Posted on 02/10/2005 11:27:03 AM PST by Del Rio Wildcat 2
This is a hurriedly written piece on which I plan to elaborate in the near future.
First of all, let me state I am an Americanist patriot. I am not a Republican, Democrat, Libertarian nor any party person. I have come to realize over a number of years -- especially at the national level -- that a person who hopes to get enough popular support to win has to appeal to and placate many interest groups. The result of all this is that one has to stand for virtually everything, and by virtue of that very fact, one actually stands for nothing. In other words to stand FOR something, one must stand AGAINST many things.
George Washington warned of party spirit during his lifetime and today's patriots -- or far too many of them -- will defend their party no matter what. It is as if their support of party A or B somehow sanctifies it.
So my criticism of George W. Bush could just as well have been against Clinton, Reagan, Carter, etc.
If one closely examines our foreign policy -- apart from the baloney put out by the Council on Foreign Relations and their ilk -- one can only conclude that it has been one of supporting financially and otherwise virtually every tin-pot dictator in the world. Then we come back months or years later having to fight them in one kind of war or another. That is, unless they are Russian, Chinese or Cubans -- Korea and Vietnam aside.
Now to the main point. I don't believe we are interesting in winning in Iraq. Forget the fact that the CIA propped up and helped to finance Saddam Hussein years back.
Consider how we have allowed the continuation of the murder of hundreds of American soldiers, American civilians, Iraqi policeman, civilians and military. We have been warned by several military generals and colonels that you cannot fight a defensive war against terrorists (insurgents). We lost that battle in Vietnam and other places in between as we are now.
If we were serious about winning in Iraq, we would recognize that Russia, China, Iran, Syria and other Marxist (yes I said Marxist -- Communism is not dead) have been the financers, supporters and source of much of the terrorism going on in Iraq.
When first we went into Iraq we used the Navy Seals (remember how the rescued the off shore oil rigs South East of Iraq) when terrorist were fixing to blow them up and how we used Army Rangers to create chaos in Mozul before the "regular" troops came from the South.
You cannot fight professional terrorists with inadequately) trained (no offense against) US troops. They simply are not able to fight this kind of warfare.
Further when our government allows civilians and send GIs and Marines into this environment without giving the latter all they need to win (i.e. special forces training)then that is criminal action, if not murder. In effect, that is giving a "kind of aid and comfort" to the enemy by offering little or no solid resistance and that, my friend, is tantamount to treason.
Do you think the president would allow this second-rate strategy if his daughters were in Iraq? I doubt it. I imagine he would have NOTHING BUT THE BEST to protect them -- and well he should.
Point is that in reality every innocent American life is as important as the President's daughters.
I am livid about this. I want to grab those responsible for this milk-toast military policy in Iraq by the scruff of the neck and... as we say in Texas, "teach them how the 'cow eats the cabbage'."
Either properly train our troops how to fight these Communist butcher and kill ALL of their leadership or get the heck out and bring all of our troops home.
Lastly, my fellow Americans, we get the kind of leadership we deserve. Until we stop following the idea of electing "politicians" and turn back to electing "statesmen" we shall continue to get the 2nd rate, deplorable leadership we have had for decades. And the key is Congress. That is where the real power resides; not in the Executive or Judicial branch. Get a copy of the U.S. Constitution and read Article 3, Section 2 for example.
In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. "In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make." i.e. note the 2nd part that is in quotes above.
So the solution is to relearn our Constitution, start electing statemen to office and put a complete stop to our self-defeating foreign policies which includes diplomatically recognizing and financiing brutal communist regimes and those of their ilk.
There is no substitute for righteous indignation. And we have lost far too much of that.
Your humble servant.
Interesting, very interesting.
WHY do people feel the need to pontificate?
Do you have news? facts to share? Feel free to share it - but this VANITY cr@p is overrated!
Lunatic John Bircher?
Definitely.
Hi!
Oliver's lessons in Troll Spotting - Lesson #4.
Troll post opinion sure to get arguments.
Troll draw much many retorts from devoted FReepers.
Troll post rebuttal feigning shock that we can't discuss things "in an adult manner" (or similar put-down).
Troll taste like ZOT warmed over.
*****************
MEOW.
Do I see zot on the horizon?
Is the US really interested in winning Iraq? Well, I thought Troll due to his fantasy BS theory about Bush wanting to start this war with no intention of winning it?That's John "cut n run" Kerry's mode. Not Bush. Total BS vanity, imho.
good post Yo Yo... does all this uneducated jibber jabber about imortal and endless numbers of special forces remind you of anyone? remember the debates?
i guess some people will believe anything..
Whoa, that's neat.
You may have nailed it.
According to The Bride, that's the first thing I've been right about all week...
I heartily agree with the rewritten quote.
If our inadequately trained troops beat a path to Baghdad that quick, I would shudder to see what they could do should they be adequately trained.
Oh wait, you're just making up crap. Nevermind.
;)
Second of all, let me state that I am an uninterestedist.
Excellent post. Thanks for expressing the thoughts of many of us here.
Excellent post and I want you to know that you speak for most of us here. Thanks
I don't remember saying that we needed to send such a huge number of special forces. I never mentioned divisions or anything like that. In fact, we don't. But we do need multiple squads of small units, lightly armed, working around the clock with Iraqis trained to do likewise.
This could be done and it's not rocket-science. But the will has to be there. Obviously, with the exception of some more educated commanders, it's not.
It's amazing how individuals try to "read something into" any written piece even when it is not there. Some people like to argue for the sake of arguing. Like the old saying goes, there are those who would argue with a fence post.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.