The Courage to Go It Alone?

www.Chronwatch.com ^ | October 19, 2002 | The Black Shadow

[TCSparkman]

The Courage to Go It Alone?

By the Black Shadow www.Chronwatch.com

What is the definition of insanity? Trying the same approach multiple times and expecting a different result. While the San Francisco Chronicle's editorial today praises Bush for hand-wringing over North Korea, it skips out on assigning any blame to the Clinton Administration's appeasement approach for the past decade towards the rogue state. Worse, the Chron doesn't have the temerity to call itself wrong when it blasted Bush for assigning North Korea among the ''axis of evil'' last year in a State of the Union address.

The SF Chron howled over Bush's moral clarity, afraid of seeing the world in black and white, good versus evil. To liberals, everyone is equal with no moral absolutes anymore. We all live in happy tolerate ''diversity'' land and it is the U.S. who is the warmonger, not the peacemaker.

But today the egg is on the liberal Chron's face, who along with President Clinton, thought that they had achieved, as British prime minister Neville Chamberlain thought in 1938, that appeasement had achieved ''peace in our time.''

With North Korea's stunning admission, we know that not to be so. It is August 1939 again, and the dictators are beginning to march.

But even as the storm clouds of war gather, the peace at any price crowd at 401 Mission St., UC Berkeley, Harvard Square, and the Upper East Side continues to bleat for diplomacy and engagement. The Chronicle praises Bush for letting diplomacy run its course with North Korea. I agree. Let us appoint Al Gore, Kofi Annan, Bill Clinton, and Jimmy Carter as special envoys to North Korea and have them get Kim Il Jung to sign a note promising not to develop nuclear weapons further, nor attack its neighbors to the south and east, South Korea and Japan. Perhaps they can wave it to a crowd of reporters as well and promise ''peace in our time.'' I'm sure the South Koreans will sleep better.

''You have two choices, dishonour or war. You have chosen dishonour and now you will get war.'' -Winston Churchill, 1939.

Winston Churchill, the belicose successor to Chamberlain, who was so well portrayed in HBO's fantastic movie.,''The Gathering Storm,'' warned of Nazi aggression and demanded that Britain rearm. He was dismissed as a warmonger by peaceniks in his party at the time. Nowadays he would have been called a racist colonial oppressor. But he was right when he said, ''Appeasement is the hope that the tiger will eat you last.''

Bush would be wise to follow the wisdom of Winston Churchill and ''The Few'' who led their nation to victory against the Nazis in the Summer of 1940 in the Battle of Britain. Yes, Britain ''went it alone'' against Nazi aggression, with little or no help from the United States, and defeated the Luftwaffe in three months of battle over the skies of London, saving England from certain invasion.

We face the same challenge in the aftermath of September 11. The question is: do we have the courage to ''go it alone?''

[TCSparkman]

What do you think, Freepers? Do we have the courage to go it alone? I say, "Yes!" The rest of the world is waiting for us to take the lead.

[American Soldier]

World War III will be fought, the English-speakers will once again bear the brunt of the cost, we'll win, and for a few days the wine will flow, the natives will be waving American flags and hopping into bed with our soldiers...

And not a year afterwards they'll be spitting on us once again.

Things are tough when you're on top, I guess.

[Austin Willard Wright]

Yawn...another attempt to compare Saddam, a two bit Mussolini, to the Nazis. Four years ago, this guy was probably comparing Milosovic to Hitler. This WW II analogy only trivializes the true evil of Hiter.

[Austin Willard Wright]

You have just made an excellent case against war with Iraq!Is that what you intended?

[FreeReign]

...And not a year afterwards they'll be spitting on us once again.

IMO, most natives don't want to spit on us now. It's the global statist press that wants you to think that.

[American Soldier]

How did I make a case against war on Iraq? We're never going to make anybody love us. Maybe a few grateful folks here and there. But we have to go after Iraq so that they don't get nukes and because Saddam is the Hitler of the Middle East.

[American Soldier]

He is actually a great deal like Hitler, except that he is a less a true ideologue. Still plays the "blame the Jews" game, tries to run a military dictatorship but has trouble with the generals. The parallels with Hitler and numerous with this character.

Everybody will admit we were right to take him out for a few weeks after we do it (just as foreigners now regularly admit to me that going after the Taliban was justified), but the inevitable cycle of history is that the English-speakers do something heroic, then the rest of the world either forgets or dismisses all of their actions as self-serving, imperialist, etc.

[dixierat22]

You fail to see that, unlike Hitler, Saddam has almost no military power left? He can barely keep control in Iraq, nuch less threaten any of his neighbors.

He has no nukes, nor is he likely to acquire any. If he had them and is as mad as people think, he would have used them.

The ONLY upside to us conquering Iraq is the OIL. That, IMO, is obvious.

[Austin Willard Wright]

Saddam does not present the same kind of threat as Hitler did. The U.S. can't forever be nursemaid to the whole world. If we try, we will undermine true national defense through futile world policing and will go the way of the British Empire. Some of us still have the quaint view that the U.S. was supposed to something different, e.g. a decentralized, civilian controlled Republic, in the course of world history.