When was the last time you thought about sin? Probably not recently because I think very few people think about sin on a regular basis and certainly not outside of church. I rather think that few people ever consider sin, theirs or others, much less what the ramifications would be in a world without sin. Of course sin does exist, at least for those people who believe in God, but in case you haven’t noticed, there are a lot of people around who don’t believe in God. These atheists have probably always been around but they seem to be growing in number and influence. Dr. Benjamin Wiker addressed how atheists view humanity and the ramifications of Godlessness in his book “Ten Books That Screwed Up The World”. In this book Dr Wiker deconstructs a total of 16 books which view humanity as animals without moral boundaries and the enormous harm these books have done as a result.
The first book he considers is “The Prince” by Machiavelli, who views those who seek power very objectively and without regard to whether or not his recommended actions are immoral. Machiavelli makes no judgments, he is simply offering a pragmatic description of how to achieve and keep power. But when implemented his actions lead to deceit, duplicity, lies, and even murder. In effect Machiavelli describes a world without any moral boundaries – a world where God is not a consideration. But this leads to the question “Does God Exist?” Descartes and his “Discourse on Method” starts by questioning everything and arrives at his famous conclusion “ I think, therefore I am”. Dr Wiker points out the essential flaw here is that Descartes could just as easily have said “I smell therefore I am”. In effect Descartes has ceased to view himself or man as being in the image of God and through rational analysis he concludes he exists – independently of God.
From this starting point Dr Wiker begins to build his case regarding sin, morality, materialism, and immorality through the writings of Hobbes, Rousseau, Darwin, Hitler, et al. These people all share a common thread, which is the denial of sin through the denial of God or that any moral boundary should constrain their actions. Hobbes and Rousseau build a case for materialism and the natural state of man which they see as unbounded by anything other than pleasure and pain, a world in which good and evil does not exist. If man is simply an animal that through chance happens to be more advanced that other animals, then there are no limits on actions other than those that are self-imposed through self preservation but not through any false concept of right or wrong outside of pain or pleasure. All of these proto-atheists were speaking in philosophical terms, but it was Darwin and his books that moved the discussion onto a pseudo-scientific foundation.
Darwin’s book “Origin of Species” was actually not scientific at all but merely a set of observations and some conclusions that described environmental adaptation from which others have concluded the evolution of species. But it was his companion work “The Descent of Man” that described man as an animal descended from apes. This is the work that describes evolution but it also describes man as being composed of what could be “sub-species” with European Caucasians as being the supreme evolutionary result with other races as inferior. This work of Darwin’s is virtually ignored today and when the Darwinians like Richard Dawkins are challenged regarding Darwin’s “science” the response is a facile “he was a product of his time”. This may well be true but it does not excuse his lack of scientific method or demonstrable proof of what he has concluded. Nevertheless it was Darwin’s junk science that was seized upon by Sanger and Hitler to justify their efforts to improve the human race by eliminating “defectives”.
By the 1920”s it had been well established through belief and repetition that man was an animal, descended from lower animal forms, unbounded by morality but in need of improvement. This improvement would eventually be accomplished via evolution, but with the advances of “science” it was now possible to purge the human race of those deemed sub-species, defectives, or undesirables. This idea was first postulated by Margret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood. It was she who thought parents should be selected and individuals deemed as inferior or undesirable should be sterilized so they could not reproduce. Notice that this is not voluntary but directed by the state and there is no mention of moral boundaries, God, or sin. Her objective is to improve the human race much like you would selectively breed animals. Naturally her position and support of eugenics led inexorably to Hitler’s decision to eliminate all undesirables from the human reproductive chain. That this led to mass murder was not considered by him in moral terms – it was simply applying science to the problem of racial improvement—i.e. moving toward the superior Caucasian as described by Darwin and Nietzsche.
Following the failure of the eugenics movement, the atheists moved in a different direction but still relying on junk science. Alfred Kinsey decided that his views of human behavior were sound and employed an astounding level of junk science to demonstrate that every weird and perverse sexual preference he had was totally normal and since man was an animal there was no moral constraint that could be applied and thus no sin.
Today the atheists continue their assault on morality and sin as they deny the very existence of God. In their eyes man is an animal, descended form lower life forms, with no purpose, no future, and not obligated to recognize any moral constraint or boundary. I think the time has long past for mankind to look critically at the murders and damage done by the atheists and their denial of sin and God.
Showing posts with label Hitler. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hitler. Show all posts
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Monday, August 31, 2009
President Obama and Chancellor Hitler
From the outset of the Obama Presidential Campaign I was fascinated by the cheering crowds of people. There were hundreds or even thousands of people cheering a man about whom they knew virtually nothing. He was black and that seemed to be the only criteria for the cheering, the opportunity to show that we white folks weren’t racially prejudiced. Here was a man who promised change without ever actually specifying what that change would be or even should be. The crowds were filled with emotion but never seemed to know precisely what they were cheering for or about. However, I remembered the old newsreels showing Hitler speaking before crowds of cheering thousands, people who were cheering a man about whom they knew little but a man who was promising change. Of course things in Germany at the time were very dire, unemployment was high, the economy was in collapse, and national debt was high due to reparations and Hitler was preaching change – changes for the better. When I first raised the issue that people seemed to be cheering Obama with virtually no knowledge of what they were cheering for other than he was black, I was roundly castigated. I was accused of calling Obama –Hitler when in fact all I did was to point out the crowds cheering Obama were eerily like the crowds cheering Hitler.
Since my initial observation Obama has been elected President apparently on the basis of emotion – much like Hitler – because Obama had nothing to recommend him for the job as President. He was an unknown with no experience in any area normally associated with a President. But now that he has assumed the reins of power, perhaps it is time to once again review the parallels between Adolph Hitler and Barack Obama.
The economic conditions in Germany after World War I were horrible. Hitler promised to put people back to work and to restore the economy. Hitler was not very specific regarding what he intended to do but he seemed to know who to blame. The economic conditions in America had suffered the collapse of the High Tech Bubble and had barely recovered when the financial markets collapsed creating chaos and rising unemployment. Obama was never very clear how he intended to change things or improve the economy but he knew he could blame the preceding administration and did and continues to do so even though it is increasingly clear his policies – founded in ideology and not experience – have failed.
Adolf Hitler honed his oratory skills and became a superb speaker. It isn’t necessary that you understand what Hitler is saying because just watching him speak is mesmerizing. Obama isn’t quite as good of as speaker as Hitler was but he is very polished. Of course everything he says in read from a teleprompter so perhaps it is more accurate to call Obama an accomplished reader than a speaker.
Adolf Hitler surrounded himself with thugs and Jew haters. Obama has surrounded himself with tax evaders, Jew haters, and thugs (SEISU).
Adolf Hitler and the Nazis blamed the Jews for their problems. The Obama administration blames everything on the preceding administration and some like Rev Wright blame the Jews and certainly the administration has turned away from Israel.
Adolf Hitler spoke of change and a new Germany. Obama speaks of change and a new America. What goes unsaid is that the New America will be a Socialist America. Hitler was head of the National Socialist Party.
The Nazis burned books to eradicate records and contrary thoughts. Obama hasn’t gone so far as to burn books but his administration attempts to suppress any dissent. While Hitler used his Brown Shirts to bully and intimidate any who opposed him, Obama uses ACORN and the SEISU thugs to bully and intimidate any opposition. This has been very apparent at the Town Hall Meetings where citizens have been intimidated and called Nazi’s and un-American for exercising their rights of free speech.
Hitler was opposed to communism while Obama surrounds himself with people like Bill Ayers and Van Jones who are not only un-American but avowed Marxists. But just as Hitler gradually established one man rule we see Obama doing the same thing as he appoints one Czar after another answerable only to him. This President represents the greatest threat to America, to capitalism, and individual freedom since the British left.
