Repubs make me laugh
About a year before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, historian Martin Gilbert visited the Oval Office to talk about the leadership of Winston Churchill during the Second World War. Based on the work of this preeminent 20th-century historian, we can guess what traits he might have emphasized: realism and vision. When it came to measuring the brutalities and sacrifices of war against the existential threat of fascism, Churchill was peerless. “War is terrible,” he wrote during the parliamentary debate over German aggression, “but slavery is worse.”
As the debate in Congress makes painfully clear, too many war critics still fail to admit the blackness of the threat — the hideous inhumanity of radical Islam — that confronts us in Iraq and elsewhere in the Muslim world. Without this moral realism, detractors have allowed their qualms about the conflict to degenerate into fatalism and defeatism. No surprise, then, that they now lack the resolve to carry on.
Joseph Loconte on War & Leadership on National Review Online.
I was skimming this article looking for the one thing that would make it devoid of truth. I found it…
You see Liberals, not Democrats, have a knack for picking of bullshit. Conservatives might to, but since Bush is still in office I’ll decline to comment.
Iraq was not a “radical” Muslim hideout. That is, before the “war.” While I would not want to go there, I still believe it is not a radical place. Afghanistan is more of a radical place, and we attacked it with provocation.
But that’s neither here nor there for this article. This article leaves out what Iraq was before the invasion. It leaves out what most European countries are going though because of this “War on Terror.”
Let me be the first to tell you, ha, but there is no war on terror. Like there is no war on drugs, poverty, or whatever else you want to put in there. You cannot go to war against an idea, either a active one (drugs) or a inactive one (poverty). The reason is, it will never end. Politicians might say these things to get votes or stay in office, but they are just ways for government to wield more control over the populace.
Iraq, was the best and brightest of the Muslim world 20 years ago. Why did that change? Because the dictator misread the states intentions with regard to Kuwait. Because of his short sidedness or ours (to get into another Vietnam) we are left with this… mess.
If we leave, we may “embolden” terrorists. If we stay, we might do the same. If we aren’t looking at the past, what are we looking at? We still, three years later, have no clear plan from the White House. At least the Democrats have put forth a plan, even though the Republicans have thoroughly derided it as “cut and run” even though “timetable” does not generally say… you know, leave tomorrow.
So what do we do? Leave them to fend for themselves or stay for however long it takes… which will probably be a minimum of 10 years, without the results we are looking for. My vote:
Leave.
Snowcones are terrorists
