Defeatists On Free Republic Who Are Giving Aid and Comfort to the Enemy

January 18 2007 | jveritas

[Jim Noble]

Congress would not have refused, not in mid-September, 2001.

Yes, I've said that many, many times. If the September 16, 2001 speech was a war message he could have had censorship, an Office of War Information, nationalization of critical production facilities, and as many ships and troops as he could imagine.

By now, Anbar province could have been paved with up-armored HUMVEEs 3 deep.

[billbears]

Brits, led by Tony Blair, who, although standing by us through this war, is not nearly as hawkish as we would like

Damn uppity Brits. What do they think they are? A sovereign government that has to answer to its citizenry and not Washington DC?!?

What I am seeing are a lot of people who are either not thinking things through, or are democrat disruptors. No other choice is available.

Yes because if those of us who study history also don't see things just like you do must by definition be either stupid or democrat, of which I am neither. I'm glad if the President was an undergraduate history major. However, and this may come as a shock to the 'faithful', history extends past 1918. Your supposition is based solely on current events and doesn't take into evidence situations or emotions that have played out in the Middle East for hundreds of years. Nor, do I think, does it take into account what the Middle East has done for civilization as a whole in the past 3000 years (else some of 'us' wouldn't be talking about a peoples as practically subhuman ingrates)

Western nations come into the Middle East, make temporary changes that may last for a few decades, but eventually leave. The US may even be able to swing a democracy out of Iraq (although I doubt it will be long term). It has happened before and after we're dead and gone it will happen again. And over time the Middle East always reverts back to its standard. Foot stomping, cheering, and hoo-rahs won't change that. And pointing it out is not treasonous, defeatist, or anything else.

It just is.

I am amazed that people think these decisions are easy, or that the President is stupid, cowardly, or too PC.

The President is working with what he's got, which in reality isn't a lot when you think about it. He can decide what he wants but that's not going to change minds or long held feelings there. And in the end, that's what will win out.

[Steel Wolf]

Yes, I've said that many, many times. If the September 16, 2001 speech was a war message he could have had censorship, an Office of War Information, nationalization of critical production facilities, and as many ships and troops as he could imagine.

That's exactly true. President Bush is 100% accountable for letting America slouch, right when the nation was ready to confront militant Islam head on. America was galvanized and ready for the call to battle.

Now he's upset because the nation seems lulled back to sleep? He was the one singing the "It's a Religion of Peace, so keep shopping, America" lullabye in the first place!

[Rb ver. 2.0]

Place holder.

[Star Traveler]

You said -- "It really IS the most important war since WWII."

You know..., I wasn't around during World War II, but my parents were. Even though both were deaf, they both worked in a bomber plant, helping in the war effort. In fact, my dad left school at the time, to help in the war effort. I also remember one of my former managers at work telling me about the war and rationing and the things that people were doing to help in that effort. Everyone was pitching in, as much as they could.

Now, having said that -- this current war in Iraq may be as important as World War II -- but the President, the Congress and the people *have not* put out anywhere near the amount of dedication and effort towards the war -- as was put out in World War II.

So, that brings up the question. Is it really as important as World War II was? And if so, why doesn't the President fight it like we did in World War II? Why doesn't the Congress? Why aren't the people going into munitions factories and bomber plants to work, and doing all sorts of things for the war effort? Where is the rationing because materials have to be used for the war? How come car plants are not shut down for several year and all the manufacturing being put into the war effort?

Well -- because -- it's *obvious* that it is not as important as World War II -- at least not to the President, not to the Congress and not to the people, at large.

It appears to only be that important to a few posters, it would seem.

Regards,
Star Traveler

P.S. -- To make it as important as World War II -- I would think we need a nuking of a city or two, in the U.S. That should do it. Obviously, 9/11 was not quite enough.

[Jim Noble]

He was the one singing the "It's a Religion of Peace, so keep shopping, America" lullabye

Here's an anecdote for you:

In November 2002 states were ordered to develop an implementation plan to vaccinate their entire population in 10 days agaist smallpox in the event of an attack. This was not just a "paper plan" since facilities had to be designated, incident command specified, etc, etc.

My location needed to designate two vaccination centers. One, a fieldhouse at a college, was easy. The other proved surprisingly difficult.

We finally proposed a large school . No good. Why? "Because we want the children to keep going to school". During a smallpox emergency so severe that we will do the whole population in 10 days. R-i-i-i-g-h-t.

The second choice was the mall. Lots of parking, big area under cover in winter. No good. Why? "We feel it is critical for people to keep shopping. If people stop shopping, the terrorists win". Shopping. During a smallpox emergency so severe that the whole population is being vaccinated. R-i-i-i-g-h-t.

When they talk about "war", it's just a metaphor. Like "war on inflation".

[BurbankKarl]

When a Republican administration and spokesman (Tony Snow) back and grant immunity to an illegal-alien drug dealer caught with over 700 lbs of marijuana over two federal agents, one has to wonder exactly what you are supporting.

>>>Let us all support our President and our brave troops because they need our support now more than ever.

[SJackson]

Turning the tables on talk radio....

Excellent post, reminicent of

Anyone who doubts that the site's rules against hate language only apply to certain special cases can read more at http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b3243b23744.htm. Conservatives, liberals - all people for a wider frame of mind - please register and post at the site.

or

White Nationalist Group Targets Free Republic For Infiltration--How do we penetrate Free Republic?