Since my initial observation Obama has been elected President apparently on the basis of emotion – much like Hitler – because Obama had nothing to recommend him for the job as President. He was an unknown with no experience in any area normally associated with a President. But now that he has assumed the reins of power, perhaps it is time to once again review the parallels between Adolph Hitler and Barack Obama.
The economic conditions in Germany after World War I were horrible. Hitler promised to put people back to work and to restore the economy. Hitler was not very specific regarding what he intended to do but he seemed to know who to blame. The economic conditions in America had suffered the collapse of the High Tech Bubble and had barely recovered when the financial markets collapsed creating chaos and rising unemployment. Obama was never very clear how he intended to change things or improve the economy but he knew he could blame the preceding administration and did and continues to do so even though it is increasingly clear his policies – founded in ideology and not experience – have failed.
Adolf Hitler honed his oratory skills and became a superb speaker. It isn’t necessary that you understand what Hitler is saying because just watching him speak is mesmerizing. Obama isn’t quite as good of as speaker as Hitler was but he is very polished. Of course everything he says in read from a teleprompter so perhaps it is more accurate to call Obama an accomplished reader than a speaker.
Adolf Hitler surrounded himself with thugs and Jew haters. Obama has surrounded himself with tax evaders, Jew haters, and thugs (SEISU).
Adolf Hitler and the Nazis blamed the Jews for their problems. The Obama administration blames everything on the preceding administration and some like Rev Wright blame the Jews and certainly the administration has turned away from Israel.
Adolf Hitler spoke of change and a new Germany. Obama speaks of change and a new America. What goes unsaid is that the New America will be a Socialist America. Hitler was head of the National Socialist Party.
The Nazis burned books to eradicate records and contrary thoughts. Obama hasn’t gone so far as to burn books but his administration attempts to suppress any dissent. While Hitler used his Brown Shirts to bully and intimidate any who opposed him, Obama uses ACORN and the SEISU thugs to bully and intimidate any opposition. This has been very apparent at the Town Hall Meetings where citizens have been intimidated and called Nazi’s and un-American for exercising their rights of free speech.
Hitler was opposed to communism while Obama surrounds himself with people like Bill Ayers and Van Jones who are not only un-American but avowed Marxists. But just as Hitler gradually established one man rule we see Obama doing the same thing as he appoints one Czar after another answerable only to him. This President represents the greatest threat to America, to capitalism, and individual freedom since the British left.
Tuesday, October 25, 2005
On The War On Terror
The number of US casualties in Iraq is approaching 2000 so the usual anti-war, anti-Bush crowd are beating their breasts once again and demanding a withdrawal or at the very least a time table for a withdrawal. Then we have the extreme left who call the entire operation an invasion and occupation of a “peaceful” country. Peaceful apparently meaning one that has not attacked the United States or at least not attacked us in a manner that can be directly traced to them. The potential for attack and the probability that they have already attacked us doesn’t count. The murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent and unarmed people doesn’t count. These are the lineal descendants of those same people in the 1930’s who were convinced that if no one bothered Hitler he wouldn’t bother them. Austria didn’t matter – it was mostly German anyway. Czechoslovakia didn’t matter because it was largely German – or at least Hitler claimed it was. Of course Poland was a little different but then the Poles did take some land that once belonged to Germany so they just got what they deserved. Murdering Jews – well who knows if that was actually happening – besides the Jews were persecuted for generations so what else was new? The bottom line for the “peace at any price” crowd was “don’t do anything and Hitler will let us alone”. Of course he simply invaded Norway, Denmark, Belgium, and Holland, even though they protested they were neutral. To people like Hitler there was no such thing as neutrality and the same is true today of the war on terror. The Muslims do not have a nation state so they cannot be attacked but they strike at the West from shelters protected by “neutral” or certainly “non-belligerent” nation states – like Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Libya, and Syria. Yet the current crop of “pacifiers” are treading the same old path of do nothing, concede, give in, pacify, and above all “understand” their position and they will stop.
