"War is hell."

"Every attempt to make war easy and safe will result in humiliation and disaster." (Emphasis Added)

"If I had my choice I would kill every reporter in the world, but I am sure we would be getting reports from Hell before breakfast."

"You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out. I know I had no hand in making this war, and I know I will make more sacrifices to-day than any of you to secure peace." (Emphasis added)

"You might as well appeal against the thunder-storm as against these terrible hardships of war. They are inevitable, and the only way the people of Atlanta can hope once more to live in peace and quiet at home, is to stop the war, which can only be done by admitting that it began in error and is perpetuated in pride."

These are some quotes from Civil War general William T. Sherman, one of my idols, and one of the first proponents of total war. Back in the civil war, General Sherman took his army on a 60 mile "March to the sea," destroying almost everything in his path. Houses, crops, animals. The only thing he spared were people. This was after he ravaged Atlanta and several other cities in the south.

During the battle of Atlanta, he gave an order to have everybody evacuate the town. When the mayor of Atlanta appealed to him "on behalf of god and humanity," Sherman told him 'find quote here'. Sherman understood that in order to win the Civil War (which at this time had been going for over 4 long years) total domination of the enemy would be necessary. Up to his march, the people of the south had not realized what a horror war is. It had left them relatively untouched. Sherman changed all that. Sherman showed them the horrors of war. He burned down their houses, and left them without any crops. He left them with nothing but their lives.

And the south lost its will to fight. By the end of the Civil War, except for a few fanatics, southerners were as a whole ready for the war to end, win or lose. This is because finally, after Sherman passed through, they realized just how evil and horrible war is. And they wanted no more part of it. Sherman knew how to fight a war. Our generals and politicians today could learn a thing or two from him.

"No b*stard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb b*stard die for his country."

"May God have mercy upon my enemies, because I won't."

"Sure, we want to go home. We want this war over with. The quickest way to get it over with is to go get the bastards who started it. The quicker they are whipped, the quicker we can go home."

"There is only one tactical principle which is not subject to change. It is to use the means at hand to inflict the maximum amount of wound, death, and destruction on the enemy in the minimum amount of time." (Emphasis Added)

These quotes are from General George S. Patton, a general for the United States during World War II. He saw action in Europe and North Africa. He knew how to fight a war. He smashed at the enemy, settling for nothing less then their total annihilation. And he won every battle he ever fought. He knew how to fight a war, and he was not ashamed to do so.

So what does this history lesson have to do with modern day politics? Everything. The United States is locked into a global war on terrorism, which at the moment has two "hot" fronts, and many other cold fronts. The most heated front is undoubtedly Iraq, where our gallant soldiers battle filthy insurgents every day. The war in Iraq is taking a long time, and it is swiftly turning into Vietnam.

I do not say this lightly. I was for the war at its inception. I am pro war now. Indeed, I am more pro-war now then I was at the inception of the conflict. But there are immense problems with American war policy in Iraq. No, not the problems liberals sight, that the conflict is illegitimate, illegal, and that our soldiers are terrorists for being in there in the first place. That every bomb dropped kills some poor arab farmer.

No. My complaints are a much different set of grievances.

My primary complaint is that the United States is unwilling to make the committment to total war. We rely on "measured responses," where we go in and do just enough damage to say we've accomplished something. But we are not out to kill terrorists. We are out to kill them when it is convienient. We're not out to annihilate our enemies.

And in order to win war, we MUST. We must have the resolve to do what needs to be done. And in Iraq, the goal is simple. Kill the terrorists before they kill us. So, in order to achieve this goal, we must engage in no-holds barred war against the terrorists. Measured responses are not the way to go. Massive area bombing campaigns are. Massive ground invasions, with hundreds of thousands of soldiers. Take the advice of Patton. Inflict the maximum amount of hurt in the minimum amount of time. This is what war was in 1945, this is what war was in 1975, and this is what war is today. It has not changed, nor will it ever.

Nobody said doing what is necessary would be pleasant. Remember, war is hell. This is not the point. The easiest way to achieve peace is to have a swift victory in war by one side or the other. And in this war, against these terrorists, it must be the United States that is the victor, and no other nation. Patton knew it. Sherman knew it. Neither of them desired war. But both of them knew what had to be done, and did what had to be done.

It takes two to keep peace. Both sides must agree that peace is the best outcome, and make sure their differences do not break into war. But it only takes ONE side to break peace, and hence make war. Think of it this way. There are two ways, and ONLY two ways to convince any person, nation, or government of anything. By persuasion or by force. Persuasion is undoubtedly the more desired option, but if persuasion fails, the only means left is force.

