close to giving us a nuclear Iran. Diplomacy is giving us genocide in Darfur. Diplomacy turned Iran from an ally of the United States to one of its greatest enemies. Diplomacy gave Gaza back to the Palestinians. That has been a smashing success. Actually, when weighed in the balance of history, it appears that, in fact, diplomacy is not the answer. More people have been killed in this world when the United States military has not intervened than when they have.
In other news, at least the top 3 Democrat presidential candidates have signed on to a gay issues debate to be moderated, at least partly, by Melissa Etheridge. It will be fun to see them squirming as they try to nuance their way around their views. Maybe Hillary can rehash her erroneous accusation as to why HIV/AIDS has not yet been cured. Before it was because we Americans don't care about blacks. Now she can tailor it to the gay community. It will also be fun to see what new false promises they will offer up to seal the loyalty of a group that they really aren't in any danger of losing. It will be fun to see if Hillary actually gets behind gay marriage. I have no doubt Edwards will. The man has the backbone of a jellyfish, and will pander to any interest group he can to get ahead.
And finally, a word on Senator Vitter, the first name identified from the D.C. madam's phone records. The Republican Senator stole some of the thunder by coming out first and admitting that his was probably one of the numbers on the list. This is an issue that he and his wife will have to work out, and apparently has already been brought to light between them. In my own opinion, though, I would like to see the Senator step down. My reasons are twofold. First, I have an inherent lack of trust in a man who cannot honor the vows he takes at the marriage altar. If he cannot be true to his wife, how can I really trust that he can be true in his public service? Second, if he wants to save his marriage, it will be a serious matter, and I cannot believe that such an undertaking will not impact his ability to serve his constituents appropriately. I know that the idea of marital infidelity is not quite as sacrosanct as it once was, as we now live in an age where celebrities change spouses more frequently than they change agents. And I know that, especially in light of some of the more public actions of a certain former President during his term in office, there is this idea that matters of sex are harmless and do nobody any harm. I don't believe it. If you can't be true to your husband/wife, I don't trust you to be true to me. And I don't want you in a position of power.