Posted on 04/08/2007 5:24:27 AM PDT by Tom D.
The British have become “Wusses”!I’m not sure that a great deal os us haven’t done likewise!!When I heard a reporter questioning one of the surviving students(V.Tech),he said”Nobody Played The Hero”!!!In other words,they all were led to slaughter without resistance!!!!
He is INDEED!Have you ever heard him when he(on occasion)has subbed for El Rushbo?
The way I see it, both the US and UK are kind of in a box. We both have to appease, and not respond to the Iranians, who are giving both our countries every reason for us to attack them, that is, to a reasonable mind. But the explosive Muslim street does not and will not see it that way, and that’s what Iran is counting on.
It’s like eyeing a nutcase in a bar waving a bottle by the neck in your face. Maybe you could take him on - and you would win - but you may get cut pretty bad too.
Iran is that nutcase. The leadership WANTS war - but they want us to start it - in the eyes of the muslim world. Then - they can “legitimately” call for global jihad against infidels everywhere - leading to the apocalyptic rise of the Mahdi. Maybe the pragmatists in Tehran don’t believe in all that, but are going along with it because they need an external enemy to distract attention from their increasingly unpopular regime. In any case, they seem to have a shared strategy - poke and provoke the West.
There isn’t any doubt we can pulverize them - but Iran would then hit us where we are virtually defenseless - the homefront. A killer virus released by one or more of their sleeper cells could kill millions and bring the nation to its knees. Of course - we’d go nuclear on Iran and Syria - and maybe others that joined with them - but who wants any part of this scenario - other than the nutcases in Tehran?
Rationality may have reigned in the Soviets - but what do you do with a regime that has an apocalyptic death wish? That’s why I think we’re seeing the appeasement. But it can’t last forever.
“If you are as conservative as you say you are (and btw, nice website), surely you will agree that anything coming out of CNN ought to be viewed with great skepticism. The transcript you have provided provides quotes from McFarlane, Snow, etc., but the majority of that transcript is nothing but editorializing by John Roberts and painting the picture CNN wants to put on display.
I have noted that since the U.K./Iran debacle this past week, there is a growing tendency on the part of some individuals to try and paint Ronald Reagan as somehow being negligent or less than engaged in the early years of the Islamofascist war on the United States, and yet the fact remains that Iran released our hostages the day Reagan was sworn in, and that wasn’t because they thought he was nice guy and easy to deal with, far from it. Reagan actually sank the better part of the Iranian navy as mentioned by poster ‘ithinkBIG’ above, so while the U.S. actions following the Marines barracks bombing of ‘83 can be debated ad infinitum, the fact is that Reagan remained engaged in the Middle East, the U.S. did not leave Israel to fend for itself, when it came to the Straits of Hormuz, we kept them open and Iran paid the price for messing with us in that area, we bombed the Libyan bozo Gaddafi, and this all took place under the shadow of the continuing Soviet threat in the waning years of the Cold War.
I note also, that McFarlane (quoted extensively in this CNN ‘report’) was only Reagan’s National Security Advisor for the better part of two years, ‘83 to ‘85. I have to also question just how stable McFarlane is, as he tried to off himself with valium in ‘87 claiming he ‘failed his country’ due to the Iran-Contra nonsense. That isn’t rational behavior, and I think it means that his statements ought to be viewed with at least a slight degree of skepticism. How many of his recollections are accurate? Who can say? I can’t, and neither can you. I’m not saying McFarlane is the bad guy, far from it but it would be absolutely SOP for a yellow journalistic enterprise like CNN to take advantage of someone who had been through that kind of trauma, both personally and professionally. I think the entire CNN ‘product’ is questionable.
If someone wants to put the blame on somebody for the current jihad that the West is facing, they need look no further than the traitor Jimmy Carter who set the whole thing in motion starting with the betrayal of the Shah.
Reagan responded to the threat of terrorism more than appropriately in the context of fighting (and winning) a larger conflict, i.e., the Cold War against the USSR. George H.W. Bush might have achieved 91 percent approval ratings, the liberation of Kuwait, and all that goes with it, but he royally screwed up when he let Saddam remain in power, and history will validate that.
The eight year vacation from history that defined the Clinton/Gore years allowed our enemies to prepare for, and ramp up their plans to attack America and begin the current global jihad, and just as Nero fiddled while Rome burned, Clinton played his sexophone while his administration treated terrorism as a ‘law enforcement’ issue. That is what led us to Mogadishu, to embassy bombings, to the U.S.S. Cole, and finally to 9/11. The blame for that can be squarely laid on the shoulders of Clinton & Company.
As for Reagan’s response to the Marine Barracks bombing in ‘83, he most definitely did not ‘cut and run’ as some latter day analysts want to portray it. There is a reason for their desire to portray Reagan that way: by doing so, their friendly ‘Rat cowards and buffoons look a bit less negligent.
Were mistakes made during the Reagan Administration? Of course there were, no Administration is fault free. But these convenient post-mortems of the Reagan years while we are engaged in the current war on Islamofascism serve only one purpose, to demoralize conservatives and boost the fortunes of the left.
Sorry pal, I’m not buying into it.”
Those were all good historic facts and perspectives by the way. Bush scared the crap out of Iran like Reagan did at first. Unlike Reagan, Bush believed too much in being ‘compassionate’ and this hurt his decision making about Fallujah, Al Sadr, Al Malaki etc. Being truly compassionate is telling your enemies to stop doing wrong or face the consequences, minimizing civilian casualties as best as possible then destroying their will to fight entirely. Once they have surrendered THEN you can go back to being compassionate, like we did in WWII or with Libya.
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.