Today on Blogcritics
Home » Culture and Society » Time to Let An Old Cop Retire

Time to Let An Old Cop Retire

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

You’d think after sixty-four years on the beat, after being wounded countless times and seeing innumerable friends die, an old cop would be allowed to retire with dignity, generous benefits, and warm wishes.

You’d think so, but when was the last time you heard one of the United States’ allies tell us, “Old friend, you’ve carried the burden of being the world’s policeman long enough. Under your protection, we’ve grown strong and rich. It’s time for us to look after own defense and keep a sharp eye on our corner of the world. Now’s the time to take care of your own.”

The answer to that question would be: never. In 1945, in the aftermath of World War Two, there really was only one superpower: us. The rest of the industrialized world was in rubble. People were starving; economies were shattered. The hangover from the years of slaughter and devastation would be long and painful.

In that context, it was enlightened self-interest to help old friends and former enemies get back on their feet and rebuild their societies. It was a Herculean task, but we accomplished it. Then we went on to make sure the Soviet Union didn’t overrun all of Europe and much of the rest of the world.

And what did we get for our troubles? Another century older and deeper in debt.

Even the Republicans, who under Ronald Reagan and the two Georges Bush ran up two-thirds of our national debt, have begun complaining — with a Democrat in the White House — about the government spending far more money than it receives as revenue. But neither the GOP nor the Democrats has given a moment’s thought to letting the world’s cop answer his final roll call.

Part of the reason for this might be called the Brett Favre Syndrome. Having known glory for a long, long time, it’s wrenchingly hard to let go. Stay in the game and you can tell yourself that time will never pass you by; you’ll just keep burnishing your record.

And the United States has stats no one will ever approach. In 2008, the U.S. spent $711 billion on defense. That’s more than China, Russia, the European Union, Japan, and South Korea combined. We have 737 military bases around the world; 38 of them are medium to large bases. The latter number is more than either the British or Roman empires had at the pinnacles of their power.

As of 2005 we had 116,000 troops in Europe, 40,258 in South Korea, 40,045 in Japan, and in 2009 there are still 117,000 troops in Iraq and 68,000 in Afghanistan, with possibly a lot more on the way to Afghanistan.

It costs big money to pay for all that, and we don’t have it. So we borrow it, mainly from China. It’s not bad enough that we seem to be stuck playing the role of the world’s cop, but we have to go into hock to do it. Even Brett Favre isn’t that obsessed.

That’s not even the worst of it, though. We’re borrowing the money from countries that are cleaning our clocks in international trade. China, Japan and South Korea, all of which run enormous trade surpluses with the United Stares, are the largest purchasers of our national debt. You’ll remember Japan and South Korea are two countries whose national defense we lavishly subsidize. Germany is another country which runs a huge trade surplus with the U.S. and has its defense needs subsidized by us. So is Saudi Arabia.

Everybody who thinks this is crazy, raise your hand.

Of course, there will be those who say we’re only doing what’s necessary to keep our country safe. Really? China spends less than 20% of what we do on national defense. You think anybody’s going to attack China? I sure don’t see it.

But what about 9/11? We were attacked. Here’s what. We tell all the countries that provide funding and havens for terrorists that if we’re attacked again, the Congress of the United States will declare war on them. Just like we used to do in the old days. Military action won’t be initiated by a resolution; the president won’t tell us to go shopping and leave the dying to others. Hostile nations will have to deal with the full might and wrath of the American people. They’ll be the ones dying. We will kill them from the air — as we did in Serbia — and we won’t lose a man to roadway bombs. A message like that is known as deterrence, and as we saw with the Soviets, it works.

It’s time for the old cop to retire. We have a national debt to pay off, and if there’s any money to spare we can use it here at home. Boy, can we use it here at home.

Let the rest of the world take care of it self. That’s what George Washington advised.

Powered by

About Joseph Flynn

  • Ruvy

    Well, Joe, you Americans can start saving money and putting “officer unfriendly” to bed by getting your money, your soldiers and your bases out of Israel, getting your loudmouthed Harvard elitist of a president to shut the hell up about our internal affairs, get out the “peace” (bullshit) business here, and finally, on the way out, do yourselves a couple of favors.

