Posted on 09/08/2007 8:01:24 AM PDT by ChessExpert
As Washington postures in anticipation of next week’s report from Gen. David Petraeus, we are again reminded — this time by events in Germany — of the enemy’s nature and the wages of defeat.
German authorities have arrested three Islamic terrorists, and are looking for at least ten others, in connection with a plot to strike multiple targets — most prominently, Ramstein Air Base and Frankfurt International Airport, critical hubs for American military operations and civilian travel, respectively
(Excerpt) Read more at article.nationalreview.com ...
Nice to see the NRO Editors at least get it.
Our problem is that about half of the country doesn't think we are at war. It's not leftist allergy to totalitarian measures--at the core, they are totalitarian. If this were an internal war against hundreds of thousands of well organized skin-heads, the left would be falling all over itself to implement massive intelligence powers to fight it. Eavesdropping on cell phones would be a drop in the bucket. Waco and Ruby Ridge were the left's response to pathetic, non-leftist groups. Similar acts by W against a well-equipped and determined Islamist enemy would produce howls of outrage from the left.
So the left has no trouble breaking eggs, blowing up kids, and generally acting like totalitarians.
The problem in our war with Islam is that the axis is brown-skinned and from a different and non-christian culture. The left has difficulty thinking rationally about conflicts between white-skinned and brown-skinned cultures, especially when the brown-skinned folks seem more primitive. And most especially if they are anti-Christian.
The more fundamental problem is that the left sympathizes with the goal of our enemy--the destruction of Western Civilization and Christianity, again in a conflicted way.
The result is paralysis. The left denies the existence of a war. But votes for and funds two of them. Then does everything it can to prevent the war being successfully prosecuted, while not actually "opposing" the war. The left does not, of course, want to be in the next WTC. So they are against terrorist acts happening, kind of. But large elements of the left really thought those stockbrokers and America had it coming. Some are explicit and some just feel that way but feel guilty about it. Again, deeply conflicted. So, for the most part, the support the idea of defending ourselves against more terrorist attacks while they oppose any measures that would prevent further ones.
So while I appreciate the worry about totalitarian measures during wartime, it remains that we have to win the war to get our freedoms back. Losing means Sharia. And, America has, for the most part, been able to reclaim its freedoms after war.
Ironically, for all the worry about loss of freedom in wartime, 99% of the freedoms Americans have lost over the past 250 years have been voluntarily surrendered to the web of laws and regulations of the nanny state.
Yet another coordinated piece in liberal media outlets, letting them know that the Code Pink crowd won’t get their way even if the Dems win the White House.
The intent here is to prevent the balancing act that JFKerry had to do in the last election, where he had to satisfy the anti-war crowd (many were his own creating, including Cindy Sheehan) but not make it look like we were leaving before it was safe.
In addition, the Dems fear a repeat of 1968’s Chicago convention, where a few demonstrators put on an anti-war riot for the press. Such a show could happen for the GOP convention — we exect it — but it would be PR disaster for the Dems.
Lastly, if the Dems would pull out, gasoline would go to $8 per gallon, and the American economy would be decimated. Such is the fate that befell JimECarter, and the Dems haven’t carried a majority of the POTUS votes since.
Our problem is that about half of the country doesn’t think we are at war. It’s not leftist allergy to totalitarian measures—at the core, they are totalitarian. If this were an internal war against hundreds of thousands of well organized skin-heads, the left would be falling all over itself to implement massive intelligence powers to fight it. Eavesdropping on cell phones would be a drop in the bucket. Waco and Ruby Ridge were the left’s response to pathetic, non-leftist groups. Similar acts by W against a well-equipped and determined Islamist enemy would produce howls of outrage from the left.
So the left has no trouble breaking eggs, blowing up kids, and generally acting like totalitarians.
The problem in our war with Islam is that the axis is brown-skinned and from a different and non-christian culture. The left has difficulty thinking rationally about conflicts between white-skinned and brown-skinned cultures, especially when the brown-skinned folks seem more primitive. And most especially if they are anti-Christian.