Niccolo Machiavelli addressed this issue of avoiding war and I offer these two observations:
“..there is no avoiding war; it can only be postponed to the advantage of others”
“...one must never allow disorder to continue so as to escape a war. Anyhow one does not escape; the war is merely postponed to one’s disadvantage.”
Every opportunity to actually stop Hitler was thwarted by the idea that war could be avoided by concessions and understanding. The same is true of the current war on terror. We are treated almost daily to the left (especially from the universities) who are insisting that the War of Terror is nothing other than a power grab for oil and was initiated solely for that purpose. That the Muslims have every right to attack the United States for our “arrogance” and “cultural destruction”. Although many of these people are highly educated they seem to lack any true grasp of history or foundation for the current situation.
Following the death of Mohammed Islam spread very rapidly – mostly through conquest and very quickly Islam dominated all of North Africa, Spain, all of the Middle East, Albania, Armenia, and all of southern Russia, much of India, and Mongolia. Of course this was not one vast political entity but it certainly was a loosely knit empire. Then the Crusaders came and their brutality helped to unify the fragments into an Empire under Saladin. This Empire existed under the Ottomans until 1917 when it was broken up by the French and British who in their inimical colonial was proceeded to divide the spoils and create these fake nation states that now dot Africa and the Middle East.
This European Arrogance gave birth to the Muslim Brotherhood which came into existence in the 1920’s as a militant secret society. The Brotherhood isn’t quite as secret as it once was but it still exists and it has been directly responsible for much of the unrest and terrorism. It was the Brotherhood who assassinated Anwar Sadat as well as other “moderate” Muslim leaders. While this group started as a political movement it has evolved into a militant religious movement bent on restoring the Muslim Empire and destroying the West in the process.
This is a real war and it is the worst kind because it is a religious war on one side and not even recognized as a war on the other much less a religious war. This war has been in process for almost a hundred years and has the probability of going on for another fifty years. This war can only be shortened by taking direct and forceful action which is what the current administration is doing. To stop this and to attempt to go back to a policy of concession and understanding will not stop the war, it will simply prolong it. Machiavelli has been proved right over and over again and it is time some of these people who think any armed force is uncivilized wake up before it is too late.
Niccolo Machiavelli addressed this issue of avoiding war and I offer these two observations:
“..there is no avoiding war; it can only be postponed to the advantage of others”
“...one must never allow disorder to continue so as to escape a war. Anyhow one does not escape; the war is merely postponed to one’s disadvantage.”
Every opportunity to actually stop Hitler was thwarted by the idea that war could be avoided by concessions and understanding. The same is true of the current war on terror. We are treated almost daily to the left (especially from the universities) who are insisting that the War of Terror is nothing other than a power grab for oil and was initiated solely for that purpose. That the Muslims have every right to attack the United States for our “arrogance” and “cultural destruction”. Although many of these people are highly educated they seem to lack any true grasp of history or foundation for the current situation.
Following the death of Mohammed Islam spread very rapidly – mostly through conquest and very quickly Islam dominated all of North Africa, Spain, all of the Middle East, Albania, Armenia, and all of southern Russia, much of India, and Mongolia. Of course this was not one vast political entity but it certainly was a loosely knit empire. Then the Crusaders came and their brutality helped to unify the fragments into an Empire under Saladin. This Empire existed under the Ottomans until 1917 when it was broken up by the French and British who in their inimical colonial was proceeded to divide the spoils and create these fake nation states that now dot Africa and the Middle East.
This European Arrogance gave birth to the Muslim Brotherhood which came into existence in the 1920’s as a militant secret society. The Brotherhood isn’t quite as secret as it once was but it still exists and it has been directly responsible for much of the unrest and terrorism. It was the Brotherhood who assassinated Anwar Sadat as well as other “moderate” Muslim leaders. While this group started as a political movement it has evolved into a militant religious movement bent on restoring the Muslim Empire and destroying the West in the process.
