Posted on 10/20/2003 9:31:19 PM PDT by kattracks
In part one, I described nine areas of major conflict between the Right and the Left in American life, a conflict that rivals the First Civil War in intensity, though thankfully not in violence. Here in part two, I describe 15 others.
The Left regards American nationalism as dangerous, is more comfortable celebrating world citizenship and prefers that America follow the lead of international organizations such as the United Nations. The Right celebrates American nationalism, distrusts world organizations, prefers that America lead humanity and regards the United Nations as largely a moral wasteland.The Left believes that sensitivity to minorities' feelings trumps the majority's will. The Right believes that when not immoral, the majority's will trumps that of the minority. For example, because some employees do not celebrate Christmas, the Left believes that organizations should rename their Christmas party the "holiday party." The Right believes that because the vast majority of Americans celebrate Christmas, the party should be called a Christmas party.
The Left believes that a woman must have an unrestricted right to choose an abortion but no right to choose a silicone breast implant. The Right believes that society must decide when abortions are moral and legal but a woman has the right to choose to have a silicone breast implant.
The Left believes that attacking world poverty will greatly reduce Islamic terror. The Right believes that poverty is largely unrelated to Islamic terror.
The Left believes that George W. Bush attacked Iraq mostly for economic gain. The Right believes George W. Bush attacked Iraq to protect America and to change the Arab world for the better.
The Left believes that a high rate of taxation of people who earn more money is a moral imperative. The Right believes that allowing people to keep as much of their money as possible is a moral imperative.
The Left identifies with the values of most university professors in the liberal arts and values their insights. The Right regards most of these professors as moral idiots.
The Left believes that the greatest danger to mankind, as former Vice President Al Gore wrote in his book "Earth in the Balance," is the threat to the environment. The Right believes that the greatest danger to humanity is, as it always has been, human evil.
The Left believes that marriage should be redefined and that judges alone are entitled to do so. The Right believes that the millennia-old definition of marriage as between members of the two sexes is inviolable and that it can't be redefined by jurists.
The Left believes that in terms of parenthood, all a child needs is love, whether that love comes from a single parent, two men, two women or some other adult. The Right believes that children do best with the love of two married parents of the opposite sex.
The Left believes that opposing race-based college dorms, graduation ceremonies, congressional caucuses or professional organizations is racist. The Right believes that race-based college dorms, graduation ceremonies, congressional caucuses and professional organizations are racist.
The Left believes that labeling any enemy of the United States "evil" is wrong. It was wrong when President Ronald Reagan labeled the Soviet Union an "evil empire," and it was wrong when President George W. Bush labeled Iran, Iraq and North Korea an "axis of evil." The Right believes that not labeling such regimes "evil" is a sign of moral confusion and appeasement.
The Left is preoccupied with health. Leftist parents are more likely to believe that it is preferable that their teenager cheat on a test than smoke. Parents on the Right are more likely to believe that it is better that their teenager smoke than cheat.
The Left believes that just as America and the Soviet Union were equally responsible for the Cold War, Israel and the Palestinians are equally responsible for Middle East violence. The Right believes that just as the Soviets were responsible for the Cold War, the Arab enemies of Israel are responsible for Middle East violence.
The Left believes that criticism of Christianity is important and that criticism of Islam is bigoted. The Right believes that criticism of Islam is important and that most criticism of Christianity is bigoted.
I am well aware that not everyone on the Left agrees with every leftist position and not everyone on the Right agrees with every rightist one. Nat Hentoff is a leftist who doesn't support abortion rights; Pat Buchanan is a rightist who doesn't support Israel. But the existence of individual exceptions does not negate the fact that all the positions listed here as Left or Right are correctly labeled.
The fact is that this country is profoundly divided on virtually every major social, personal and political issue. We are in the midst of the Second American Civil War. Who wins it will determine the nature of this country as much as the winner of the first did.
©2003 Creators Syndicate, Inc.
Stay Safe !
The second link in the response to line 5 in post #102, above.
-archy-/-
The Bolshevik takeover precipitated a civil war.
They must have skipped 20th Century History at your schools, or you were playing hooky.
After the October Revolution there was the Russian Civil war which lasted for years. Ever hear of the "Red Army" and the "Whites?" Doctor Zhivago ring a bell?