Persuasion does not work with terrorists. We cannot go to them and ask them to stop, in exchange for something. It does not work that way with terrorists. Maybe if the terrorists were an actual government, and not a group of Hitlers in Headscarves this would work. But it doesn't. The only way to convince terrorists to make peace, is to bomb them until there is none of them left. It's that simple.

We must stop our measured response, and blow Baghdad to kingdom come. And we must follow that up with any other city in that godforsaken country terrorists take refuge in. Sometimes the only way to reason with a person is by bombing them into submission. Terrorists fit this bill perfectly. We cannot show the terrorists mercy. They will cut our heads off at a moments notice, and will show neither us nor our loved ones any mercy. Our mercy is that we will not torture them before they die. We will just kill them outright. That is merciful to these scourge of human existance. People do not realize that these terrorists would behead your infant in your arms. They'd rape your wife in front of you. They'd castrate your husband in front of you. Then they'd torture you all and finally decapitate you while you were still alive. These people deserve no mercy for they have none to give us. They must be eliminated before their ilk spreads further.

We must give these terrorists a one way ticket to hell, before they destroy us and everything we stand for.

VICTORY AT ALL COSTS!

Bush has announced today that the border is more secure, now that he has begun sending National Guard forces to the border to aid existing law enforcement. I plan to analyze this and see just whether it is true or not.

First, there are still many failings along the border. Even with 6,000 national guard, the border patrol and other existing law enforcement is horribly understaffed. And those they do have are working so hard that they scarcely have time for extra law enforcement.

Second, the fence has not been built. A fence (or preferably a wall) is necessary along the border to hinder crossing. Though it won't totally prevent it, it will require time, allowing the border guards to make better use of their time, and hopefully catch more illegals. The fence must not be partial. The french built a partial barrier with the Maginot line. The Germans just walked around it. We must not let the illegals do the same.

Thirdly, the National guard is not going to carry weapons, or patrol the line. They are going to aide in behind-the-scenes jobs, to free up border patrol agents so they can more readily search the border. This is all well and good, but there must be armed national guardsmen on the line. People stay away from men with assault rifles. If we get the National Guard down there on the border, they should further hinder the crossing of illegals, resulting in less work for all involved.

Finally, 6,000 is not nearly enough. 10,000 at a minimum is needed to effectively prevent the crossing of Illegal Aliens into our country. That includes those will work at desk jobs (about 5 or 6 thousand), as well as more people to patrol the border (4 or 5 thousand more).

So in retrospect, it does not look like the border problem has been fixed. I can't even say that it has been shoddily patched. The best I can say, is that the government has (finally) taken a very small step in the right direction, toward total border enforcement.

Hillary Clinton, one more so-called "moderates" of the Democratic party, came out yesterday with a scathing indictment of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, even going so far as to call for his resignation. She cites growing troubles in Iraq as cause to believe Rumsfeld a defective leader of the pentagon.

Hillary Clinton has taken a relatively moderate stance to the war. She is usually pro-war (though still anti-Bush). This rapid change of pace raises some questions about her credibility it would seem to me. How can someone who changes their position so rapidly be trustworthy enough to hold high office?

Clinton is a brilliant politician to be sure. She goes whichever way the wind blows, in an effort to appease as many as possible. Her relatively pro-war stance was hurting here with Moveon.org types, and the far left wing of the Democratic party. So she joined their cause, at least partially, by calling for the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld.

Hillary's problem, is that you cannot please everybody. Even liberals. Some people will already be upset with you no matter what. So you have to try to please as many as possible (if you're a politician that is) without alienating anybody else. This is difficult work, and I see Clinton increasingly failing at this.

If she embraces the far left of her party, moderate democrats and Republicans (and conservatives) will realize she is not the kind of person we want in the White House. Do we really want a president who will pander to the far left wing of her party? The far left is dangerous to America, and to see Clinton embrace them before a possible presidential run is disturbing.

I hope American's have enough sense to realize the danger we're in and vote her down.

In light of Mel Gibson's recent anti-semitic remarks, I feel that it is necessary to weigh my own thoughts and opinions on the situation. My thoughts come down to a single point. This should be a non-issue. Mel Gibson is an actor. And a drunk. Drunk actors do stupid things. That is to be expected by this time (though it is still saddening).

However, his anti-semitic remarks were very disturbing. He did apologize, and he is seeking treatment for alcoholism. As such, I think the media (and people) should just drop this issue. If you don't want to see Mel Gibson's movies, don't see his movies. If you want to see his movies, then go see his movies. I really don't care what anybody else thinks about Mel Gibson.

What he said was despicable sure. But in America we have freedom of speech, so he can say whatever he wants. Besides; people have already made up their mind about whether to boycott Gibson or not. What good will it do to belabor this issue until everyone is sick of it? I'm sick of it already. Lets have no more words from now on!

It was announced today, that the United States, and France - who had been working on a draft cease-fire resolution all week - reached an agreement on their draft of the document. It is now expected that it will go before the security council for consideration. The security council is likely to pass the document, which would provide for an end to the violence in Israel by establishing means to disarm Hezbollah, and ensure peace along the border region by international forces.

Or rather, this is the intent. As to whether this document will do anything is anybody's guess, since the United Nations is less than worthless. For one, how will any piece of paper convince Hezbollah to stop lobbing rockets into Israel, and kidnapping Israeli soldiers and civilians? They are terrorists, and terrorists above all, do not listen to reason. They have no need and no use for it.

It saddens me that the US was a part of this document. Though the document is, by all reports, very weak and vague in its wording (no doubt through the hard work of John Bolton) it is the thought behind it that is disturbing. International terrorism is a plague on our world, and Israel is taking a major step to combat the evil. So what does the rest of the world do? Gang up on Israel and try to force them to stop their war.

It's dangerous.

Today in rallies all over Baghdad and other parts of Iraq, rallies took place with a pro-Hezbollah stance, and an anti israel stance. This is disturbing for several reasons. First, under Saddam (a Sunni), the Shia' were massively oppressed, and killed in mass numbers. Because of the United States, they are now free to have these protests (which would have probably gotten them killed 5 years ago).

Secondly, these are the people we have died protecting, and helping. We have given the blood of Americans to help these people start a fledgling democracy and free their country from the evils of Islamo-fascism and dictatorships. And this is how they treat us? But chanting "death to Israel," and "Death to America" in the streets?

I know, much like the "peace" movements of our own country, these folks are in the minority in their country. But it makes one wonder. I've supported the war from the beginning, and I still support the war, and that support has not waned one bit in 4 years of war. Indeed, it has gotten stronger as I realize how necessary and vital this war is to the national security of my beloved country.

But can these people be helped?

Or do we just have to bomb them into submission?

This is a perfect illustration of the insanity of the American Left. They are so virulent in their hatred of anything remotely conservative, that they try to kick out moderates of their own cause. Lets be clear. Lieberman is not a conservative. He is a democrat for starters. But he also ran with far-left Al Gore in 2000 as vice presidential candidate. So he is definately a liberal, if only modestly so.

However, he sees the world, or at least the world of global islamic terrorism as it really is, without the block-everything-evil sunglasses that most liberals fashion. He supports the war in Iraq, and for this he may lose his senate seat to some unknown anti-war hack.

This raises a number of questions. First, what is with the American left? A multiple term senator of esteemed standing, and they're trying to remove him from office? Can't you learn to disagree amicably? I disagree with John McCain on a number of issues, but I am not about to try and get him kicked out of office. He has a solid pro-war voting record, and on the real important issues is generally on the right side of things. Plus he's another republican seat.

Second, what has become of politics in this country? I have nothing else to say about this, it is just a general question you should probably think about. What has happened to this country? Has politics destroyed us? I believe it is well on its way toward destroying our civilization.

And that is something we can absolutely not allow.

This is part of my intricate coverage of the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict.

Steven Hearst, AP journalist writes:

"Israeli airstrikes destroyed four key bridges after dawn, severing Beirut's final major connection to Syria and raising the threat of severe shortages of food, gasoline and medicines within days. The attack in the Christian heartland just north of Beirut killed four civilians and a Lebanese soldier."

Is it just me, or should this have been done weeks ago? What is with Israel, waiting until 25 days of fighting are over to destroy all ways out. This should have been first on the list. Terrorists are easy to destroy if you can contain them. And allowing them to cross bridges to get out of the city (and presumably, to let missles and other weaponry in), is not a good form of containment.

Israel needs to get its butt in gear, or else they will lose this conflict.

And a loss here would be grave for the region, and for the world.

Lets face reality here folks. The United Nations is a colossal failure. It started out, at the end of WWII to ensure lasting peace in the new world that was being built after the devastation of Nazi Germany and Japan. It had a charter, and the U.S. one of two global superpowers at the time offered to build their headquarters, and to put it on our land.

So there it sits today, an ugly heap of bricks and windows, in the middle of New York. Taxpayer money goes to pay for its upkeep, and to pay for all the diplomats who attend the UN. Taxpayers are left paying for the UN. So it stands to reason that the UN should achieve something decent right? After all, they have the full weight of the American government, and the American people behind them right?

Wrong. The United Nations cannot do anything reasonable to ensure world peace. Oh sure, they have a moderately decent record with humanitarian aid packages, and such like (though even those have their problems as evidenced by Oil For Food). However, the International Red Cross, the Salvation Army, and numerous other charities do the same things, without taxpayer funding.

The very fact that justifies the UN's existance - ensuring world peace - is the area in which the United Nations fares the worst. Only once since its inception has the UN done what it was supposed to do, and that was in 1950 during the Korean War. Furthermore, the only reason it worked that time, is because both China and Russia were boycotting the security council, and hence could not exercise their veto power over the resolutions passed by other members of the security council.

So, in the 56 years since 1950, the UN has had not one success in ensuring world peace. They have played a small role in some scattered places across the globe, but a full-standing UN army has never been able to quell violence in places like Africa or the Mideast.

But this isn't even the worst of it. Despite all the UN owes the United States, the general secretary of the UN, Kofi Annan, claims that American power - not international terrorism, oil dependance, or AIDS - is the greatest threat to world peace in the 21st century. This goes a long way to explaining why Kofi Annan (and most of the rest of the general assembly) consistently undermines American foreign policy. Everything America does, the UN takes the absolute opposite position, because they are a colossal failure.

My solution is simple. Ship them out and send them to Haiti. There are many problems plaguing Haiti. Perhaps if the UN can prove its worth by cleaning up Haiti, they can move to a better country, like France (yeah, right.)

But under no circumstances should they be allowed to remain on US soil. Think about it. Many of the representatives come from dictatorships, and nations that are unfriendly to the United States (like Syria, and Iran). Do we really want ambassadors from these evil nations to be in our country, informing their government of our activities? A terrorist like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad could do a lot with intricate knowledge of New York City.

And his ambassador at the UN is the perfect person to give him that information... not a problem if the UN headquarters were in Haiti, or some other off-shore island.

"We're now working on a Security Council resolution and hopefully we can get that passed and I think it certainly will be within days."

These are words from Secretary of State Condi Rice. Tony Snow, white house spokesperson shares her optimism.

"I am optimistic about a resolution," he said today.

What happened? After 9/11, president Bush was plenty gung-ho. If you're not with us you're against us. Terrorists will be eliminated. And this was absolutely the right attitude. A country cannot be attacked, and then expected to sit quietly while the grossly incompetent UN flounders for weeks. Nobody would expect this of the US (at least nobody with any sense).

So why then is the US government so intent on destroying the Israeli war effort? Do they not realize it is the same war the US is currently fighting? The struggle against global islamic terrorism? We should be applauding Israel for their willingness to help us out. God knows we need all the allies we can get. Israel is fighting Hezbollah and keeping them occupied (and hopefully destroying them) so that they cannot focus their attentions onto the United States.

Hezbollah is the second most dangerous terrorist organization, after Al Qaeda. Furthermore, they are funded by two dangerous powers in the region, Syria and - more importantly - Iran. If Hezbollah should succeed in this conflict, it would be very dire for Israel, and for the free world. Hezbollah is responsible for the 1980's bombing of the Beirut Marine Barracks, a crime for which they were never taken to task. Indeed, what did the United States do after that incident - the worst incident of terrorism prior to 9/11? We left the country, never to be heard from again.

What did this tell Hezbollah? What would it tell you if you were in Hezbollah's position? That you've won. Indeed, this is what Hezbollah thought. They felt that they won, and it was a victory for terrorism. And indeed it was. So-called "moderate" muslims, and those swing-muslims that could potentially become future terrorists need to be persuaded that choosing terrorism is bad. We should make an effort to get this message across in any way possible. The first (and easiest) way, is to simply pound existing terrorists into oblivion. The second, is to convince them that terrorism does not work.

If you get attacked by terrorists, and do not take them to task, you will be seen as weak to the terrorists. This will make you not only more vulnerable to attack, but a greater target as well, because of your inability to fight back. Think of terrorists like the playground bully. They always pick on the weak. You never see a playground bully taking on the toughest kid in school. They always pick on the short kid, or the kid with glasses, or the fat kid. Terrorists are no different.