This is a real war and it is the worst kind because it is a religious war on one side and not even recognized as a war on the other much less a religious war. This war has been in process for almost a hundred years and has the probability of going on for another fifty years. This war can only be shortened by taking direct and forceful action which is what the current administration is doing. To stop this and to attempt to go back to a policy of concession and understanding will not stop the war, it will simply prolong it. Machiavelli has been proved right over and over again and it is time some of these people who think any armed force is uncivilized wake up before it is too late.
Sunday, September 04, 2005
Observations on Iraq
I wrote this is response to some one who was questioning the Iraqi situation on the basis that more troops were needed.
The first military rule is to not interfere with the commander on the ground. I am not there, neither is Bush or Rumsfeld or even the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. Therefore, I have bowed to the CG's in Iraq who have consistently stated they didn't need more troops. I realize that Generals -- especially multi-starred ones are at heart political but I cannot believe that any American General would sacrifice even one trooper for his personal career -- Since I am not there I accept the fact that the number of troops on the ground is sufficient. I note that many of the voices calling for more troops are either political voices (congress people -both sides) or media. In either case (with some exceptions) these are not qualified voices. I have a high regard for Senator McCain but he was a pilot not a command officer so even he has only a limited knowledge of what it takes to fight a ground fight. Kerry was a Naval Officer with limited command experience and to my knowledge no tactical experience.
The war itself is somewhat problematic -- at least from my perspective. The root causes are deep and go back years if not centuries. The British and the French in their last gasp as colonial powers signed the Sykes-Picot (secret) Treaty, which in effect said that they would divide the old Ottoman Empire between them. This created totally fictious countries -- Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Arabia, Kuwait, Palestine, and arguably Iran. Turkey was shrunk to it's current size and the Kurds once again lost Kurdistan. Under the Ottomans the Arabs and Jews lived peaceably. The Jews and Christians paid some nominal tax to be non-muslim. Unfortunately the Colonial Powers failed to take into consideration the people and the property they were so happily dividing up. The Muslim Brotherhood began in the 20"s along with terrorism. The war intervened but the Muslims joined with Hitler and the Nazi's actually had two SS Divisions made up entirely of Muslims (this is true -- I didn't believe it either and looked it up). Following the war the creation of Israel simply brought the battle and terroism to the forefront. Since Harry Truman supported the founding of Israel and the Brits and French essentially stepped aside the US was left holding a very dirty stick.
My point to this is that of all of the middle eastern countries only two were essentially secular -- Lebanon and Iraq. Reagan failed to deal with Lebanon after the bombing of the marine barracks. For Bush to take up that fight would have involved taking on Syria as well as Iraq and possibly igniting a major conflict stretching across the entire middle east. . Strategically attacking Iraq was probably a good thing because if it succeeds in returning the country to a secular one he will have driven a wedge into the heart of the Arab world. The fight here seems to center on Oil, ego, and immediate threat. Oil is really not terribly relevant since Iraqi oil primarily goes to Europe. The ego's are on both sides and to a large extent this is just belly bumping. The issue of immediate threat is much more relevant and not nearly as clear as the media and various politicians would have you think.
I do agree that the administration and the military both thought that the population would rise up against Saddam and when that failed to happen it caught them off guard. I also think they had expected that Iraq was more secular and less religious than it is and that caught them off guard. I don't think the Pentagon realized they were embarking on a religious war and that is what this is.
I think this is a war unlike any war we have ever fought. In Viet Nam we were fighting a nation state with an organized and generally recognizable enemy. Here we are fighting individuals who belong to no nation state but are religious fanatics whose loyalty is not to a country but to a feudal lord whose power lies in a religious foundation. These people are invisible -- even in Iraq. They are like assassins -- they hide and they smile and they attack from the shadows. Would more troops help? Would more troops simply provide more targets? What about the loss of life? These are all very hard questions and I have no glib answers. I know the number of casualties are astonishingly low but then any is too many. For myself I continue to read and research the area and the history in an effort to grasp the strategic significance. At a tactical level I accept that the military commanders are doing their job and that the political leaders are doing theirs since they all have information I don't have. I know from my reading that this issue goes back decades and that this is a war that has been going on for at least 70 years and quite probably will go on for another 50.
