He he...
Posted on 08/26/2007 4:56:14 AM PDT by Clive
-
Like our esteemed Democrat leaders, Speaker "Lavender Moonbeam" and Senator "Dances with Cash"
Senator “Dances with Cash”....you mean General Betray-us?
Excellent reading. Thanks for posting.
War put an end to the governmental systems that were specifically based on these ideologies. The underlying ideologies of Fascism and Soviet Communism still thrive in American liberal fever swamps. If you don't believe me, spend a week over at DU or the DailyKos. Of course, you won't come back the same person.
Good point, and true.
He he...
The answer is simple:
1.) Liberals detest the military and everyone in it.
2.) By and large, liberals control the curricula in schools, both public and private at all levels.
3.) Liberals control what is placed in textbooks, and which textbooks are chosen for schools.
You are running along he right track; just look up for the bigger picture.
Once you admit that there are bad governments out there that need to be contained (the Soviet Union immediately after its formation) or destroyed (Germany 1940) you have destroyed the bedrock of unrestrained liberalism - “everything is relative”. A hard value judgment with a black or white answer is a threat to liberalism.
Besides, once a student makes his first value judgment on something, and is proven right (had his judgment confirmed by others0 what is to prevent him from doing so again? And again? And so on until his value judgments start affecting the professor’s life style.
A study of WAR forces the student to make a yes/no value judgment. And, once he learns that skill, the entire liberal establishment has lost his support (vote) and money (vote).
.
3 Lifesaving Heroes of the 1st Major Battle for Freedom of the Vietnam War in 1965:
.
BRUCE CRANDALL, Medal of Honor Recipient
http://www.ArmchairGeneral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=48215
.
RICK RESCORLA. 9/11 Lifesaver
http://www.RickRescorla.com/The%20Statue.htm
http://www.ArmchairGeneral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=24361
.
HAL G. MOORE, an American Warrior Supreme
http://www.ArmchairGeneral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=14752
.
Signed:..”ALOHA RONNIE” Guyer / An In-person Witness
(Battle of IA DRANG-1965 Photos)
http://www.lzxray.com/guyer_set1.htm
http://www.lzxray.com/guyer_set2.htm
http://www.lzxray.com/guyer_set3.htm
http://www.lzxray.com/guyer_collection.htm
“That never stops any of them from being armchair generals who think they are better qualified to run a war than the professional soldiers. Infuriating.”
There is lack of intellectual honesty on both sides of the Iraq debate.
The “armchair generals” that you rail against are all taxpayers and voters who put necessary limits on military ventures.
If you cannot see that there are legitimate and reasonable arguments both for and against the Iraq war and it’s present prosecution, then not only are you also an ‘armchair general’, you are also a poor student of miltary history.
I don’t think anyone really expects Iraqi democracy to survive the departure of American troops. Do you?
.
In April 2003
President BUSH promised in writing to bring...
Freedom’s return to:
Communist Vietnam
Communist North Korea
Communist Cuba
..as well as..
Freedom’s arrival to:
All the countries of the Middle East
...as America’s own best self-protection against futue terrorist attacks here at home.
.
In this new time of war
in a new century
with our own Freedom
directly at stake
right here at home..
...NOTHING less will do.
.
Civilians, regardless of their tax payer status, have no business running a war. Our Congress is tasked with running domestic affairs. Most have never served and show disdain for our military yet they always seem to know how to run things better than the people who do it for a living.
And after three trips to Iraq (including Desert Storm) I am far from an armchair general. I know there are problems with how things have run over there, I have witnessed them first hand. But it just irks me when civilians who have never had a round come within inches (or fractions thereof) of their head seem to think they are better qualified than we are to conduct a war.
Studyin wars also developers an understanding of what caused them and how to avoid those pitfalls.
Liberals prefer to study things that have no productive use.
This is a subset of the discussion, “Why teach history?”, which can be a pretty complex argument. However, some of the finer points:
History can be taught by way of organizations, such as empires and nations; events, such as wars; cultures, by their uniqueness; about individuals, in their milieu; as progression or evolution of ideas and technologies over time; by statistics; with respect to its recording and analysis, that is, by the records people wrote and their interpretations of the same; for the interesting trivia and phenomena contained within; and by combinations of the above.
While often taught from the past to the present, it can also be taught from the present to the past, to create links with what went on before—effects and causes. It can also be used to connect with current events and extrapolate the future.
Importantly, it must always be remembered that it is a deep and abiding principle of socialism that history is socialism’s greatest enemy; that it must be distorted and eventually discarded in the socialist state. In the short term, they actively make efforts to corrupt it, and to discourage its scholarly study. Witness the “Greater Soviet Encyclopedia.”
So where does this leave war? Unfortunately in the same bucket as history overall. This is because that history, among all school subjects, is most likely to raise arguments. There is little in history that cannot agitate students, their parents, administrators, and the public at large. And such irritation are to be avoided, if a teacher is to avoid being fired.
So before you can teach about war, you must explain to the students the philosophy of war. Good reasons, and not so good reasons, that nations come into conflict. War must also be described as “diplomacy by other means” (and vice-versa), which leads to including diplomacy with war as a subject.
Wars must also be taught with respect to what they achieved, not just in tactical and strategic goals, but also indirectly.
But the list goes on and on. In the final analysis, teaching history and war matters most to students in the way it will affect their future, both in their daily lives, and during wars of the future.
Our goals must be to create and maintain a force so powerful and respected that any adversary would think long and hard to challenge that fighting force.
As a culture we must also be very careful in the manners with which we choose to use that military might. Our men and women are not toy soldiers to be placed upon a shelf until needed to conduct actions when our diplomacy is so failed or inept that the weakness of our hand necessitates its use.
Thank you for your service.
Having spent so much time there, will you please indulge the last part of my previous post:
Do you think democracy in Iraq will survive the departure of American troops?
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.