Between the two parties we are a Tertium Quid that yokes together an art movement that is largely kaput with a Protestant group that is fragmented and disintegrating. The twin pressures of science and fashion pulverize art and religion into nihilism. Lutheran surrealism offers a watering hole that has nothing to do with fashion, no real science, and everything to do with outdated amusements: something like visiting an amusement park where all the rides are broken, no refreshments, and no one remembers why the place exists. Occasionally there's a poetry contest. Of course, no one reads poetry any more. Whatever the people don't want, that's what we offer. People do still come, and they talk to one another, surprised to find a conversation, even if they have to talk past the host with his annoying quirks (Lyme disease), and he's against everyone and everything -- except perhaps nearly extinct mammals (he said something good about golden lion marmosets for some reason). Meanwhile he bites the ankles of everything living: Catholics, Wiccans, Buddhists, Marxists, feminists, Maoist language poets, fat people, himself, dog-lovers, Anabaptists, even Lutherans of his own synod, and everybody else who can read betraying an appalling ignorance about Islam, Communism, and mathematics all the while), and of course there is little or no logic, and when there's a fact it's generally wrong. Why are you caught in his warped world?
31 comments:
"Why are you caught in his warped world?"
It's all David Brook's fault.
"Why am I caught in this warped world?"
'Cause it's funner down the rabbit hole! Relax, smile, and don't forget to bring a towel. Also, "Don't Panic" is a really good guideline. If you get lost, it is best to go forward-backwards, or sideways obliquewise. Ask the man in the mirror to change his ways but pay no attention to the frumious bandersnatch!
Proceed with caution, but do not collect $200. Enjoy your stay at Lutheran Surrealism, the most pointless, delirious carnival on earth!
I think Heinlein said it best: "When in danger or in doubt... Run in circles. Scream and shout!"
I've posted a link to an obit for the son of my cousin, Sarah. Her mother was a direct line descendant of my great great grandfather, who died in the Civil War. Her father may have been descended from the parents of my great great grandfather's widow, though I can't yet confirm that as fact. My blog is primarily about my Civil War ancestor, who died of pneumonia secondary to yellow fever, following the siege of Mobile.
Sarah's son, Peter, was 25. He was a Marine sergeant who served in Iraq from 2003 until he left the service in 2007 with post traumatic stress disorder. I learned earlier today that his body was found in mid July in Yellowstone Park, where he apparently committed suicide.
He rented a car in Oklahoma City at the end of the school term. He had been studying accounting at the University of Oklahoma. He left the rental car at a trail head in the park at the end of May. A six week search for him produced no results. A team of wildlife researchers found his body in the course of their work.
The last news I had heard of him was in a Christmas newsletter my cousin sent my dad in 2005.
I wish to extend my sincere condolences to my cousin and her husband on the loss of their son, recorded as one of the 32 suicides of Iraq veterans with PTSD for the month of July.
The link didn't go through on the first try. Here it is again:
http://chippewa.com/news/local/obituaries/article_319e0ee4-9a5d-11df-b998-001cc4c002e0.html
Also, condolences to his widow, Raquel, and her family.
Craig, it's sad to hear about your cousin's son. Unlike Curtis, who thinks the entire war was an exercise in futility, and of no meaning whatsoever, I think the Bush wars in both countries were an immense advance for human rights within the Islamic world. Your cousin's son did an enormous world of good, and should be honored for his service.
If only we had won in Vietnam there would be human rights there, today, too, instead of the horrific abuses that are customary inside of a communist system.
The Democrats have never thought that human rights matter. They thought that slavery itself was ok in the Civil War.
Republicans stood up to the Episcopalian slaveowners then, and against the horrific abuses of communist regimes, and now, against the horror inflicted by the Islamic regimes on its own people.
Hussein needed to go, as did Mullah Omar. We need to get Ahmadinejihad out, too.
The cost is always worth it.
Your cousin's son will get his reward in heaven.
Hope itself is something that has no positive criterion, like God. The left believes in hope, but hope, without God, is meaningless.
I'll read the link about Peter later. Thanks for sending this in. Our soldiers are amazing people, and like Christ -- sacrificing themselves for the betterment of the world. God loves every one of them.
Thanks for sending this in.
"Craig, it's sad to hear about your cousin's son. Unlike Curtis, who thinks the entire war was an exercise in futility, and of no meaning whatsoever, I think the Bush wars in both countries were an immense advance for human rights within the Islamic world. Your cousin's son did an enormous world of good, and should be honored for his service."
The reasons we went into Iraq had nothing to do with human rights or the spread of democracy. The espoused reason for going into Afghanistan was to capture Osama bin Laden, and to oust the Taliban from power (and to shut down the "haven" for Al Quaeda). But anyone knows that less than a month after we depart either country, chaos will ensue and the rule of the Koran (and the feudal warlords) will resume. All the smart commentators have said this. Which is why Obama persists. But it's all doomed to fail. You can't "nation build" in Muslim countries--doesn't work. Which is why we need to beat back the savage hoards here on the home turf (only partly kidding). Our boys and girls died and suffered and survived maimed for nothing. They know it. What do we say to them in 10 or 20 years? Sorry, we fucked up. These wars are filled with meaning, all right. Just not the meaning you'd prefer.
End Part I
Part II
"If only we had won in Vietnam there would be human rights there, today, too, instead of the horrific abuses that are customary inside of a communist system."
We could never have "won" in Vietnam. The best outcome was for us to leave, and we did. Today we recognize Vietnam, maintain diplomatic relations with them, and conduct trade. Lots of Vietnamese emigrated to the West.
"The Democrats have never thought that human rights matter. They thought that slavery itself was ok in the Civil War."
The Civil War wasn't about parties, but about different views of how commerce should be carried out. It was "cultural war". My people were Northerners, but that doesn't make them "good" people and the southerners "bad" people. It's not about parties. Don't try to appropriate some twisted notion of the War Between the States to make political points about present-day foreign policy.
"Republicans stood up to the Episcopalian slaveowners then, and against the horrific abuses of communist regimes, and now, against the horror inflicted by the Islamic regimes on its own people."
This is bad history and a gross generalization. I won't dignify it with a response.
"Hussein needed to go, as did Mullah Omar. We need to get Ahmadinejihad out, too."
And while you're at it, why not North Korea and Saudi Arabia and Russia and Cuba and Venezuela and San Francisco? Just blow'em off the map. Turkey, too. They need to be taught a lesson. A bit of collateral damage--say, oh, 2 million innocent? That's only an estimate, of course. It's the end result that counts. We can see that in Afghanistan now--things just don't get better, they continue to fester. Why? Because our boys and girls are roving their countryside shooting people behind bushes. "Sweeping neighborhoods" by knocking down residential doors and pushing people cowering against dirt floored bedroom walls. That wins us friends and shows who's boss and who has the sweetest candy-bars. It's John Wayne in the Green Berets all over again. It makes real Americans feel groovy.
"The cost is always worth it."
Unless it isn't. Was Vietnam "worth it"? Did we kill enough Iraqis to prove who was right? If we were to "wipe" the Northeastern territories of Afghanistan off the map, would that lead to peace and harmony in the Middle East. Oh, certainly....
"Your cousin's son will get his reward in heaven. Hope itself is something that has no positive criterion, like God. The left believes in hope, but hope, without God, is meaningless. "I'll read the link about Peter later. Thanks for sending this in. Our soldiers are amazing people, and like Christ -- sacrificing themselves for the betterment of the world. God loves every one of them."
It WAS a holy war, after all, God loves each of us equally, unless he doesn't. Does God love the people who "harbor" dissidents in Pakistan, or do they need to die to prove God's law?
"Thanks for sending this in."
Mine comes via diplomatic pouch, and has the highest priority. I'm delirious.
Well, we did save South Korea.
We did save Japan.
we did save Germany.
We did save the American South.
We did help knock down the East Bloc dictatorships ("Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.")
I know that Obama doesn't believe anything can be done about human rights abuses or electoral fraud in Iran.
McCain did.
Try not to see things as "violence," but as "police actions."
Yes, the police are "violent," but that's not the point. They are protecting universal human rights.
If the police shoot up someone who is selling drugs, that's good for the community as a whole.
If bombs wipe out a bad dictator, but it frees the country to be a democracy, don't look at the "violence." Look at the support of human rights.
You have to accentuate the positive.
The Civil War was not JUST a difference between two economic systems. It was about human rights.
The same thing is true in Afghanistan and in Iraq.
Governments that don't recognize life, liberty, health and property are evil, and should be considered evil governments. This is why North Korea is bad, but South Korea is good.
We have to bring back the language of good and bad in a moral sense, and we have to be almost very serious about it.
Mother Theresa was good.
Adolf Hitler was bad.
It's possible to help other people, and commit the opposite of genocide (whatever you'd call it), as well as discourage genocide.
but just simply leaving people alive is bad. They have to have the rights of life, health, liberty, and property, too.
Property is of course the most important because it underwrites the other three.
Craig, I'll second Kirby's regret at the loss of your cousin's son, and I too honour his service.
As for Faville's claim that "[w]e could never have 'won' in Vietnam," that's just so much bs--strategic errors, public dissatisfaction with the war fueled by major media (the only ones around then) defeatism, among other factors, drained away national resolve to win the war.
We were winning, but Cronkite flipped the switch for communist imperialism.
It's a shame.
We won in S. Korea, so why couldn't we win in S. Vietnam?
Cronkite and his lack of perspective on Tet caused the curtains to fall for forty years on the Vietnamese people.
Bonkers.
Cronkite was a traitor who probably had communist party membership.
Communism always ruins every community it touches.
I've been to Viet Nam. I spent a week in Ho Chi Minh City (formerly Saigon) and a week in Hanoi. I was there in 2002 during the week when CNN was showing over and over again the effect bunker buster bombs would have on the immense American made undergound fortress in the mountains on the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan where it was believed Osama bin Laden had taken refuge.
I took a stroll around Hoan Kiem Lake in the middle of the day in the middle of Hanoi and bought a few books from the booksellers, young boys who would give you one of their books and then beg for a donation until it became clear that the bookseller would be beaten by his pimp if you returned the book or refused to donate.
I spent the better part of a day at a ceramic factory in the countryside shopping for china, sets of cups, bowls, plates and saucers with distinctive designs that told the story of the family that had made them by hand.
I spent an afternoon at the Temple of Literature and saw the names of graduates inscribed on stone plaques mounted on the backs of stone turtles, many of them older by centuries than Oxford or Cambridge.
I drank coffee and ate beignets at a coffee shop that was marketing coffee beans grown on what had once been French coffee plantations.
I met a fellow my age whose qualification for the job he held in the Ministry of Health was having survived six years in the Cu Chi tunnels. I did the duck walk in the tunnels a week later, an hour's drive from Ho Chi Minh City.
The guide's English was excellent, though he seemed blissfully unaware of the fairly obvious fact that his father was an American soldier. He'd been told that his uncle had been in the South Vietnamese army and that everyone who fought for the south was either killed in the war or deported to America.
It's all one country. Hanoi is Boston; Ho Chi Minh City is L.A., winning or losing was never really the issue; what mattered was the engagement. We ate dinner one evening as guests of a wedding planner who had lived mostly in America since the end of the war.
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are part of a larger ideological struggle between the U.S. and Iran. The Cold War apparatus has simply been transplanted from Berlin to Tehran.
Downsizing the American military is not really a viable option. It might come in handy when it's time to colonize the moon and Mars.
My cousin's son, like me, had a grandfather and a great grandfather who were men of the cloth. That cloth came from the shirt my great great grandfather wore when he died at Jefferson Barracks in 1865.
Mr. DeLater:
It's easy to label your opponents and to shoot off barbs--"that's so much bs"--but providing arguments that convince is something else again.
After 7 hard years of ground combat, carpet bombing and "Vietnamization" the U.S. got out, counting its dead (58 thousand +), and incalculable loss of wasted dollars. The war was a tragic vestige of European colonial presumption, as well as a failure of the "containment" doctrine of the Cold War years. The attempt to create a bogeyman out of "terror"--to replace the "communist" bogeyman--has led us down the same destructive and futile road in Iraq and Afghanistan. The more we pummel these societies into submission, the more determined they become to be rid of us. It doesn't matter that their provincial choices seem repugnant to us. Ideological wars of choice are a dead-end, diplomatically. The costs associated with "nation building" around the world are far beyond our means.
We can no longer "afford" these wars. Our nation's now deeply in debt--ultimately to the Chinese. If you're rich, you can have delightful little wars, but if you're poor, you can't. China is the new super-power in the world, and if they choose to, they can do a lot of mischief in the coming decades. How far might we be willing to go, to stop them?
By the way, Mr. DeLater, have you ever done military service?
I'll take one straightforward account like Craig's over thirty angry, complacent, ideological diatribes from the radicals.
The problem with the Vietnam war was they were doing too many outreach search and destroy missions which made the men sitting ducks.