    Nuke Riyahdh so that the Wahhabi trash are dead, and the other Arabs know that terror doesn’t pay. Nuke Teheran so that the Persians know not to mess with anybody.

  • zingzing

    kill em all! right, ruvy? blood! funny old man.

  • Joseph Flynn

    Ruvy, thanks for taking the time to read my post and to write a comment. Part of the problem with the U.S being the world’s cop is that our “internal affairs” become commingled with those of other countries. A messy business.

    On top of our military alliance with Israel, we also send more foreign aid to Israel—roughly $5 billion per year, all of it money we have to borrow—than to any other country. If Israel would like to give that up, the taxpayers of the U.S. would say thank you very much. But asking us to start a nuclear war as a “favor” is something we just can’t do. It might help, though, if Israel were to acknowledge its own nuclear arsenal because, as I said in my post, the idea is deterrence.

    Shalom, Ruvy, to you and all your neighbors, Israelis and Arabs.

  • Ruvy

    we also send more foreign aid to Israel “roughly $5 billion per year, all of it money we have to borrow”

    Joe,

    I’m very specific about you guys cutting off that “aid” to Israel. That would the best thing you could do for us. Cut off the aid Egypt gets, too. That will save you another $3-$4 billion a year.

    If you guys nuke Riyadh and Tehran – one good 5 megaton blast a piece should do it – everyone will sit up and remember never to mess with the Americans. There is a secondary message that will be sent as well – especially to all those Chinese who think they have you over a barrel. The message will be “be nice to the American debtor lest he get mad at you and turn you to nuclear glass”.

    If we do it, everyone will try to use their nukes to wipe us out. They won’t succeed – but it will be a far bigger mess.

    Either way, the bottom line is this. In the end, to save your butts, you need to bite the nasty bullet and do what has to be done. Or eventually we will. Better that you do it – you can control the world’s responses better.

    Have a good one. Good article, by the way.

  • zingzing

    ruvy, your own brain must be telling you that something is wrong when you think it’s a good and necessary thing to kill millions of people and live by fear. “do as we say or we’ll annihilate you! we are the great ruler of the world! yeah, we owe you money, but you can forget about that, unless you want your metaphorical legs broken. by that we mean that we’ll kill your country, of course.” does that sound reasonable to you? i hope not.

    “Better that you do it – you can control the world’s responses better.”

    don’t ask us any favors. do your own dirty work. (don’t.)

    “If we do it, everyone will try to use their nukes to wipe us out. They won’t succeed – but it will be a far bigger mess.”

    that’s why you won’t do it. nukes only work when you don’t use them.

    “In the end, to save your butts, you need to bite the nasty bullet and do what has to be done. Or eventually we will.”

    it doesn’t have to been done, of course. and you’d have to be flat out retarded. not that politics in the middle east are anything but…

  • Baronius

    Brett Favre still gets work because he’s a better quarterback than most. If the US backs away from its role as the world’s policeman, who will take over? Chavez, Putin, the Sauds, Iran, China, and the EU are the most likely to emerge as hegemonic powers in various parts of the world. Europe and a free Iran are the only ones I’d theoretically trust.

    What we can do is nudge NATO to pay more, and allow/encourage Japan to re-arm. But we’ve got no leverage.

  • zingzing

    “Brett Favre still gets work because he’s a better quarterback than most.”

    damn right! vikings! 9-1! it just goes to show i can change my opinions. i used to have a picture on my desktop of favre looking really, really sad (when they lost to the vikings a few years back), but i am of a different mind now.

    but i dunno. we tend to fuck up as much as we fix things. maybe more. so maybe we’re none too good at the job. no favre’s are we.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Baronius –

    You are partially right – nature abhors a vacuum…and this applies to political power as well. The very presence of our troops in South Korea and in Europe precludes a lot of violence. The presence of our military all over Southeast Asia (Singapore, Guam, Okinawa, Japan, etc.) has probably prevented China from invading Taiwan.

