Victor Davis Hanson Ping !
Let me know if you want in or out
Posted on 10/25/2004 10:03:56 PM PDT by quidnunc
Had Lincoln lost the 1864 vote, a victorious General McClellan would have settled for an American continent divided, with slavery intact. Without Woodrow Wilson's reelection in 1916 — opposed by the isolationists — Western Europe would have lost millions only to be trampled by Prussian militarism. Franklin Roosevelt's interventionism saved liberal democracy. And without the 1980 election of Ronald Reagan and his unpopular agenda for remaking the military, the Soviet Union might still be subsidizing global murder.
This election marks a similar crossroads in our history. We are presented with two radically different candidates with profound disagreements about how to conduct a historic worldwide war. We should remember that all our victorious past presidents were, at the moments of their crises, deeply unpopular precisely because they chose the difficult, long-term sacrifice for victory over the expedient and convenient pleas for accommodation (if not outright capitulation). We are faced with just such an option today: a choice between a president whose call for patience and sacrifice promises victory, and a pessimist stirring the people with the assurances that we should not have fought, and now cannot win, the present war in Iraq.
Our terrorist enemy has no uniforms or aircraft, but nevertheless struck at the very heart of our financial and political capitals in a fashion unimaginable by Nazi Germany, Tojo's Japan, or the Soviet Union. The Islamic fascists' creed is Hitlerian, their methodology primeval. Their aim is not mere territory: They want nothing less than the destruction of Western freedom, through the takeover of the Middle East and the use of its petroleum wealth to craft a nuclear, global caliphate, Dark Aged in its values, 21st-century in its lethality.
-snip-
(Excerpt) Read more at victorhanson.com ...
FYI
As they say "no good deed ever goes unpunished."
That is a FANTASTIC piece of writing and recommended to all in it's entirety.
Since the Embassy in Tehran was taken, we've been reacting,
now we are acting.
"In sum, a Kerry presidency will lack either the vision or the resolve to finish the war, resulting in a defeat for the United States in Iraq — with calamitous consequences for the brave reformers there, an end to liberal momentum in the Middle East, a reversal in the conduct of Libya, Pakistan, and the Gulf, and assurance to Syria, Lebanon, and Iran that the United States is conducting not war but a criminal investigation akin to efforts against gambling or prostitution. Chamberlain-like, we will return to the complacency of the pre-9/11 days, regarding the telltale signs of the destruction to come as mere "nuisances." All the hysterical invective of John Kerry's surrogates — like George Soros, Michael Moore, Terry McAuliffe, and Teresa Heinz Kerry — cannot change that bleak and depressing fact."
Phenomenally scary and prophetic. Almost makes me want to kidnap Rats and hold them until November 3. I'm sure the feeling is the same at DU, except Rats can't kidnap most Freepers...most Freepers are ARMED.
"Since the Embassy in Tehran was taken, we've been reacting,
now we are acting."
Try 1968 Sirhan's murder of Robert Kennedy (Palestinian muslims)
and try
1972 Munich Olympics murders (Palestinian muslims)
Those were missed evidence of what would grow and grow.
By 1979 muslims were so emboldened they started to directly go at Americans in numbers.
Any non-muslim informed of the true state of the world can see muslims are on an international rampage.
They hide behind their so-called stateless identities. But they are ALL muslims, and they have undertaken a world war.
With wise diplomacy and military power, they can be defeated. Kerry's diplomacy is just Neville Chamberlain warmed over.
Reagan probably should have turned Tehran to glass, after getting the hostages out. In his speech he could have said: "Don't phuque with the USA"
Bush could get a similar opportunity, and he needs re-election, so that it is a feared possibility for ANY muslim nation-state falling short of all-out war against this monstrosity.
BTTT
Let me know if you want in or out
bttt
Wow. This is some of his best work, and that's high praise.
This one is going to have to go out to my full e-mail list -- liberals included!
It is simply silly to compare the impact of the present situation to these things, esp. the Civil War. And didn't Wilson run on an antiwar platform in 1916. "Isolationist" is a pejorative not even invented until post WW2. And saved from Prussian militarism? Hahaha!
They want nothing less than the destruction of Western freedom, through the takeover of the Middle East and the use of its petroleum wealth to craft a nuclear, global caliphate, Dark Aged in its values, 21st-century in its lethality.
The nuts in al-Qaeda may dream of this but it's only a pipe dream. There is no clash of civilizations because Arabia isn't strong enough to challenge the West. From a recent post:
Islam is simply too weak to sustain in earnest any challenge to an obviously triumphant West. In fact, contemporary Islam does not even form a “civilization” in the active, enactive, and effective senses of the term. . . The two supposedly clashing sides are so unequal in power, military might, productive capacity, efficiency, effective institutions, wealth, social organization, science, and technology that the clash can only be of the inconsequential sort. As one literary metaphor says, If a stone falls on an egg the egg breaks, and if an egg falls on a stone the egg breaks too.The only threat to the West from Muslims is mass-immigration, the coattails of which the terrorists ride, and immigration policies in the West are set by internal traitors, not Islamic militants. But coming out hard against multiculti gets you vilified and thrown out of the "respectability" club, not to mention fired from National Review. The furor Hanson displays in these arguments is classic displacement. He's prohibited from campaigning against the real threats against Western Civilization so he throws himself against the relatively chicken manure threats with a fury that seems over the top, like a housewife who's rage over her husband's suspected infidelity breaks out over socks on the floor.
It seems the theme of you statement is Islam-ism really isn't a threat because it isn't comparable to the West militarily or economically.
You suggest the real threat is, "mass-immigration, the coattails of which the terrorists ride.."
For the most part I agree. The political correctness the left has gently rammed down our throats is keeping us from addressing the real problems of our society. However, the current threat of Islamofacism, cannot be minimized.
They may be as significant as an angry child having a temper tantrum, but if this child, in the midsts of a fury, stumbles upon a loaded gun, you have a potentially fatal situation that must be dealt with.
9/11 was an example of what immature, irrational thinking can result in. This same thinking, when armed with nukes could lead to a cataclysmic nightmare for the world. This is why VDH is right in his assessment and you are wrong to classify them as "relatively chicken manure threats".
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.