I'd like to hear James' viewpoint. He served in the war on the ground.
Obama doesn't understand either war he's in. The new Woodward book makes it clear that victory isn't even in Obama's playbook. He's a professional victim, so winning at something is against his whole image and identity.
Just a quick note on the whole Vietnam thing.
Those with a sense of history will remember that Eisenhower was tempted to intervene in the siege at Dien Bien Phu, when the French Far East Expeditionary Corps (an arm of the French Foreign Legion, i.e., the officer corps was French, but the soldiers were typically either colonials, or German soldiers left unemployed by WWII) was destroyed by the Viet Minh. Eisenhower was dissuaded by Matt Ridgway, who was Eisenhower's Chairman of the JCS, and who had previously served under him in WWII and as the Theater Commander in Korea (after MacArthur was fired). Ridgway advised strongly against getting involved, and this seems to be the origin of the "never fight a land war in Asia" aphorism. Eisenhower listened, agreed, and we did not get involved.
Jack Kennedy, unfortunately, didn't receive the same advice from Westmoreland, and so we went in. Kennedy was somewhat more constrained, as he had to deal with folks who claimed that the Democrats were "soft on communism," as if the Berlin Airlift and the Cuban Missle Crisis were not arguments to the contrary. Anyway, what were advisors in the Kennedy era quickly escalated to Divisions under LBJ, in part because LBJ struck up a personal relationship with Ngo Dinh Diem, the President of South Vietnam, and he was determined to salvage the situation in Vietnam after Diem's assassination. Ultimately, we got out, curiously under the "leadership" of Nixon, who took a mere five years to acheive the "swift and honorable" end of the war that he ran on in '68, resulting two years later in the fall of South Vietnam. So much for "honorable."
Anyway, what we have here is a war that the Republicans kept us out of, and which the Democrats blundered into. Ultimately, after considerable blundering of their own, the Republicans got us out. And now, irony of ironies, it is the Republicans who argue that we should have stayed, and that we had important national objectives in Vietnam, entirely in opposition to their historical role in the conflict, and likewise, the Democrats, who got us in, and who escalated the war, almost invariably argue against it, and view Vietnam as a "lesson learned," rather than as a "unilateral defeat, occasioned by a loss of national will due to subversive elements."
This seems oddly mirrored, but with the players reversed, in Afghanistan. Admittedly, the parallels are not perfect, but this does seem to be how things are playing out.
I'm reminded of the old quote. History repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce.
M. Faville: In designating what you claimed as bs (which I hold it is), I referred to your unqualified claim that we could "never" win the war in Vietnam, let alone use the outcome of that war to make highly dubious points of comparison with our more recent wars in Iraq as well as with the present war against the Taliban (your "heroes," if I remember rightly) and other insurgents in Afghanistan. The claim that we somehow took up the vestiges of Europe's colonialism is also more than dubious--it's false, except perhaps to those who also claim any attempt to secure our defence and to help secure that of our allies is part of our wasteful and doomed imperial designs. On the contrary, we can hardly afford to neglect these defences when at all possible. The alternative is of course, defeatism and disappearance of the global democratic spirit, which, unlike you, I'm not willing to abandon either to the communist oligarchs of China or the barbaric jihadis of the Islamist movement.
And in answer to your query about military service, yes, I served as a soldier in South Vietnam (in 1970). Though that doesn't entitle my opinion ipso facto to be more authoritative than yours or stu's or Kirby's, it at least obviates the "chickenhawk" accusation leftists love to sling at certain conservatives. I might add as well that I was not drafted, but I freely enlisted, even though I could have pursued an exemption for a deformation related to a childhood bout of polio.
stu, I think much of your analysis of the war in Vietam quite plausible and mostly offered in a spirit of independent observation. But the parallels between the two political parties' prevailing stances with respect to the Vietnam War and to the present war in Afghanistan are a bit stretched (as you partly concede), for you must remember support of the authorisation for use of military force against terrorists--whether persons, organisations, or nations--was virtually unanimous in Congress in September, 2001 (with but one nay vote in the House). Only rather later in the war effort in Afghanistan have the war sceptics and defeatists in the Democratic Party (along with a few Republicans like Congressman Ron Paul) become more strident in their efforts to convince us that the war is futile, too wasteful, or both. And, as has become among many Democrats the routine charge for nearly every present national ill, it's (surprise!) President Bush II's fault for "ignoring" the effort in Afghanistan at the expense of Senator Reid's "lost"--though successful--war in Iraq.