In reading the 9/11 report I discovered that the Clinton administration was well aware of what was going on and what needed to be done. President Clinton made several attempts to nip this in the bud but was over ridden by his staff. Many of the things that Bush did immediately after 9/11 were put in place by Clinton. I notice that the Clinton's have been very quiet concerning this issue and I think with reason. I think they are well aware that Bush is simply executing some of their plans, adding some his own, but doing what they recognized needed to be done all along.
I admired General Patton and had a low regard for Eisenhower. I admired General Schwartzkopf but had a low opinion of Powell for the same reasons. There are big differences between command officers and Pentagon Warriors. I take exception to arm chair generals and pundits who sit in Washingotn or elsewhere and critize events and affairs on the basis of limited knowledge, limited experience, and with hidden agendas. While I was still in the active reserve I held a civilian job that brought me into contact with many foreign nationals. During the height of Viet Nam my wife and I had a cocktail party attended by several foreigners. These people were astonished that the Army had not put a stop to the demonstrations, taken over the media, and imprisoned the leaders of the peace movement. I spent the entire evening attempting to explain the Constitution and that as an Army Officer I was sworn to uphold the Constitution -- NOT THE GOVERNMENT -- and that the Constitution guaranteed the right of these people to speak their mind and consequently I was expected to protect them even if they were spitting on me and the things I believed in.. Trying to explain the freedoms that we enjoy and how the military is sworn to protect the exercise of these was difficult. Later I observed how the Chinese, South Africans, and Latin Americans handled dissent. Our way is better. I don't think Iraq is a quagmire. I don't think it is going to end soon. I don't know if more troops are needed. I do think that we need to recognize this is a religious war that is not bounded by national boundaries or recognized governments. I think everyone has the right to their opinion and they are free to criticize the administration. I was recently on a flight from Calif with several uniformed soldiers. All of these young men were moved up to first class and got a round of applause from the passengers. A big change from the Viet Nam era.
The first military rule is to not interfere with the commander on the ground. I am not there, neither is Bush or Rumsfeld or even the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. Therefore, I have bowed to the CG's in Iraq who have consistently stated they didn't need more troops. I realize that Generals -- especially multi-starred ones are at heart political but I cannot believe that any American General would sacrifice even one trooper for his personal career -- Since I am not there I accept the fact that the number of troops on the ground is sufficient. I note that many of the voices calling for more troops are either political voices (congress people -both sides) or media. In either case (with some exceptions) these are not qualified voices. I have a high regard for Senator McCain but he was a pilot not a command officer so even he has only a limited knowledge of what it takes to fight a ground fight. Kerry was a Naval Officer with limited command experience and to my knowledge no tactical experience.
The war itself is somewhat problematic -- at least from my perspective. The root causes are deep and go back years if not centuries. The British and the French in their last gasp as colonial powers signed the Sykes-Picot (secret) Treaty, which in effect said that they would divide the old Ottoman Empire between them. This created totally fictious countries -- Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Arabia, Kuwait, Palestine, and arguably Iran. Turkey was shrunk to it's current size and the Kurds once again lost Kurdistan. Under the Ottomans the Arabs and Jews lived peaceably. The Jews and Christians paid some nominal tax to be non-muslim. Unfortunately the Colonial Powers failed to take into consideration the people and the property they were so happily dividing up. The Muslim Brotherhood began in the 20"s along with terrorism. The war intervened but the Muslims joined with Hitler and the Nazi's actually had two SS Divisions made up entirely of Muslims (this is true -- I didn't believe it either and looked it up). Following the war the creation of Israel simply brought the battle and terroism to the forefront. Since Harry Truman supported the founding of Israel and the Brits and French essentially stepped aside the US was left holding a very dirty stick.
