Posted on 08/15/2006 9:01:08 AM PDT by schu
Foreign-policy debates are usually easy to follow: Liberals battle conservatives, realists feud with idealists, doves vie with hawks. But well into the second Bush term, traditional categories are in a state of collapse.
***** Snip
There are five major schools of thought on this question, beginning with the "1942ists," who believe that we stand in Iraq today where the U.S. stood shortly after Pearl Harbor: bogged down against a fascist enemy and duty-bound to carry on the fight to victory.
***** Snip
Over the last year, though, many conservatives have been peeling away from '42ism, joining the "1938ists" instead, for whom Iran's march toward nuclear power is the equivalent of Hitler's 1930s brinkmanship.
***** Snip
'72ism has few mainstream politicians behind it, but a great many Americans, and it holds that George Bush is Nixon, Iraq is Vietnam, and that any attack on Iran or Syria would be equivalent to bombing Cambodia.
***** Snip
"1948ists," who share the '42ist and '38ist view of the war on terror as a major generational challenge, but insist that we should think about it in terms of Cold War-style containment and multilateralism, not Iraq-style pre-emption
***** Snip
But as our crisis deepens, it's worth considering 1914ism, and with it the possibility that all of us, whatever year we think it is, are poised on the edge of an abyss that nobody saw coming.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Amen, brotha, amen...........
LIBERTY! :o)
I think its 476 A.D.
Call 911 as equivalent to the "Panay" sinking. It was bad, but compare it to a when a city dies, in a moment. After all, there are 1000 million Muslims who cannot play well with others...
When it comes to Iran, I'm more of a 331 BC kind of guy.
I don't think we should kill them. Just isolate and contain them in some zoo-like region somewhere, far removed from the civilized world. Let them work out their problems without the means to blame anyone else for their sorry existence. Perhaps their blood-thirsty 'god' would require them to bleed each other, at least as long as the supply lasts.
But realistically, that won't happen and I think we'll have to go to 'Plan B' before this is over.
>>Attempts to draw create false historical analogies are the behavior of sophomoric intellects.<<
I strongly disagree. Think of this a working the problem within the context of the saying "Those that do not learn from history are destined to repeat it".
Although history never repeats, it is all men do: Times change. People don't.
We can indeed learn from mistakes and successes from history. A strong understanding of history is more valuable than a strong understanding of science. The former tells you who you are and who your enemy is. The latter is "fun", but also helps you keep ahead of your enemy. And life has been a fight for survival since we were banished from the garden.
"I'm for killing all the Islamofascists, all their supporters, financers, media fifth columnists, enablers, all their families, friends and relatives tomorrow morning and feeding them to the fish and pigs. "
Hey... you stole my post! ;)
1803.
"Our current enemies, all rolled into one "Axis" do not have the power to destroy the USA. We have the power available right now to crush any Conventional Military challenge in days if not hours."
And the key is conventional military challenge. Our enemies won't line up for us. They'll hide among us and kill us from within. And our left wing will welcome them. This is not dissimilar from our ancestors hiding behind trees shooting a superior British army that had lined up in ranks.
Also, oil is our Achilles' heel. It's no coincidence that Iran is warming up to Venezeula. If we don't act to become energy independent, the combination of internal terrorism and oil embargo could cripple if not bring down the US.
This era may have some similarities to earlier times, but it is quite unique largely for one reason: The modern "westernized" world fights with ridiculous self-imposed restraints, while the Islamofacist world fights a world-wide guerrila war without restraint of any kind other than their failure to conjure and implement an overarching strategy.
"This era may have some similarities to earlier times, but it is quite unique largely for one reason: The modern "westernized" world fights with ridiculous self-imposed restraints, while the Islamofacist world fights a world-wide guerrila war without restraint of any kind other than their failure to conjure and implement an overarching strategy."
And it is the self restraint of the West that scares me as much as anything. We are of a mindset to contribute to our own demise right now. I hope that changes before it's too late.
Good post.
I'm more of a 1858-1860ist..... George being a hybrid proto-Lincoln type before the Lincoln type actually takes charge.
An argument could be made for say, 68 AD - modernizing, civilizing Romans and Hellenists versus crazed zealots, and in the Middle East.
An argument could be made for say, 68 AD - modernizing, civilizing Romans and Hellenists versus crazed zealots, and in the Middle East.
Instead of slavery being the taboo that no one wishes to touch... now it is religion.
They already are hiding among us and killing us. But when the water starts to boil, it will be too late for the gummint to do anything about it. Not difficult to foresee a 'one on one' here.
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.