Nor does your parallel fit with G H W Bush's American-led Gulf War operation's success against Saddam Hussein's aggression in Kuwait. The comparison might work better, however, in the case of President Clinton's intervention in the Bosnian conflict, during which some Republicans grumbled about the what they held as the questionable idea of "nation-building."
I'm not sure what your closing invocation of Marx's dicta on the coup in France by Louis Napoleon means, though. Is it meant to suggest that while the Vietnam War was a tragedy, the war in Afghanistan is somehow a farce?
JADL,
I did offer my remarks as statement of simple historical facts, and without trying to grind any particular partisan rhetorical axe. I believe that both Democrats and Republicans have twisted themselves into pretzels in the debate of Vietnam and its sequelae, and that the "lessons learned" argument is every bit as much an overgeneralization as the "betrayed by subversive elements" argument is delusional.
It seems to me that a reasonable interpretation of both Vietnam and Afghanistan is going to have to wait another century, so that the partisan issues of the moment seem as remote as "a cross of gold" seems today. Yet even that may be optimistic, c.f., the divisions still evident on this blog regarding the Civil War. With that, let me take state my own opinions, which are not intended as mere factual accounts.
I do believe that the US became over-invested in Vietnam because it tended to view anti-colonial elements through a cold-war lens. And this is indeed curious, given that the US's stance in the immediate post-war era was staunchly anti-colonial, and was no more receptive to the re-establishment of British authority in China than it was to the re-establishment of German authority in the Congo. This anti-colonial preference informed Ridgway's argument against intervention at Dien Bien Phu. But this preference not withstanding, you and I both know that the US was emotionally predisposed to support the European French against the Asian Vietnamese, all the more so because the the artillery that was used against them were our 105's, captured at Chosin by other Asians.
So the problem was this. Was Ho Chi Minh a nationalist, fighting against colonial oppression, and therefore our natural ally in shaping the post-world war world? Or was he a communist, an ally of the evil Kim Il-Sung, and his nominal Chinese masters, and therefore our natural enemy? The question didn't become ripe until Dien Bien Phu, at which point cold-war framing prevailed. So the rhetoric of "communist" dominated the rhetoric of "nationalist."
The right point of contrast has to be Korea vs. Vietnam. Why did we succeed in Korea, but fail in Vietnam? We were catastrophically ill-prepared for both, but in both cases, the military picked itself up. In my opinion, the determining difference isn't what we did, but instead what the civilian populations in both countries did. South Korea never supported a Vietcong, and so we faced a conventional war. In South Vietnam, there very substantial (although by no means universal) support for the Vietcong (deriving in part from the US's decision to use IJA forces as police in post-WWII Indochina, and in part from South Vietnam land use policies), and so we faced a two front war against NVA regulars and Vietcong irregulars. Do you see this differently? Here, it seems to me that the argument against "betrayal by internal agents" is entirely refuted in the election and re-election of RMN. Whether the anti-war forces were right or not, they invariably supported progressive elements of the Democratic Party, *who did not win either the '68 or '72 elections*. Nixon did, and he was no more inclined to grant political power to his enemies than was GWB.
(1 of 2)
(2 of 2)
So, the question for 2010 (I'll concede that the question in 2001 was different) is this: is Afghanistan more like Korea, or more like Vietnam? This depends almost entirely on whether we view the Taliban as our enemy, or as a potential ally. Note in this that I intend no approbation for the Taliban, this is purely a question of realpolitik and our national objectives vz. Al Quada -- I am only making the point that rural Afghani support for the Taliban (whether or not I think this reasonable or just) seems a better parallel to Vietnam with Korea, with implications as above. And for the record, the only problem I have with GHWB and the first Gulf war is the the April Glaspie "permission" statement, which may or may not have reflected higher US policy at the time.
As for the Afghanistan AUMF, I'll note that the vote on Tokin Gulf was 416-0, and I think that the only real lesson to be learned is that few congressmen will vote against a resolution for war. Mind you, I think Jeannette Rankin was wrong on December 8th, but I do admire her moral courage. Right or wrong, there are too few like her today.
And in repeating Marx's dicta (and thank you for the provenance -- I didn't recall this), I wasn't referring to the wars, but rather to the political theater around them. Wars, even at their best and most justified, are always tragedy.
