Peace Through Strength - What Libtards Fail to See

In a Walmart parking lot I saw a bumper sticker that read "You can bomb the world into pieces, but you can't bomb the world into peace." Sigh. It was all I could do not to defecate on the hood of that car.

There are several things surrounding this issue that libtards just don't understand. Conservatives, and the military do not believe in bombing the world into peace, don't believe in unwarranted aggression, but they/we DO believe that conflict should always be the last resort. America isn't the big bad bully, we attempt to be peace keepers, and preservers of freedom. Preforming those tasks will always make enemies, and put targets on our backs.

Second, in some circumstances, you very well can bomb the world into peace. Case and point, on August 6 and 9, America dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, respectively. Immediately Emperor Hirohito ordered the Big Six to accept the terms of the Allies, and after several days of negotiations, Japan surrendered on August 15.

Third, those that view America as the big bad bully assume that if America dismantles its army, destroys its nuclear stock pile, bans guns, etc., that the world will finally be at peace. What they fail to realize is, America is not the aggressor, but there are plenty of other rouge nations, terrorist organizations, crime syndicates, etc. that are ready, willing and eager to attack us and our allies around the globe. If we have no military strength to back up our talk, our negotiations, then talking is useless. No one will take away our enemies guns, their bombs, their militaries. Peace through strength, not peace through bombing, not peace through stripping down our military.


Chappy said...

Having studied the world wars at length I've come to appreciate this principle you've pointed out. Principle: Peace comes when your enemies respect you and fear retaliation, not when the world is finally rid of any weapons capable of taking a human life.

For example, in WWI France/Britain/US had the most advanced weaponry of the day, along with Germany/Hungary. However, after WWI had ended and Germany was disarmed France assumed it didn't need to invest in its military or weaponry. Consequently when Germany decided it wanted an advanced military, France assumed that "all was well" and that "if we don't attack them they won't attack us". At the start of WWII France had the exact same weapons that they used in WWI and intended to use the same tactics. In fact, there are many accounts that the French infantry used taxis to get to the front lines because the government had stopped training, investing, and otherwise caring about their military. France toppled in under 2 months.

Also, Ronald Reagan arguably toppled the Soviet Union through the arms race. By making more weapons it forced the Soviets to do the same. At the same time, by increasing the United State's military might it effectively bolstered anything the president said. It was symbolic. When Reagan stood at the Berlin wall and commanded Gorbachev to "tear down this wall" it was not the empty pleading of an unarmed and weak nation. Reagan had bolstered his position in the world through the arms race and was now asserting his superior position. And the world listened.

History is full of examples like this, if we are willing to sit down and learn from them. Maybe libtards don't get it because they don't/can't read? (I'm just kidding....kind'a)

Post a Comment

I reserve the right to delete profane, obscene, or otherwise insulting messages. So please, keep it clean.

While you're at it, visit our message boards!