Posted on 09/19/2003 6:51:33 AM PDT by Ragtime Cowgirl
Good Friday inspirational read.
If you want on or off my PRO-coalition ping list, please Freepmail me. Warning: it is a high volume ping list on good days. (Most days are good days).
--Boris
Expecting the U.N. to curb the chaos in Iraq is understandable, but I think delusional. It has no real record of nation-building but a long history of watching millions die and rot from the Balkans to Rwanda. True, if a Western country finally takes a strong stance, then the U.N. tags along well enough and can provide cosmetic legitimacy so dear to influential elites in Europe and America; but it never by itself really solves the problem.
I doubt if Lincoln's contemporaries wanted a Confederate victory. They just wanted to replace Lincoln with one of their own. I seriously doubt that they wanted to surrender the young country's sovereignty to internationalists or foreign ideologies.
Not so today. President Bush's critics do want to surrender our sovereignty and place us under U.N. (or similar) auspices and its "sizable contingents of bureaucrats and profiteers." Most of them do not hate America they see it as best for America, and the world's peoples.
The more perceived "failures" the better for them. This WOT is their last big chance to impose their future on America.
This war within a war is as important to our future as the WOT itself. And like the war to defend against terrorism there is no peaceful solution. The enemy won't permit it IMO.
Put on your stovepipe hat, Mr. President. Pay attention to the war here. Do whatever is necessary. This is about whose America survives the WOT.
I can't help but shake my head at our self-importance and lack of convictions. I myself care a great deal more about Iraq, than I do "Bennifer". :) But, how many Americans have never heard of Amb. Bremer, but can tell you in an up-to-the-minute report, if Ben Affleck and Jennifer Lopez are back together? It is exasperating!
These analogies of the doomsayers that Lincoln faced to those oozing out of the gutter against Dubya are fascinating - and quite accurate.
In just two months, Lincoln went from the bottom of the barrel to being reelected.
The Dimraps are doing the best they can to paint Dubya into the same box they managed (along with the help of the entire media and press) to get George Sr. into in 1991.
Lincoln was a great president. His successor, Grant was plagued with political infighting.
Let's hope Bush can rally the troops.
The true Copperheads did indeed want a Confederate victory. And McClellan's platform called for an immediate end to the war, which would by definition be a victory for the South.
I seriously doubt that they wanted to surrender the young country's sovereignty to internationalists or foreign ideologies.
The Confeds and their northern supporters tried desperately to drag Britain and/or France into the war on the Confederacy's side.
Keeping the Union was not that important to Lincoln's critics. Today the President's critics want to hand over our Union's sovereignty to internationalists ostensibly to fight the WOT. Keeping the Union is not that important to them either.
That's why I say this war within a war is about whose America survives the WOT. It is worth blood (mostly theirs) to keep our Union.
1) The Dem Party was created for one purpose only---to protect slavery by keeping it out of the national debate, and, to accomplish that, the party had to "reward" loyalists with jobs, first party jobs, then government jobs. It was the most blatant kind of vote-buying, but its goal was to purchase loyalty so that no one would entertain anti-slave votes.
2) The GOP, despite "big government" policies like tariffs and RR subsidies, nevertheless had as its FIRST priority stopping slavery in the territories. As everyone knew---certainly Lincoln and Douglas---this essentially was "it" for slavery. It either was recognized as moral and legal, or it wasn't, and "what's good enough for Oklahoma was good enough for Ohio" would have been the next constitutional push. Thus, the Republicans were founded on a PRINCIPLE, while the Dems were founded on the ACQUISITION OF POWER. Now, there are terrible Republicans, and some pretty good Dems (like Zell Miller), but the parties have historical, and fundamental differences of their reasons for existence. The Dems still believe in slavery.
More people, remember, fried in France this August while its social utopians snoozed at the beach than all those lost in Kabul and Baghdad together. I think an American pilot who flew over the peaks of Afghanistan or a Marine colonel now patrolling in Iraq was far more likely to ensure that his aged mother back home lives under humane conditions than was a Frenchman this summer on his month-long vacation on the Mediterranean coast. So remember, this August Americans lost 100 brave soldiers fighting selflessly for the liberty of others while thousands of Frenchmen perished through their children's neglect and self-absorption.
I am trying to say that leftists are using the WOT to hand over our sovereignty to their internationalists comrades. It is their big chance after more than thirty years of war against us. This is as much a civil war as Civil War I without the blood -- yet.
There is no peaceful solution. What's at stake is whose vision for America survives the WOT.
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.