Posted on 07/09/2006 11:51:14 AM PDT by West Coast Conservative
Last week's headlines prove the point: North Korea fires missiles, Iran talks of nukes again, Iraq carnage continues, Israel invades Gaza, England observes one-year anniversary of subway bombing. And, oh, yes, the feds stop a plot to blow up tunnels under the Hudson River.
World War III has begun.
It's not perfectly clear when it started. Perhaps it was after the Berlin Wall fell and the Cold War ended. Perhaps it was the first bombing of the World Trade Center, in 1993.
What is clear is that this war has a long fuse and, while we are not in the full-scale combat phase that marked World Wars I and II, we seem to be heading there. The expanding hostilities mean it's time to give this conflict a name, one that focuses the mind and clarifies the big picture.
The war on terror, or the war of terror, has tentacles that reach much of the globe. It is a world war.
While it is often a war of loose or no affiliation, and sometimes just amateur copycats, the similar goals of destruction add up to a threat against modern society. Even the hapless wanna-bes busted in Miami ordered guns and military equipment from a man they thought was from Al Qaeda. Islamic fascists are the driving force, but anti-American hatred is a global membership card for any and all who have a grievance and a gun.
The feeling that the wheels are coming off the world has only one recent comparison, the time when America's head-butt with communism sprouted hot spots from Cuba to Vietnam. Yet ultimately the policy of mutual assured destruction worked because American and Soviet leaders didn't want their countries hit by nuclear bombs.
Such rational thinking is quaint next to the ravings of North Korean nut Kim Jong Il and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. They both seem to be dying to die - and set the world on fire.
And don't forget Osama Bin Laden's declaration that it is the duty of every Muslim to acquire a "Muslim bomb." Is there any doubt he would use it if he had it?
I sound pessimistic because I am. Even worse than the problems is the fact that our political system is failing us. Democratic Party leaders want to pretend we can declare peace and everything will be fine, while President Bush is out of ideas. Witness Bush now counseling patience and diplomacy on North Korea. This from a man who scorned both for five years.
But what choice does he have now that the pillars of his post-9/11 foreign policy are crumbling? As Harvard Prof. Joseph Nye argues in Foreign Affairs magazine, Bush's strategy of "reducing Washington's reliance on permanent alliances and international institutions, expanding the traditional right of preemption into a new doctrine of preventive war and advocating coercive democratization as a solution to Middle Eastern terrorism" amounted to a bid for a "legacy of transformation."
The first two ideas have been repealed. The third brought Hamas into power and has so far failed to take root in Iraq or anywhere else.
I believed Iraq was the key, that if we prevailed there, momentum would shift in our favor. Now I'm not sure. We still must prevail there, but Iraq could mean nothing if Iran or Bin Laden get the bomb or North Korea uses one.
Meanwhile, I'm definitely not using any tunnels.
Thanks, so few understand this.
The genetic component of their "reproducing" is not a threat. Its their religious conversions that are alarming.
That had to be a dark day for Kim Ill. I bet he tied on one that night.
They'll never show us love. I'm OK with fear.
It'll shine on the headlines for a while then die away, the investigation never to be heard from again. I'm getting pretty jaded when it comes to our leaders doing what's right for we Americans. We're at war...I think, and they are playing games with our lives.
Time passes... nations grow old and weak... younger, more aggresive ones take the helm... but the age old dilema of good vs. evil remains the same. It'll be OVER Mr. Goodwin... when mankind is over... and not one minute before. I suggest you wake up to that cold, hard fact.
That was exactly my point. If they do serious damage to us, we'll forget about that PC stuff. Then, watch out!
Geeeeeez! They finally figured out we're at war ..??
I'd love someone to put together a book of mainstream press articles during WW2, so we can see if the columnists back then were just as wussy, or if, as I suspect, they were bullish on the USA and saw their role as cheerleaders for the war effort.
It is the last resort of those with falling circulation numbers and ratings.
After all, the 'Bat Boy' and "I was kidnapped by Space Aliens" genre is pretty well taken, and for all their creativity, the MSM cannot match the current purveyors of such entertainment.
China publicly told NK not to launch the missiles. They don't like to lose face. But then, if they don't bring N.K. into line, like a I say they will face a militarized Japan, and beefed up forces in Taiwan and South Korea too probably. Their choice.
Wink wink.
NK is Chinas sticking their thumb in our eye. As I said on another thread, Lil'Kim doesn't scratch his b@##s, without chinas go ahead.
Those who expected the military leader and hero of World War II to depart his Presidency with a nostalgic, "old soldier" speech like Gen. Douglas MacArthur's, were surprised at his strong warnings about the dangers of the "military-industrial complex."
As President of the United States for two terms, Eisenhower had slowed the push for increased defense spending despite pressure to build more military equipment during the Cold Was arms race.
Nonetheless, the American military services and the defense industry had expanded a great deal in the 1950s. Eisenhower thought this growth was needed to counter the Soviet Union, but it confounded him. Through he did not say so explicitly, his standing as a military leader helped give him the credibility to stand up to the pressures of this new, powerful interest group. He eventually described it as a necessary evil.
The end of Eisenhowes term as President not only marked the end of the 1950s but also the end of an era in government. A new, younger generation was rising to national power that would set a more youthful, vigorous course. His farewell address was a warning to his successors of one of the many things they would have to be wary of in the coming years.
Source: NARA - Our Documents
The muzlims would have attacked the U.S. regardless of who was the President at the time...Whether Bush has reacted better than Gore might have is something we will never know...
But I agree...On a world wide scale, things are not getting better...And I suspect they will get far worse than they are now...
Unfortunately, Bush's interest lies in building a Nation for his Global enterprise...As for me, I'd have won the war in Iraq by now...
The world is lining up for a confrontation with the West...That's readily apparent...
But then maybe a few hundred million dead and a limited nuclear cleansing may not hinder the Globalist scheme...
Bush now counseling patience and diplomacy on North Korea. This from a man who scorned both for five years.
Bush wasn't patient and diplomatic with some nation? Which one? I must have missed his rush to war on 9-12.
It's not the Real Raining War. Not yet. It's the Winds of War or maybe the First Dark Clouds of War.
Also, I think china is provoking us using the NK to see what we would do if NK, (a communist country) fired a missile at an American state. They got their answer...nothing. They will be encouraged now to go even farther in their provocation.
Is this Michael Goodwin the son of Doris Kearns Goodwin? According to Wiki, she has a son by that name.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doris_Kearns_Goodwin
And, lest anyone forget, Doris is married to this winner...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Goodwin
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.