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.
check out Killology.com for a real eye-opener!
Welcome to FRee Republic!
Too fast for that use. Kitchen matches at about one every 5 minutes would probably keep that game going just about long enough.
On most cars, the cable is black instead of green. But they'll figure that out:)
Black is negative, but I see your point.
"We defeated the Nazis by burying them under several (not metric) megatons of manufactured goods. "
????
The only thing we buried the Nazis under was heavy metal and the rubble of their former cities.
We "defeated the Nazis" by killing their male population down to the age of about 12.
That's what we've been doing for the past 50 years. Look up and see how many billions of dollars of aid we send each year to dozens of Arab countries. Their leaders take the money whenever they can and use it to strengthen their armies or line their pockets. And those that receive the aid grin at the stupidity of a country that they hate to send aid to "the cause" of the holy war.
Look at Bosnia. My dad went there. He was there helping a Moslem people who were about to be eradicated by an ethnic cleansing. And there was no oil. Look at Somalia. We went there to feed Moslem people. And there was no oil... In fact, I dare you to go to a Moslem country, as I have been. Their hunger is not caused by us, but by sending them food, we make them think that we are the cause, and that we're trying to soothe a guilty mind. Saudi Arabia has some of the richest people on the planet, and yet they keep sending affluent, well fed young men to kill our civilians. They aren't attacking us because they are hungry, they are attacking us because we foster an environment that enables the ideas that foment the hatred. Ideas that you have just thoroughly examined in your naive ramble.
Tell me of one Moslem nation that has hunger that we don't send billions of dollars to. Tell me of one Moslem nation that has hunger who's leaders are not well fed. Tell me of one Moslem nation that sends terrorists to attack us that are not just as often well fed, affluent and educated. The problem is not a logistical one of feeding the people who are otherwise attacking us; hungry people don't attack, they nap or they look for food. The problem is an idealogical one, in which the people with the most leisure to ponder ideology tell the hungry people that the USA sucks and is the cause of all their problems, and primarily attract the idle well-fed youths to primary action. You could not be more off base.
>>Black is negative...
Understood. I guess the person who originally sent the email was speaking of the green felt washer that often sits on the negative terminal of a car battery. But the sentiment is the same! :)
Actually, I had always wished that Ben Franklin had gone the other way when he chose which side to call negative and which side to call positive. I think electon theory would be simpler to understand if it was thought of as a positive pressure of electrons. Maybe the biggest mistake of his career.
"Any other horrifically stupid assertions would not be appriciated. Please, I'm sure your blindness comes from love of country, but let's try not to be revisionist. "
Hey, Asshole, my father was one of those daylight bombers, and he didn't kill Nazis by dropping "goods" on them.
BTW, if our tanks "sucked" as bad as you have been told, explain how the Third Army did what it did. Patton didn't liberate Bastogne with care packages.
"The truth is that you kill one unsatisfied, uneducated, brainwashed idiot, and every male relative he has is going to be clamoring for an AK."
That's why you kill the terrorist's brothers, cousins, father, children, sisters, mother, and even his dog! Then you go after any remaining grandparents etc. until they knock it off.
Your theory is a little on the utopian side if you ask me. Appeasement fails, no matter how many times the weak willed try to do it.
Flood them with(gifts of?)American products? from Amercan factories? Where?
Everything I see in stores is made in China.
Well why dont you go one extra and sow salt into the ground?
"Well why dont you go one extra and sow salt into the ground?"
Kill the terrorists, spare the infrastructure and the soil for people that want a free country. The line can be drawn where the terrorist chooses to stop his terror. Might not even have to go after his grandma.
I was just taken by pattons remark and the author's remark 'bout libs -- I apologize -- I will try in the furture to think only of death and killing things Sir! --not
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.