    No one could do this except for America.

    Be that as it may, it makes a LOT more sense to significantly downsize our armed forces…and particularly prevent ourselves from conducting preemptive invasions based on assumptions that ignore the available intelligence, and prosecute those who ordered such an invasion (and the subsequent torture) on war crimes charges at the Hague.

    Yes, so long as we are able to do so, America must do its part to keep the peace – and our military strength is part of what enables us to do so. BUT we cannot do so by throwing our weight around and threatening “do what we say or we’ll bring democracy to you, too!”

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Ruvy –

    Sir (in place of ‘dude’), you need some Prozac. Bad.

    Either that, or move to Pattaya, Thailand – you’d forget all about your anger at the rest of humanity.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    zing, Glenn,

    The problem with both of you – and with the lot of you who are infected with this disease of political correctness, no matter what your alleged ideology is – is very simple. You refuse to look reality in the face. The Wahhabi extremists in Arabia – whether they be al-Qaeda or the monarchy – and the Shi’a extemists in Persia – and the whole terror structure they support across the Middle East – are human trash of the most dangerous kind. Either you destroy them, or they destroy you.

    When you fail to call a terrorist by his right name – or a murderer by his right name – you refuse to acknowledge truth. When your refuse to acknowledge truth, eventually truth has a nasty way of teaching you not to ignore it.

    One lesson was the destruction of the World Trade Center. You refused to acknowledge the danger of the enemy when they struck you in 1993. You did not destroy them then, when you were a lot stronger then you were to be in 2001. You did not destroy them in September 2001, when they blew two buildings out of the sky, and when you were a lot stronger than you are now. The evil remains, yet you fear to name it! This human trash has spread its disease of hatred over the last decade, yet you fear to acknowledge it! Your own fear will kill you.

    You’ve abandoned your strength and allowed mere monkeys of hatred to grow from capuchins to rhesuses – and finally to huge apes that you can not dislodge easily from their lairs without terrible damage to yourselves. This is exactly what happened in the 1930’s, when you ignored Hitler. And still, 150 million deaths later, you have not learned. Joe Flynn wants to walk away from it all because he sees that the strength you used to have is all gone – and he understands that you are all tapped out. Another reality you refuse to acknowledge, Glenn.

    The fault is on your heads, gentlemen. The evil is on your heads; it will kill you, as surely as the sun rises in the east.

  • zingzing

    ruvy, is the name of this evil “tehran?” is it “riyadh?” no, it is not. yet that (and every man, woman and child in it) is what you want to destroy. what you suggest will not only make yourself evil, it will make what you think is evil spread like wildfire.

    what you see as “truth,” we (rightfully) see as stupid and wrong.

    there is evil, and we know who and what it is. but this evil isn’t the kind that you can just plop and finger on a map and say “there be evil.” this evil is ideological, not territorial. it exists within places that are not evil.

    your logic is so twisted and malformed (and evil) that it can’t see its own faults. you can’t bomb terrorism away. you can’t make it fear you–it lives on fear. that’s what makes it so effective. how you miss this is beyond me.

    you’re completely over the edge. you’re just as bad as they are. you want them to fear you? you want to be a terrorist yourself. you flat out are a terrorist, if this is what you desire. “fight fire with fire,” you’ll say, but then who is the good guy? you really do want the apocalypse to come in your time, don’t you? well, your time is done before mine is, and i don’t want your stupid apocalypse.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    zing,

    The “good guy” is the one who continues to live when G-d judges the earth. But until then, those who will kill you, will certainly not spare their efforts.

    Whether you like this fact is irrelevant to me. Whether you reject this fact is irrelevant to me. Whether you want this apocalypse or not is irrelevant to me. The funerals at terror attacks in your country are my proof. I do not need your agreement to those funerals. They occur whether you agree or not. The silence in the cemeteries after the funerals – the weeping of mourners – speaks louder than all the noise and bullshit you throw around.

    Until you kill the terrorists in your land – until we kill the terrorists in ours – they will continue to kill us, and do their best to kill us. If you can’t see the obvious, it is you who needs the rubber room, not me.

  • zingzing

    ruvy: “The “good guy” is the one who continues to live when G-d judges the earth.”

    see, i don’t believe that. or at least that’s not how i live my life. i’m not waiting on god’s judgment, i just try to live a good life. wanting to kill innocent people doesn’t qualify for me.

    “Whether you like this fact is irrelevant to me. Whether you reject this fact is irrelevant to me. Whether you want this apocalypse or not is irrelevant to me. ”

    i don’t think that’s healthy.

    “The funerals at terror attacks in your country are my proof. I do not need your agreement to those funerals. They occur whether you agree or not. The silence in the cemeteries after the funerals – the weeping of mourners – speaks louder than all the noise and bullshit you throw around.”

    but you want to answer that with more death! your only answer is death. can’t you see how wrong that is?

    “If you can’t see the obvious, it is you who needs the rubber room, not me.”

    but you can’t see how obviously wrong your conclusions are. your train of thought leads you to mass annihilation of innocent people for the purpose of instilling fear, WHICH IS TERRORISM! it’s genocide. it’s murder, and a million more sins.

    good god, if you can’t see how that goes against your basic beliefs… look, even if it saves our collective ass, you’re damned. your god is their god too, and he doesn’t like it when you do shit like that. you won’t be one of those standing at the end of days, should that ever come to pass.

    i just can’t see how you’ve become this way.

  • zingzing

    alright. i find the idea of nuking any city repulsive. but. i want to know how, exactly, you can justify, on any grounds, killing innocent people.

    politically, it stinks. morally, it’s rotten. religiously, it goes against everything you’ve been taught (unless judaism suddenly became a violent religion).

    what, if anything, gives you any inkling of thought that this is the right thing to do?

    99% of the victims in your little plan would be innocent of any crime against you. so HOW can you justify it?

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    politically, it stinks. morally, it’s rotten. religiously, it goes against everything you’ve been taught (unless judaism suddenly became a violent religion). what, if anything, gives you any inkling of thought that this is the right thing to do?

    It’s simple, zing. The Wahhabi have a creed of killing you off – YOU! YOU are not a believer. Either you agree with them or you die. The Wahhabi are centered in Riyadh. That is their main base, where they get their inspiration, their ideas, etc. etc.

    The choice is destroy that main base – or die.

    The same is true for Tehran – the Shi’a have a creed that they have to bring in the Mahdi to rule the world. If you are not a Shi’a, you get to die, or pay the jizya, the dhimmi tax.

    I don’t give a damn what you call my choice, zing. I don’t care whether you think my choice stinks or not. That’s irrelevant to me. MY choice is to live free or die – maybe you recognize that from somewhere (though I doubt it).

    It is a very real choice for me – I can see a mosque across the valley, and still remember my friend and neighbor having to go to the hospital for treatment a couple of weeks back because the bastards inspired by hatred fomented in that mosque threw rocks at his windshield as he was driving home. The prick in the mosque fomenting Arab violence gets his inspiration ultimately from the pustule of Wahhabi hatred, Riyadh. So I want them to die – I intend to live. The prick in the mosque realizes that his inspiration is now nuclear glass – he gets the hint. If he is too stupid to, eventually, I will have to kill the bastard – before he kills me. I intend to live.

    The same is true for the Shi’a bastards who want to kill us off – but are presently occupied fighting the Wahhabi in Yemen. They have called for my death. So, I want them to die – I intend to live.

    The first rule in Judaism is to LIVE to fulfill the commandments. I intend to live.

    I know you have problems with that. Those are your problems. But I intend to live. Is that clear?

  • zingzing

    “It’s simple, zing. The Wahhabi have a creed of killing you off – YOU! … The Wahhabi are centered in Riyadh.”

    but not everyone in riyadh is wahhabi. so what do you do with the rest of them? your answer to that question is disturbing. to make it clear, i have no problem with killing people who are going to kill you if you don’t kill them. but THINGS ARE NOT THAT SIMPLE.

