What If the French Had Pulled a "Murtha" in 1781?

[alrea]

we would have to play “God Save the Queen” before our NFL Games.

or Hitler's favorite folk song

[Real Cynic No More]

Aka, "those who don't remember history are doomed to repeat it." (Or something like that)

An absolutely brilliant essay!

[HawaiianGecko]

	I don't remember the exact number of casualties the DoD anticipated when congressman Murtha voted yes to authorize this war , but I'm sure it was much higher than 2,000.  I wonder why it was acceptable in Oct 2002 but not now and I think the congressman should explain this to the American public. Does anyone have a list of politicians that fit the following: Voted for the war in 2002 Are on record against it now Complain about casualties now I don't want my representatives to whine and cry over every soldier that dies. I want them to rejoice that such brave men and women existed and were willing to exchange their life for my freedom. I want my elected officials to have the fortitude to understand what sacrifice means, and my grandmother to be full of pathos.

 

 

[Arizona]

A "murtha" is now defined as to surrender, to cut and run.

Add me to the list of those who love your this thought. Yes, "murtha" has become a verb. Let's all start using it.

[skinkinthegrass]

If we repeat the strategy of the democrat party, millions will suffer and die, not only in Iraq but in surrounding countries as the "caliphate" is spread...The struggle in not in Iraq alone, we must stand up to the political terrorists here at home.

...Thanks, short and very concise.
"Cowards Surrender, Americans Don't."

[shield]

bttt

[George W. Bush]

Blame the isolationists in the US congress too.

They, like FDR, got elected by swearing on stacks of Bibles they would never get involved in such a war.

If you won't honor your promises, don't make them.

Otherwise, there's no reason for anyone to vote.

[oh8eleven]

I don't know what Marine Corps this man was in but cowardice, cutting and running was NOT what I was taught at Parris Island. His lies about 80% of Iraqi's wanting us out were embarrassing to me as an American.
Semper Fi!

[righttackle44]

"What If the French Had Pulled a "Murtha" in 1781?"

Billybob has provoked another serious question. Has Murtha lived in France all these years AFTER 1781?

[Reaganghost]

"I think the only way being a Senator or Congressman would be truly fun and rewarding would be if you got there without being obligated to anyone other than the voters."

Many thanks to Congressman Billybob and LS for watching the action on the Murtha Resolution and their excellent commentaries and analysis. But the sad truth is that the freedom WE the people won at Yorktown thanks in part to the French fleet, has been surrendered to politicians and bureaucrats in Washington. Lee'sGhost has given us a clue as to how WE can recover our lost freedoms.

A small group of Freepers is publishing a series of articles that detail a plan to restore the Constitution based on a more conventional and secure financing mechanism than winning the lottery, but the basic premise is the same. As long as politicians have to engage in campaign fund raising, they are going to incur too much baggage to become effective conservative political leaders and as long as career-oriented politicians control Congress, more socialism can be expected until the US goes broke. Here is a link to the most recent article in the series. Please drop by and give the thread a ping. And while you are there, please follow the links to the other articles in the series and consider taking The Pledge.

Thank You.

[EverOnward]

thank you for your post

[ark_girl]

Besides that....the soldiers are already there. The money has been spent. Might has well collect some return on the investment.

France lost part of their government, but their ancestors also enjoyed protection from us from horrobile fates through 2 world wars and a cold war. Plus, they lost a monarchy to a government lead by its own citizens. It wasn't overrun by the British, which was its worst fea

[Mygirlsmom]

Hey, handsome--good looks can fade; intellect such as yours is eternally attractive!!

[Congressman Billybob]

Thank you. Now, it's time for me to quit while I am breaking even, as Kenny Rogers sang in "The Gambler." LOL.

John / Billybob

[my_pointy_head_is_sharp]

The consequences for the Iraqis, if the Americans retreat, will be far worse. Instead of dozens of their leaders being executed as traitors, millions of their citizens will be executed for participating in this folly of freedom and democracy.

Your argument falls apart at this point. How would this be bad? The Iraqis are Muslims who want to kill us. There's no such thing as democracy & freedom when you're talking about Muslims, at least not the kind of democracy & freedom that you and I know. Their democracy & freedom would be directed against us.

[SmoothTalker]

"Otherwise, there's no reason for anyone to vote.
"

Kinda how I feel about most candidates. I generally end up voting against somebody, not for somebody.

[Alberta's Child]

Interesting perspective, but I think you're trying to make a parallel between two very different events in history -- and one that doesn't necessarily reflect well on the U.S. today.

The French involvement in the American Revolution had nothing to do with the colonists' fight for independence, and you can be sure that if someone in the French government in Paris had said that it was vital to support the colonists "to make the world safe for democracy," he would have been laughed off the Continent.

Here in the U.S. we have a tendency to define history according to how it affected ourselves, which means we like to divide history into clearly-defined periods that fit nicely into history textbooks. Hence the need to separate U.S. history into blocks of time like "the American Revolution and Early America," "Recontruction," "the Great Depression," "World War II," "the 1960s," etc.

From the French perspective, the American Revolution probably isn't seen as a major historical event, but as nothing more than another element of a war that had been waged with England over dominance in North America for decades. France and England had been in a near-constant state of war since 1689 over various territorial disputes in North America. In the latter half of the 18th Century, Franch believed it had a vested interest in the outcome of the American Revolution only insofar as it helped them re-establish their territorial claims in the lands west of the Appalachian Mountains (particularly in the Ohio River valley where they had built a series of forts years earlier).

The parallel you've presented between the American Revolution and the Iraq war might offer one interesting item for contemplation, though. Even after the British defeat and the establishment of an indepentent United States of America, the French had every intention of attempting to establish control the rest of North America regardless of how this conflicted with the visions of the founding fathers of this country. Perhaps this is precisely why the people of Iraq don't seem so enthusiastic about the U.S. military presence there.

[Bernard]

Good point - it must always be referred to as "The War on Terror in Iraq". Everybody loses sight of that.

And let's not forget that the Democrats led us to losses in the War on Poverty and the War on Drugs. They just wanted the losing streak to continue after 911.

[Congressman Billybob]

Yes, I am well aware of the French designs on North America. Yes, I know that the French had not the slightest interest in advancing democracy in America, but only in bloodying the noses of the British. And yes, I know the long-term intent of the French to hold the American West for themselves.

That intent was defeated by the revolt in Haiti, which tied up both French fleets and armies, so that France was willing to sell the Louisiana Territory at a very reasonable price to President Jefferson. Sometimes the outcomes of history are determined by accidents, rather than plans.

John / Billybob