Comments for the below post.
I have made some changes behind the scenes to the template of the blog- said changes wiped out the comments left in the past. I am pasting in below the most recent comments- luckily I had that comment window open at the time. My sincere apologies to all who have left such wonderful comments previously. If it is any small consolation, when using the free Haloscan software they are not permanently archived.
Begin comments left:I don't think there is a way to compare the fight we are in now with any that we have been in before. This is something new and the way we have to fight it is new.It is going to take a terrible resolve to win this thing, and I'm afraid that we're going to have to make most of the major wins in the next three years, because President Bush leaves the WH then and who knows who will take his place.I'm not the least bit worried about the resolve of the American people, the great majority of them have more than what it takes, I'm worried about the weak kneed politicians and the petty bureaucrats who are already spending most of their time bitting at the ankles of the man in the fight.
Tina 10.10.05 - 10:43 pmDid liberals ever wholeheartedly 'join the fight' against Japan? They certainly started carping against the decision to drop the bomb after the fact, a campaign which continues to this day, but what about at the time?
ZF 10.11.05 - 2:04 amWith no disrespect intended, I don't know how useful it is to seek historical analogies for our present conflict unless that can give us some insight into formulating a stategy for eliminating the forces of radical Islam. To the extent that such analogies might be useful, we might consider the example of the Thugee cult in India. The British solved the problem by a policy of "identify and exterminate." To some extent we are following such a course of action, but there are a lot of people who openly praise and support the goals and tactics of radical Islam who remain untouched. Perhaps we should reconsider our aversion to covert assasinations and put that game plan into action.
tcobb 10.11.05 - 10:16 amDr D, the ultimate extension of your analogy is Kaaba:Islamofascism::Home Islands:Shintofascism. And 60 years later, we do not need to island-hop to get to the other side's center of gravity. Are you really implying that we need to make the Haram ash-Sharif into a glass parking lot in order to win this thing?
JMjohn mosby 10.11.05 - 2:07 pmI see JM didn't fool around and got right to the chase. I think 2 big reasons why the administration is avoiding a comparision between Islamic fascism and Nipponese fascism is first the obvious point that the WoT is taking much longer. Applying that timeline to this war (WoT), it is Janurary '46 and we havn't won yet. In a war that is MUCH smaller in both geography and resources.Second is that the US Japan conflict was ended by atomic bombs. The Left has attempted to rewrite history by claiming the bombs were not needed. So far a lot of claims, but all the evidence shows Japan would NOT have surrendered without the use of atomic bombs. So back to our timeline where without the Atomic bombs, the US Army would have spent Janurary of '46 fighting and dying on the kyoto plains. The butchers bill on both sides would have been in the millions. So naturally, comparing the Pacific campaign to the Battle of Iran and WW2 to the WoT leads one to the logical conclusion that Nuclear weapons are neccessary for a sucessful conclusion to the WoT.Nobody wants to go there. Especially this administration. Iran may not give us a choice. If Hitler, Stalin or Tojo had an atomic bomb in '45, the USA would NOT have won WW2.BTW, latly I have started to agree with the POV that WW1, WW2 and the 'Cold war' are all part of the same conflict. Socialism vs Capitalism. From about 1914 to 1989. Just different areas were fought over at different times. Sort of like the 30 years war. Sir Charles Omen said that is is impossible to draw distinct lines in history, that one poeriod blends into another. I don't think that is 100% accurate, but it is more right then wrong.
Stehpinkeln 10.11.05 - 5:14 pmZF, yes, they did. It was the conservatives of that day who were anti-war. The USA was a socialist as it every was or ever will be. The Conservatives wanted to just let the 'furreners' kill each other.It was the blend of 'Internationalism' of the Socialists and 'isolantionism' of the Capitalists that led to Dulles's theory of containment. Remember the guys who help set up the UN considered it a first step to a World State, which would have been Socialist. Remember they were all new dealers recoiling from a horrible recession created by unrestrained capitalism. So the Cold war was born out of a desire by the American left to spread the joys of Democratic Socialism combined with the American right's unwilliness for more foreign adventures. http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.19912,filter.all/pub_detail.aspA lengthy but excellent article by Charles Krauthammer. He touches on the roots of the cold war in it.Remember the Cold war was a result of Turmans reluctance to use the Atomic bomb while ONLY the USA had them. From 1946 thru 1947 there was nothing to prevent Truman from nuking Moscow and putting an end to Communism right then and there. He would also have save a few million lives by doing so, but the left has never let bloodshed come between them and their domga.
Stehpinkeln 10.11.05 - 5:29 pm