    “The choice is destroy that main base – or die.”

    fine. no need to bomb innocent people, right? RIGHT?

    “The same is true for Tehran”

    NO IT’S NOT! that’s the thing. not everyone in tehran wants to kill you, ruvy. most of them are fine HUMAN BEINGS living their lives. you have no right to kill them because of their proximity to a few that do. to think you do is sick.

    “MY choice is to live free or die – maybe you recognize that from somewhere (though I doubt it).”

    jesus christ, ruvy. it’s a fucking license plate. of course i recognize it. i also know that that statement was made by an old man too sick to say it in public.

    “But I intend to live. Is that clear?”

    but you can’t see any way of living without killing innocent people? some life. why live it?

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Ruvy –

    You don’t solve problems by nuking a city…because by doing so you kill hundreds of thousands of innocent women and children. Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t that against Judaism? That in and of itself should give you pause, besides the fact that you would earn the everlasting hatred of over a billion people.

  • zingzing

    it’s getting to the point where i think ruvy might actually do something stupid…

    you have kids, ruvy, so back off of your rhetoric–i hope that’s what it is–before it consumes you. you’re letting your own mind turn you into what you want to fight.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy


    You don’t solve problems by nuking a city…because by doing so you kill hundreds of thousands of innocent women and children. Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t that against Judaism? That in and of itself should give you pause, besides the fact that you would earn the everlasting hatred of over a billion people.

    Let’s take this from the bottom and work our way up. At least by nuking our enemies we would earn the everlasting hatred of our enemies. Right now we have that same everlasting hatred – unearned. So, the world hates us. BFD. They’ve hated us for 2,500 years, so if they hate us for another 2,500 years, why should we care? The point is not that they hate us, but that they would now be afraid of us. The ugly little Jew they have kicked around for millennia will have burned them in the nuclear hell they have wished upon us. That’s intimidating, Glenn. If I’m going to be hated, let the bastards who hate me fear me as well. That way we all get to live in peace.

    Innocent women and children? These are people who hate me and want me to die, simply because of who I am. The mere fact that such hatred comes from a child or a woman does not make the hater innocent (This argument applies to Riyadh only).

    Finally, destroying the enemy utterly is very much Judaism. Read the Book of Joshua, Glenn. Read carefully and well. The writer criticizes the Children of Israel for not continuing to destroy the enemy in Canaan.

    Finally, for zing, I can get along very well without nuking people – who don’t want me to die….

  • zingzing

    you’re sick, ruvy. time to see a doctor.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    I saw a doctor a couple of days ago. This doctor prescribed a capsule for a debilitating cough, and would probably prescribe the nuthouse for you, zing. His daughter was killed in a terrorist attack in Jerusalem some years ago, and whatever his own political views, he’d view you as pathetically naïve, as well as pathetic.

    Just as I do.

  • zingzing

    sorry for your doctor, sorry for you. sorry i don’t live in the warzone you do. sorry i don’t think you’ve made the right decisions in your life. sorry you can’t see how wrong you are. sorry i don’t think killing hundreds of thousands is the answer.

    what is wrong with you? do you think that iran’s leaders are right to say you should be wiped off the map? what do you think they would think about you? if they are wrong, why aren’t you?

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    you have kids, ruvy, so back off of your rhetoric

    Wake up, zing. Nuking an enemy means that my kids do not have to risk going into a battle zone to die for nothing. I don’t recommending nuking cities because I like to see nuclear destruction – I recommend it to cut the risk to OUR soldiers. I’m a father, and I do not want to see my sons lives lost because some damn fool idiot in the IDF is handcuffed by the Jew-hating bastards in your government. I’ve seen that plenty already.

    I also don’t want to see Jews killing Israeli soldiers who try to expel Jews from their homes to please your damned government, but I fear I will see this. Frankly, given the choice, I’d rather see Americans try to do that evil task: my conscience would be clear shooting and killing them. At least I would not have to kill fellow Jews.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    i don’t think you’ve made the right decisions in your life. sorry you can’t see how wrong you are.

