Posted on 06/24/2002 8:12:31 AM PDT by Edward Watson
But blitzing Germany didn't. As the Strategic Bombing Survey found after the war, it stiffened the resistance of the enemy civilian population and slowed the Allies' ground advance by destroying bridges and strewing the advancing victors' path with rubble. Targeted bombing, a la Afghanistan, is the policy that works. Turning Mecca into a pool of black glass, as some Freepers tirelessly urge, would confirm the sand goblins' propaganda.
And "radical Islam" is, by definition, a small militant fringe, as representative of all of Islam as the Aztlan freaks are representative of the Hispanic community.
However, indiscriminate bombing of civil populations is a great recipe for radicalizing them.
The trick is to fight this war in a way so that (a) the many Muslims out there who DO admire America continue to do so; (b) the bad guys get wasted; and (c) the ones who lean toward the bad guys get the idea that tinkling in Uncle Sam's Wheaties is really stupid.
Its a fact that also happens to be easily lost in the glare of political correctness and the heat of war.
It's a fact that can get lost very easily in the effort to champion a pet political effort. In the 1990s, EVERYTHING was "for the CHILL-ILL-DRRUUUN!" Now, it's for the "War Against Terrorism."
We must never forget who he is and what he stands for.
The latter being a great deal easier than the former.
That's all we need to know to win the war on terrorism.
Ah, if it were truly that easy...
Knowledge, no matter how perfect, is worthless without action based on that knowledge. And getting a nation as politically split as America to recognize one course of action as the proper one is going to be a challenge.
"The present war against us may be about humiliation and a sense of inferiority stemming from Islam’s centuries of eclipse, but it is not about despair."The irony is that these people have humiliated themselves, their religion, and their culture--and proven their inferiority beyond any possible doubt--far more certainly and indelibly than centuries of eclipse could possibly have done and that they have doomed themselves to defeat, further humiliation, and despair.
"This war is not a war we are facing. It is a war we are in. Americans have hardly begun to understand this"George W. Bush understood this immediately.
When the September 11 massacre occurred, he immediately knew exactly what it meant, and he said so.
Intelligent people of the world understood the significance of his immediate grasp of the situation and were able to comprehend the immense depth and breadth and scope of his intellect, clarity, and leadership ability.
This was the single most reassuring thing after the massacre.
Those capable of comprehending the significance and importance of George Bush's reaction knew that the United States would prevail and that the nation was under the leadership of a brilliant and great man.
Those who did not recognize this or who have not yet are of inferior intellict.
In 1945, the Japanese government was looking for a way to surrender that wouldn't give the fire-eaters an excuse for overthrowing the government. The atomic bomb gave them that out. However, what made it a safe means of surrender was its newness; that factor no longer works in our favor. Even then, it was still a very near-run thing--the fire-eaters damn near overran the Imperial Palace the night before Hirohito's speech was broadcast.
The presence or absence of the 20th Air Force's firebombing efforts would not have made a significant difference in this equation. The Japanese government knew the war was lost--the question was whether Japan would commit national suicide like the fire-eaters in the Army wanted.
If we had not bombed the major cities of Germany proper that the Nazi's would have just stopped where they were?
The original draft of the United States Strategic Bombing Survey (the one that the Air Force burned every copy of to prevent embarrassing news from getting out) concluded that the "Mighty Eighth" and RAF Bomber Command's bombing efforts actually lengthened the war, because (a) they didn't destroy vital industrial targets and (b) convinced the German populace that they were equal partners with the Wehrmacht in fighting the war. It stiffened their resolve considerably.
The first reaction of a person after his neighborhood has been bombed is surely one of anger and outrage. Sooner or later though the most basic law of human nature will prevail; self preservation.
The historical record does not support your contention. A policy of deliberately devastating urban areas has been tried on three separate occasions. On two of those occasions, it was manifestly a failure; on the third, it was irrelevant to success.
Some of these people are willing to give their lives for Allah but my money's on most of them wanting to continue existing.
Maybe you would behave like that; the vast majority of people around the world wouldn't.
"Americans have also only begun to understand that if radical Islam is one face of our enemy, the other is the radical left. For two hundred years the radical left has believed in a religion promising a heaven on earth whose end justifies any means.""Liberals" and "Liberalism" are the enabler of America's enemies, of radical Islam, and of the Sept. 11 terrorists.
If it were not for "Liberals" and "Liberalism", America's enemies would pose no threat.
The only real threat to the U.S. comes from within--decadence, in the form of "Liberalism". (This, of course, has nothing to do with the word "liberal", meaning free, freedom-loving, or free-thinking.)
The Left--"Liberalism"--is the real threat to the U.S. The other enemies are opportunists.