My point to this is that of all of the middle eastern countries only two were essentially secular -- Lebanon and Iraq. Reagan failed to deal with Lebanon after the bombing of the marine barracks. For Bush to take up that fight would have involved taking on Syria as well as Iraq and possibly igniting a major conflict stretching across the entire middle east. . Strategically attacking Iraq was probably a good thing because if it succeeds in returning the country to a secular one he will have driven a wedge into the heart of the Arab world. The fight here seems to center on Oil, ego, and immediate threat. Oil is really not terribly relevant since Iraqi oil primarily goes to Europe. The ego's are on both sides and to a large extent this is just belly bumping. The issue of immediate threat is much more relevant and not nearly as clear as the media and various politicians would have you think.
I do agree that the administration and the military both thought that the population would rise up against Saddam and when that failed to happen it caught them off guard. I also think they had expected that Iraq was more secular and less religious than it is and that caught them off guard. I don't think the Pentagon realized they were embarking on a religious war and that is what this is.
I think this is a war unlike any war we have ever fought. In Viet Nam we were fighting a nation state with an organized and generally recognizable enemy. Here we are fighting individuals who belong to no nation state but are religious fanatics whose loyalty is not to a country but to a feudal lord whose power lies in a religious foundation. These people are invisible -- even in Iraq. They are like assassins -- they hide and they smile and they attack from the shadows. Would more troops help? Would more troops simply provide more targets? What about the loss of life? These are all very hard questions and I have no glib answers. I know the number of casualties are astonishingly low but then any is too many. For myself I continue to read and research the area and the history in an effort to grasp the strategic significance. At a tactical level I accept that the military commanders are doing their job and that the political leaders are doing theirs since they all have information I don't have. I know from my reading that this issue goes back decades and that this is a war that has been going on for at least 70 years and quite probably will go on for another 50.
In reading the 9/11 report I discovered that the Clinton administration was well aware of what was going on and what needed to be done. President Clinton made several attempts to nip this in the bud but was over ridden by his staff. Many of the things that Bush did immediately after 9/11 were put in place by Clinton. I notice that the Clinton's have been very quiet concerning this issue and I think with reason. I think they are well aware that Bush is simply executing some of their plans, adding some his own, but doing what they recognized needed to be done all along.
I admired General Patton and had a low regard for Eisenhower. I admired General Schwartzkopf but had a low opinion of Powell for the same reasons. There are big differences between command officers and Pentagon Warriors. I take exception to arm chair generals and pundits who sit in Washingotn or elsewhere and critize events and affairs on the basis of limited knowledge, limited experience, and with hidden agendas. While I was still in the active reserve I held a civilian job that brought me into contact with many foreign nationals. During the height of Viet Nam my wife and I had a cocktail party attended by several foreigners. These people were astonished that the Army had not put a stop to the demonstrations, taken over the media, and imprisoned the leaders of the peace movement. I spent the entire evening attempting to explain the Constitution and that as an Army Officer I was sworn to uphold the Constitution -- NOT THE GOVERNMENT -- and that the Constitution guaranteed the right of these people to speak their mind and consequently I was expected to protect them even if they were spitting on me and the things I believed in.. Trying to explain the freedoms that we enjoy and how the military is sworn to protect the exercise of these was difficult. Later I observed how the Chinese, South Africans, and Latin Americans handled dissent. Our way is better. I don't think Iraq is a quagmire. I don't think it is going to end soon. I don't know if more troops are needed. I do think that we need to recognize this is a religious war that is not bounded by national boundaries or recognized governments. I think everyone has the right to their opinion and they are free to criticize the administration. I was recently on a flight from Calif with several uniformed soldiers. All of these young men were moved up to first class and got a round of applause from the passengers. A big change from the Viet Nam era.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)