The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Reader Mail
Print Email
Text Size

Reader Mail

Senses of Proportion

Ben Stein, Hizbollah and Israel. Also: Nation-building and U.S. security. Scotland's moods. Mensa reconsiders. Plus much more.

(Page 3 of 17)

p>I don’t recall the press corps saying during WWII that, “…for every Nazi or Japanese soldier we killed, 3 more would spring up in its place.” Why are we listening to these idiots today? br> — P. Aaron Jones br> Huntington Woods, Michigan /p>

Mr. Stein’s column to day contains a viewpoint not much expressed in editorials and opinions in the media. The Palm Beach Pravda runs front page pictures each day of the poor, displaced, Muslims who are victims of “Israel’s disproportionate reaction” to a few decades of having its citizens murdered by brave Muslim warriors who assault school buses and shopping malls. The Pravda propagandizes for Arabs even though it has a large proportion of Jews in its area of circulation. But this reaction should hardly be surprising. Look at how the media reacts to the forcible removal from power of a murderous, genocidal, thug as the ruler of Iraq. Look at how the media cowers before Iran and North Korea. The MSM is the mouthpiece for the democrat party and will always follow their Neville Chamberlain “peace at any cost” path. Democrats have prevailed on this point since Korea. So speaking Arabic is almost certainly in our future.

p>I think Newt Gingrich was correct when he said World War Three has begun. I’m teaching my grandson to bow to Mecca and say “Inshalla.” I’m trying to insure his survival. The Muslim religion is a guy thing anyway. Women are just sex slaves, and slaves generally, so in the “new America” he won’t have to worry about women’s rights at all. Teaching him well. Got to keep the old genes in the mix, you know, and we do that by survival. br> — Jay W. Molyneaux /p>

The war on terrorism is definitely not being won if all this rubbish about disproportionate responses is any guide. Wars are won by disproportionate responses and always have been — attack me and I will hurt you much more, I will destroy you and everything you hold dear, so don’t try it in the first place if you know what’s good for you. It used to be called “massive retaliation” and military intellectuals and international lawyers were quite enamored with the idea for some considerable time, but that seems to be very much forgotten now. Massive retaliation was the official policy of the U.S. Government during the whole of the Cold War. It worked, so what is the problem? Sherman’s March to the Sea was a classic example of a disproportionate response, and an extremely effective one — ripping the guts out of the Confederacy won a peace that still prevails, 150 years later. Name me the idiot who wants to complain about that! There is nothing in Europe or in Asia that can compare to that achievement, as far as I am aware.

Letting all this nonsense about disproportionate responses get a hold, especially with Israel, where it really can do nothing but bad, is a very unhealthy sign of moral cowardice, retreat and defeat, in my book. 6 million Israelis and 100 million Arabs — instead of requiring a proportionate response from Israel, it would be much more honest to simply tell them to commit suicide. Expecting Jews to stop defending themselves and die is a long standing intellectual and moral tradition in Europe, regardless of the squealing denials, so it is no surprise that proportionate response is being promoted now. Anti-Semitism and hatred of Israel has a lot of ugly faces, and the idea of a requiring a proportionate response by Israel is just a new ugly face in an old, hideous crowd.

p>Leaving aside the moral issues, which are, or should be show stoppers all by themselves, the whole idea of proportionate response is simply too mind numbingly stupid for words - no wonder the UN, the EU and the media have picked the idea up, they haven’t got a brain between the lot of them. What exactly should have been the proportionate response to the secession of the Confederate States, the bombardment of Fort Sumter, the sinking of the Lusitania, the Zimmermann Telegram, the bombing of Pearl Harbor, the invasion of Poland in 1940 and Russia in 1941, to 911 and unceasing suicide bombings and rocket attacks on civilian targets in Israel? If you can’t give a clear answer these perfectly simple questions, and nobody has even tried to my knowledge, then requiring that military responses be proportionate is false, empty, legal moralizing and intellectual gobbledygook of the very worst kind. br> — Christopher Holland
Page:   1 23 4 5   Last ›

topics:
Taxes, Trade, Business, Sports, Religion, Islam, Books, Law, Military, Iraq, Iran, Russia, Israel, North Korea, Socialism, Fascism, Oil

Letter to the Editor

Related Articles

More Articles From Reader Mail

http://spectator.org/archives/2006/07/24/senses-of-proportion

ADVERTISEMENT

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

Most Popular Articles

My Generation’s Disease

Benjamin Brophy | 5.17.13

The Liberal Union Behind the IRS

Jeffrey Lord | 5.16.13

Not Ready for Primetime Players

Daniel J. Flynn | 5.17.13

Assessing a Week of Scandal

Matt Purple | 5.17.13

Oops, Maybe Government is Tyrannical

Marta H. Mossburg | 5.17.13

The View From the Other Side

George H. Wittman | 5.17.13

From Bimbos to Benghazi

Jeffrey Lord | 5.9.13

ADVERTISEMENT