America must stand where others won’t

Nelwly deployed soldiers conduct patrol near Kabul

Newly deployed US soldiers conduct patrol near Kabul

A new surge is beginning in Afghanistan. America must stand where the rest of the world will not. We must decide once and for all what we expect from our troops.  Many people in our country vented their hostility to the Iraq invasion by stating: “Afghanistan was right–but Iraq is wrong.” Then when things got rough in Afghanistan, they wanted to quit and became critical of Bush’s policy there.

We cannot have this type of “thought oscillation.” Make up our minds, already. Do we acknowledge that terrorists, driven by an unquenchable and barely conceivable zeal for Paradise have decided that life here on Earth is of little value? And in that decision-making process, have they not targeted America and all of Western civilization with violence? Have they not told us, over and over again, and proved many times, that they are willing to go to virtually any extant to bring about the events outlines in bin Laden’s Fatwa?

And is it not obvious, that by the bravery and solemn actions taken by our men and women in our armed forces, that the power of Al-Qaeda has been significantly reduced?

We know that Americans desire peace, and no nation ever, has shed more of its own blood for the rights of others, then this nation. No nation has given more of its treasure to help the poor and suffering around the world, to maintain peace-keeping missions, and to develop societies everywhere so that they can stand on their own without leaning on the comforting lies of tyrants.

Even those who would deny this know it’s true.

This administration must set achievable strategic parameters and give our troops every available means of meeting the expectations.

There is no substitute for victory.

8 Responses to “America must stand where others won’t”

  1. 1 ruairi
    February 17, 2009 at 11:28 pm

    Surely the British, French, Russian and Australians in both world wars saccrificed far more blood for the rights of others than America ever has. I think most people’s problem with the war is that, even though the intentions you spoke of are pretty decent, America has a pretty bad track record of instilling tyrannys to control local regions. Saddam Hussein for example was put in power by America! I think a substitute for military victory is a victory of reason and peace.

  2. February 18, 2009 at 9:29 am

    Sigh–here I go defending your country which you seem to hate so much.

    Saddam Hussein was not put in power by America. Saddam came to power during a Baathist coup in the 60s. I’m sure you’re speaking of the fact that America gave Saddam’s regime weapons during the Iran/Iraq War.

    “I think a substitute for military victory is a victory of reason and peace.” Please tell that to the Taliban. I’m sure they’ll see it your way. And what does that mean, anyway? Any historic examples?

    “America has a pretty bad track record of instilling tyrannys to control local regions.” Is Iraq your only example? Afghanistan? Again–America didn’t “instill” those regimes. They existed beforehand. Sometimes we have to choose between the best of two evils.

    Military Deaths in WWII:

    America: 416,800
    Britain: 382,700
    France: 217,000
    Soviet Union: 10,700,000
    Australia: 40,500

    So, at least as WWII is concerned, you are correct in the case of the Soviets: They were better at dying than we were. But we, as one would wish in a war–were better at killing. Also, the US entered the war two years after France and Britain and we contributed FAR more money to the war then both countries combined. Maybe we should have just tried a victory of reason and peace. Whatever that means. But I must say that had America never entered the war which you and Chamberlain probably would have been in agreement on–those above listed countries would indeed have lost a lot more men and women than the US did. And they’d be goose-stepping to lunch everyday, so this is a moot point. Thank goodness even the American Leftists of that day had nuts (Roosevelt).

  3. February 18, 2009 at 6:50 pm

    On top of that, during WWII we were fighting for OUR OWN rights, as well as the rights of the rest of the world. I think the point of Magus’ original statement was to highlight the engagements in which OUR country’s freedom was not in jeopardy. Those where we stepped in to aid an ally or defend/promote justice and democracy ELSEWHERE in the world. Those where liberals pick and choose which they deem just. If you don’t agree with that last statement, ask yourself how the left would react to Obama sending us into Darfur tomorrow (and how it would contrast with their reaction to Iraq).

  4. 4 Mike Rozos
    February 18, 2009 at 11:12 pm

    Geez, Ruairi, I don’t know if I should be glad to have a new poster hanging around, or just be stunned at how terribly misinformed your opinion is.

    The U.S. had absolutely nothing to with Saddam’s rise to power.

    There must have been some weed smoke in the air, and lots of low testosterone guys who live with their moms hanging around when you ‘learned’ that factoid.

  5. 5 kernunos
    February 19, 2009 at 12:20 am

    There is nothing like America getting the blood of its children spilled in foreign lands for those foreign lands’ freedoms and then getting a swift kick in the nuts for it.

  6. February 19, 2009 at 7:32 am


    Exactly, as far as fighting for the rights of other people.

  7. May 26, 2013 at 8:56 pm

    “Defending the country you hate so much” – what kind of self serving shit is that?

  8. May 26, 2013 at 9:06 pm

    I did not see one word that implied he hated America but I would say there are plenty of reasons to be questoining of how we for example treated blacks and native americans. For many years true blue red blooded americans were gleeful in denying that blacks and natives were as american as they were.

    You are right through not just Iraq but Syria were the result of a movement called Baathism of which we are dealing with the results of now. What was happening was that these people were struggling with their identity in the modern world. However we can see it is a bit murkier when it comes to Iran when the first elected representative of Iran was rumored to be replaced by the CIA. Some believe part of the problem stemmed from the oil there and that the emerging regime seemed uncooperative so it was replaced with the Shah. It happens, we call this realpolitik and the question is who does it really serve though?

    I feel the problem with America today is that the ruling elite has too much power and when this happens any country suffers through a time its policies appear self serving. I would say most of the time nationalism is BS because its really little more than a tool by the ruling to control the masses. I prefer to see the value of the culture or a society as something worth expressing pride in. Nation states were the creation of the power elite during the power shift away from the Holy Roman Empire as the power of the ancient monarchies and the church was being challenges. So it might be possible to dislike the nation state and still like the culture or society that the nation state superimposes itself on.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog Stats

  • 150,604 hits

Flickr Photos


%d bloggers like this: