I saw a blurb for an article (which I admittedly did not read) in which Rand Paul is quoted as saying that it's time to "destroy ISIS militarily".
The major problem with how the US has waged war since 1945 is that we haven't fought to win
. While victory was the ultimate goal, we haven't waged war in such a way as to make a decisive victory possible, the kind of victory where your enemy is forced to give up (rather than regroup) and sue for peace (rather than time to regroup).
Gulf War I should have been been prosecuted to its logical conclusion, but was not. The only useful thing to come out of Gulf War II was to keep islamic terror's eyes on Iraq rather than the US. If World War II had been waged the way we've waged war since--if FDR had declared a "war on Blitzkrieg
"--the Nazis would still control Poland, and we'd have to wade back in every ten years or so as they tried to take Britain again.
It's like this in the middle east because we don't fight to win.
When we say we should destroy ISIS there should not be any modifier to the statement. Paul should be saying, "It's time to destroy ISIS," full stop.
ISIS is making the mistake of threatening Russia, which is not in the habit of pussyfooting around the way our lily-livered politicians do. If ISIS attacks Russian interests they are going to be hurt, and badly. There is a reason that there are very, very few islamic terror operations against Russian interests, and it's not because the Russians are such nice guys and aren't mean to the brown people (unlike the US which of course is exploiting and oppressing them).
We have avoided addressing the roots of terrorism because it has been politically inexpedient to do so, but now that the US has become one of the world's largest exporters of petroleum it may be time to reconsider how politically inexpedient it is. We produce enough oil that we are no longer beholden to OPEC, and that means we could--theoretically, and for example--stop pretending that Saudi Arabia is not a major
sponsor of islamic terrorism, and treat them accordingly.
You know, if we were to tell these idiots knock it off or we'll stop buying your oil
they would listen. For most of it, we don't even have to go to war; we just have to develop and follow an energy policy that isn't completely insensate, and then make good on the threats we issue. If we say we'll stop buying their oil if the terror sponsoring doesn't stop, and the sponsoring doesn't, we turn their ships away and refuse to buy another pint of the stuff. We could do this if we wanted to
and it would result in lower
energy prices for Americans.
We don't have to be nice to these people. They don't have anything we need.
The other possibility is for us simply to withdraw from them. Stop buying their oil and abandon the region to its fate. Does that mean that Russia and China move in? It does, but it also means that those countries become the focus of terror attacks simply by virtue of proximity. At some point the idiots will realize how good they had it when America was the Great Satan, and then start harrying the Chinese and Russians the way they're harrying us now.
On a smaller scale, the biggest problem with Iraq is that it wants to be three countries rather than one, so why fight that? Bust it up into three countries. What the hell--it's on the way to doing that all by itself right now, so I don't really see why we have to do anything.
But if we're going to fight wars, we need to fight
them, and fight to win. That means bombing the shit out of everything and then shooting anything that's still moving afterwards, taking territory and holding it and killing anyone who attacks you or helps someone attack you. It means following the Geneva Protocol and shooting ununiformed combatants as spies. If you can't do that because of how the international community will react, because you're afraid that other countries will help your enemy, don't go to war in the first place, damn it.
Your justification for going to war is insufficient if you are not willing to fight a total
war, and fight it to win.
* * *Everything you need to know about marxism and feminism is in this article.
We gathered at a large table as the chairperson opened the meeting with a back-and-forth recitation, like a Litany, a type of prayer done in Catholic Church. But now it was Marxism, the Church of the Left, mimicking religious practice:
“Why are we here today?” she asked.
“To make revolution,” they answered.
“What kind of revolution?” she replied.
“The Cultural Revolution,” they chanted.
“And how do we make Cultural Revolution?” she demanded.
“By destroying the American family!” they answered.
“How do we destroy the family?” she came back.
“By destroying the American Patriarch,” they cried exuberantly.
“And how do we destroy the American Patriarch?” she replied.
“By taking away his power!”
“How do we do that?”
“By destroying monogamy!” they shouted.
“How can we destroy monogamy?”
Their answer left me dumbstruck, breathless, disbelieving my ears. Was I on planet earth? Who were these people?
“By promoting promiscuity, eroticism, prostitution and homosexuality!” they resounded.
The nuclear family is something that marxists must destroy, because marxism is a jealous god that can tolerate no other loyalties. If you are loyal to your family before you are loyal to the State, that is intolerable and must be corrected.
If you look at the exchange above, you see marxism with a thin veneer of feminism atop it. It's not about empowering women at all but destroying America
* * *
Apparently Samsumg did...something...that is overshadowing the impending release of the iPhone 6 next week. All I know is, the release of the iPhone 6 means yet another piece of junk I have to fuck around with at work. People are going to drop their new phones and bust the shit out of them, then get angry and yell at me
because there's a deductible and they can't exchange it for a brand-spanking-new phone right now
Because you were incapable of being careful
with your brand new techno-gewgaw it is somehow my
fault that you now have to wait for a refurbished phone? I realize that you paid for a brand-new phone just (three days/two weeks/a month) ago, not a refurbished one, but if you must
buy a phone that's made out of glass and simply cannot
bear to put it into a protective case because "I don't like how it looks" then you ought to treat the thing like the fragile and extremely expensive thing it is
and handle it like it is precious as a newborn babe. The penalty for failing to do so is to get a refurbished phone and pay the deductible, and nobody cares about how you feel about it.
The whole thing, to me, is horseshit. If you need to have a $700 device in your pocket to feel like you have worth, there's something wrong with you. The Samsung Galaxy S5 is not notably different in its capabilities from the S4 or the S3, and if you pay a premium to trade up you're an idiot.
(Actually, I don't think much of Samsung's phones, and my opinion of iPhones is scarcely better--and then only because most of the issues I process iPhones for are accidental damage, rather than hardware failures.)
In any case, lining up a week
in advance to get an iPhone 6 on the day of its release is an incredibly fucking stupid waste of time
. Gadzooks, get a life
, you fucking idiots.