Posted on 02/09/2005 5:37:33 PM PST by wagglebee
General George S. Patton once said, "Watch what people are cynical about, and one can often discover what they lack."
Those on the left seem to be cynical about everything to do with the war on terrorism. I think if Patton were alive today, he would say liberals lack the courage to fight the enemy, and he would slap a few of them around.
Liberals are also cynical about the way the military handles terrorist prisoners. I am sure Patton would tell liberals they lack the basic understanding of warfare and prisoner handling, and he would challenge them to spend a few days on the front line to see how things are really done. Then he would slap a few of them around once again.
A soldier's job is to kill the enemy, or, as Patton also said, "The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his." The sooner liberals understand the true meaning of war, the sooner we can make the "other bastard" die for his country.
To prove how out of touch with reality liberals are these days, look at the uproar that occurred because of comments made by Lieutenant General James Mattis. General Mattis, who has commanded troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, was recently speaking at a forum in San Diego about strategies for the war on terror.
Mattis said: "Actually, it's a lot of fun to fight. You know, it's a hell of a hoot. ... It's fun to shoot some people. I'll be right up front with you, I like brawling."
General Mattis is the kind of general I want leading our troops into battle. Marines are there to kill the enemy, not coddle them. They need a leader like General Mattis.
But of course there was an uproar by liberals. Jeff McCausland, director of the Leadership in Conflict Initiative at Dickinson College in Carlisle, Pa., countered, "Clearly, for an officer from any service to say that publicly is unprofessional and inappropriate and sends a terrible message to subordinates."
I disagree. I think the general's troops loved the message sent and probably feel the same way.
What do liberals think Marines are doing in Iraq, handing out condoms to AIDS patients? Would liberals rather General Mattis had said: "I hate to fight. I think war is much too bloody. I think we should stay home and polish our nails and listen to show tunes."
Somehow, I think liberals would.
Liberals, especially young liberals, seem to forget that war is a very nasty thing. It is not a panty raid on a women's dormitory at a local college or a beer-chugging contest at an off-campus bar. In battle, the enemy has one thing in mind: He wants to kill. War is a contest of kill or be killed, and it is not nice.
The closest most leftists have come to battle is fighting police at various protests in the United States and around the world. Their idea of warfare is yelling obscenities at local police and hurling the occasional rock or bottle. A liberal's badge of honor is spending a few hours in jail after being arrested at a protest in Seattle or Washington, D.C., and getting his or her mug shots taken.
Yet even with their lack of experience in real warfare, liberals seem to think they have all the answers about how the military should treat captured terrorists and how best to fight the war on terrorism. Some liberals even claim that the U.S. Constitution protects terrorists.
I think they have a lot to learn.
First, prisoners captured in Iraq are not leftist protesters staging a sit-in on the steps of a federal building, singing "Give Peace a Chance." Prisoners in Iraq have not studied "Activism 101" and have never heard of Martin Sheen, Janeane Garofalo or Al Franken.
They are terrorist thugs who behead captured men and women, showing no remorse over the act. They are murderers trained by al-Qaida or other terrorist organizations. They want to kill American men, women and children. They have no rights.
Prisoners captured in Iraq are not handled with kid gloves and gently placed in a paddy wagon the way liberal protesters arrested in Seattle are. They are trying to kill Americans when captured and would love nothing better than to kill their captors and escape to fight another day. Captured terrorists should be treated like a rabid dog waiting to bite its handler and thrown in a cage.
I really do not care how inhumanely we treat the captured terrorists being held at Guantanamo Bay or Abu Ghraib Prison. They are murderers and thugs. I think terrorists should lose all human rights once they take the path of terrorism. A tough approach is the only deterrent these killers will understand.
If making a terrorist wear a pair of women's panties on his head will help save one innocent life by gaining information on future terrorist acts, it is worth the effort. Victoria's Secret and Fredrick's of Hollywood should contribute panties to the war effort. Maybe we would get a few more confessions.
I think General Mattis would agree. I know General Patton would.
If making a terrorist wear a pair of women's panties on his head will help save one innocent life by gaining information on future terrorist acts, it is worth the effort. Victoria's Secret and Fredrick's of Hollywood should contribute panties to the war effort. Maybe we would get a few more confessions.
I think General Mattis would agree. I know General Patton would.
This is just great, direct and powerful!
BTTT
Someone said in an email to me....
If connecting a car battery to a prisoner's balls will save one US GI's life, I only have two things to say...
Red is positive!
Green is negative!
Why not just use a blowtorch?!
"The detainees could be:
1. Enemy combatants interned as POW's
2. Enemy irregular combatants/spies subject to summary execution or whatever
3. Terrorists or criminals under arrest and held to answer (eventually) for some criminal offense"
I replied that door number 2 sounded correct to me. IMHO, this should be their status and that they are merely enjoying a generous, BUT temporary reprieve.
Definitely a great read
Number 2 all the way. Do whatever is necessary to get any information we can from them, and then one shot each in the head.
- George S. Patton
If Patton were alive today, he would have so much slapping around to do that his arm would be in a sling.
you should read his biography, very interesting. Patton flunked his first year at West Point and had to remediate. Contrary to public opinion he was not a mystic who believed in reincarnation, but had a passion for military history and its lessons. Few also know that his family owned mount Palimar where the famous telescope today resides.
I find myself trying to see this insight in the words of Christ or in Proverbs.
I hear in my ear Pastors I have known over the years belittling things like fasting, and prayer. or a person being spoken to by the Holy Spirit or God.
And I have always thought of it as a personal dislike or prejudice, something that these people had been offended over long ago and proabaly no longer remember why.
This idea that we can denounce and speak against something not only from personal prejudice or from something created by ordered reason (A teaching), but that it can be our soul speaking out against what it lacks. I find this intriguing.
And the media would be punch-drunk!
BTW, you're not limited to only Christ's words, or the proverbs, are you? I have been intrigued by this phenomenon as well. A way to approach understanding is to perhaps ask; "What does the soul lack?" (Jesus!) Then there is guilt with the awareness of our lack - our sin? So denouncing comes more from (repressed, perhaps) knowledge of one's own sin....ok, 'lack of goodness'.
That is why it is common for hypocrites to regularly see hypocrisy in others, liars to see others as liars, etc. It is our nature to blame others for what we ourselves are guilty of.
The whole story of Satan's rebellion is the perfect example of this. He is "the accuser of the brethren"! He accuses God before the angels and all the created beings that He (God) is unjust, and sells 1/3 of the angels on the idea that it could be done better his way. This, from the "father of lies"!
Clarence Darrow, "Attorney for the Damned", made a living out of the idea that the crimes his defendants committed, could have been committed by any one of them (the jury). I know that since the understanding of the sin of adultery was magnified by Jesus, that likewise, I am therefore guilty of murder (and all the others too). Peter said that even the righteous shall scarcely be saved.
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.