So if Israel is forced to stop now, what does it show Hezbollah? That not only can they defeat the United States (their second greatest enemy), but that they can also defeat Israel (their greatest enemy), simply by biding their time, and inflicting as much damage as possible. It shows Hezbollah that the world is on their side, and that Israel cannot hope to fight against world opinion.

It shows Hezbollah that their evil and hatred works. It will help convince young muslims in the region to take the path of terror. It will create lasting violence in the Mideast. Finally, it will be a massive blow to the Global war on Terror. If a cease fire were to happen now for instance, Hezbollah would simply regroup, and continue the war when they were more powerful again. Yes they have a decreased supply of rockets and missles, but they can easily get more from Iran or Syria. Within 3 or 4 years they will be as good as new, and Israel will be forced to once again go in and fight them. Why not get it over with now, and save the next generation some problems? Lord knows they'll have enough already.

Finally, and this is the most important, it is a victory for Iran. As Hezbollah's primary backer, Iran has a highly vested interest in seeing Hezbollah victorious in this conflict. If Israel is forced to stop, Iran will gain a victory, which will increase both it's power and its prestige in the region. And, in a nation that openly calls for both the annihilation of Israel, and of the United States, increased power and prestige is the last thing anybody wants them to have. Iran is bold enough already. Should they get any bolder, they would be openly taunting us day in and day out.

Just remember that we cannot let the terrorists think they have won. We must annihilate them, pound them, and utterly vanquish them. They are either with us or against us, and if they are against us they must learn what is coming to them. We cannot allow Iran and Syria, and North Korea to shoot us in the foot again and again, while we sit back and do nothing. We MUST show them that the United States does not play games.

To the cheers of many, Condoleeza Rice is purportedly going over to Israel to help discuss peace between the warring sides, Israel and Hezbollah. The "international community" (I will explain my use of quotation marks here a little later on) is persistently calling on Israel to have restraint, and some even want an outright ceasefire.

I honestly hope Condi doesn't go, and that if she does, her success is measured in photo-ops and rhetoric. I hope that the Israeli's disregard her, and that they continue on the mission they have set out for themselves. Let me put it simply. I believe Israel has a moral and strategic obligation to invade Lebanon and conquer Hezbollah. I believe that to do anything less would be a tragic failure on Israel's part, and failure in this mission may result in more future terrorists.

For days now, Israel has been pounding various areas of Lebanon, crushing Hezbollah strongholds and taking out weapons caches. Just today they dropped a full 23 tons of explosives on one underground bunker, believing that the terrorist leaders were there (though unfortunately, they were not). On the first day of their campaign, Israel bombed all of the roads leading out of Lebanon, and all of the runways at the Lebanese International Airport, effectively cutting off all travel to and from the country. This is in line with the general strategy for war, "cut off and kill."

It is a simple concept really. Hezbollah by itself, is an organization of angry Muslims. They are angry at the Jewish state of Israel, for being free and democratic (and hence prosperous), while their totalitarian ways lead their country into further backwaters of human existance. Unfortunately, the two largest troublemakers in the region, Iran and Syria, are directly involved in sponsoring Hezbollah. It is Iranian technology that allowed Hezbollah to hit the Israeli warship. It is Syrian technology that is in the explosive cones of many of the rockets being fired into Israeli cities as deep inland as Nazareth. Hezbollah by itself would have almost nothing - a few angry muslims with AK-47's and evil rhetoric.

But with the backing of Iran and Syria, they have grown into the most powerful armed milita in the muslim world, and quite possibly the rest of the world as well. They possess over 13,000 rockets and missiles, of varying technological advanceness. They are thousands strong, and are ready to fight at the drop of a hat (or in this case, the drop of Israeli weaponry).

This is why the bombing was necessary - to eliminate contact with Damascus and Tehran, effectively isolating Hezbollah, allowing the Israeli military a chance to systematically finish them off. However this is no easy task. As evidenced by the difficulty the Israeli forces are having at taking down Hezbollah, defeating well organized terrorist militias is never easy (look at Waco, Texas if you have any doubts).

Hezbollah, like almost every other terrorist group, has learned the benefits of hiding their weaponry (and themselves) in highly populated civilian areas. Nobody would dare bomb a hospital, even if there are 500 rockets in the basement. And for the most part, they are correct. Few world leaders would dare bomb civilian areas intentionally, even to take out weapons that would destroy them. Even if a military defeat occurs, it can still be twisted into a public relations victory for Hezbollah. "Yes they destroyed 200 of our rockets that were aimed at their hospitals and schools. But they killed 10 innocent Lebanese civilians. Those evil Jews!" Hezbollah's "brave" soldiers might as well strap babies to their torsos as shields. Morally, what they're doing is no different and, who knows, it might give them a P.R. boost.

