Democrats versus Republicans

[RAGNAR]

lll

[tdw]

Rags,
Ref terorists v freedom fighters, the reality is that when terrorists win they become freedom fighters but it was just a throw away line on my part. However a good example is Nelson Mandala so I take your point about history making the final decision. The Taliban also, were considered freedom fighters when they were taking on the Russians but my oh my havn't things changed since then.

Ref Porsches v Chevrolets I was not being model specific. More a generalisation that someone (like me) who tends to be a tad Eurocentric cos I love the place, tends to prefer the 'feel' of the European . As much as I like the hoon aspect of a big block yankee V8 I'd rather climb into an Audi in the morning than a Chevvy if only for the build quality. "A good car is important, I used to get headaches when I drove a Chevvy" (Character from the movie Local Hero.)

[RAGNAR]

mmm

[sailaway21]

The wombat may regard it as a throw-away line, but I do not. it is too easy to blithely assume the line to be true. Dangerous thinking lays therein.

The Taliban, with US aid, were fighting a Sovier occupier intent on assisting the communist government of Afghanistan's maintenance of it's grip on power. The US would not today be in Afghanistan if something had not changed, since the Soviet withdrawal. What changed was the support, basing, training, and export of terror by the Taliban. Had not the freedom fighters of Afghanistan chosen a road that involved world-wide terror they would, in all likelyhood, still have their own Islamist country. If shades of grey are not your style, the black became white, the good became evil.

And that is what is the problem with tdw's statement avering that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. It seeks not to make judgements as to what the ultimate truth might be, but, rather, clouds the argument in moral equivalence. Getting down to the root of this, is an unwillingness to acknowledge the existence of real evil. Hence the liberal's endless pursuit of the perfection of man. Us religious nuts are under no illusions as to the perfectability of man. The left although, sees hope behind every new government program and, internationally, behind every diplomatic dialogue. Deep down they have to believe that guys like Osama, Saddam, and Assad are not really evil-they're just in need of greater understanding, perhaps a little therapy, and they're really only just that one little small step away from being just really good members of the world community. Sure, they have "issues", and once the West makes amends for it's part in those issues, they will no doubt seek therapy for their remaining angst. This is what is being "really said" when the left starts down their road of moral equivalence. Innocent enough as a throw away line, perhaps, but insidiously comparing western culture to despotic Islamism. And, weak thinking such as this results in a weak sense of morality, the end result of which is meaningless moral equivalence. One can no longer differentiate any right from any wrong.

A perfect example of this in action is Nancy Pelosi's recent trip to the middle-East. Pulling all of the right juvenile emotional strings, Ms Pelosi stopped just short of declaring, "peace in our time". The despotic leaders of the world can only regard the US as the world's largest comedy club-even our politicians are hilarious. Small wonder we see so little peace breaking out.

Ronald Reagan was roundly criticized for calling the USSR "the evil empire". What is forgotten by the oh so chic left is that those words signalled the beginning of the end for the Soviets. The closing act of the Cold War started with those words. No moral equivalence for Reagan, he called it as he saw it. And the Soviets heard him, believed he meant it, and the world is a different place today because of it. Reagan was always willing to talk with our enemies, just as long as they understood exactly where he was coming from, and how he regarded them. When Reagan talked with Gorbachev he was not negotiating in a manner that the left, still today, recognizes. Reagan was not negotiating in the sense of give and take, he was negotiating the USSR's unconditional surrender, while allowing them to save face. And it started by calling them "evil".

[RAGNAR]

ppp

[cardiacpaul]

YouTube - Nancy Pelosi's First 100 Days

YouTube - Democrats Pre-Iraq War View on WMD's and Terrorism

YouTube - Democrats on Iraq's WMD

[sailaway21]

Thanks for the links, Paul. There is really nothing quite like the record to, well, establish the record.(g)

I continue to be amazed that the only positions openly advocated by leading Dems (Joe Lieberman can no longer be considered one) is one of opposition to whatever the Bush policy currently manifests. Criticizm, to be taken in a positive way, is expected to propose alternatives. The fecklessness of the Democratic congress, and the screeds of the Democratic presidential canidates, reveal no alternatives other than, "no to George Bush". As a voter, I am perplexed as to how this will form the basis of a foreign policy after 20 January 2009.

Where are the traditional foreign policy Democrats? The ones who followed the old standard of politics stopping at the water's edge? Where is today's Daniel Patrick Moynihan or Sam Nunn? I would probably not vote for Joe Lieberman, but I'd listen to him. I'd listen to him closely. The current cacophony out of the Democrat party is just that, all noise, no music.

[sailaway21]

Department of You Can't Make This Up

Senator Charles Schumer, D-NY, wishes to see virtually all of the troops home by May 2008. leaving a "counter-terrorism" force. And, he opines, no troops will remain "in harm's way".


Well. Just what exactly does Senator Schumer suppose the US military is employed for? John Paul Jones remarked, "I have only interest in a fast ship. For I intend to go in harm's way". Now that is only one of the founding principles of the United States Navy, of which the USMC is an honored part, well represented in Iraq. To the question of going in to harm's way, countless first lieutenants must surely respond, "Hell yes, what did I join the Corps for?"

Apparently, Senator Schumer thinks that the purpose of our Marines and Soldiers is decorative. Dress blues outside the embassy. A couple few at Arlington. But actual fighting men in the thick of combat? That's passe. Pity for Senator Schumer that we have such a short history as men at arms. The Brits have far many more decorative posts to fill than we. They probably have more Beefeaters alone than we the Old Guard regiment.

It might be easy to mock Senator Schumer, but the man's ideas have consequences. Keeping troops out of "harm's way" is another way of saying that they'll be used for peace-keeping missions. How do those work? Well, in the past, most have involved stationing our troops somewhere to act as quasi policemen, except there are no laws. They are no allowed to engage the enemy. Mostly, their job is to die ceremonially. Then we can declare the situation intractable and withdraw.

Now, were I a Marine, I'd be a little at issue with those sentiments. The senator from New York wants me to sit around like those 200 Marines in Beirut did, waiting to be blown up for peace, and here I am, a man trained to kill the enemy, equipped with millions of dollars of equipment to aid in doing so, and this guy wants me to stand out front of the embassy?

This got me thinking about another area of thought that has become conventional wisdom. Like a lot of others it stems from Viet Nam. The line of thinking goes thusly, "Americans cannot fight a protracted conflict with significant casualties in the era of TV, especially satellite based kive TV." I got thinking, why should that be so? Were our ancestors naive about the carnage of war, during the Revolution and the Civil War? Are we the only ones who now are developed enough to fully evaluate the cost via the medium of TV? Would our ancestors have turned away from war if they truly knew the cost?

Actually I think that just the opposite is true. Since WWII, a very small per centage of Americans have any idea what war is like or about. We have steadily decreased the proportion of American manpower that is required to learn the martial arts. I suspect that our fathers and grandfathers knw very well what WWII could be like as they'd grown up with first hand knowledge of the carnage of WWI. In fact, I would make the case that our forebearers probably knew what war and fighting involved far better than we today. They probably knew that to be wounded in the chest or abdomen was likely a death sentence. Surviving wounds is a mid to late twentieth century occurence.

I think the other difference is that they knew that war required sacrifice, though they knew not whom would be tapped to make it. And, they knew there were things worth fighting for, too. Today, nothing is worth dying over and any sacrifice is too great.

Quite the contrary, I think our ancestor's knew far more than we, maybe even of life. They had to skin and clean dinner before they ate it, as well. They knew what a mini-ball would do to a femur. Today, we see a wounded veteran and are repulsed. But, we're just as repulsed by the fellow with the same type injury, garnered on the factory floor. Neither are supposed to happen in our modern world. The rarity and severity of injuries makes the ones we see that much more traumatic. From there it is but a short disconnect to say, "and less necessary". I think our forefather's would have understood that part. They had a pretty good grasp of the concept of the necessary. Would that we could.

[ReverendMike]

Sailaway

Bravo! I may not always agree with your points, but you always make me think (especially when I disagree). In this case, just 'Bravo'!

[sailaway21]

All is not looking quite as peachy keen as it did mid-November '05 for the Democratic party. You may remember James Carville's quote here earlier that it would take something like an extraordianary miracle for the dems to lose in '08, but that the dem's were fully capable of it. The recent stunt of the Senate slumber party seems to have netted them less than nothing. And, have you noticed, good news out of Iraq is starting to slip in to the mainstream media. (I don't count MSNBC as mainstream media, Joe Goebbels would have had a name for 'em)

Two articles of opinion may point out the weakness in their "all the eggs in the Iraq basket". We may be looking at a new paradigm; a congressional party drowning out their presidential canidates voices. In a general election, the tendency is to run to the center. But it may be possible to get so deep in left field that one cannot make it back to home plate. the below examine the issue further:
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=11750

http://www.kxmb.com/News/Nation/144557.asp