    A friend of mine let his son go to Australia, where he had been raised himself. The kid got back from Oz and screamed at his father, “why did you raise us here and not in Australia?!!”

    My sons were raised in Saint Paul. We came here eight years ago, going on nine now. My younger one, the one who I know will have to go into the army, told me of his and his girlfriend feel about the country – it is by this song, ein li éretz aHéret (I Have No Other Country). I feel pretty much the same way. And my roots in the States (such as they are) are considerably deeper than his. A neighbor of mine, whose ancestors arrived in the United States around 1740, who has relatives who fought in the American Revolution, and others who fought in the Civil War, feels the same way I do.

    We’re HOME zing, done with your pathetic exile and the setting sun that is the United States of America.

    HOME…. Boy, does that have a good sound to it!

    And your government’s interference, your government’s military bases, your government’s financial aid – all of it – is unwelcome here.

  • Joseph Flynn

    Gentlemen, a few comments, if I may. I’ve been sleeping and I have to get to my day job soon. But here are some thoughts.

    First of all, Ruvy, the U.S. would be in relatively great shape if we were merely tapped out. We’re massively in debt and we continue to accumulate mountains of further indebtedness.

    Two-thirds of these obligations are directly attributable to three Republican presidents: Reagan, Bush and Bush. Bush Jr. left us in a situation analogous to the Titanic after it hit the iceberg. Obama, whom you clearly seem to dislike, is doing his best to refloat the ship.

    The point of my post is that we can’t afford to be the world’s cop anymore, not just financially but morally. Things have gotten to the point where some of our politicians can’t stand the idea of there being a war anywhere in the world without us taking part in it. John McCain was talking in 2008 as if we should send troops to Georgia to fight the Russians. Which is lunacy.

    What I see as the current, legitimate defense perimeter for the U.S. is: our country first, I’m sure you understand that sentiment; North America next; and the Caribbean basin to finish. That would require us to shield an area from Hawaii to the Arctic to the approaches to South America.

    Quite a lot of the world but far more manageable than what we’re trying to do now. We’d have more resources to defend our borders, seaports, and airports. We’d have more money to have the FBI watch suspicious people who are already inside our country. In short, we’d be safer. Which I’m sure is what you want for your country, too.

    But you make my exact point in your most recent post, number 23 by the site’s count. You’d rather see the Americans do your dirty work for you. Sorry, that’s just what I’m arguing against. Let every advanced country do, and pay for, its own disagreeable tasks. We’ve done the heavy lifting for far too long.

    You do raise some interesting points. On September 11, 2001, after watching the attacks on NYC, Washington, DC, and the crash of Flight 93, I wanted blood. It’s a normal reaction.

    Instead, I did what I could. I donated blood. I sent money to help the families of the victims. It was giving money that got me to thinking of how best to defeat the people who hate us, the U.S. as well as Israel: Defund them.

    Terrorist networks depend on huge sums of money to operate. That money comes from selling oil to the world. So let’s stop using oil. Scientists in the U.S. are working hard on this; I understand Israel is doing interesting things in this field, too.

    About nukes: There are way too many drawbacks to use such weapons for any situation short of national survival. First, it gives everyone license to use them, and there are more than enough nuclear weapons in the world to destroy humanity several times over. You don’t want to start that kind of chain reaction or nobody has a future. Second, even if you limited the bombing to one or two specific targets, there’s no way to contain the radioactive fallout. The wind would blow lethal radioactive waste all around the world, which any country adversely affected would rightly consider an act of war.

    My opinion remains that the threat of overwhelming conventional attacks, deterrence, is the best way to prevent terrorists from striking. I think threatening national capitals is appropriate. Flight 93 was said to be head for the U.S. Capitol. The countries that sponsor terrorism should know that their cities are at risk if they target us.

    But, again, this is something that should be made clear in advance of any actual strike. The idea is to keep people from getting killed. That way no vengeance is required.