The more fundamental problem is that the left sympathizes with the goal of our enemy—the destruction of Western Civilization and Christianity, again in a conflicted way.
The result is paralysis. The left denies the existence of a war. But votes for and funds two of them. Then does everything it can to prevent the war being successfully prosecuted, while not actually “opposing” the war. The left does not, of course, want to be in the next WTC. So they are against terrorist acts happening, kind of. But large elements of the left really thought those stockbrokers and America had it coming. Some are explicit and some just feel that way but feel guilty about it. Again, deeply conflicted. So, for the most part, the support the idea of defending ourselves against more terrorist attacks while they oppose any measures that would prevent further ones.
So while I appreciate the worry about totalitarian measures during wartime, it remains that we have to win the war to get our freedoms back. Losing means Sharia. And, America has, for the most part, been able to reclaim its freedoms after war.
Ironically, for all the worry about loss of freedom in wartime, 99% of the freedoms Americans have lost over the past 250 years have been voluntarily surrendered to the web of laws and regulations of the nanny state.
3 posted on 09/08/2007 10:56:52 AM CDT by ModelBreaker
Absolutely brilliant. Wish I had wrote it.
Article by Lowry at the National Review yesterday dissed Fred Thompsons focus on federalism and lauded Romney and Guilianni’s government health care nonsense. Hated to see it from the NR.
Just how in the hell are we gonna win that one? Giving up our freedoms for a multi generational religious war?
After seeing Lowry’s article I thought “NRO must now stand for Naturally RINO Online”
This is the problem with the argument presented by “Civil Libertarians”. They seem to confuse their personal feelings about what should and should not be allowed with the rule of law. The seem to believe, wrongly, that if we do not follow their lassie faire dogmas that we are “giving up our freedoms”. No, we are not.
If the Civil Libertarians find this alarming, I suggest they get busy changing people minds and win some elections so they can change the laws. In our society, the opinions of the few do not trump the rights of the many to govern their society as they see fit.
What later time? Until there is no more threats in the world? that will never happen! There will always be some countries or peoples against us. Didn’t stop us from enjoying our freedoms. I’m not saying we shouldn't go after them and I understand the need for some changes. Isn't PATRIOT enough? You want some secret police here as a permanent institution until the “threats” go away? When will that end? Only when there is no more Abba in Mecca?
Lincoln pulled some near tyrannical moves but it was understood what they were for. Once the south got conquered there was no need for them. FDR had internment camps but that ended, and was apologized for, when the threat (imperial Japan) was over. When you say that as long as there are (fundamentalist) Muslims on the planet we should change, you are in essence advocating a permanent change.
Dang. That's the nicest thing anyone has said to me in at least a year. Thanks.
By the way, the incomparable Ann Coulter recently reminded us that the 80 or so Americans killed by the US government in Waco, Texas, were killed when Janet Reno, not John Ashcroft, was Attorney General. She provides additional examples along the same vein.
We have only two choices: (1) fight a war with Islam; or (2) surrender. Those are the only two choices because Islamists declared war on us about 20 years ago and show every intention of being prepared to prosecute that war to conclusion and capable of doing so.
In his message to us yesterday, OBL said: "Give up democracy and capitalism. Accept Sharia. Convert to Islam." Those are the stakes in this war. Put more immediately, do your great-granddaughters wear burkhas? It's a religious war whether we want one or not.
In response to your question, I don't know whether we'll win it. The determinative factor will be whether the population of the west can: (1) Figure out there is a war going on; (2) Come to understand that the existence of Western Civilization is at stake; and (3) Care enough about protecting our culture to do the nasty deeds that will be required to win the war.
I think the outcome is still very uncertain and will be a very near thing.
"What if they gave a war and nobody came?" type thinking doesn't cut it here. The enemy has already arrived on our home turf and is preparing more attacks.
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.