How Forums Are Being Taken Over By Pro-Arab Groups, Who Flood The Forums With Hate Propaganda

[photodawg]

Fellow Free Republic members, we are fighting the most important war since WW II. We are not fighting for the Iraqis in Iraq but we are fighting for ourselves, for our freedom and for our way of life. Let us all support our President and our brave troops because they need our support now more than ever.


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''


Amen!

[photodawg]

Just a question? Do you think some people are really "deaftist" and want to cut and run like Chuck Hagel? Or are more just disgusted because we are tired of see us put the gloves on to later take them off and we just want to win wars the way they are supposed to be won?

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

What is the effective difference to the enemy if we leave because we think war is wrong and so is America, or if we leave because pacifists won't let us kick some islamist butt?

[photodawg]

Dude, we're still a free people and it's okay to debate what our government's policy should be.

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

Is it OK for senators to go to the enemy and have conversations with them without the blessings of the commander in chief? Is it OK for the opposition to have public votes refuting the policies, decisions, and military commands of the Commander in Chief? Is it OK to poll citizens ad nausea about their opinions on war decisions and publish them on enemy media? Is it OK to publish military tactics, and troop movements to the citizens even though the enemy will also receive this information? The time for the endless second guessing of the commander in Chief is over. This is his ballgame. He has constitutional power to make the military decisions necessary to wage this war. Its up to the citizenry to ask "how can we help?" Not give military advice based on erroneous, irrelevant information from people who know absolutely nothing about waging war.

[april15Bendovr]

I used to like him before he became this big "I support the troops but not the war" type of idiot like half the other weak in knee radio talk show hosts on 96.9 like Mike Barnacle and Imus.

Your right he is unlistenable and if that isn't a real word my motto is you can make a word out of anything by throwing in a hyphen.

I make up so many new words around friends and family that so much that they coined it Chrisisms.

[rmlew]

This was during the time of the Red Scare, comparable to Islam. Wilson was trying to push his idea of governance onto the rest of the world. We were just coming out of a war. Sorry, but I see a number of parallels.
There are no Palmer raids.
Instead of indiscriminately rounding up imprisoning or expelling possible Islamists, we invite them to the White House and have Islamists give sensitivity training to Homeland Security. Instead of worrying about foreigners importing seditious, anarchist, or communist ideals and using this as another reason to reduce immigration, our political elite is hellbent on giving amnesty and citizenship to leftist illegal aliens.

I see no parallels. I wish there were.

[Goreknowshowtocheat]

I think Bush is way over his head. If he can't get a pardon together by now, I certainly think he is clueless. Nothing would firm up his declining popularity more than signing the pardon yesterday. He has no aptitude for political life. He signed McCain Feingold is another indication he has terrible advisors.

[Jim Noble]

Is it OK for the opposition to have public votes refuting the policies, decisions, and military commands of the Commander in Chief?

Of course it is.

What would you propose doing about it that would be consistent with Article I, section 6?

[Radix]

"...history extends past 1918."

Indeed. Prior to 1918 the history of Europe was much like the current circumstances in the Middle East in certain ways.

The continent was comprised of fiefdoms and warring factions for generations. Germany was almost completely "balkanized" until the advent of Bismarck, and that was just since the 19th century.

One might even argue that it was this lack of homogeneity that is in fact what made Western Civilization the dominant force on the planet. You know, competition, breeds excellence, and excellence makes for even more strides. Some call it capitalism. In fact, clearly, many have argued that point in my experiences.

Perhaps the warring factions in Iraq and elsewhere will realize similar progress in the future if they don't end up killing each other first.

As to the Middle East's contributions to modern day.....Ha....the only real thing that they gave was an exodus of the best and brightest of its population.

Your views of the facts appear to be somewhat skewered in my opinion, as are my own. Civilizations have flourished because so many people have over the millenia fled that horrible place.

Maybe the region can be helped, and maybe not, but I ain't interested in having them steal any more of our technologies in order to kill more of us, and perhaps our children.

Either the brutes in the Middle East will be tamed, or we shall go down. I prefer to take it to them with a sword, and swiftly.

[billbears]

Indeed. Prior to 1918 the history of Europe was much like the current circumstances in the Middle East in certain ways.

Yes because representative government didn't exist in Europe until 1918. Oh wait. I forgot about England for over 600 years, Switzerland's confederacy since the 1500s, Sweden since the 1700s, France's attempts over 120 years before. All some form of representative government. Germany's unification in 1871.....Sure. I mean Norway didn't unify until the 13th century!! But Europe was much like the Middle East. In what 'certain ways' do you mean? They both had people?

As to the Middle East's contributions to modern day.....Ha....the only real thing that they gave was an exodus of the best and brightest of its population.

Yes because we all know Islamic scientists contributed nothing, added nothing, or protected nothing of import between the fall of the Roman Empire and the Renaissance. Even though the list is actually quite long they really contributed nothing....Of course.

Maybe the region can be helped, and maybe not, but I ain't interested in having them steal any more of our technologies in order to kill more of us, and perhaps our children. Either the brutes in the Middle East will be tamed, or we shall go down. I prefer to take it to them with a sword, and swiftly

Damn right. Stealing our technologies. Cause we all know only 'muricans have the 'good' technology they can't possibly get them through trade from elsewhere. Them Muslims will act just like us because our system is the 'right' way for everyone. If they don't like it, we'll stick it to them. Hoo-rah!!

[april15Bendovr]

Campus-watch.org is doing a good job keeping an eye on the same ilk.

http://www.campus-watch.org/

[M. Espinola]

...one could argue that civilizationally they are anything but."

Great point.

[M. Espinola]

"is".... Is correct ...it must have been a typo on my part :)