  • http://www.EurocriticsMagazine.com Christopher Rose

    Although most of what Ruvy wants is thankfully either unachievable, bullshit, or unachievable bullshit, I really do hope he gets his wish about the removal of the West’s presence in the Middle East.

    It will, of course, be the last time any of his wishes ever come true…

  • Mark

    Ruvy, following your favorite Rabbi, you have used the law of self defense to justify your advocacy of violence, generally, and nukes in specific. Are there not limits on this law in the Talmud and Jewish laws of war?

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Ruvy –

    Innocent women and children? These are people who hate me and want me to die, simply because of who I am

    A two-year-old should die because that child – hardly old enough to speak – ‘hates’ you? And what about babies? I suspect you’re the only one on BC that’s as religious as I am, so let me ask you – Does Judaism allow young children and infants to be killed, using “they hate us” for justification?

    Wake up, zing. Nuking an enemy means that my kids do not have to risk going into a battle zone to die for nothing. I don’t recommending nuking cities because I like to see nuclear destruction – I recommend it to cut the risk to OUR soldiers.

    WRONG. Nuking your enemy means all of Israel – and all of Judaism worldwide – becomes more of a target than you ever were before.

    Assuming your nukes still work, let’s say you nuke Riyadh. And Mecca. And Damascus. And every other Muslim city within your limited range, including Teheran.

    1 – You will have the VAST majority of Islam untouched – including the third-most-populous country on the planet, Indonesia.

    2 – You will have done what centuries of sectarian violence has failed to do…by uniting the Shi’a and Sunni against you, and most likely under a much more strongly-empowered Wahabbi flag.

    3 – Unless you somehow knocked out ALL of Pakistan’s nukes (which I strongly doubt you’d be able to do), guess what would soon happen to Tel Aviv, Haifa, and every other Israeli city except perhaps Jerusalem (because of the presence of the al-Aqsa mosque)?

    4 – NOBODY would help you. N.O.B.O.D.Y., Ruvy. No one would come to your aid. And when the Muslims would defeat you – and they WOULD defeat you, for the logistics and manpower are COMPLETELY on their side, the nation of Israel would die…

    …and I remember reading a verse in the Koran stating that “I will give them (meaning the Jews) power over you for a time, but then I will lead you to victory over them.” That’s not an exact quote by any means, but the general meaning and context are right.

    There would be Jews left in the world…but there would no longer be an Israel to go home to. The Diaspora would become truly perpetual.

  • Baronius

    Zing, what you fail to understand is that Ruvy is racist. Not American-style, “you criticized the president” racist. Not even Confederate-style, “we are superior” racist. He believes that a) his people were chosen by G-d as a race, and b) groups deserve reward or punishment based on the actions of individuals within their group.

    The first point sounds like the biggie, and it is pretty big. But the second point requires additional consideration. To Ruvy, the Jews of eastern Europe deserved Hitler, because their grandparents failed to worship G-d properly. This generation of Europe deserves punishment because the last generation followed Hitler. A child in Tehran is part of a group that deserves punishment, so the child should be nuked along with the rest of the group.

    He’ll never admit it, but he draws the line subjectively. He has more compassion for the “lost tribe” of the Taliban than for the lost Jews of America. Apparently, failing to move to Israel is a crime, but killing people in the name of Allah is forgivable in G-d’s eyes.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    Joe,

    Thank you for your considered responses.

    1. I admit that preferring US troops to do the heavy lifting of what your government is trying to force us to do (expel Jews like me from their homes) is selfish. But since your government is so hot to trot over kicking us out of our homes in Judea and Samaria, your army should be put at risk. For Israelis to kick Israelis out of their own homes at the behest of Washington, destroying what little is left of a common vision for the country, would destroy our nation, and we have waited too long and fought too hard for this little spot of earth. And then there is the painful issue of finally, in the end, having to kill the goons of an evil judenrat. Ask your Jewish friends, the ones who are immigrants to America, what that means. It is not a compliment.