Or did you just think Lenin proclaimed himself master, and the Russians all just saluted and put up red hammer and sickle flags? Sorry, you are off by a million milies. Are you even aware that American and British army brigades fought in the long and bitter Russian Civil War?
Gees, if this is the level of understanding of key parts of history on Free Republic, I shuddet to think what fills the skulls of the MTV generation.
It is a complex and ever shifting subject. THat is why we're sharing our observations and outlook with each other here, in hopes the boulder rolling downhill can be slowed or deflected a bit, if perhaps not entirely halted until it does so of its own weight.
Who are we going to fight,
*We* indicates a point at which both you and I have concluded that it is necessary to do so, and I damned sure don't intend to do so if there's any other viable course- even though I may have tro be making preparations to do so even as I dread the possibility.
I expect if it comes to that, I'll fight against those who my closest family, friends, neighbors, and particularly my fellow veterans view as threats to our future prospects and to the constitution we've sworn to defend...so long as it remains in full effect and is not rendered moot. As in most civil wars, I'd expect that there'll be some of my fellow countrymen among those who I would be facing, whether deserving turncoats and quislings, or just those who simply disagree with me on political matters and will kill me and my family to convince me of the superiority of their views. So since this is a *we* project, who do you figure *we* are going to be up aainst?
what is the fight about,
As with the previous American *civil war* [which technically wasn't one, since the Richmond Confederacy did not wish to institute a regime change in Washington] it's about whether or not there will continue to be a United States of America as we've known it for all our lives. The last one was also about four years long, which might or might not be the case in a second go-'round.
what's going to come of all this,
Way too soon to tell. Hopefully, it'll come before any further bloodletting. But for many, the first shots were fired at Waco in Texas and Ruby Ridge in Idaho, and turn about is fair play. There have also been more selected casualties on the other side.
and when did everyone stop beleiving in the ballot box?
Hopefully, they have not yet, and perhaps that will yet not become the prevailing viewpoint. But the events in Florida did not help, and more than the mob-bought Kennedy victory over Nixon in Chicago's Cook County that wrongfully deprived Richard Nixon of the presidency, and other vote fraud and election funding scandals in Florida and elsewhere, including one in the St Louis area that has yet to reveal the full extent of that iceberg beneath the surface, and which could do for Attorney General Ashcroft what Watergate did for Nixon's Attorney General John Mitchell.
But I suppose you could say Americans began to quit believing in the ballot box when they began believing in the television box. And if voting could really change the face of the American political process, do you think it would be allowed?
-archy-/-
Done, confirmed, and you're welcome.
-archy-/-
To the best of my knowledge we on the right never stopped believing. If you read Mr. Prager's articles and have a general idea of the comments in this thread I think the problem is clear. The left NEVER believed in the ballot box -- at least not in honest elections that would allow a free people to decide.
Here is just one aspect of the left's duplicity, the courts.
google returned this address for a Freep discussion of Judge Rober Bork's new book, Coercing Virtue: the Worldwide Rule of Judges. Unfortunately it is a very short discussion.
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/982551/posts
"Judge Bork is discussing his new book Coercing Virtue: the Worldwide Rule of Judges on C-Span 2 now for about the next hour - observes that the worst fear of intellectuals is that control in the US might actually fall into the hands of the common man, and that intellectuals on the bench are the method they are trying to use to stop that from happening......."
Using the courts to legislate that which they cannot get at the ballot box started decades ago. Why do you think the left is so militant in opposing President Bush's nominations? They cannot elect who they need and of those they do elect they cannot always get the laws they want through legislatures due to popular opposition.
Recently the activists judges have expanded to include foreign precedents in their decisions. Look at Justice Ginsberg's recent statements.
We can all dream, can't we.
Not quite. Westinghouse also built the Model 91 Mosin-Nagant rifles for the Czar's forces, as did Chattelerault of France; many were rebuilt by the Finns between the First and Second World Wars into their military configuration as one of the most accurate military weapons ever fielded. The Communist Revolution brought a halt of the shipments to the new Bolshivik regime's forces, and the things were accepted as a limited standard model for issue to the U.S. Army as the *Rifle, model 1918*; I have one so marked.
