Posted on 04/10/2006 5:52:04 AM PDT by IrishMike
Yep. In the 1800s, there was a widespread belief that Irish were going to blow up the houses and businesses of British-extraction people in the U.S. Ever hear of our first submarine? The Holland? Build by a member of the Fenian society to destroy British ships in American harbors. Maybe not for religious beliefs, but for nationalism---same thing, in some eyes.
Bump to a thread with a lot of truth in it!
I have three sons, all three adults now, and they have children who will never know the freedom and security of an America that is gone. We can thank the morons that we mistakenly elected, thinking that they would actually represent us.
They have failed miserably.
The White House, the Senate and most of the House needs to be fumigated.
While that was the situation in WW-II, you'd be hard pressed to name more than one or two other "all or nothing" wars involving great powers. WW-I didn't end with the unconditional surrender of Germany, although the allies, less the US, acted as if it did. Even in the Civil war, surrender was conditioned on proper treatment and no punishment for those who were said to be "in rebellion".
War is politics by other means, most of the time at least. The objective is get your way, usually that is done by a combination of political and military methods.
bump!!
The south paid for that war for nearly the next 100 years in bad treatment. True there was no punishment as in military tribunals etc though. Both blacks and whites paid for several generations for the Civil War.
But was the north any better than the south as far as their treatment to blacks? Actually no they were not. Evidence? Would not someone who fought with you in war be worthy of the same rights and privileges? Go to an older National Cemetery meaning one that was established during the Civil War and look at the markers. Look for these four letters on grave markers which will be in a segregated section of the cemetery. It will read something like this PVT Joe Smith USCT DOB.... DOD.... These were Union soldiers BTW.
WW1 ended with the threat at that time eliminated. Until the rise of the Nazi's Europe was not a threat to us. As for fighting wars to the terms I mentioned? We fought the Revolution until Britain stopped. We fought again in 1812 until the enemy was either of their own will gone, dead, or unwilling to fight. The Civil War was a knock down drag out fight leaving a massive death toll. It was a fight to unconditional surrender.
When we start letting politics {diplomats} dictate the boundaries of war once it began as the case in Korea, Nam, and Gulf War 1 we had problems. Many consider Gulf War 1 a major win. It was a win in the battle but Saddam ignored terms of surrender and as a result we have what we have today. The United States Government {Leadership} in Gulf War 1 lacked the resolve to remove Saddam from power. Had they ordered such who knows maybe 9/11 would have been averted as it would have been made clear the price.
As such we didn't have terrorist attacks {as we know them today} until good old Jerry Ford said let their be no more covert assassinations of foreign leaders. Look at the list before and after his term. Significant Terrorist Incidents, 1961-2003: A Brief Chronology Our enemies saw weakness and lack of resolve on the part of our elected leaders and acted on it. Today illegals see a lack of resolve in our leaders to enforce our national borders as well as immigration and they are indeed acting on it.
War is politics by other means, most of the time at least. The objective is get your way, usually that is done by a combination of political and military methods.
The only politics that should be considered is the Act of Declaration itself. When Congress does so the politicians namely the diplomats should be silent. If the diplomats can talk to the enemy and obtain desired results then war is not needed. Having diplomats make treaties which ties the hands of soldiers in war is wrong as well. War is a punishment and in a Biblical historical sense a Divine Judgment against a nations people.
How severe a punishment can war be? Look at the battles of one of the greatest military leaders to ever live. His name was Joshua. Note his battle orders given to him. You can not get any more clearer as to what his military objective was. When he followed it they prospered when he didn't they paid.
It needs to be repeated "War is hell." If possible it should be avoided. If entered into it should be fought as an absolute act. How are our leaders supposed to treat the soldiers who serve in war? King David found out when he refused to praise his soldiers for restoring his rule.
But in a definition sense especially by Webster 1828 definition war indeed involves politics as politics sets it's agenda.
