Skip to comments.When Would George Washington Have Quit?
Posted on 11/01/2005 2:39:37 PM PST by PApatriot1
On Wednesday night, October 26th, college students across the nation participated in various anti-war protests or, as many of them referred to it, vigils commemorating the 2,000 military deaths in Iraq. These so called vigils included much more than candles and Kumbaya.
(Excerpt) Read more at humaneventsonline.com ...
In a word -- NEVER! Washington and the other patriots would NEVER have quit. For one thing, they were very much aware that to surrender would mean the deaths of all of them and the forfeiture of what remaining property their families still held.
"Ate belts and roasted candles at Valley Forge" ping.
Of course, they still treat returning soldiers with contempt (for being warmongers) or pity (for misguided idiots and/or bribed into war) upon return.
I remember coming back to a liberal campus GWI.
They are all losers that would be the first ones in the concentration camps if the muslims had their way.
If the world wide Islamic Terrorist movement has it way, this could be our fate also.
Had he commanded the resources and enough willing stooges to continue dropping airplanes out of the sky throughout the month of September 2001, at what point would he have said, "Enough killing" ? At what point would he have set the threshold and said, "We've killed too many children and women" ? 3,000 was clearly not enough as Flight 93 had clearly been intended to take out many more Americans than it did. 30,000? 300,000? I think the case can be made quite easily that given his past statements, had Osama had the means, he would not have stopped until all 300 million Americans had been eliminated from the face of the earth.
If this does not adequately clarify the importance of seeing through the WOT, nothing else will.
Maybe when the first shovel full of frozen dirt landed on his cold, dead face!
What we need to realize is that the threats we face today are no less, and likely greater, than those our ancestors faced, in 1776.
Would we ever have even qualified to shine the boots, of those men?
"The pacifist actually refuses to defend what defends him; his country. In the final analysis this is the most basic immoral position." General George S. Patton
Washington was treated even worse by political rivals and newspapers than W. He was strong enough to endure the criticism but he did not let it influence his decisions. Everything George did set a precedent for President and he was not about to clamp down on the press or succumb to pressure.
very inspiring post.
That is a great read. I wish he would continue the story through the rest of the war. His volume on
Adams is also excellent.
Unlike our unelected Judiciary, or elected for life Representatives.
I agree. But McCollough is so through in his research and cross checking of sources that he would be at that chore for decades. I believe he spent nearly 10 years just on his John Adams masterpiece, but it is the definitive biography.
War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The ugliest is the man who thinks nothing is worth fighting and dying for and lets men better and braver than himself protect him." - John Stuart Mill, 1859
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.