Frightening to Ponder Whether Terrorists Will Defeat Democracy (Are you ready for some Islam?)

The Calgary Sun ^ | January 4, 2004 | Paul Jackson

[quidnunc]

I'm thinking the unthinkable as the New Year opens.

That is, that world terrorism may win its war against the western democracies and our civilization will be replaced by barbarianism.

It's a tough thought — a very tough thought.

But remember, Imperial Rome wasn't destroyed by a superior race, but by nomadic German tribes, living in caves.

Yet how can such a militarily-strong and advanced civilization such as we have today lose against disparate wild-eyed fanatics and rogue nations?

Ponder Vietnam: Here we had one of the world's two superpowers, the United States of America, going up against hit-and-run bandits.

The U.S.A. lost.

With all its conventional military might, it couldn't beat the guerrilla squads of Ho Chi Minh.

True, the U.S. never went full throttle against Communist North Vietnam.

The bureaucrats in Washington refused to let the military pull out all the stops.

Had Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater been elected in 1964, Hanoi would have been a pile of dust in days and the war over. But average Americans didn't have the stomach for that.

Ponder Kenya:

In the 1950s, the British were driven out of Kenya by a bunch of terrorists called the Mau-Mau, led by Jomo Kenyatta.

The Brits had military superiority in Kenya — traditional military superiority — but couldn't tackle Kenyatta's own hit-and-run guerrilla squads. Exhausted, the Brits capitulated.

Ponder Yugoslavia: In the Second World War, Yugoslav partisans held down several German divisions for years by constant and unrelenting harassment. Some historians feel if those divisions had been freed up the outcome of the war might have been far different.

Ponder Israel:

Every single day it is under attack from its internal enemies.

A husband and wife go off to work in the morning and don't know if they'll return home at night.

When their children go off to school in the morning, they don't know if they will return in the afternoon.

-snip-

[quidnunc]

Quote:

In Vietnam, Kenya, Yugoslavia and today's Israel, the regimes' opponents all had one "value" in common — they didn't care if they died in their quest.

The governing powers had one "moral" value in common, they weren't prepared to sacrifice their men and women no matter what.

Something to brood over in the wee, small hours of the night when you can't sleep.

[Support Free Republic]

Rank	Location	Receipts	Donors/Avg		Freepers/Avg		Monthlies
28	Louisiana	120.00	2	60.00	178	0.67	38.00	5

Thanks for donating to Free Republic!

Move your locale up the leaderboard!

[CROSSHIGHWAYMAN]

Rome didn't have an air force, smart bombs, plasma tvs or a tradition of freedom.

Rome was the Soviet Union of that time.

[TaxPayer2000]

Many great American statesmen have made the mistake of referring to our form of government as a Democracy. It was never intended to be a Democracy, but a democratic Republic. There are major differences. Still, ask any 100 people you meet on the street or any 100 students in America’s schools what form of government we have and you will likely get 100 responses of, “a Democracy.”

James Madison’s Federalist Paper #10 discusses the issue of Democracies. In it he states: “Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives, as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of Government, have erroneously supposed, that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions and their passions.” We can see from this that Mr. Madison would never have advocated a pure Democracy for his new nation.

In Federalist Paper #14 Madison wrote: “The true distinction between these forms...is, that in a Democracy, the people meet and exercise the government in person; in a Republic they assemble and administer it by their representatives and agents. A Democracy consequently will be confined to a small spot. A Republic may be extended over a large region.”

Madison continues in Federalist Paper #14 to describe a Republic thusly: “The effect [of having a Republic over a Democracy] (is to) enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice, will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good, than if pronounced by the people themselves convened for the purpose.”

Essentially, a Democratic Republic is a limited government with enumerated powers (as specified in a Constitution) which is administered by persons elected by the people. These officials hold office at the pleasure of the electorate and must therefore strive to govern in a manner that is acceptable to the majority of voters.

The system breaks down when the electorate is misled by a biased news media or when special interests are able to manipulate the electoral process or, perhaps most significant, when the electorate no longer understands the working of the government and fails to exercise its proper oversight. For the system to function as our Founding Fathers envisioned it is necessary that the people understand the proper role of government as spelled out in our Constitution. It is not the function of government to ensure equality of outcomes. Any attempt to do so will eventually devolve into tyranny.

Concerning this tendency, in 1792, James Madison wrote in regards to property rights: “Government is instituted to protect property of every sort....This being the end of government....That is NOT a just government...nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has...is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest.”

The socialistic nature of our present-day government would have been abhorrent to Madison and the other Founding Fathers. Government’s function should not be to level the people to an equal mediocrity, but to ensure a level playing field upon which added effort or superior talent results in increased reward. That is the philosophy that built America and made it great.

[pabianice]

"Jitterbug", by Mike McQuay (1984)

"It is the near future and Saudi Arabia has been building domes throughout the world which contain the "Jitterbug" virus. Exposure leads to sterility, lunacy and death. In 2005 the virus is released in Australia and spreads to Southeast Asia. A demand is made that all countries succumb to the new Arab world. Over a series of years large areas, even whole continents, are declared uninhabitable until just a few places remain unaffected by the virus.

"The story takes place in the United States where Olson, a drifter, meets Gret, a callgirl of sorts. They go to Orleans and become involved in a plot to overthrow the Arab masters who rule the world. Through scheming with other Arabs who want to change the status quo, they manage to defeat the prince of the city and escape to start over again.

"The explanation above cannot begin to describe what an experience this novel turned out to be. Along with the story are appendices, a dictionary of terms (mostly Muslim) and a timeline detailing the Saudi takeover of the world. In light of current problems, this book seems especially apt." -- Reader, Lake Oswegao, OR

"This is one of the best books I've read. This book has it all, Although mainly a si-fi there is a heavey dose of fantasy and some horror. The world has changed due to sickness. The Arab's now rule the world and our story takes place in America in future Arab ruled cities. Most of America is waste land and there is a huge underground movement to over through the current rulers. There are mutant sports, asskicking body aromor, action and adventure abound. Mike McQuay left us too soon but he gave us some great books." -- Reader, Easton, MA

[Radix]

Radical Islamic nations, too, are bent on getting nuclear weapons, and they will surely use them when the time comes.

A gloomy thought indeed.

[RightlySo]

As Napoleon once said, "I'll take 10 troops with the will to fight over 50 cannons". What he said has always been true-- the will to fight on the battlefield (as well as the political will back home) is far, far more important than weapons and technology.

I think the author of this article makes some valid points. Worth thinking about. We have to keep morale in the ranks high, we have to be willing to fight dirty with the terrorists, we have to be willing to suffer some deaths among us to defeat them, and we can't let the liberals hamper our political will to fight.

On a somewaht tangential note, my God, can you imagine what would happen to all the hard work we've accomplished if a Democrat is elected in 2008? Think if Hillary were POTUS. (shaking head now)

I'll sincerely pray for otherwise.

[RonHolzwarth]

from the posted article: "Back in Israel, Netanyahu wondered what would happen if Islamic terrorism hit the U.S. or Canada. Could our people and our societies have the fortitude to survive such day-by-day threats to our lives. Suicide bombers in our shopping malls, restaurants, bars and buses."

Well, dammit, what in the hell do we have all those nuclear bombs for, then?

If it does come down to "Suicide bombers in our shopping malls, restaurants, bars and buses," I think it will be time to obliterate the societies from which they come.

In fact, it will be a moral imperative.

Later, when the radioactivity subsides, we can go get the oil or whatever we need from the ruins of the Middle East.

[pacpam]

I'm sending this to my Congressman to remind him of what is apparently being ignored..............Madison continues in Federalist Paper #14 to describe a Republic thusly: “The effect [of having a Republic over a Democracy] (is to) enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice, will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good, than if pronounced by the people themselves convened for the purpose.” ...........

