Stupid leftist logic
over at Think Progress, Matthew Yglesias, the perpetually moronic idiot who couldn’t get a point if it was jammed up his over-used ass, tries to make fun of conservatives who think that peace through strength is a long-dead concept because the Cold War is over;
“How many people like Ronald Reagan?” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) asked the crowd. A bunch of Republican Hill aides dutifully raised their hands.
“And how many people like peace through strength?” More hands raised. Then Graham, an Air Force reservist colonel, asked, “What the hell happened to that party?”
There’s not much to engage with in this argument except the observation that I take it that the premise of Ronald Reagan’s Cold War strategy had something to do with the existence of the Cold War. His argument wasn’t “let’s do blah blah for no reason at all.” It was “let’s do blah blah because something Soviet Union something something.” Now, though, Graham is just saying we should do what Reagan did because it’s what Reagan did. The method here for internal deliberation about public policy is something like a mix between a kindergarten class and a cult.
I agree to a point that Graham’s delivery was a little childish, but for Yglesias to arrive at the conclusion that there’s no need for us to be militarily strong in today’s world because the Soviet Union is gone, well, that’s just naive. Soviet union may not be the beast it was during the Reagan years, but the Russians still have designs on a warm weather port. It’s hard to break a habit that’s been around since Peter the Great. the Chinese are still building thier military, including the means to project that military.
And the terror war isn’t over, just because we’re leaving Iraq and Afghanistan – Old Trooper sent us a link to reports of the arrest of seven presumed terrorists in Birmingham, England today. So that war is not over just because the Left has decided it is because they won a presidential election. Someone forgot to tell the terrorists.
I hate defending Graham, but we need a strong military now like we did in the 80s. It’s not a bunpersticker phrase, it’s the realities of the world in which we live.
Category: Terror War
There are/were many democrats that were in favor of a strong military as well. It wasn’t about Reagan’s view on the SDoviet Union, but rather a policy which will maintain a strong deterrent from aggressors. Peace through strength didn’t say anything about “peace through strength against the Soviet Union”, but rather the premise that has been proven over and over throughout history.
When Rome was the epicenter of power, a Roman could travel anywhere and be completely safe by simply muttering the phrase “I’m Roman”. Why? Because the aggressors knew that to harm or impede a Roman would bring down hellfire upon them. Peace through strength.
Did Reagan take any crap from the Soviets? Would he take any crap from them today? That’s the difference when you have a leader instead of a community organizer for a President.
Land of the free BECAUSE of the brave. I have heard it said that those who beat their swords into plows will plot the fields for those who did not.
We have a standing military for a reason. We need it to stay free. I like your point of Rome. It wasn’t until the Emperor began spreading the Army out and pulling their funds that the problems began. Well, as John Ringo wrote in The Last Centurion, “As a defender of the greatest nation in the world, I say this: This Rome Shall Not Fall.”
Yglesias calls it “Peace through Strength” as a derisive term.
Author Lee Smith calls it “The Strong Horse: Power, Politics, and the Clash of Arab Civilizations” (http://www.amazon.com/Strong-Horse-Power-Politics-Civilizations/dp/0385516118)
Monthly we are entertained by Putin’s macho PR stunts: hunting tigers, fishing, tagging whales: all bare-chested.
Yglesias derides ‘Peace Through Strength’ while every nation on the face of this earth uses it as a working mechanism to attain and maintain longer, more prosperous periods of time between war.
Keep tripping over the juxtoposition of the words leftist and logic…
Leftists? Logic? That’s illogical. Leftists go on feeeeellings.
“Stupid leftist” = Department of Redundancy Department
“I agree to a point that Graham’s delivery was a little childish, but for Yglesias to arrive at the conclusion that there’s no need for us to be militarily strong in today’s world because the Soviet Union is gone, well, that’s just naive.” Yep, it is naive, but I think they use this argument for their own very specific justification. They don’t want a cut in military spending so they can return the people’s money to them, they want those funds for their own pet projects.