The Civil War was tragic? do you mean for the slave-owners?
The American Revolution was tragic? do you mean for King George?
WWII was tragic? Do you mean for Hitler?
Kirby,
The Civil War was tragic? ... The Revolutionary War was tragic? ... WWII was tragic?
Yes. All of these wars were tragic. Good soldiers on both sides were killed or wounded, the dreams of their lives shattered. Homes were destroyed, non-combatants killed, wounded, robbed, assaulted. Men and women were widowed, children orphaned. Here's a clue: these are tragedies, and these are the invariable fruits of war.
Society's interest may have been served by these tragedies. We may have been unable to avoid them, or to avoid them only at the price of greater tragedies still, but this doesn't make them any less tragic. Aren't your questions disrespectful of this? Disrepectful of soldiers? Disrespectful of the victims?
But as regards slaveholders, or Hitler, the wars they started were in the end how they met a small measure of earthly justice. That doesn't mean that the sacrifices that were made were any less sacrifices to those who made them. We would do better to remember and honor the heros than the villians.
I think the heroes go to heaven. Thinking that they are just suckers or something reminds me of what John Kerry said about how bad students end up in Iraq.
It should be an honor to die for a good cause.
I guess that viewpoint is more or less vanished now on the left.
Ideas I think are more real than anything else.
Democracy and freedom is worth dying for, because if you die in its name, God will immediately fast-track you to heaven.
So, no tragedy.
Kirby,
I think the heroes go to heaven...
Democracy and freedom is worth dying for, because if you die in its name, God will immediately fast-track you to heaven.
So, no tragedy.
What stinking pile of docetic crap. What heresy. I gather that you don't actually believe that Christ was corporeal flesh, or that he suffered and died? That is, after all, what your "fast track" for those who die on God's behalf implies. That Christ, who died for us, did not suffer for us.
And how does this steaming, stinking pile of docetism explain away the suffering of those who didn't die? The wounded? The widows and orphans? Or the mothers of sons who were killed in war? There is no merciful fast track to heaven for them, rather a lifetime of loss.
Thinking that they are just suckers or something reminds me of what John Kerry said about how bad students end up in Iraq.
There is nothing in what I wrote that hints at a belief that those who die are suckers. That is scurrilous, and I request an apology. I acknowledge and honor their sacrifice. You deny it. And this doesn't make them heros, it just makes them ordinary, and unworthy of rememberance. Obviously, I disagree.
Docetism and all this would have to be explained further, Stu.
I don't think that since Christ died for our sins we don't have to do anything at all, is that what it means to you?
Perhaps I am falling into another error: that of good works as part of salvation. I was relying on a sermon by Marianne Moore's brother John (who worked on a naval ship in WWII) as part of my thinking here.
Kirby,
Docetism is a christology in which Jesus was pure spirit, and his physical body was just an illusion. The notion that Jesus was a condemned criminal who suffered a brutal execution was scandalous in the ancient world. So there was a thread of gnostic Christianity that took the position that the crucifixion was an illusion -- that there was no suffering, and that Jesus ascended straight from the cross into heaven.
As for John Moore's sermon, on the assumption that your account is accurate, I can see what he was trying to accomplish, which is to affirm that those who died died in a worthwhile cause, that God protected them, preserving them from any great or prolonged suffering, and that he has already rewarded them. As laudable as his intentions might have been, the middle part goes too far in my opinion. It minimizes the reality of their sacrifice. It does not describe real war, but rather a romanticized, sanitized, entirely idealized docetic war.
No one can endure war if they think of each wound and each mortality. You have to think of the ending, and you have to rationalize the casualities. If you don't do that, you can't fight a war, and the problem with this is that you then implode as a civilization, and your people end up as the slaves of other civilizations.
The communists would have loved to do this to us. They still might, through our purchases of Chinese goods. We are becoming in essence the slaves of China as we sink into deeper debt to that nation. We borrowed from them to get through Obama's Stealthcare and his Stimulus Bill. We already are in hock to them.
Many among Islam would see nothing wrong with converting our people to their religion and turning American women into perpetual illiterates, the slaves of their bearded masters.
We have to fight this on every front, or else we will lose, ultimately.
A docetic war is not possible, but if you think of the blueprint of what's happening it makes it more clear as to what's at stake.