Following the pause after the Armistice, the new Soviet government collected and disposed of many of the American built weapons, not for any technical deficiency, but as both an embarrasing reminder on unsuccessful interferance in things Russian, ans as an opportunity for the new management to improve on the rifle's design and manufacturing methodology: The Model 91/30 was the result, produced in at least a few million examples.
But the lever-action rifle more commonly used by the Russians was the Winchester Model 1895, which unlike the Savage, could be loaded with a 5-shot charger *stripper clip* and was fitted for a bayonet. The rifle favoured by President Roosevelt was the same model, sharing the same action though in a more sporterized configurization and in a chambering with the bottleneck of the cartridge straightened out to take a .45 bullet better suited for western elk, moose and bears.
Neither were Crazy Horse's forces at the Greasy Grass overly equipped with repeating rifles, though there were a few; go there some time and you'll quickly catch on why the bow and arrow was the real killer that day. That Russian interest in the Winchester lever actions came after their introduction to them at the battle of Plevna against the Turks. Mostly armed with single-shot The Russian infantry was equipped with the single-shot .60 caliber Krnka breechloader and their rifle brigades used the more modern American designed .42 cal. Berdan rifle; the Turks had the excellent American .45 caliber Peabody-Martini. And had ordered as many as 10,000 Winchester repeaters and placed them in the hands of selected troops.
On July 18th, 1877, the ball began, with Russian cavalry and troops taking Turkish trench fortifications under fire and maneuvering into the best positions for an attack, then did so. The exchange of fire that resulted was pretty much in accordance with the expoectations of the day until the Russians reached a range of about 200 meters, at which point the Turkish defenders switched their Martinis for the Winchesters, and let 'er rip.
The Turks had purchased between 40 to 60 million rounds of ammunition from Winchester. In the first 15 minute or so firefight that followed, the Russians lost some 3000 men, against a Turkish casualty total of 12 killed and 30 wounded. The Russian tactic proved to be to marshal more forces for an overwhelming attack while the Turks continued improving their positions and reinforced their troop strength. On 30 July, the Russians attacked with 26,000 men, and reportedly began taking casualties at 3000 yards. When it was over their losses were reported as 169 officers and 7,136 men, 30 percent of the force theirt General Krudner sent into the battle.
The not particularly original response was to reinforce their badly-stung troops and try again, beginning with a 4-day artillery bombardment. On September 7th the cannon began, to continue singing until September 11th, the Turks reported virtually no casualties or irreparable damage to their positions. The Turks were quite correct on this matter. Infantry in zig-zag trenches 15 inches wide could not be effectively harmed by shrapnel from shells that exploded in the ground. Only a direct hit could kill and wound, and then only in that immediate trench area. The Russians attacked again, this time suffering 12,500 men and 300 officers killed and their Romanian allies taking 56 officer and 2500 enlisted casualties. The following day Russian General Skobeleff managed to gain the only small bright spot of success that day by committing his 15,000 men against the Turkish southeastern redoubts Numbers 14 and 15 and, after sustaining severe losses, managed to occupy these two that were nearest to the center of the town.
While all the other allied forces were retreating with heavy losses for the day, Skobeleff hung on for 24 hours, pleading for reinforcements that never arrived. On the afternoon of Sept. 12th, he reluctantly evacuated these redoubts, having sustained casualties of 53 percent (8,000 men). This, then, marked the end of the Third (and final) Battle of Plevna, but not the end of fighting in the area.
No problem for the Turks. Now that they knew for a certainty that the newfangled repeaters had a usable military value, The Turkish High Command placed an immediate order with Winchester for another 140,000 repeating rifles, and something short of 500,000,000 rounds of ammunition; their tactics at Plevna had been developed to the point that they could deliver 20,000 shots per minute to bear upon the area being assailed.
These generals had no need for further tests and trials. They knew what worked.
More on the Battles of Plevna [from which I cribbed much of the above] *here*.
-archy-/-
Of course you are! I figure it'll take at least two of us here in the Volunteer state to straighten this bag of bees out!
-archy-/-
We can all dream, can't we.
Slight rewrite:
Leftists try to stage a coup, led by a particularly vicious set of lesbian Senators, but the traitors are fragmented as their leadership dies in a number of suicides, *muggings* traffic and aircraft accidents, and other unrelated fatalities.
Much tidier. And turn about is fair play.
From dreams such as yours come concrete plans that grow into realities.
-archy-/-
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.