One of the most oft-heard criticisms of what the whole world is watching in Iraq is that the American superpower is "going it alone."
Going it alone? I guess so. America has been "going it alone" since about 1776. Or maybe it was 1492.
I am going to make an attemppt to get Henniger's work posted regularly. He is a personal favorite of mine. Whenever I get on that train in the morning and see that "Wonder Land" column it puts me in a good mood. Sort of like how Sean Hannity gives the time on the radio with "In the Greatest City in The World, it's 8:00!!!"
Thanks for the ping. Good to read.
What Henninger describes is the real reason the French and the Germans hate us. They know that as strong as our military is, it is a mere shadow of our real strength, which is our economy. Or to put it more accurately - our real strength is our way of life. The French and the Germans know that they can't change their economy to match ours. Their people will not accept changing their system where you either have to work hard and make yourself and the people you work with a success -- or get fired. The French and the Germans hate that sort of competition because they know they can't match it and, thus, are doomed to fall ever further behind in the sphere of economic relations. That is why they hate us and that is why they are trying to entangle us in things like the Kyoto Treaty so that they can drag our economy down to their level. There is a big problem though with their strategy. They can only drag us down if we let them.
This was posted recently by DoughtyOne (writing about an article by George Soros "The bubble of American supremacy" I couldn't say it better myself.
In the last 100 years, can anyone provide better examples of governments as benefactors, than the United States and Great Britain?
We've seen the German model. We've seen the Soviet Russian model. We've seen the Japanese, Korean, Chinese and Vietnamese models. Which one of these models was better than the United States, more fit to resolve issues around the planet, without subjegating it's citizens? We've seen
European, Central and South American, Asian, Australian and African models. None surpass the United States.
The United Nations is often touted as the natural planetary governing body. Hooey! The United Nations can't point to one single victory in it's existance. Cyprus, Lebanon, Bosnia, Kosovo, a number of places in Africa... the list is extensive. Where the United Nations has raised it's ugly
head to get involved, it is still involved. Perhaps someone else can think of an instance of success. I can't. Not only that it fails to rail on terrorism, coddles terrorist leaders and won't even denounce present slavery or white genocide in Africa. The United Nations is one of the most
prominant frauds ever perpetrated on this planet's citizens.
We liberated the Pacific. We helped liberate Europe and Northern Africa. We have rebuilt more nations that most nations have ever conquered. We turned governments from pariah states without war in some instances. Nicaragua was one. There was an insurgency that removed the communist government there, but they did the heavy lifting by election, once Nicaragua realized a communist nation wasn't going to fly without free elections in this hemisphere. Then there's the USSR.
We have helped liberate France, Germany Belgium, Italy, a number of other states in western Europe, a number of Eastern European states, a number of former Soviet States, Japan, the Pillipeans, South Korea, Parts of China and other places. We even liberated the citizens of Soviet
Russia. What did we take for ourselves. What lands did we demand to remain property of the United States? What riches did we denude the conquered countries of?
Soros mentions the willingness of constituent citizens to live under a certain system. He addressed Afghanistan and misses the one right under his fat ass. For all the carping the United States is doing a job that no other nation or agency on the planet can or will do. If even one
middle east state develops the bomb outside of Israel, Isreal will go first and we will be next.
My question to Mr. Soros is this. Mr. Soros, do you like living in a free nation? Do you consent to be government by a free Republic? I ask because if you do want to be governed by a free Republic, you better recognize that that free Republic must do certain things to maintain itself as
a free Republic.
Our President George W. Bush isn't perfect. His supporters and I go round and round from time to time, when I disagree with him. When it comes to national defense, I'm going to be right in there supporting him unless he's going to dismantle it. I would urge Mr. Soros, the intellectual
wanna bees from the media and the entertainment industry to do a little self-assessment. Do you want a free Republic or don't you?
You see folks, if we can't back Bush and our free Republic now, when the hell will we be able to? I don't expect Bush to get a free pass all the time. I'm going to be here to make sure he doesn't get one from time to time. But when it comes to terrorism, the prevention of third world nations
and terrorists to obtain the bomb and other WMDs, or the attempt by China to use proxy states to take down our free Republic, I'm not only going to be directly behind Bush, I'm going to be pushing.
FROM
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/863291/posts