[Prime Choice]

The governing powers had one "moral" value in common, they weren't prepared to sacrifice their men and women no matter what.

Something to brood over in the wee, small hours of the night when you can't sleep.

Victory in this struggle will not go to the better armed; it will go to whichever side is most committed to see the war through to its end.

Every night I pray that side is ours.

[SauronOfMordor]

Rome didn't have an air force, smart bombs, plasma tvs or a tradition of freedom.

The early Roman Republic was a model for the US in the 1700's.

What happened to the Roman Republic was the wealthy got very wealthy. They found that it was easier to import cheap foreign labor (slaves) to do the work of their farms and industry than to employ Roman citizens. The citizens increasingly relied on government benefits in order to get by, and would vote for anybody who promised them better benefits.

The Romans allowed uncontrolled immigration into their territory by the barbarians, and allowed the barbarians into their Army. When a need came to fight, the barbarians in the Roman Army had no inclination to fight against their own kinsmen, and the taxpayers of Rome had no inclination to raise the money to defeat the barbarians, figuring the problem wouldn't affect them in their own lifetimes.

The rest is history. Don't think the parallels aren't here

[Gatún(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)]

Ref post #4. Great post!!! Thank you very much.

[RightlySo]

"Victory in this struggle will not go to the better armed; it will go to whichever side is most committed to see the war through to its end."

I agree 100%. Pray for Bush to continue to be forthright, do the right thing, and brave in his decisions.

Pray for a Republican in 2008. I can't think of a single Democrat that is willing to fight for our nation's sovereignty-- they prefer a utopian and myopic one world vision where America isn't good enough for the world. The world, truly, isn't good enough for America!

And I can't think of a single Democrat that is willing to strike terrorists preemptively.

[CROSSHIGHWAYMAN]

As Napoleon once said, "I'll take 10 troops with the will to fight over 50 cannons".

He certainly had better luck finding fighting Frenchmen then than today.lol

[cpdiii]

In Vietnam, Kenya, Yugoslavia and today's Israel, the regimes' opponents all had one "value" in common — they didn't care if they died in their quest.

In each of the above conflicts there was outside support for the rebel forces. Support from sovereign nations. Without that support the rebellions would have collapsed. Just as the rebellion in the United States would have failed without the help of the (I hate to say it) the French.

The rebel forces will not last in Iraq for several reasons.
1. We are slowing drying up their financial resources.
2. They only have support from a minority of the Sunni which are a minority in Iraq.
3. After George Bush is reelected in the Fall Iran and Syria will be afraid to support the rebels and terrorists as they do not want to be hit by George Bush (if he decided to wait until the election).
4. If we have any major terrorist incident in this country before the election, instead of decreasing support for President Bush the people will demand instant and crushing retaliation against nations that are supporting terrorist. This could be massive strategic bombing or tactical nukes to dig their leaders out of their holes. Why do you think we have a new program in the works to perfect small tactical nukes to attack hardened sites?

[Senormechanico]

"On a somewaht tangential note, my God, can you imagine what would happen to all the hard work we've accomplished if a Democrat is elected in 2008? Think if Hillary were POTUS."

If that happens, I am selling everything, and sailing to the tropics (again) even leaving the wife behind if she won't go.
Remember the movie "On the Beach"?

Life's short, sail fast.

[FairWitness]

But remember, Imperial Rome wasn't destroyed by a superior race, but by nomadic German tribes, living in caves.

I didn't know Germany had that many caves.

[Radix]

"never intended to be a Democracy, but a democratic Republic."

 

 

Actually, it is a Constitutional Republic. The Public Education System in this country is a disgrace. They do not teach, they indoctrinate. 

 

 

 

Universal education is the most corroding and disintegrating poison that liberalism has ever invented for its own destruction."

 

When an opponent declares, "I will not come over to your side," I calmly say, "Your child belongs to us already...What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing else but this new community."

 

"The broad masses of a population are more amenable to the appeal of rhetoric than to any other force."

 

"What luck for rulers, that men do not think."

 

                                                                                                                            Adolph Hitler; Mein Kampf

[claudiustg]

---But remember, Imperial Rome wasn't destroyed by a superior race, but by nomadic German tribes, living in caves.---

The German tribes were not nomadic, nor did they live in caves. They were a competing civilization. They were not as wealthy or organized as the Romans, but had a high birthrate and the vigor of youth.

Sound like someone we know?

[CROSSHIGHWAYMAN]

The rest is history. Don't think the parallels aren't here

I'll admit you make a solid argument.

The main difference is the access to wealth.

Even our "slaves" may attain wealth in a short time with luck and hard work.

Dynamic capitalism will outpace socialism, thus refreshing each generation.

[Mamzelle]

re: Many great American statesmen have made the mistake of referring to our form of government as a Democracy. It was never intended to be a Democracy, but a democratic Republic. There are major differences. Still, ask any 100 people you meet on the street or any 100 students in America’s schools what form of government we have and you will likely get 100 responses of, “a Democracy.” )))

I've read this many times, and it still comes across as nitpicky and hair-splitty. Democracy is known in comparison to tyrannies--as a common-sense set of ideas rather than some diagnosis proferred by an undergrad in political science 101...

Votes, elections, representation, individual rights--these are associations with democracy. The associations are meaningful enough for a sensible person to say that we live in a democracy.

Shorthand? Maybe. But good enough for government work.

[Paul C. Jesup]

Frightening to Ponder Whether Terrorists Will Defeat Democracy

The terrorist, no. The politicans, media, lawyers, lobbiests and regulators, yes absolutely.

[Mears]

If Hillary is elected can I come with you?

[luvbach1]

With all its conventional military might, it couldn't beat the guerrilla squads of Ho Chi Minh.

The above is not really true. The fact is we did not have the WILL to direct our "conventional military might" to the military targets that would have won the war. We know what some of them were: bombing the dikes and the harbor at Hanoi, among other targets. Never mind the reasons we didn't do this, there is little doubt the North could have been brought to its knees and the war won if the will to do it had ben present. You make a valid point overall. The US and the West could lose to barbarians if we do not have the WILL to take the fight to the enemy until it is won.

[luvbach1]

The War on Terror is not a battle of weaponry but of wills.

[A Simple Soldier]

The main article has the historical quality of a B-/C+ 10th grade term paper. Full of historical cliches (e.g., Ho Chi Mihn's hit and run bandits) and millimeter deep analysis.

[technochick99]

Never mind the reasons we didn't do this

Well, what are the reasons? I know that our main problem was morale at home, and I worry about the constant drumbeat of negativity coming from our media now.

[Jack Black]

If it does come down to "Suicide bombers in our shopping malls, restaurants, bars and buses," I think it will be time to obliterate the societies from which they come.

But the nature of terrorism is that is those within who do the damage. It may be that most of the 9/11 perps were from Saudi Arabia, but they were living here. Nuking S.A. might help in the long run (especially the vivid example of the utter destruction of the Kabbla) but still you have all these Islamic societies and stuff here.

I think it would be interesting. I see three scenarios possible. One is the government acts quickly and deports hundreds of thousands of Arabs, and perhaps other illegals along with them. The second, and more likely is that they do not, and continue to mouth "religion of peace" nonsense as the death toll continues to rise. This could lead to vigilante justice where loosely organized mobs simply destroy every Moslem person and edifice in the country (imagine the fall out from a successful suitcase nuke detonation in mid-town Manhattan with millions dead). Of course many innocent will die in this. The government would again have to choose to either focus on the terrorist supporting communities or the vigilantes and this could, if mis-handled lead to full on Civil War as large segments of the population become unruly and unwilling to listen to the PC gibberish flowing from the senators from New York, Mass, Cali and other liberal hell holes. It could, easily, get regional. And with that, I'll ping Archy!

[marron]

If recent events have taught us anything it should be that the Viet Nam War itself could have been won.

Victory would have required a military and civilian leadership that was determined to defeat the enemy, it required a leadership that was capable of articulating to the public and to the soldiers the purpose for which they fought.

It would have required the will to place our supposed "allies" on notice that we would sink their ships if they entered Haiphong harbor. And then do so.

It required that we discard a strategy of stalemate and static defense for one that targeted the leadership of the north. We should have fought the war at the gates of Hanoi, rather than fighting it at the gates of Saigon.

Electing men to office who are not moral and who do not understand the cause for which they send other men to die has fatal consequences. Electing men who see war as a sideshow and a distraction from other more important matters, buys you defeat and a damaged generation.

[2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten]

Nice analysis.

[Jimmy Valentine]

We don't need to brood about sacrificing our men. We need to take off all of the gloves and sacrifice a whole boatload more of the terrorists and their sympathizers, enablers, and fundraisers...............and we can start here in the good old USA.

Regards,

[Blake#1]

This is another tangental point. Fundamental Muslims and Fundamental Christians are together in opposition to "Hollywood" style smut. The Christians that came ashore on Plymouth Rock have more in common with Muslims than the do with pornographers. This will be the common building block that will "keep the peace" for Earth.

[templar]

If it does come down to "Suicide bombers in our shopping malls, restaurants, bars and buses," I think it will be time to obliterate the societies from which they come.

Inner city America? That's where the future of terrorism in America lies. Nukes probably wouldn't be a real popular solution for this, but I'm sure it would get some support.

[TheAngryClam]

You're confusing Roman slavery with the slavery practiced in American history. Totally different types.

Roman slaves were not simply field hands, but also the vast bulk of the skilled labor of the Empire- many of the civil servants, essentially all of the educators, a large portion of commercial management, etc.

They can, and did with quite a bit of regularity, become very personally wealthy and powerful. This was because the Romans culturally treated the slaves as part of the household, and not as a group somehow apart (of course, made easier by the fact that the Romans were willing to enslave anyone, with the exception of other Roman citizens apart from abandoned children, and thus didn't have the convenient racial divide that made the distinction between slave and free in America more visible).

Further, the Romans had a very strong tradition of manumission, which was more than simply saying "you're free, now get out." Freed slaves remained a part of the family, and were even entitled to adopt the nomen of their former owner- for example, Marcus Tullius Cicero's slave Tiro, when he was freed, became Marcus Tullius Tiro. Furthermore, freed slaves were entitled to continued financial support from their former owners.

A common example of how this all worked was say that random Roman patrician owned a shipping business. Every dock warehouse he owned at the various ports was managed by one of his slaves. Later, he decides to free one of them. When he does, he would often give them the dock warehouse, or one of the trading ships, and operate the business with them as a partner rather than a slave.

This was quite common, and for the average urban slave, wealth was not as far out of reach as one might imagine from hearing the word "slave."

Nor were the field laborer slaves much worse off than the other peasants of the time, who would, under the later Empire, end up as the same status as the slaves- serfs bound to the land. There wasn't a lot of opportunity for either class of people, so your comparison isn't correct.

[puroresu]

We have overwhelming superiority in military technology, and we will win virtually any straightforward military battle against Islamic armies.

But what worries me is that much of the West has lost its will to fight, and lost its faith in its own civilization.

When I was a kid growing up in the sixties, people still talked a lot about Pearl Harbor. A quarter of a century had passed, but people who lived through that time still remembered it. I had an uncle who fought in WW II who wouldn't buy anything made in Japan, because he was still mad at them circa 1967.

That may sound excessive today, but it was also a sign of our society's health. People were furious at Japan for attacking us, and it took a long time for them to forget it. This was an attitude that permeated society with very few exceptions.

Compare that to 9-11. Most Freepers are still furious over it, but that is not a feeling that is nearly universal in our society. Within two weeks of the 9-11 terrorist attacks, some of my acquaintances were ready to forget about it. The attitude was, "Hey, it was an awful thing, and we should safeguard against it happening again, but we need to put it behind us and move on". Forty-something percent of the population will likely vote for Howard Dean, a white flag waver in the war on terror, in the 2004 election.

I sense a country divided, not a universal anger over 9-11 and a commitment by 95% of the population to do something about it. Even President Bush felt it necessary to visit a Mosque after 9-11 to declare Islam a religion of peace. Can you imagine FDR, even though a Democrat, visiting a Shinto shrine on 12/8/41?

Decades of moral relativism, multi-culturalism, and political correctness have taken their toll. Millions of kids have graduated high school, having been indoctrinated in the idea that Western Civilization is no better than any other, and in fact may be worse since it's racist, sexist, homophobic, imperialist, etc. Phony interpretations of the Constitution have driven our faith and religious heritage from the public square. Open immigration has flooded our nation with millions of third worlders who, unlike prior waves of newcomers, have not been encouraged to adopt American culture and ideals. They instead remain loyal to their homeland.

The same thing is occurring in Europe, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Roughly half of the population in most Western nations no longer value their own society and its heritage. As Islamic and other third world populations grow due to immigration and high birth rates, it will become harder and harder for our "liberal", secularized, "tolerant" post-Christian populations to maintain the backbone needed to fight.

As of today, I think a slight majority of the American population is willing to fight, and Bush will be returned to office because of it. But if a 9-11 type attack had hit America in 1955, before the sixties era began our downward slide, we would have been 95% behind a war against the terrorists and their cells.

At the current rate of degeneration, in a couple of decades, a majority of our population will have no interest in defending our nation or its "racist, sexist, homophobic, Euro-centric" heritage.

[First_Salute]

Bump.

[First_Salute]

Take some legal advice: Ask the Admin Moderator to yank your reply, fast; you are probably not too aware of it, but you are encouraging the commission of felonius assault, which encouragement is in itself, a felony.

[MegaSilver]

It was never intended to be a Democracy, but a democratic Republic.

A better way to put it might be, "democratic, Constitutional Republic."

[A. Pole]

Couple more WTC style attacks and we will give up our freedoms in the name of safety. We are few buildings away from it.

[LoneRangerMassachusetts]

Had Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater been elected in 1964, Hanoi would have been a pile of dust in days and the war over. But average Americans didn't have the stomach for that.

This is naive thinking considering the prevailing wisdom at the time was to fight wars of proxy to in the West's contest with the Soviet Block rather than risk all out nuclear war. How soon many forget the gloom that prevailed over a potential nuclear war.

[MegaSilver]

Excellent, excellent, excellent post. Expand on it a bit, and you could make a near perfect argument for closed national borders, in my humble opinion. I'd like to see the lefties shoot that one down.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"But remember, Imperial Rome wasn't destroyed by a superior race, but by nomadic German tribes, living in caves."

Rome lives today in our modern system of government...the Senate, rights of citizens, etc.

What about those barbarians?

Where are they now?

Rome survived, they did not.

[ATOMIC_PUNK]

Take some legal advice: Ask the Admin Moderator to yank your reply, fast; you are probably not too aware of it, but you are encouraging the commission of felonious assault, which encouragement is in itself, a felony.

So its a felony to vote?

I hear its a felony to believe in the Constitution as well

This article could be construed as the same so you better have your post pulled so you wont be mixed in with people who believe in such Constitutional things as free speech and protecting our country !

A flyer from our own FBI says were terrorists to be on the lookout for people like us were terrorists in our own country because of our beleifs

[Luis Gonzalez]

Your post is unacceptable.