Unless "Liberalism" is defeated in the Western Democracies, they will fall.
If "Liberalism" is defeated, America's other enemies will pose no serious threat.
Which, of course, will NEVER happen unless and until we can purge our own government of radical leftists. Does anyone think Tom Daschle would stand by while Dubya expanded the war to include military operations against the international radical left? He would not. He and Hillary and Teddy and every traitor in Congress would stand up and block any such effort. You can be certain of that.
So before we can hope to successfully wage war on Islam's great ally, international communism -- much less defeat Islam itself -- we must get rid of the traitors in our midst. The President, and only the President, is vested with the authority to accomplish this task by calling up the militia and appointing its officers, to do what must be done; namely, secure the homeland from the threat within. It's not such a radical or subversive idea; it's been done in the past . . . Round up your enemies, imprison and/or hang their leaders. After the war, the militia could be disbanded until needed again, perhaps in another two or three hundred years. We have not yet begun to take advantage of the tools the Framers themselves gave us to defend our great country.
Neither ordinary law enforcement, nor the regular military is suited for this job, constrained as they are by Congress, and by law. But the militia is bound by few such constraints.
I do wish our CIC would do this thing, and have called upon him in the past to at least consider it. But it's his call. One hundred percent his call. Until then no one in his right mind, no rogue general, no fiery Senator, no Franklin, no Jefferson, no Hamilton, would dare undertake it without his imprimatur.
The noose is tightening. We are beseiged on all sides and IMO, if the CIC does not make this call, then ultimately, we will most certainly lose. Daschle and his buddies will see to that.
Make the call, Mr. President.
You're sweeping it with a rather broud brush. The article is addressed to "radical Islam". You extended your stated fears by implication to all Muslims.
Actually, it is only we in the West who seem to make the distinction. Among Arabs, those we consider to be "radical Islam" are actually honored as "TRUE MUSLIMS." They are viewed as the vanguard of the faith, and are admired as the only ones with the courage to do the dirty work.
Why do you think the Palestinians were dancing in the streets on 9-11? Why are the citizens of the two most indebted nations to America, the Kuwaitis and Saudis, among the most vocal critics of the United States and most vocal defenders of those who seek your obliteration?
Because they know there's no difference between "radical Islam" and "moderate Islam" - it's merely a Western distinction. After all, who are we to tell them what true Islam is supposed to be? It's bad enough we're just like the Israeli Jews who don't pay attention to Muslims when they repeatedly say their goal is world domination and destruction of Judaism, Christianity and any group that stands in their way. Our weltanshauung of liberal democracy and freedom of expression blinds us to the notion they actually mean what they say and aren't merely grandstanding.
Don't you think Muslims the world over were laughing when non-Muslims such as President Bush tried to tell the world Islam is a peaceful and tolerant religion?
One thing in particular that he pointed out was just how the Nazis laid out exactly what their goals were (such as in Mein Kampf) but in the rush to appease, no one took it at face value. (Interesting to see Buchanan morph into Neville Chamberlain in this respect).
He also pointed out that the whole concept of "Kampf" is similar to "Jihad".
Thanks for the bump.
I'm not contesting those points. But indiscriminate urban bombardment didn't help us accomplish those goals, and actually hindered said accomplishment in the European Theater.
Nobody wants this, but it may take the overwhelming defeat of Islam and the reeducation of Islamic populations to assure peace and liberty in the world and the survival of the Western Democracies.
OK, now you're proposing invading, occupying, and somehow controlling about 1/4th of the Earth's surface, containing 1/5th of the world's population, for their own good.
The best thing that could happen to Muslims would be conversion to Christianity and establishment of Western Civilization world-wide--especially in the Islamic theocracies.
You must be beyond draft age.
(If anyone knows the signs of decadence through bitter experience, it's the Chinese.)
And after the Clinton Administration, the decadence of America's "Liberal" leaders, the decadence of the "Liberal" journalists and their propaganda in the newsmedia, and the closeness of the presidential election--even the American people did not know whether the U.S. was hopelessly decadent and sliding toward destruction or not.
I still think the Chinese leaders were watching to see what the U.S. reaction would be.
The response of the American people and of President George W. Bush was overwhelming.
It overwhelmed the Chinese. They will not consider any adventure against the U.S.
The alliance of Russia and the U.S. further frustrates any ambitions the Chinese may have for world domination and the destruction of the West. China will be forced to cooperate.
Islam will either cooperate and accomodate to the West or will be destroyed.
As for China and the Muslims--Islam is as odious to the Chinese as it is to anyone else.
America will prevail. There are two reasons: (1)The people of the American Heartland, where strength, energy, and the American genius flourish, and (2) President George W. Bush, who is the quintessence of the American Heartland and the embodiment of the American spirit.
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.