I’d have shot them.

I mean, come on. You telling me we’d let 15 SS figthers go because a group of German Nazi women surrounded them?

We bombed German cities bach when we knew how to fight a war.

Now, we only know how to lose a serious war of wills and to jeapordize our civilization and children’s survival. Thanks Mr. Bush.

Christoph on November 12, 2006 at 1:56 PM

This comment was one I placed at http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/2932 (AJStrata’s blog) to a HotAir commentator, Limerick, whom I agree often, but who seems to misinterpret much of what I say probably because I right poorly.

I’m going to repost it here because I’m lazy and would rather not rewrite it all and because it touches on the topic we’re discussing, which comes down to the application of force.

Note while reading my comment that I refer to legitimate collateral damage of innocent people who, tremendously sadly, get caught up in war.

The situation at the northern Gaza mosque is less innocent because the women are not mere innocent bystanders, they are knowingly putting themselves between combatants with the intention of aiding one side. They are making themselves enemy collabarators / participants if not combatants (their actions are designed to support their combatants in living and fighting again) and in my books, they are valid targets themselves.

“From your HotAir comments you are simply one of the impeach bush crowd.”

Limerick, what the hell are you smoking?

I have never, ever called for the impeachment of George W. Bush. Generally speaking, I love the man.

I criticize some aspects of his policy, mostly that he has not fought the war with as much force, breadth and disregard for collateral damage (but eye toward reaching crucial military goals) as he should have.

Where he has failed, it has been on account of his being a decent man who doesn’t want to cause more death. Even still, his strategy would work because he is very resolute himself if only his country was too. Please don’t tell me that the American voter excels at relentlessly pursuing long wars to successful conclusions, because s/he doesn’t.

Insurgencies do take a long time to put down… which is why more should have been done to apply dominant force widely during the beginning (to reduce that time). I’m not talking just more troops, but more air power in and outside of Iraq and naval power too — including flexing of U.S. muscle against Iran and Syria.

Not stopping those regimes from reinforcing and leading the insurgent fight in Iraq was a huge strategic mistake: neither a high crime nor misdemeanor, just bad judgment. George W. Bush has a generally well-rounded view of history (he unlike most Presidents has a degree in it), but he has an inadequate grasp of successful military history.

On the domestic front, he’s again motivated by his admirable faith to do things the federal government isn’t particularly good at doing like running social programs (creating prescription drug entitlement, expanding education spending). And he’s also not taking serious steps to control the border because, like the Catholic Bishops, he cares more about the human dignity of every individual person trying to make a better life for him or herself than the desire of most Americans to more completely control immigration.

But where in any of this do you draw the conclusion that I advocate impeaching Bush?

The above, also, are only areas where I criticize him… in most areas: pro-life, etc., I agree with him.

Christoph on November 12, 2006 at 2:28 PM

So, yes, Limerick, I accept your apology, but it’s not really necessary. I criticize arguments and positions that I disagree with regardless of how I feel about the person.

I’m not so stuck on loyalty that I’d agree with a war strategy that isn’t working well. (It’s working, just slower than the American political cycle gives time for, which is to say it isn’t working.)

Likewise, when a liberal whom I despise as a baby-murdering bastard says something smart, I’ll go along.

Bill Clinton was in my Canadian city on November 10th and he met with my Provincial Premier, Gordon Campbell, whom I’ve met in person and admire greatly. He’s probably the best Provincial Premier we’ve had in decades. The first one to actually serve two terms, anyway, and he isn’t being investigated by the cops.

Before he took office, we had a massive exodus of young people to Alberta, the nearest province, because no one could get a job here. Campbell instituted a very conservative program of income tax cuts (virtually identical to the Bush tax cuts) and relaxed regulations.

He turned the province around. Now we have our largest surplusses ever (before a sea of red ink) and people are moving here again. I don’t have to listen to all my friends tell me about their plans to leave the province as soon as they can. Trust me, that was annoying. It was reason enough to vote for the man and I wish I’d remembered to tell him so.

So Campbell’s a fiscal conservative who leads the misnamed BC Liberal Party (long story, don’t sweat it). And Bill Clinton was thanking Canada for our military commitment to Afghanistan, complimenting Canadian soldiers, and reminding everyone that while hard, the work we were doing was very important and good (his choice of word) work we should feel proud of.

Clinton also called for other NATO countries to come forward with more troops and for America to aid Canada with more solidiers in Afghanistan where our forces are bearing the brunt of the land combat.

So I agree with Clinton here and these two men — on opposite sides of the political spectrum on most subjects — agreed with each other.

Complimenting Bill Clinton when he’s right doesn’t make me his supporter any more than criticizing George W. Bush when I think he’s wrong makes me his enemy.

Let me think on your invitation to snuggle.

Christoph on November 12, 2006 at 2:45 PM