Sunday, July 01, 2007
|
|
The New Greatest Generation
|
|
Posted by:
Dean Barnett at
11:10 AM
|
I got the following email yesterday from a friend of mine, a man who graduated college this spring and was commissioned an officer in the Marine Corps the next day.
Dear Dean:
I just made it back from England on Thursday, right before the last two days' events.
This is some serious stuff. I remember when I was down at Quantico two summers ago for the first half of OCS. The second to last day I was down there--"Family Day," incidentally--was the 7/7 bombings. The staff pulled us over and told us the news and then said that's basically why they're so hard on us down there: we're at war and will be for a long time, and the mothers of recruits at MCRD and at Parris Island right now are going to be depending on us one day to get their sons and daughters home alive.
When I was at Cambridge last week, I talked to an officer in the Royal Navy who had just received his Ph.D. He was saying he thought the larger war would last 20-30 years; I've always thought a generation---mine in particular. Our highest calling: To defend our way of life and Western Civilization; fight for the freedom of others; protect our friends, family, and country; and give hope to a people long without it.
As we near our nation's independence day, hopefully the talking heads in Washington and the citizenry at large will put their partisan bickering aside, realize that there is a very serious threat out there--an enemy that would love nothing more than to see us destroyed, and go out and get the job done and see to it that the war is won.
Semper fi.
On a related note, Michael Yon has a searing post on the people we’re fighting in Iraq. As is the case with everything Michael writes, it’s must-reading.
Compliments? Complaints? Contact me at Soxblog@aol.com.
|
|
Congratulations to that Marine who just graduated. Those are some good comments Dean.
I am pro immigration (provided it is sane, legal and works toward the goal of assimilation). I want greatly expanded legal immigration and more recruiting of the best and the brightest from around the world. I am for immigration reform (I hope for a better bill sometime in the future), but that is clearly not possible with the current administration in place. Michael Chertoff was on FoxNews Sunday and he basically dismissed increased border security as something that was. . . I am being charitable. . . less than a priority.
The Bush Administration could not get this bill through because people on the right did not trust it to enforce the regulations it was seeking to pass and then Michael Chertoff essentially confirms everyone's doubts? What is the Administration thinking! Beyond a terrible policy, it is also horrible PR for an Administration in real trouble. Perhaps they should tell Chertoff to stay in for doughnuts or go play a round of golf next Sunday (the Administration should also re-think policies).
Perhaps "Brownie" got a little too much of the blame for the post Katrina screw ups. |
|
I have posted this several times before, but it is an important point so I am going to make it again. Especially with what is taking place this weekend in the UK.
Some have said we should be ready to take in Iraqi refugees if the surge does not work. That is more and more likely given Bush has expended all his political power on this immgration plan and there is a very decent chance the Dems will take control in 2008. I still want victory in Iraq, but I fear that is has been squandered by poor leadership.
After our shameful abandonment of Vietnam and our allies, we eventually saw the plight of the boat people and took many of them in. My only regret over those South Asian refugees is we did not take in more. I am pro immigration and want sensible and sane immigration reform (essentially replacing de facto illegal immigration with legal immigration with the goal of assimilation). I believe immigrants make this country stronger, bring in new ideas and engergy and are a net plus.
I am absolutely against encouraging any Muslim immigration.
I have seen Islam first hand. Most, in fact the large majority of Muslims are great people and would be great citizens. I am still against any Islamic immigration right now. Why? It has proven to be a disaster for any western country that has tried it. Look at Denmark, the Netherlands, Germany, France and the United Kingdom (especially this weekend). The different Muslim populations are from different countries (and many of those Muslim immigrants were secular or very moderate), it made no difference. The first generation of immigrants tried to assimilate, and for whatever reason a sizable section of their children go radical and turn to fundamentalist Islam.
We took in some Somali refugees and then a few Imans in Minnesota managed to create controversy by testing our airline proceedures and (by co-oping Somali cab drivers) refusing to transport passengers carrying duty free alcohol or even seeing eye dogs. What an outrage. That profound disrespect to this country and the rest of her people by these Somalis refugees is just a taste of what is in store for us. Yes there are some nationalistic nuts south of the border, but there is a profound difference between Mexican immigration and Muslim immigration.
We have a moral obligation to prevent or mitigate genocide in Iraq. We probably have some duty to help refugees in Jordan (especially our allies). We do not have an obligation to import the roots of that hatred and madness into our own society. I am not for a blanket ban, obviously we can afford sanctuary to individuals on a case by case basis. I would even be willing to offer refugee status (if possible) to Arab Christians (although I recognize that might be unconstitutional, but it might be ok if they are singled out for slaughter). But until Islam reforms itself, we need to hold off engaging in any mass immigration of Muslims into our country.
Some would call that racist or bigotted, but that type of distinction is just based on objective experience and common sense. |
|
|
We are in a war that will either keep our way of life or change it, depending on who wins. If Islam wins our way of life is lost and all those who have ever fought to maintain our freedom will have died in vain. Let's pay that the American people will wake up and get there heads out of the sand, and open their eyes to who our real enemy is, "Islam." We need to stop the spread of Islam, because it is there goal to convert us all to their way of life. I for one, am dead set against it. I didn't serve 20 years in the Army to give up our FREEDOM. Hooah! |
|
We are fighting al Qaeda in Iraq.
Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia is the catalyst of turmoil in Iraq. Everytime things start to stablize even a bit, al Qaeda goes and kills scores of Shiites. That triggers reprisals by Shiites on Sunnis. Al Qaeda also significant in directing attacks on US forces.
To say they are some other form of al Qaeda is misleading. You are correct they are not the same people, but they are driven by the same ideology and motivations and are in commuication with the remnants of al Qaeda in Pakistan. Same for the movements in Indonesia, the Philippeans, and the UK. They want the US out of Iraq so they can take over territory and use it as an operations base to forment turmoil. They want to provoke a Shiite uprising against the Sunnis (they don't care if Iraqi Sunnis are slaughtered) to provoke an uprising in neighboring Sunni countries.
I am very critical of how this war was faught. But be careful throwing out allegations of faux patriotism. The men and women serving in Iraq and Afghanistan are patriots and heroes. |
|
This is just nonsense born of the general ignorance in our country of a) international affairs and b) Islam. This idea of a war of civilizations is extraordinarily overblown. Our "civilization" is not truly at risk -- not nearly in the way it was when the Nazis were in power or during the Cold War. Take these absurd "car bombs" in London. To call those threats to civilization is like calling the Columbine killers a threat to civilization -- except that the latter were surprisingly efficient and the former were pitiful and amateurish. The only way our civilization is threatened is if WE destroy it in a misguided overreaction to a gang of thugs.
On a related topic -- I am sick of hearing people discuss (as Joe does above) "assimilation" as a key portion of immigration policy. Assimilation into what? What is "American culture"? What is our language? We don't have an official one, and that was by design. Surely, if we have the right to be left alone to our devices regarding guns, regarding property, etc. etc. we have the right to be left alone to our own language. If we don't speak English, it is our business. But look at even centrist polictical debates -- if they reveal anything, it is that there is no such thing as a homogenous American culture. When I hear that, it makes me sweat -- because I know, as an atheist, for example, I don't fit your definition. |
|
|
If the Yon post shows anything, is how al Qaeda is a lot like Communist terrorists that we dealt with the 70s. The ruthless tactics, use of civilians as shields, etc. Not that much different than tactics used Malaysia, Vietnam, Cambodia, or Carlos the Jackal, or for that matter Shining Path gurrillas in the 80s in Peru by so-called secular Marxists. Sure those groups were all different, but they shared a common ideology. Al Qaeda, like the most ruthless of the Marxists, seems eager to bring inncent civilians into the fray. Unfortunately, that tendancy seems unverisal to that group. |
|
You are free to enjoy your Sunday mornings mowing the grass (provided you don't fire up the mower too early), watching FoxNews Sunday, reading the Daily Kos, or even smoking grass if that is what you favor. I do not care. You do not have to go to church to be assimilated. All I ask that you not adopt radical fundamentalist atheism and fire off bombs for some secular cause (say like McVeigh, or the Unibomber, or Marxists).
We do not need to create completely seperate enclaves of individuals. Yes, every immgrant group has essentially done thta initially, but over time these "Little" communities assimilate into the general culture. People tend to intermarry, move around, etc. That is a good thing.
When you have a quasi-illegal group of immigrants who cannot readily do that--that creates problems we should avoid. That is the assimilation I am talking about.
And manfred--we may not have an "official" language, but English is the language used by most people in this country. If you do not speak English you are basically not going to make it here. Teaching extra languages in school is a good thing (as a topic of study), encouraging bi-lingual education is a very bad thing because it delays adoption of the mother tongue, which in this country is English. It is a dis-service to those kids. |
|
...were as inept as the ones in Glasgow and London appear to be, they would not have been capable of pulling off 9/11, the first World Trade Center bombing, the bombing of the USS Cole, the bombing of our Embassy in Africa, the bombing of the Kobar Towers, the bombing of the Marine Barracks in Lebanon, the bombing of the theatre in Moscow, the slaughter at Beslan, the bombing of the wedding in Jordon, the bombing of the trains in Madrid, the 7/7 bombings in London, the bombing of the nightclub in Bali, the bombing of the workers compound in Saudi Arabia, the bombing of the al-Askari mosque, the Baghdad chlorine gas bombings, the Russian apartment bombings, the Passover day massacre, dozens upon dozens of sucide bombings within Israel, the wholesale Katyusha rocket bombardment of Israel -- well, the list extends into hundreds, if not thousands, of attacks.
You pick one particularly inept attempt at terrorism and propose to dismiss the danger of the entire phenomena, as if the dozens of successful, deadly attacks never occurred.
Furthermore, you would have us bury our heads and ignore Iran's frantic attempt to acquire nuclear weapons.
"Ugh" indeed.
|
|
"an enemy that would love nothing more than to see us destroyed"
Regarding the above quote from the Marine. Agreed. I believe the above is a true statement. I believe at least 10% or more of the worldwide Muslim community would LIKE to see the United States wiped off the map.
The problem the Bush administration and others on the conservative side (Hugh/Medved/Prager for example) have is they have not been able to explain how "the enemy" can make this happen.
The problem I have with this statement: "an enemy that would love nothing more than to see us destroyed" is that the only way this can happen is if we continue to be "politically correct." "they will follow us home" is absurd. Can somebody tell me how this happens if we are at all serious about who is in the country?
If we were serious about security at home the US would not be issuing ANY student visas to ANY nations. (no need to get into our illegal alien problems)
Every year we take in about 35,000 student visas from Middle Eastern Nations. That should stop immediately. It will not stop because we as a nation don't have the political will to do it.
Bush DOES have the political will to have American Marines and Solders die going house to house in Baghdad. This administration would never want to take the heat for being politically incorrect and saying we won't take in any students from Muslim countries. That is what completely disgusts me about President Bush. As we saw in the illegal alien debate, he will not offend certain groups even if it is in order to make the USA more secure.
The UK is in the same situation. They have been terrified of being politically incorrect and their citizens have died and more will eventually die because of it.
The moment I heard reports that the US allowed insurgents to take weapons and ammunition into mosques in Iraq I knew we were in trouble. The second we did not immediately destroy the mosque with the insurgents inside I knew we had lost the war.
The US should have taken over the oil fields in Iraq in the North and South and spent the money to get as much oil as possible and control it. By doing that we would then control Iran, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, China and Russia. The Iraqi government would have gotten in line as we would have controlled the prize. Instead, now the Chinese are negotiating deals with corrupt Iraqi politicians for the Iraq oil. In time we will be fighting a war with China and the Chinese will be using oil from Iraq against us.
In World War II tactics mentioned above would have been no brainiers. But at that time we really were fighting as if western civilization was at risk.
This war on terror does not take Marines getting killed with roadside bombs and fighting house to house in Iraq to win. It just takes political courage. The UK and US governments have no political courage at the moment. Unfortunately it will take another attack worse than 9-11 to give us the political courage.
If we are fighting a war in which the entire world hinges on the outcome, why are we pulling punches?
B-Rob - We have problems with the numbers of Doctors in the US because of the AMA. The marketplace doesn't determine how many doctors we have as it should. The number of doctors is a political decision influenced by doctors and the AMA. |
|
|
I hope they read the Quran in that training program...gotta study the enemy. unfortunately, they probably are told RoP and how to fight limited wars. |
|
I am very familar with Egypt. Probably a lot more than you are. Read what I said closer. I am friends with many Egyptian professionals, Muslim and Christian. By the way, according to the folks here at Hugh Hewitt I am a raving liberal, a traitor, and mentally deranged because I like McCain and Graham, so I am not sure you can just label me a "con."
While there are a lot of foreign born doctors, 20% are not Muslim. If you noted I also did not say a blanket ban on Muslim immgration, I said case by case makes sense (and yes professionals are generally an exception--although I would be hesitant to hire an Egyptian-national Muslim engineer to work in a nuclear power plant).
All you need to look long and hard at what happened with Pakistani immigrants in the UK, Indonesian immigrants in the Netherlands, Turkish immigrants in Germany, and Algerians refugees in France to realize there is a problem when a Muslim population gets too big. BTW--while we have a sizable Arab minority in this country, most of them are Christian Arabs (from Lebanon and Egypt). That is a big reason why we have less terrorism here than they do in Europe. There is something wrong with Islam in that regard that makes it susceptable to very anti-social behavior. Islam needs to reform itself. That is not mere bias, that is objective reality that can be proven.
|
|
I hardly dismiss terrorism in general. But your list supports my point. You lump all that stuff together as though it is a unified front. Take a few of your examples: the Moscow theater, the Beslan attack, and the apartment bombings as a start. It is irrational to toss the Chechen seperatists in with alQ, because they have a clear, limited, and, to us, unthreatening objective. In fact, I would say, that is a conflict in which good and bad is not cut and dried. Why are the Chechens terrorists for taking over a theater, but the Russians are not for literally flattening Grozny? How many schools did Putin destroy? How many children did he kill? As for the apartment bombings, those were, to say the least, rather suspicious. Given the Russian governments penchant for cyberterrorism, (see: Estonia, opposition parties), perhaps we should reserve judgment on that.
And, as for the rocket attacks and bombings in Israel, again, we cannot lump alQ, a group that has shifting if not vacuous political objectives with Palestinean groups which have, at least, concrete goals. Please -- before anyone jumps on me -- I am not expressing support for the goals in saying that -- I am merely saying that we cannot create so basic a syllogism as
We are at war with terrorists
X group uses terrorist tactics
We are at war with X group.
Nor can we fall into a similar oversimplification:
X group uses terrorist tactics
alQ uses terrorists tactics
alQ and X group are the same.
And Joe: when have Marxists ever blown up car bombs in America? I think that is strictly the reserve of rightwingers stateside. |
|
The Unibomber (granted he did not use car bombs) was not a right winger.
The Weather Underground were not right wingers.
I am not even sure "right winger" is a correct term for Tim McVeigh. Other than McVeigh, what rash of vehicle bombs are you talking about.
We have been lucky on home grown terrorists, but given the millions who have died in the name of Marx--do you really want to justify this stuff?
And Manfred, I can think of several lone wolf Muslims here in the USA who "lost it" and went out and killed and shot people. |
|
|
You have our admiration, respect, and thanks. Our nation turns its hopeful gaze to you and all that are with you defending this nation: the birth and hope of freedom. |
|
I most certainly would consider McVeigh a rightwinger -- he was partly motivated by Ruby Ridge. How about Eric Rudolph, the Olympic bomber? Another righty.
As for the Weather Underground, I would lump them in with the sinister Glascow bomber. The only people they ever killed were themselves.
The Unibomber was certainly closer to the right (as a fundie libertarian) than to the Left. I think we can agree to put him in his own category. But he was a reactionary luddite of sorts.
Now, as for the Marxists, I don't think pointing out that they are not -- nor have they been -- a serious terrorist threat is justifying anything. It is a fact. In fact, Marxism is explicitly against terrorism (read Trotsky, for example). Lenin's brother was executed in sweeps following a terrorist attack, and he saw the futility of it. Terrorism is not a form of participatory action -- it is substitutionalism -- that is, it calls for a small group to take it upon themselves to act, and it makes the majority passive.
As for the lone wolf Muslims -- well, there have been many "lone wolf" Christian abortion clinic killers -- shall we start watching rightwing Christians with greater suspicion? There have been tens of thousands of white racist terrorists in America -- the KKK, Aryan Brotherhood -- in fact, yesterday, the Aryans had protests across the nation -- shall we start watching white Americans closer? Cause, within our borders, white Christian men are by far the most likely terrorists historically speaking. |
|
|
It's always gratifying and uplifting to hear from the soldiers, airmen, sailors, and Marines who understand what this is all about. It never ceases to amaze me how woefully ignorant, passive, and generally out of touch the majority of Americans are regarding this situation. As a "historical" supporter of President Bush and his initial action he took to confront this threat, I am dismayed at his stance on immigration and the spend of political capitial that is hurting his efforts to address the primary issue - Iraq and global threat of radical Islam. I try to positive and optimistic, but the general apathy and idiocy of most of the country continues to drag me down. Thanks for sharing these types of comments when you get them. I am afraid it's going to take another 9/11 type event to get us back and focused. Too bad... |
|
|
|
You are wrong about abortion killers--they are virtually universally condemned by pro life people. You are wrong about Rudolf (who by the way was a self described atheist) as was McVeigh and the Unibomber. I will give you this much, they are neither clearly right or left, but deranged murders.
Should we show increased attention on Christians. No. Christians don't have a fanatical wing intent on murdering and causing mayhem around the world. You may find Dobson and other Christian leaders annoying and disagree with them, but they are not setting off bombs. There is no comparison. So enjoy your Sunday off, it is late enough now for you to get on with that lawn work, enjoy a glass of a nice adult beverage and contemplate the wonder of that season following the soltice.
Islam ultimately needs to reform its own act, but until that occurs we should be cautious. And by the way, those Muslim fanactics would gladly kill you as some atheist apostate if they got the chance. |
|
|
|
There are Chechens aplenty in Al Qaeda.
We need less of a Doctor Spock approach with these guys, and more along the lines of Henry Tudor.
That would include the weak willed, simpering 'intellectuals' who sell themselves as duty bound to defend the walking breathing column of filth that comprise the jihad.
More important than how Henry Tudor would deal with Al Qaeda, how would he deal with traitors in his own lands? There heads would be mounted on sticks, and rightly so. |
|
Create an eternal war footing. 20 - 30 years.
Then make all other issues and rights subservient to that effort.
Sounds like the reason we're in the pickle we're in, where RINOs are ruling the GOP, trying to pass scamnesty, teaming up with the Dems in promoting the (un)Fairness Doctrine, bemoaning the "power" of talk radio, Bush's AG Gonzales is teaming with Lautenberg to gut the 2nd Amendment with a proposal to deny gun rights to those merely on a "list" of those suspected of terrorist ties without any charges filed nor access to the info nor ability to examine and refute, Giuliani falsely claims anti-terr chops and gets the party brain-dead panting after him in spite of declaring his city a "sanctuary" for illegals while he fights the 2nd Amendment and advocates taxpayer funding for abortions, ad nauseum, ad infinitum.
Yeah, if people don't wake up, what's left of this country's principles at the end won't have been worth fighting for.
|
|
No, this war will only end when tyrants all lie long dead, and humanity has the courage as whole to strangle the impulse to despotism in the cradle. Iraq is but the first scene in the prologue, the play itself has yet to begin.
Neither we or the world will come through this unchanged, whether tha change be for good or ill is up to us. We acquiesce to the small and the frightened we will bequeath to our children despair. We fight the petty and the foolish, then our children will now a world we can scarce dream of.
This is not a war against terror, for terror is only a weapon. This is a war against the tyrant, the despot and the controlling. It is a war against everyone who wishes to run our lives for our good, be he an outsider or vipers that dwell within. This is not about a religion or a culture, but a mindset. This is about the bigotry that holds the common man in contempt, and seeks to make of Humanity a quivering lapdog terrified of the idle twitch of a cat's tail.
This is a war against fear and those who would use it to make us cover in the dark. It is a war against those who despise us, it is a war against those who are convinced we need protection, and that we cannot handle our problems ourselves. It is a war for our humanity, for our right to handle our own affairs as best we can. Our right to make misatkes and fail, then to get up, try again, and keep trying to we've learned enough to get it right. This war is about our right to be human.
We will win and we will lose. We will succeed, and we shall fail. But always and ever we will assert our right to try. As long as we assert that right our enemies will never prevail. |
|
|
|
IF AND ONLY IF they renounce the killing of people who disagree with them as "self-defence" to their "Religion of Peace".
Islam does not mean peace, it means submission. That is, in fact, why it is incompatible with US Citizenship. And it is exactly why they attacked us on 9/11/2001.
Sure, the USA promotes a form of religious freedom. But when was the last time you saw an American strap on a bomb and kill innocent men, women, and children just because someone in a third country drew cartoons about the US President.
Sure, Christians claim their citizenship is in Heaven first, then here; but when was the last time you saw a Christian videotape of a youth minister beheading a non-Christian?
I believe that, in the current climate--and especially in light of the savage attacks on England and Scotland this week--calling Islam a "Religion of Peace" is a dirty, filthy lie from Hell. And sadly, most Americans consider themselves too civilized to require the practitioners of Islam to meet even the same basic standards that they require for EVERYONE ELSE. We police our own--and prosecute them openly when they break the law.
It's time the so-called "moderate" Muslims either took up the "Jihad" and wrested their "Religion of Peace" back from the death cult or started admitting they agree with every rape of children (like Beslan), disemboweling of women (like Fallujah), murder of truck drivers (like Iraq), bombing of barbershops (like Afghanistan, and so on...
Transparency is a good thing. And unless "moderate" Muslims start OPENLY criticizing the violence caused by "extremists", they will be tarred by the same brush and face the same consequences.
BTW, I don't own any firearms, long knives, or even a moderately dangerous pointed stick... WHICH APPARENTLY MAKES ME A TARGET RICH ENVIRONMENT TO THE ISLAMIST COWARDS.
All of the apologists for Muslims can say what they will; but it is ridiculous to call bombs attacking those who go to nightclubs (and first-responders and airport patrons) "self-defense".
It's just cold-blooded murder. |
|
Long live utter ignorance and what Lenin called the "saccharine-sweet sentimentality so characteristic of American intelligentsia."
Listen to Lenin in his own words.
"Let them shoot on the spot every tenth man guilty of idleness."
- V. I. Lenin 1918
"Surely you do not imagine that we shall be victorious without applying the most cruel revolutionary terror?"
- V. I. Lenin 1918
"... carry out merciless mass terror against the kulaks, priests and White Guards; unreliable elements to be locked up in a concentration camp outside the town."
- V. I. Lenin 1918
"When we are reproached for our cruelty, we wonder how people can forget the most elementary Marxism."
- V. I. Lenin 1918
"Russians are too kind, they lack the ability to apply determined methods of revolutionary terror."
- V. I. Lenin 1918
"Dictatorship is rule based directly on force and unrestricted by any laws. The revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat is rule won and maintained through the use of violence by the proletariat against the bourgeoisie, rule that is unrestricted by any laws."
- V. I. Lenin "What to do" 1917
Listen to Karl Marx
"As for slavery, there is no need for me to speak of its bad aspects. The only thing requiring explanation is the good side of slavery. I do not mean indirect slavery, the slavery of proletariat; I mean direct slavery, the slavery of the Blacks in Surinam, in Brazil, in the southern regions of North America. Direct slavery is as much the pivot upon which our present-day industrialism turns as are machinery, credit, etc. … Slavery is therefore an economic category of paramount importance."
- Karl Marx
(Letter to Pavel Vasilyevich Annenkov, December 28, 1846)
"… the very cannibalism of the counterrevolution will convince the nations that there is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terror."
- Karl Marx
("The Victory of the Counter-Revolution in Vienna," Neue Rheinische Zeitung, November 7, 1848)
Leaving aside the theory lets enumerate historical fact:
The Bolshevik imposed famine and terror of 1918.
The 20 million death of Russian collectivization
Stalin's Gulag.
Mao's Cultural Revolution
Pol Pot's killing fields
Poland's genocide
Cuba's UMAP
Shinning Path Peruvian genocide.
American Marxists continue to repeat this utter falsehood expecting their malicious repetition will not be challenged and one day will become the accepted truth.
Marxism is terrorism.
Extract violence out of Marxism and what do you get?
Hillary Clinton?
Terrorism is not an ideolgy, it is a method by which a minority overwhelms and exerts control over a much more numerous population. Gang leaders, who can barely read, understand that simple truth.
Being so stupid as to not understand something so basic requires at least four years of attending an American University.
|
|
|
|
The UK terrorists may have been doctors. Like I said, when it comes to Muslims we really need to think about their immigration to the US long and hard. I am not for a blanket ban, but I am for common sense. http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/07/two-were-doctor.html
The good news is there are plenty of Chinese, Korean, and Indian (Hindus) with excellent math, science, engineering, and software skills to recruit. |
|
Before you go and crown a generation as another "greatest," that generation must crown its efforts with victory, complete, absolute, unquestioned victory.
And that victory is not going to be found within the confines of Iraq.
That victory lies in Riyadh, lies in Tehran, lies in Damascus.
This war has barely begun.
And the manner in which GW has chosen to wage it, it has yet to get really underway.
We're still in the Sitzkreig.
Our MAIN enemies have YET to be engaged.
GW and Condi prefer to engage them sitting around some conference table where nothing serious gets advanced.
This young Marine is to be commended.
But there were many like him in 'Nam.
Over two-thirds of the men who were killed in 'Nam were VOLUNTEERS. They weren't conscripts.
They intended to follow in the paths of glory that their fathers tread. But their hopes were strangled by the Left, by the media, by academia, by Congress.
George Walker Bush has yet to pound the Iranian.
Where in this new generation is there an officer, a non-com, who when the President comes to visit, gets in his face and DEMANDS the right and the privilege to go after the Iranian and settle accounts, once and for all.
When we see that, when we hear of a group of Marines, of troopers who DEMAND the President unleash them on the Iranian, that's when we'll know, know without any doubt, that this generation is MORE THAN THE EQUAL to any previous.
BUT SO LONG as they are content to see their efforts, their sacrifices, their blood used to so little effect by this President, by this administration, by this State Department, ..........................
The soldiers, the Marines, the pilots, the naval aviators, the officer corps, THEY HAVE TO DEMAND the right to avenge the blood of their brethren slain by the Iranian. And that demand has to be non-negotiable.
I'm surprised that they're not going after the Iranians already, with or without orders.
In Korea, there were orders that our pilots were NOT to cross the Yalu.
Hell, those pilots said "f%&k the orders!" They crossed that damn Yalu with impunity, and blasted the enemy out of the skies right over his own damn airport.
That's what the "greatest" generation did. They didn't put up with orders that were patent nonsense.
But this generation, this officer corps, they put up with such nonsense all the time.
Here's a for instance. American officers yield to orders not to drink liquids in front of their Iraqi peers during Ramadan. Americans in Iraq aren't allowed to have a beer on the base.
All nonsense.
All politically correct nonsense.
Yet they stand for it. They put up with it.
What's that tell ya'?
When we hear of men drinking as they should on their bases, when we hear of Special Forces crossing into Iran killing and destroying the enemy, when we hear of our pilots crossing over Iranian airspace delivering ordnance on target, when we hear of our Navy obliterating whatever naval presence the Iranians have, then we'll know that we are in the presence of a generation that harkens back to our nation's founding.
The men are putting up with ridiculous restrictions.
The men are putting up with ridiculous and dangerous restrictions.
The men are allowing themselves to be targeted instead of simply ignoring such restrictions.
This young man is to be commended.
But ultimately, is he going to be another politically correct officer, content to repeat the banalities of this administration, or is he going to insist that the enemy be destroyed. |
|
You say that my list "supports your point" that "these attacks are not a unified front". But that was NOT your point. Your claim was that the terrorists are too inept to worry about.
And now that I've refuted your claim by pointing out the vast list of successful, deadly terrorist attacks, in true liberal/leftist fashion you shift gears to a different claim altogether: the claim that the conflict is "not all black and white" and that perhaps some attacks were justified because of the tactics of the Russians.
This illustrates perfectly the futility of any exchange of views with leftists/liberals. Faced with facts that contradict your claims, you simply drop those claims and switch to different claims. You continue this pattern until your opponent gives up (or recognizes the futility of the discussion). Then, when the subject comes up again, you revert to the prior claims, completely oblivious to the fact that those claims have been proven false.
|
|
Well, I appreciate your concern -- I will be certain to return my Ph.D, since it appears I didn't earn it.
Actually, your post is full of excellent quotations poorly understood. There is a great difference between terrorism as alQ uses it and revolutionary Terror (as originally formulated by, say, Robespierre). Robespierre wrote "the springs of popular government in revolution are at once virtue and terror; virtue, without which terror is fatal; terror, without which virtue is powerless." Clearly, in the case of France and Russia, when, following the revolutions, they were invaded by counter-revolutionaries who hoped to join up with domestic enemies, Terror was viewed as a mass movement to save the revolution. This is very different than individual terror.
As for the slavery quotation, that is taken out of the overall context of Marx's work. If the argument is that Marx "supports" slavery, it is certainly incorrect. He WROTE extensively in American newspapers about the Civil War and supported the North in large part because they would free the slaves. You quote him not morally approving of slavery but justifiably saying that slavery was one of the prerequisites to modern capitalism -- as was imperialism -- without slave labor and the exploitation of what today makes up the 3rd world, Europe could not have accumulated the capital necessary to advance economically. So in both of the quotations you cite, Marx is talking about historical development and necessity -- not morality.
I could play the same game with Jesus: I come not to make peace but with a sword; you will have to leave behind your mothers and fathers; etc. etc. etc. |
|
This his Mike Chertoff's appearance on Fox News Sunday yesterday. Unfortunately this is plastered with running commentary over the top, but this was the only clip available right now. Check out the last minute (it is about five minutes). When Walace asks if the Administration will seek only enforcement (to show they are serious) Chertoff goes wobbly. For those of you against amensty--you will agree with the running commentary. Even me, who supports rational immigration reform, was perplexed and disturbed by Chertoff's answers. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2Ekm61fozg
All I can say is "Brownie" wasn't the only one responsible for the screw ups after Katrina. |
|
Please check the following names of islamo-fascist terrorists and groups with ties to Chechnya:
-Shamil Basayev
-al-Haramein
-Ibn al-Khattab
-Abu al-Walid
-Sheikh Abdul Halim
-Doku Umarov
|
|
My God. I believe my face is green. This war won't be over until al Queda (or whatever their official name is for the hairsplitters on this thread) is completely eradicated. What they did in that village was an evil that can't allowed to exist. What remains to be seen is if the West has the intestinal fortitude to see that through. Sometimes I'm not so sure.
"Freedom Fighters" (per Michael Moore and probably Jimminy Carter as well) my left butt cheek! |
|
Liberal logic:
If you are blown up by the KGB that is OK because?
"Terror was viewed as a mass movement to save the revolution."
If you are blown up by Al Qaeda, not OK, because?
Just because.
So what is your point? Marxist are not terrorist since their terror is "justified" to "save the revolution?"
What about the thousands of loyal Soviet military officers sent to Kolima?
What about the Chinese revolutionaries lynched during Mao's cultural revolution?
What about the Generals confessing to crimes they never committed to save the life of their families?
What about Trotsky's assasination?
What about Beria, Zhinoviev, Khamenev?
The historical fact is that terror once started by Marxists has never stopped. It is just to useful of a device in a society based on an apocalyptic ideology. They just keep changing the descrition of 'enemy of the revolution.'
And the terror continues.
In Cuba, Korea and Viet-Nam the prisons are still full; with people who was born and raised by the "revolution" long after every capitalist had been defeated.
And you dare to repeat this communist excuse?
As for Marx and slavery, my purpose was to exemplify that for Marx, history is not a 'moral process' but a concrete evolutionary development. For Marx and Engels, and Lenin, our objections against slavery are nothing but Petit- bourgeoisie prejudice.
One is only to judge any historic development as it relates to the advent of communism. Therefore Marx brings attention to the 'positive effect' of slavery as it speeds up the Capitalists development in the Americas.
The fate of the slaves is in his view, like the fate of the French is, in your view; collateral damage.
I wished I didn't understand Marxism, 27 years of surviving its miracles has left me with an intimate understanding of its reality.
It also, allows me to see how American Liberals wish to wield that kind of power; to tell us who can drive and who must take the bus, what to eat, what school to go, what to learn what not to learn, not to smoke, what to drink, what radio to listen to, what words are approved and which are not.
That is what Liberals envy the must; Mao's power to make himself into a living God.
That is what Marxism is all about elevating a leader to the stature of God. The Supreme, undisputed, infalible ruler.
That is why Marxism can only survive by terror, any small window of non-terror results in the absolute collapse of the system.
I can see why you "never finished your PhD"
Marxism is a terrible intellectual handicap. |
|
|
|