The Pelopponesian war cost Athens its hegemony, which ultimately caused the downfall of democracy itself when Alexander swept through and knocked down everything the Athenians had built.
There are real downturns in civilizations, and I think we have to keep our eye on the Big Picture, and not count every wound. Naturally, each mother, each sister, each brother and dad will grieve for every young man (and now woman) lost in the war.
Far worse is the loss of American civilization itself.
I know that many on the left don't care about America (and I also know that you're not among that crowd) but it's the world's last best hope for everything that we all want. This means we need a powerful military, and a way of counting our casualties in the pursuit of global freedom that honors our dead, and honors their sacrifice, while also understanding (but I don't think we can afford to feel each sacrifice personally -- instead, we must see this as a global confrontation on the plane of ideals -- that is, between good and evil).
the left is very blurry on these distinctions, as they were in our war against the communists (which we are still fighting, but now with the sneaky Chinese as our rivals). With Al Qaeda and Islam, the rivalry is extremely intense, too, and the rivals are not always as clearly in the open as they were with the God damned communists.
No one can endure war if they think of each wound and each mortality. You have to think of the ending, and you have to rationalize the casualities. If you don't do that, you can't fight a war, and the problem with this is that you then implode as a civilization, and your people end up as the slaves of other civilizations.
The communists would have loved to do this to us. They still might, through our purchases of Chinese goods. We are becoming in essence the slaves of China as we sink into deeper debt to that nation. We borrowed from them to get through Obama's Stealthcare and his Stimulus Bill. We already are in hock to them.
Many among Islam would see nothing wrong with converting our people to their religion and turning American women into perpetual illiterates, the slaves of their bearded masters.
We have to fight this on every front, or else we will lose, ultimately.
A docetic war is not possible, but if you think of the blueprint of what's happening it makes it more clear as to what's at stake.
The Pelopponesian war cost Athens its hegemony, which ultimately caused the downfall of democracy itself when Alexander swept through and knocked down everything the Athenians had built.
There are real downturns in civilizations, and I think we have to keep our eye on the Big Picture, and not count every wound. Naturally, each mother, each sister, each brother and dad will grieve for every young man (and now woman) lost in the war.
Far worse is the loss of American civilization itself.
I know that many on the left don't care about America (and I also know that you're not among that crowd) but it's the world's last best hope for everything that we all want. This means we need a powerful military, and a way of counting our casualties in the pursuit of global freedom that honors our dead, and honors their sacrifice, while also understanding (but I don't think we can afford to feel each sacrifice personally -- instead, we must see this as a global confrontation on the plane of ideals -- that is, between good and evil).
the left is very blurry on these distinctions, as they were in our war against the communists (which we are still fighting, but now with the sneaky Chinese as our rivals). With Al Qaeda and Islam, the rivalry is extremely intense, too, and the rivals are not always as clearly in the open as they were with the God damned communists.
I mean to say that at least the communists wore uniforms, and had their own countries, and didn't sneak into our country as terrorists. Islam allows all this, apparently. You can lie, openly, and pretend to be someone's friend, while all the while plotting their murder. It's a sneakier and more crazy foe than we've ever encountered before.
Basically, every kind of warfare, every kind of trick, is permitted in Islam.
With the Communists we did have a fifth column (many are still present in academia all around us), but at least they had some sense of honor, and they fought for their notion of the poor, and were idealistic about it, even if they were the completed deluded tools of the Stalins and Honekkers of the world.
With Islam, it's quite a different story. I find them to be a much more appalling menace, because their goals are so completely nefarious: total illiteracy for women, total subjugation of everyone and everything, and appalling ignorance, zero freedom of inquiry, no democratic traditions whatsoever, and so on.
At least the God damned communists paid lip service to democracy, and allowed people to read, including women. Everyone had to read the pap of the state presses, but at least it was permitted, which meant that the Samisdat could also travel in the police states' circles.
With Islam, you are dealing with a completely illiterate horde of two billion clodhoppers amped to the max by madmen who will send our murderers to kill cartoonists and novelists and who have succeeded even in this country in terrorizing everyone who will use the first amendment.
The God damned communists never went that far.
Much more is at stake. We have to clarify this. The axis of evil as W. put it was a clarifying statement. Obama is completely incapable of such clarification.
Btw., I think I got John Warner Moore right. At least I didn't attempt to lie about it. I wouldn't actually do that. I'm interested in the truth here and in uncovering it. I think you are, too.
Post a Comment