POL'ITICS, n. The science of government; that part of ethics which consists in the regulation and government of a nation or state, for the preservation of its safety, peace and prosperity; comprehending the defense of its existence and rights against foreign control or conquest, the augmentation of its strength and resources, and the protection of its citizens in their rights, with the preservation and improvement of their morals. Politics, as a science or an art, is a subject of vast extent and importance.
No doubt about it the GOP version of LBJ's Great Society gradually enacted since 1995 is no less damaging to our nation. Ironic isn't it. Our parents biggest fear and ours for a time was the Cold War and the fact the Communist or Marxist would attack us and take over our nation. While we were looking for missiles, planes, ships, and tanks, they walked right into our schools and achieved their goal without so much as firing a shot to do it by taking over our education system.
They very successfully {indoctrinated} educated the Morons whom we have elected. There are exceptions. My congressman sent me an e-mail today saying he would block any form of amnesty that did not first secure the borders and punish the illegals now here. If he keeps his word I'll vote to reelect him. Not because he is a Republican but because of his stand.
Correction he made no provision for amnesty and called for them to go home and for our borders to be secured then deal with immigration. He does not endorse blanket amnesty to the illegals now here.
Never better said!
PATRIOTS THEY ARE!
How so very true.
1) Secure borders. If that means a fence, so be it. Hell, I'm in favor of a MINE FIELD if that's what it takes.
2) I'm also in favor of letting ANYONE in if they pass a rigorous screen and speak English and make it clear they want to be AMERICANS, and that goes for Arabs too.
3) I'm for reasonable limits on immigrants from all nations. If that means reductions, fine.
4) I'm for deportation, whatever the cost. Start now. If we can't deport 11 million, deport a million and start on the next 10.
What is it they think they know that is not worth sharing with the unwashed?
At wit's end bump.
FGS
bump
Well, I am not for bashing Bush. He's not running, and he won't change his position. So I don't find that at all useful, and most people here who bash Bush really aren't concerned about a solution . . . because he won't be a part of it anyway.
...most people here who bash Bush really aren't concerned about a solution . . . because he won't be a part of it anyway.
He can't be part of the solution and simultaneously promote the causes of the problem, that is true. He is the President and his words and actions matter. He is pushing Congress to send him an amnesty bill to sign. He has chosen not to use his Executive power to secure our borders. He has demeaned American citizens by touting the canard that illegal aliens are "doing the work that Americans won't do." He has denigrated the sovereign right and duty of American citizens to defend home and country by characterizing the MM as "vigilantes" for peacefully assisting landowners and lawful authorities in the apprehension of foreign invaders who consider our border to be illegal. He is the one who has conferenced with Vicente Fox to promote a more open border policy through "Free Trade" agreements. He is the President in office who has ignored Mexico's open challenges to U.S. sovereignty.
I'm sorry if you think my attempt to characterize those actions in a humorous way is offensive to you. IMO it is accurate.
Again, though, he isn't going to be part of the solution, so we are wasting our time talking about HIM when we should be onto those who want to stay in office after 2008.
Medicaid entitlements and CFR. Now there's something to brag about. Wretch!
Bingo! You got it, Irish Mike.
The President still has the responsibility to govern according to the Constitution. Yet, his AG withholds enforcement of immigration law. Here are two important points to ponder:
1) In a post-9/11 world and nation, the duty to secure our borders is even more urgent and absolutely necessary;
2) The Homeland Security bill signed by President Bush in November 2004 mandated 10,000 new Border Patrol agents at 2,000 per year over 5 years. Immediately, the administration reduced that number to 150 for the first year, 2005.
I don't think it's bashing to point out the irresponsibility here. The patriotic Americans who are the most upset with the President are among those who campaigned the hardest for his election in 2000 and 2004, and who voted for him both of those times. He attracted some of the most loyal, passionate supporters of all time. We risked and sacrificed for his presidency.
I really wonder if he is being shielded from our outrage, or just insists that his POV is correct in spite of all evidence to the contrary.
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.