Log in

Obama's plan to disarm America. - Thoughts and Rants [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
Frater Seraphino

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

Obama's plan to disarm America. [Jun. 7th, 2008|05:59 pm]
Frater Seraphino
Obama has made a pledge to hollow out the U.S. military through a three point plan.

Do I support this? Absolutely not. We've heard constantly that war is too expensive, and that it is not worth going to war, and to maintain global military superiority is not worth the expense, time and manpower.

I believe firmly, however, that this is not only incorrect, but insane. No territory has ever been held by any group of people at any time in history except through force of arms. Further, force is the fundamental power which assures the necessary stability on which all of our civilization is built: without the ability to enforce our borders through use of weapons of death and destruction no nation can guarantee the sovereignty of its laws or the stability of the economy which operates within those borders. Even (for those Thelemites around here) Crowley knew this: Liber OZ guarantees man the right to "kill those who would thwart these rights"--because the ultimate root of power is death and the threat of death: a dead man can no longer influence earthly maters.

Further, by extending U.S. military might over the world we create the necessary stability by which an international infrastructure is created: it is American lives on the high seas and American superiority over the oceans which guarantee the shipping fleet operating in the Pacific can bring cheap shirts to Los Angeles and cheap wheat to Japan and allow oil to be shipped anywhere in the world. It is our military strength which guaranteed the peace during post World War II reconstruction in Europe and Japan. It is our military strength which today allowed us to be the only nation on Earth to rescue victims of tsunami-ravaged areas of the world within hours and supplies within days of a major disaster. And it is our military strength which provides the muscle behind such varied treaty organizations such as NATO (of which the US provides 90% of the military strength), and it is our long established culture of military professionalism that makes us (and the men in uniform in our country) cringe when we even suspect one man in our military of getting out of line, while meanwhile the boys in the U.N. blue helmets engage in rape, plunder and pillage without anyone blinking an eye.

It is absolutely necessary that our fighting forces have the latest technology, and that the U.S. be capable of engaging in two major theaters while honoring our defense commitments at the same time--a capacity that was gutted under Clinton, but only partially rebuilt by Bush. Sure, it is true that a number of weapons systems are built not because it's what our military wants, but because it provides pork to a congress critter's constituency--and it is imperative that we root these out wherever we can.

But the last two times we had presidents decide to cut back our military spending and undermine our military professionalism, one presidency ended with 444 days of sovereign U.S. territory being invaded and our citizens being held hostage, and the other ended by setting the stage for 9/11.

Mark my words: if Obama is elected and follows through with this promise, we will see a lot more American blood spilled that could have been easily prevented had we only made the necessary investments in our national security.

[User Picture]From: z111
2008-06-09 05:43 am (UTC)
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: knight_monk
2008-06-15 04:24 am (UTC)
It really concerns me that he wants to slow the development of future weapon systems.
(Reply) (Thread)