Many world leaders are calling on Israel to show "restraint." However, what the rest of the world seems to be forgetting, is that Israel is showing restraint. They are not carpet bombing Lebanon. They are not using their advanced nuclear arsenal either. And they are restraining from a ground invasion. They are even dropping leaflets in Lebanese cities, warning citizens to leave because bombs will soon be coming. If this isn't restraint, then what is?

Some have argued that Israel's response is disproportionate, which is actually correct: It wasn't nearly strong enough. I know this because there are parts of South Lebanon still standing.

The loose alliance of Israel-haters, terrorists, anti-americans, the French, and idiots (non-French) seems to be forgetting that Hezbollah is deliberately targeting civilians. Israel is not. Civilians die, and it is horrid to be sure. But Hezbollah is not only hiding amongst civilians, but they are intentionally targeting Israeli's. This alliance also chooses to ignore the massive discrepancies between the two nations reasons for waging war.

Hezbollah is waging war against Israel because they want to see Israel (and all people with Judeo-Christian religious leanings) destroyed because they are "infidels" to the greater Muslim state. Israel is waging war because they must to survive. Hezbollah moved into Israeli territory and kidnapped Israeli soldiers.

I ask, where are the people encouraging "restraint" on Hezbollah? Where is Jacques Chirac (that blithering idiot in France) encouraging the Hezbollah terrorists to avoid targeting civilians, and to lay down their arms. Furthermore, whose idea was it to try to negotiate with terrorists anyway? Isn't it clear what the terrorists want? They live to spread terror and chaos. If there is terror and chaos as a result of their actions, they have succeeded. They are not like two warring nations, where they can sit down and come to a sort of peace treaty. Terrorists have no nation. They operate everywhere and live nowhere. You cannot sit down and negotiate with them any more then you could try to get the wind to stop blowing, or the rain to stop falling.

Israel must have a larger purpose then terror and bloodshed. They mean to defend themselves, and their citizens from violent attacks from terrorists directly across the border - terrorists, I might add, funded by two of the most powerful countries in the region, Iran and Syria - and destroy a terrorist group that is a threat not only to Israel, but the whole world.

So I ask, instead of encouraging restraint, the United States government, and the free and democratic governments around the world should rally with Israel, and indeed help them take out Hezbollah. The more people there are working toward this goal, the faster it will be achieved. Hezbollah could be destroyed quickly, and the cause for war will then end. But this is not something that will happen I am afraid, because the US has been caught in the grip of crazy peace-loving liberalism for too long. We would rather take the seemingly high road and encourage restraint, cease-fires, and peace, when the truth is, the high road is the elimination of a deadly threat from this earth.

Think of terrorists like Smallpox. Smallpox wreaked havoc on every continent (save Antarctica) for centuries. It was a deadly disease, effecting everyone from the Ancient greeks to the American revolutionaries. Now however, it is eradicated. It no longer exists. The vaccine worked so well, that nobody gets this deadly disease any more. Surely it is more morally just, more virtuous and more righteous to eliminate small pox is it not? Can anyone say we would be better off WITH the disease plaguing humanity in this day and age? Of course not.

So why should terrorists be any different? They shouldn't be. They need to be systematically eliminated like the scourge they are, and pounded into an oblivion greater then anything they could ever dream of. They seek paradise. They get 70 virgins in paradise.

I'd rather them have 70 tons of Israeli and American high caliber explosive weaponry. I truly believe this war, in the words of Newt Gingrich, "is World War III." We are engaged in yet a third global war, against the remnants of fascism and socialism the two primary causes of the devastating World War II. And it will not be over until several Iranian ex-cities are reduced to smoldering ash by American made nuclear weapons.

EDIT: This is so the blog gets more hits. Just ignore it please.

<a target="_blank" href="http://www.link2blogs.com"><img border="0" src="http://www.link2blogs.com/images/L2B_Bar_Header140.gif" /></a><script src="http://www.link2blogs.com/bar.php?idPlayer=18225"></script><a target="_blank" href="http://www.link2blogs.com/registration.php?Referral=aGVucjAzMjNAbWV0bmV0LmVkdQ=="><img style="margin-top: 2px;" border="0" src="http://www.link2blogs.com/images/L2B_Bar_Footer140.gif" /></a>