F---ing For Virginity

I read a sign today with what appears to be a common sense form of wisdom. “Bombing for peace is like f---ing for virginity!” At first, this sounds entirely reasonable. Indeed, a bombing run is by definition an act of war, which happens to be the exact opposite of peace. The problem is that, like many truths, the truths of war and peace can be counter-intuitive.

We start with a truth written by an ancient Roman. “Let him who desires peace, prepare for war.” This is much closer to our conservative ideals than the idea of “bombing for peace.” If we are not prepared for war, our enemies will attack us. We are a nation of vast wealth and many resources (even huge amounts of oil which the democrats make sure we can’t use). On top of that, we are a Christian nation, whether we want to be or not. Even if most of us aren’t Christians, we will always be viewed as Christians. This means that our enemies have plenty of material reasons, but even more powerful religious reasons for wiping us out. In addition, we have great influence around the world, which irritates those who already hate us for our religion and wealth. I could go on for a long time, citing reasons that we will have enemies forever, and even demonstrating that adopting Obama’s plan of taking everything up the @$$ won’t pacify them.

What can we do then? We must be powerful. We must be prepared. We must have the most powerful military in the world by far and not depend on allies. (Remember the military maxim; trust an ally weaker than you, but never an ally more powerful than you). We must be prepared to back our words with force. President Bush did exactly that. He tried diplomacy with Saddam Hussein and was patient, but when Hussein mocked us instead of demonstrating that we had no cause for fear, Bush backed his words with force. We had tried for well over a decade to deal with Iraq diplomatically but our failure to back that with force emboldened our enemies. Bush wisely put an end to this by demonstrating that we mean what we say.

War doesn’t produce peace the next day, but backing our words with force will show our enemies that they can’t toy with us like Hussein did. More importantly, it tells our enemies that we will defend ourselves against attack and that it’s not worth the risk to murder our people, like they have countless times, such as on 9/11.

I would contend that one of the main reasons we are not more secure than we are against our enemies is that we keep electing pushover democrats like Bill Clinton or potentially Barak Obama, who wish to make a clear statement to all our enemies that we will not finish what we start, and will pave the way for the Iraqi government to be overthrown by terrorists who can establish another Iran, or who spent almost a decade telling Hussein that we really don’t care whether or not he plans to annihilate us and Israel. We need to counter this by electing a strong man who, while not a lover of war, is not afraid of it. We need a man who is willing to back his words with action to the point that our enemies will take his words seriously. In this upcoming election, who do you think that man is?