Sand To Glass

A few liberals (Ballbuster, Lance, Thomas, HarryOne to name a few) have been firing away at me constantly because of a statement I once made in a post - oh, I don't know, maybe a year ago, perhaps less than a year ago - where I used the phrase, "Turning Sand Into Glass." It is an obvious reference to a nuclear detonation. Heck, I even had a picture of a mushroom cloud attached in order to eliminate any doubt of the reference I was making. However, as the subjective liberal left tends to do, they took what I said out of context (or perhaps they simply misunderstood the point) and claimed I was saying something I wasn't.

Each one of the liberals listed above, and a few other minor show-up-and-comment-and-never-return-again visitors, decided that what I was saying was that I somehow glorify the destructive power of nuclear weapons, and that I somehow believe in the use of nukes indiscriminately - that I wish for the destruction of cities full of innocents, that I believe we should just go in there (wherever "there" may be) and just start nuking everybody.

I never said such a thing, and it is insanity that the leftards would even be so stupid as to proclaim that is what I was saying. Not a surprise, however, because this is how the left works. This is how they twist and turn words.

At the time that I was making this statement about "Turning Sand Into Glass," what I was trying to get across, and apparently I failed to be clear enough for the Lefties to understand, is that when you are facing an enemy of such a magnitude you must show them that you are stronger than them, and that you are willing to do whatever it takes to defeat them. In other words, when dealing with an unreasonable enemy that is hell-bent on using violent means to put whatever their message is across to you, they must be fully convinced that "we" are willing to use any and all parts of our arsenal to stop them. Whether or not we are actually going to use any and all parts of our arsenal is not the point. They, the enemy, must believe we are willing to. We must go in with the attitude that we are in there to defeat whatever it is we are in there to defeat - and we are willing to use whatever troop level, any weapon, and even be willing to turn sand into glass.

No sane mind loves nuclear weapons, or believes that such horrible weapons should be used readily and indiscriminately. But, as proven by the Cold War, making your opponent believe that you are willing to use such weapons if you must, and poising them in such a position that it backs up that threat, is a powerful weapon in its own right. If we fail to fully convince Islamofacism, for example, that we are willing to do whatever it takes to defeat them, that we have the resolve and the intestinal fortitude to follow through with our threat - if they don't truly believe that - then the War on Terror is pointless and doomed to fail. They will call your bluff, and they will do whatever they want to the point that it may result in the necessity of something like a nuclear device being used.

This is what happened in Japan during World War II. The Japanese had no fear of us. They believed they were stronger, and that they would be able to outlast the American Forces in a continued long, drawn out war in the Pacific. It took two atomic bombs to convince them otherwise - two blasts that killed less people, as it turned out, than would have died should we have had to invade Tokyo in a long, drawn out conventional invasion.

Am I glad we used the atom bomb on Nagasaki and Hiroshima? No, of course not. Nobody would ever be glad when people die - or at least nobody of a right mind. I am never happy when innocents, regardless of who they are, must suffer. But, if taking such a drastic action means stopping the slaughter of more people in the long run, then I support whatever it takes.

Once again, I am not advocating that we go in and start nuking people. I am not advocating that India go into Pakistan and start nuking the cities of that country because of what happened in Mumbai. But I am advocating making sure that the enemy takes us seriously.

I remember a science fiction television character once saying, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." I am a firm believer, when it comes to war, that sometimes the death of a few in a quick strike sends a much firmer message than a long, drawn out killing of many more, and will end wars faster.

That was part of the mismanagement of Iraq on the part of George W. Bush in the beginning. He tried to satisfy the left by being careful with how many troops he sent into the region, rather than going in with the attitude that we were there to take care of business decisively and quickly, and that we were willing to do whatever it took to accomplish the mission.