Posted on 08/26/2007 3:13:23 AM PDT by goldstategop
American victory in the Cold War looks inevitable in hindsight. It didn't seem that way in the Seventies. And, as Iran reminds us, the enduring legacy of the retreat from Vietnam was the emboldening of other enemies. The forces loosed in the Middle East bedevil to this day, in Iran, and in Lebanon, which Syria invaded shortly after the fall of Saigon and after its dictator had sneeringly told Henry Kissinger, "You've betrayed Vietnam. Someday you're going to sell out Taiwan. And we're going to be around when you get tired of Israel."
President Assad understood something that too many Americans didn't. Then as now, the anti-war debate is conducted as if it's only about the place you're fighting in: Vietnam is a quagmire, Iraq is a quagmire, so get out of the quagmire. Wrong. The "Vietnam war" was about Vietnam, if you had the misfortune to live in Saigon.
But if you lived in Damascus and Moscow and Havana, the Vietnam war was about America: American credibility, American purpose, American will. For our enemies today, it still is. Osama bin Laden made a bet – that, notwithstanding the T-shirt slogan, "These Colors Do Run": They ran from Vietnam, and they ran from the helicopters in the desert, and from Lebanon and Somalia – and they will run from Iraq and Afghanistan, because that is the nature of a soft, plump ersatz-superpower that coils up in the fetal position if you prick its toe. Even Republicans like Sen. John Warner seem peculiarly anxious to confirm the bin Laden characterization.
(Excerpt) Read more at ocregister.com ...
I came to the realisation quite a while back, that while we won the battles in WWII -- we are losing the war. As Mr. Steyn indicates, we take a very short-time view of any action we take, from the stock market to the pulpit; from the diplomats to the battlefields -- everything is a short-time view. Our enemies don't quit, they regroup. Take a look at the amnesty/not-amnesty immigration squabbles of the past years, from Eisenhower to Reagan to Bush -- if they can't get in one way they'll try another; they lose one politician and get two more.
If we cannot halt the creeping socialism of our government, and eliminate the entitlement mindset of our populous, our children will live to see the truth behind that list purportedly written by Alexander Tytler:
"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government."
"A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury."
"From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship."
"The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years."
"During those 200 years, those nations always progressed through the following sequence:
1. from bondage to spiritual faith;
2. from spiritual faith to great courage;
3. from courage to liberty;
4 from liberty to abundance;
5. from abundance to complacency;
6. from complacency to apathy;
7. from apathy to dependence;
8. From dependence back into bondage"
Democracy is nothing more than Socialism -- the equal sharing of misery, and bondage.
This reminds me of a punch in the solar plexus.
bttt
I thought Bush should have sought "letters of marque" instead of a wishy-washy, Tonkinesque "resolution" before he moved on Saddam.
Umm, there are a couple of things wrong with this.
One, most Moslems have been happy to live in peace and quiet with their neighbors for centuries, notwithstanding the bloodthirsty conjoinders of their prophet written in green in their Korans. Indonesia prior to the 20th century is an example. The people(s) of the archipelago (some are still in the Stone Age, esp. on Borneo) were mostly Buddhist before Moslem merchants showed up over 1000 years ago. The conversion of the settled population from Buddhism to Islam was accomplished for the most part peacefully, in contrast to the experience of the Indian subcontinent, where the average emir wouldn't even bother to get out of bed on a day when he didn't feel up to killing 20,000 Hindus. The history of Islam in the subcontinent is a continuing atrocity. In other places it's somewhat different, depending on geography and regional history.
Two, mobilizing peaceful Moslems to holy war is a major Salafist and Wahhabist objective. Therefore, it follows directly, that our interest is better served by interfering however we can with the Salafist and Wahhabist message of war that they broadcast to other Moslems.
Three, it goes without saying that we should promote dissension among the radical and violent factions, further to reduce their effectiveness at spreading their message.
We don't accomplish any of those objectives by warring indiscriminately on Moslems, or indulging "final solution" sentiments at home. We need to make strong war on the extremists, but at the same time deal with an open and welcoming hand with Wahhabism's potential recruits who reject the jihadist message, or at least put it aside. In geographical terms, it helps immensely to have at least the acquiescence of organized government and the majority of people in Pakistan, when we move against the Taliban and Salafist Al Q'aedists lodged in their mountain regions.
I was thinking “letter of reprisal,” but we’re thinking essentially the same.
You must be a no-good Muslim sympathizer. Don’t you know all 1B Muslims are evil and must be destroyed? < / sarcasm >
Wise, well-worded sentiments. Not very popular around here, but nevertheless.
“most Moslems have been happy to live in peace and quiet”
Most people around the world were “happy to live in peace and quiet” before WWI & WWII.
Most people were “happy to live in peace and quiet” before 9/11.
Thus your first “point” is a pointless.
and your number two & three “points” aren’t worth my time.
We are at war and sooner or later we are going to have to give the muzzies the jihad they so desperately want. In the meantime, you might try reading the koran where it clearly states that all non beleivers should be killed. And if you are waiting for your “most Muslims” to prevent their militants and suicide bombers from murdering more non believers you are in for a rude awakening. They haven’t done so in the previous fifteen hundred years and they have no intention of doing it now or in the future.
Or maybe you need another 9/11 to wake up.
Let us all know when you, Alan Colmes and other muzzie apologists wise up!
“Wise, well-worded sentiments?”
Shows how ignorant you are of islam...
All “sentimentality” will get you is dead in the muzzie world.
And when you have to bury one of yours after a muzzie bombing;
don’t come crying to me...
Like I said, not popular.
I had service prior to my appointment as a Chaplain. I suspect I know the same as many and more than some. Obviously, many others have knowledge and experience greater than my own.
The Constitution authorizes at least 3 levels of direct offensive military operations against an enemy:
War
Letter of Marque (selected targets)
Letter of Reprisal (retribution)
The Constitution also provides other openings for offensive operations:
a. provide for the common defense (a wide open door, because it is as Congress sees fit to accomplish the same.)
b. To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
c. make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water
d. To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
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.