But if we kill Nazis, we'll just make more Nazis!

If Dems of today were time-transported to 1942, this is what they would be saying to FDR.

Their argument today: we shouldn't kill terrorists, because if we kill terrorists, even more terrorists will spring up in their place.

So would they be saying the same argument in 1942?

After all, the Nazis appeared to be winning in 1942, so saying America should stop killing Nazis because we were creating even MORE Nazis would almost make sense.

Almost.

There are a few fallacies in the liberal mantra that "killing terrorists only makes more terrorists". The first is that they assume there are an infinite amount of people that become terrorists that will replace dead terrorists.

The second is that liberals assume incorrectly that all terrorists are equally important.
As for the 1st fallacy, let's go back to the Nazis. We didn't need to kill ALL the Nazis, just a good % of them. Once we killed a good deal of them, their morale sank. Some surrendered, but more importantly, we were killing Nazis FASTER than they could make new ones. If Germany didn't surrender, we eventually would have killed ALL Nazis; but we didn't need to.

As for the 2nd fallacy, let's again go back to the Nazis. We didn't try to kill every Nazis, because some Nazis were more important than others. What do I mean? Well, some Nazis were just foot soldiers, others had expertise in explosives or were snipers, some were spies, and precious few were generals who could do military planning and execute attacks. Of these generals, some of them were BRILLIANT in determining strategy, and some were just mediocre.

Now let's say that on one day in 1942, we killed Hitler and ALL of his top generals. Would the Nazi war machine continue? Possibly not. But even if it did, it's effectiveness would be GREATLY reduced. Those generals were there because of their ability OTHERS DID NOT HAVE. Killing them weakens the effectiveness of the ENTIRE MILITARY, even though the soldiers out in the field didn't change ONE IOTA.

The Nazi regime ws unable to function once Hitler was dead and the generals captured, even though we did NOT kill 100% of Nazis, or 100% of German tanks, etc.

So let's fast forward to the present. If we kill military PLANNERS (like al Zarqawi), freeze assets of Al Queda, and disrupt training grounds and never let them rest, that disrupts their organization. They are LESS capable of planning and executing major attacks.

If we continue to kill top LEADERS of Al Queda who have skills OTHER TERRORISTS DO NOT HAVE, we eventually will have an Al Queda which still hates America but has no real capability for a major strike.

Another analogy is the Mafia. Imprisoning Mafia foot-soldiers is pointless: Mafia will just recruit more. But go after the Mafia dons, and over time, you start to see an effect. Mafia has squabbles over power, and effectiveness of the organization effectively degrades.

So killing terrorists does not ONLY make new terrorists. Killing the RIGHT terrorists, those with SPECIAL SKILLS, and TOP LEADERS of al Queda, ABSOLUTELY makes a difference.
Eventually, the operational capability of the organization suffers. Top leaders like Al Zarqawi.

And what you're left with is a lot of people that still hate America, but are unable to carry out large attacks against America. They don't have the $, or the weapons, or the contacts, or the planning/operational expertise, or the leadership/charisma.

So when liberals recite the mantra "killing terrorists only makes more terrorists", think what would have happened if FDR believed that in 1942.

Democrats want me to kick my son out of the house!

It's true! Democrats want my son out, and they want him out NOW. What am I talking about? Well, I'm just guessing they want me to kick my son out, given the fact that they want the US to start pulling troops out of Iraq by the end of the year.

So, what does that have to do with my son? Everything. See, Democrats are saying that Iraq is really like a 38-year old son that has never moved out: he's dependent on us, and he really can't mature because we coddle him. If the US pulls out, Iraq will finally be a man, grow up, and learn to take care of themselves. To Democrats, Iraq is like a 38-year old son that is ready to take care of himself, but the parents never force him out, so he never matures and never has to face problems.

But here's the problem: Democrats don't really KNOW that Iraq is ready to go it alone, they are just SAYING Iraq can. Iraq's prime minister was approved April 22, 2006. That's just as few months ago. The first election EVER was held Jan 30, 2005. How quickly do Democrats think Iraq can form a government out of nothing? In a few months? How would Democrats KNOW that Iraq could successfully handle security for the entire country: regular police, sectarian violence, and foreign terrorists and military units from Iran/Syria that aid them? The Answer: Democrats DO NOT KNOW.

Yet Democrats are calling for JUST THAT: let Iraq fend for itself, even though Iraq government is really just a few months old. They think we're coddling Iraq, and Iraq should have been able to create a police force within 6 months, tops.

So here's where my son comes in: Democrats claim the new government in Iraq is ready after being in existence for a few scant months. But what if they aren't? They would want me to kick my son out of the house when they DON'T KNOW HOW OLD MY SON IS.

Democrats don't know if my son is 38, and I'm coddling him by not kicking him out; or he's 8, and kicking him out would land me in jail and SERIOUSLY jeopardize the safety of my son.

Democrats don't know if Iraq is ready, and given the short length of time the government has been in existence, it's a pretty safe bet they are not ready for a US pullout right now. A US pullout would leave a power vacuum and INCREASE sectarian attacks AND attacks on the government, since there would be no stable military (the US military) to back up Iraqi police/military. Al Queda would have a very good shot at overthrowing the existing Iraqi government (again, just a few months old) and establishing an Islamic theocracy in the mold of Iran there where there is a democracy there now; Iran would not have reservations about sending MORE special forces into Iraq to aid the overthrow of the democracy w/o US forces in their way.

An overthrow of the Iraqi democracy would obviously be a huge blow for the US and a huge victory for foreign terrorists. That is the reason Al Queda leader Al Zarqawi, who is from JORDAN, not IRAQ, fights: for radical Islam, not for Iraq. Against democracy, and for theocracy.

So, amazing as it may seem, Democrats want me to kick my son out of the house w/o KNOWING if my son is READY to go on his own; just like they want Iraq to go it alone w/o KNOWING if Iraq is READY to go it alone.

Both are obviously irresponsible, yet Dems are sticking to that irresponsible plan.

And in case you were wondering, do you think my son is 8 or 38?

He's 3.