    In other words, get your nose out of our policies, Joe. Write your congressmen and tell them that Israelis have no use for you here, and if you push us too hard, you will see body bags coming home to your country. We do not want your money, we do not want your interference, and we do not want your so-called “aid”. Tell your congressmen not to listen to the big-ego, big-buck Jews in their district (they’ll make a big stink about “securing” this aid for Israel), but to listen to us Israelis. I represent a growing consensus in this country.

    2. America is, as you say, deep in debt. You cannot afford anything – even the reasonable defense perimeter you have described above. Describing your country as “tapped out” was politeness on my part. I have a pretty good idea of how much in the hole you are, and how deep that hole is. So you cannot even afford the saturation bombing you recommend above (remember, if you threaten something, you need to be willing to do it – at least once – otherwise you are nothing more than a paper tiger).

    However, the nuclear bombing I recommend as you leave – one five megaton bomb per target – defunds the terrorists without all the troublesome (and expensive!) litigation involved. This is not an issue of vengeance. This is an issue of business.

    The people whom you would incinerate will kill you if you do not incinerate them. They’ve already tried to cripple your government. The Persians are willing to use an EMP on you and cripple you all even further, and this is something Putin would help them with. Russia is now your enemy once again. A single nuke on Tehran removes the Persian threat – and ends the Persian empire that is now nascent – stretching from Pakistan to the Mediterranean all the way down to Yemen.

    So nukes also send a very strong message to your enemies Russia and North Korea – and to that huge creditor which could easily become an enemy again – China. Don’t mess with that nasty country in North America.

    Lots of countries will scream about a radiation cloud hitting them – but they will have real fear that instead of mere clouds killing off people, you will bomb them as well.

    3. You see, Joe, you think in terms of reasonableness. And your policies and suggestions are the mark of a reasonable man. If you were dealing with reasonable people, you would make sense. But your kind of reasonable diplomacy (combined with threats of war) went out of style in 1914. The Persians want to re-establish an empire and impose a ruler on the world. The Wahhabi want to kill everyone who is not a Wahhabi, and in their eyes, they have centuries to do it. The Chinese think in terms of how much money they can grab. They are very interested in money. They want to be rich, and are sick of being poor. The Russians, whose motives are closest in nature to your own, want to re-establish themselves as a great power.

    Dealing with all this requires not reasonableness, which you are the soul of, but unreasonableness, and an apparent willingness to go to war over trifles. Your “adversaries” have to be afraid that you are crazy enough to annihilate the planet. This is a very different policy than the balance of terror, “MAD” strategy of the Cold War.

    This is a policy of scaring people to death, a policy of making them wonder whether they can indeed sleep at nights. You are too big to destroy without poisoning the planet to death, so they have to live with that fear – fear that you induce. It may be the only real deterrent you have, considering how deeply in debt you are.

    We in Israel can try that policy – but the Russians could and would obliterate us. So would you. So, if we go to war, it has to be very serious, very damaging and very fast, a whole different ballgame. Instead of a “Four Day War” (the Suez campaign of 1956), or a “Six Day War” (of June 1967), we would have to wage a “36 Hour War”, changing the face of the Middle East in less than two days. For a small country like this, that’s a very tall assignment. Doable, but very difficult.

    4. Frankly I think Obama is a disaster for you. But, to be fair, McCain would not have been much less of a disaster. Obama, in order to stave off total economic dislocation, has had to print trillions of dollars and take over a large portion of the economy (his health plan is more along the line of a federal takeover also, but with seeming bennies for you), but in reality, he has only been doing in larger print what Bush attempted in Sept. 2008. None of your leaders really know how to dig you out of a hole that Wall Street bankers have dug you all into – and the Democratic party is generally too dependent on Wall Street banker types to rein in these casino players.

    Printing all those trillions of dollars without any backing will have consequences – massive inflation that will strike a short time after the 2010 elections. So enjoy the ride while you can, and if you have any spare change under the couch, buy an ounce or two of gold. It was $815/troy oz. this time last year. Now it is over $1,100/troy oz. Keep the gold once you buy it. When the currency collapses, it may be survival money. You’ll want to have a troy scale on hand also.

    Have a great day at work.

%d bloggers like this: