Posted on 01/21/2005 3:21:06 PM PST by goldstategop
Rush absolutely rocks. Thank you again, sir.
Bump!
Somoza and the Shah were both pro Western and merited our support. Musharraf and the CCP are anti Western and we are foolish to continue pretending they are not.
No time to do it here, but I can make the case that the military all out war on Communism should have commenced no later than 1945 (even earlier would have been better) and been completed by 1950. If anything, we did not do enough. Even after the events of 1989 - 1991, Communism still festers.
RE: They are inherently flawed, because they are premised upon the same fantasies that drove the great Totalitarian movements of the last Century.
I have to challenge you here. Totalitarianism seeks true world conquest and direct control of all man. Totalitarianism also does not believe in the spread of the rule of law, but instead, subscribes to the rather lawless notion that what must be spread is not law, but, acceleration of some supposed "current of history" or "natural law." If anything, Islamism, as well as Communism and Naziism, embody this, whereas, our form of government and beliefs, even at their most globalist, socialist flawed level, still embody the rule of law and the self evidently liberal basis of English Common Law. These are important distinctions.
Now this is a great concern. Indeed, if we are to win this war, we must also tighten our borders. Borders, language, culture.
Wasn't Japan a democracy before the military started running things?
bookmark
Nor is my purpose to convict anyone of anything, at this point. My purpose is to challenge what I consider seriously flawed judgment. And the Messianic references go to the President's overly dramatic speech. The policy is flawed, and so in my opinion is the rhetoric advanced to support it.
As for North Korea, my point was not that the President does not recognize the danger there; but rather he does not give it quite the priority he should. Whereas, for whatever reason, he gives excess priority to Iraq.
And if I was prosecuting anyone, I would have to excuse you from the Jury. But relax, I am not. This is more about ideas than crime. (Although when Dean Rusk pursued this policy (1961 to 1969), he crossed some lines for which he should have been indicted, in my opinion.)
William Flax
You also invite lasting bitterness for no conceivable gain--no realistically conceivable gain.
We need the traditional cultural leaders of all of the countries in the world, to help us track down our actual enemies. When we attack traditional cultures, we simply help the Terrorists recruit, as well as undermine two centuries of good will, and legitimate moral authority--all part of the legacy of the Founding Fathers.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
Well my first reaction was since it was led by an "emperor" in collaboration with an imperial court, I'm not sure you would call it a classic democracy.
I did a quick google and it is an interesting discussion
on the one hand there is a constitution in effect
http://www.utexas.edu/coc/journalism/Js363/hiroshima.htm
on the other there was significant unopposed power:
The previous Japanese constitution, the Meiji Constitution, was written in 1889. The 1889 constitution was named after the emperor Meiji - the grandfather of the then reigning emperor, Hirohito. The parliamentary government, or Diet, came under the emperor. Members of the Diet were both appointed from wealthy families and elected by male voters who paid high taxes.
Since very few Japanese owned land or had wealth, few people participated in the government prior to World War II. A feudal system existed in Japan before 1945. Land was leased and not owned by farmers, women had no rights over property and marriage, voting rights belonged to the wealthy few, and there was little freedom of the press.
Building on many of the elements in the United States Constitution, MacArthur and a small staff drew up a new constitution for Japan. Some of the elements found in the new Japanese constitution include: a Bill of Rights; equal rights, freedom of religion; political parties; abolish war; abolish feudalism; governmental power resides in the people, not the emperor, end discrimination of women, religion, races; free enterprise; freedom of speech; right of minimum standard of living; right to unions or collective bargaining.
One of the elements in the new constitution specifically gives governmental power to the people. The Meiji constitution explicitly stated that the emperor held supreme power over Japan because as a descendant of the sun goddess, the emperor was semi-devine
http://www.baylink.org/lessons/mm8-occ-japan_r.html and
http://www3.la.psu.edu/textbooks/172/Rest%20of%20the%20Story.htm
I think in balance you can say that Japan was not a democracy prior to the US imposing a new constitution in 1946.
I didn't hear Rush at all today, but I can tell you that the Democrats have been slowly getting more and more furious and at-a-loss, because their big issue of IDEALISM
is being taken away from them. They believe they are the rightful heirs of fearless idealism, even though every time and place they've tried to spread it has proven to be a failure, because the "analysis" supporting it was never grounded in a realistic appraisal of any situation.
Bush's Administration has put Idealism into ACTION, and though we don't really know short or long term effects, even the possibility that it will be successful has gotten the Dems into a red-faced apopleptic fit.
"a red-faced apopleptic fit" I might add, that they share with their more violent brothers, the "insurgents", who also don't want to see freedom and democracy take a foothold there.
"
And that's the problem, unless you're a fan of the French Revolution and the Jacobins it spawned.
I once suggested something of that sort to my father, a regular Army officer who served in the 7th Army from North Africa to the end of the war. I'm afraid your idea appeals to young arm chair theorists rather than the men who fought the war. They were tired, their equipment was tired, and they all were being prepared for a massive invasion of the Japanese home islands. To suggest an all out attack on Russia would have probably resulted in mutiny on a grand scale. Not to mention the problem with logisitics, supply lines, weather, and other mundane but important problems.
You'll notice my non-partisan tone----I agree, that's the problem....I am VERY ambiguous about what I call this "apocalyptic idealism"---it is simply TOO BIG a project
with too many bloody X factors to carry off without unlimited global mayhem following in its wake. Commentators just now, in the aftermath of the inauguration speech, are noticing the "Wilsonian" complexion of Bush's plans, but they're still not bringing any critical analysis to it. Santayana, where are you??
I meant to say "very AMBIVALENT" , not ambiguous....
The current rage in the White House seems to run more to Billington's
Fire in the Minds of Men.
Those conditions were a result of the policies of FDR. As much as he is lauded for "helping to win WW2" he made many, many serious errors. Had the US started war preparations during the early 1930s, then the conditions you noted would not have been nearly as bad as they were. I try to avoid rationalizing outcomes. I would rather think of, had the objective been "X" what would have been required to attain it. Taking this same philosophy into the future can then help to avoid failure.
Agree.
Everything else seems distant, and pales, while watching our very own country being literally over run by millions entering illegally, making our very own citizenship close to being pointless. With some estimates now ranging up to 25 million in our country illegally. The lawlessness here at home is epic, and the lack of government action is far beyond disturbing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.