Only a Liberal…

“Speak softly and carry a big stick” is most certainly not the motto of the modern liberal. Speak softly and constantly apologize for not speaking softer. Other than saving the environment, the most-loved virtue of the American left is the appearance of pure diplomacy. Maybe its a good thing… let investigate.

Modern warfare in America has really changed since World War II. We have signed all kinds of treaties concerning the killing of civilians, which essentially handicaps us when it comes to warfare techniques. This handicapping requires that we risk our American soldiers for the sake of foreign civilians.

When liberals scream about the war being lost in Iraq, I laugh. We could win a war against Iraq without sending a single ground troop there. Not one American death, but we don’t, because its more politically acceptable for us to get killed while killing them. It’s disgusting, but not much we can do about it.

So has a lack of diplomacy ever worked? I would argue the last time we just kicked the ass of a country, it was back during World War II. We HAMMERED Japan, kicked the ever-loving shit out of them, dropping the only two nuclear weapons ever. After their surrender, General Douglas MacArthur and his staff wrote the Constitution of Japan. No amendment has been made to that Constitution.

So how is Japan doing? They received the biggest ass-kicking from America of any nation in the world. The United States has the highest Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of any nation in the world. Japan is 2nd.

Germany, the other country we didn’t bother using diplomacy with, comes in at 4th in the GDP rankings, behind 3rd place China. Germany’s population is 1/16th the size of China’s.

Our relations with both Germany and Japan are great. The fact that we didn’t talk them out of World War II hasn’t affected our relations. We killed 200,000 civilians with the nukes we dropped in Japan. About 70 million people died in World War II. If you assume a 6 year war, that’s an average of 33,000 dead per day. You may be appalled that we killed 200,000 in 3 days, but that’s only slightly above average, and it ENDED THE WAR. If we had done it one month earlier, we might have saved 1 million lives. What if we had done it two months earlier… three months earlier…

We tried diplomacy with Saddam Hussein through the United Nations. Here’s a list of the resolutions passed by the U.N.

1983 - Condemned violations of international law in the Iran–Iraq War.
1986 - “Deplores” the use of chemical weapons in the Iran–Iraq War.
1986 - Called for the implementation of resolution 582 (resolution for a resolution)
1987 - Demanded an immediate cease-fire between Iran and Iraq; requested that the UN Secretary-General start an investigation to determine how the conflict started.
1988 - Condemned the use of chemical weapons by Iraq in the Iran–Iraq War.
1988 - Created UNIIMOG(the “OG” stands for “observer group”) to observe the implementation of a cease-fire for the Iran–Iraq War. Extended by resolutions 631, 642, 651, 671, 676, and 685. Terminated 28 February 1991.
1988 - Condemned the use of chemical weapons in the Iran–Iraq War.
1990 - Condemned the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and demanded a withdrawal of Iraqi troops. Supported by resolutions 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677.
1990 - Placed economic sanctions on Iraq in response to the invasion of Kuwait.
1990 - Authorized use of force against Iraq to “uphold and implement resolution 660 (condemnation of the Kuwait invasion) and all subsequent resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area”.
1991 - Demanded Iraq’s acceptance of all previous resolutions concerning the war with Kuwait.
1991 - Formal ceasefire ending the Persian Gulf War, with the conditions that Iraq:

• Destroys all of its chemical and biological weapons and all ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 km;
• Agrees not to develop nuclear weapons;
• Submits a declaration of its weapons programs and voluntarily agrees to on-site inspections.

1991 - Condemned the repression of Iraqi Kurds.
1991 - Demands immediate, complete, full compliance with UNSCR 687 (cease fire, no chem/bio weapons).
1991 - Approves United Nations Special Commission on Iraq and International Atomic Energy Agency inspection provisions.
1993 - Acknowledges clarifications of Iraq-Kuwait border and United Nations Iraq-Kuwait Observation Mission (UNIKOM).
1994 - Condemned the Iraqi military buildup on Kuwaiti border.
1995 - Created the Oil-for-Food Programme. Supported by resolution 1111.
1999 - Changed the Iraqi inspection program from UNSCOM to UNMOVIC.
2002 - Gave Iraq “a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations”. US, UK, and other members of the “coalition of the willing” declared that Iraq remained in material breach of resolution 687.
2003 - Recognized the US and the UK as occupying powers under international law, with legitimate authority in Iraq. Removed economic sanctions imposed during the Gulf War.

Do you think there’s a single evil person in the world whose knees shake when they hear the U.N. is forming a resolution against them? This is silly nonsense. They condemned Iraq’s behavior 6 times. One resolution called for the implementation of a previous resolution. Then, possibly the most interesting resolution of all, they made a resolution that recognized the United States as a legitimate authority in Iraq.

In addition, Muammar Qaddafi, the Libyan dictator, announced that his nation had an active WMD program, but was willing to allow international inspectors to come in and observe their dismantling. When did he agree to this? He did this in 2003, right after the overthrowing of Saddam’s regime. So we steamroll the Iraqi military, in a very undiplomatic fashion, and a Muslim dictator willingly submits to dismantling his WMDs. He has since renegged, thanks to our failure to finish Iraq quickly.

These thugs respond to one thing; strength. Diplomacy has failed over and over and over again. Resolution after resolution accomplishes NOTHING.

***Click here for FREE updates from OnlyaLiberal.com.

The United Nations organization has been a farce for a long time, but for those that were unaware, perhaps this situation will illustrate it clearly and forever. The United Nations is holding a two-day conference on religious tolerance, and they are allowing the king of Saudi Arabia to preside over it. Perhaps the Chinese should preside over a conference addressing the problems with workplace conditions. Or Iran could preside over a sexuality tolerance conference. President of Iran at Columbia University: “In Iran, we don’t have homosexuals, like in your country.”

If you read the Washington Post article, you’ll find that the forum was the idea of the Saudis. Now a liberal, trial-lawyer logic, offend-no-one-except-conservatives person would accept that at face, praising the commendable effort of the Saudis to change their policy of forbidding the public practice of anything but Islam. A normal person would remember they have not changed their intolerant policies at home, and until they do, forums like this are just Public Relations stunts to temporarily convince the world they are nice people.

This is the pitfall of liberalism: a combination of self-loathing and infinite tolerance of other’s intolerance in the pursuit of appeasement. The liberal praises King Abdullah more than he will praise George W. Bush. Even if you’re a democrat, this is insanity. The liberal trusts King Abdullah when he says he wants religious tolerance, but will scoff when George W. Bush talks about… anything. This is childish nonsense, and potentially dangerous. A liberal is convinced he cannot convince George W. Bush to change his ways, but welcomes the chance to sit down with Iranian President Ahmadinejad and have a rational discussion, let alone change his worldview.