Standing on the Shoulders of Giants
We stand on the shoulders of giants. We might not realize it, we may even deny it. However, the fact that we don't live in the Third Reich, North American Division, or in the Kingdom of Japan ruled Emperor Hirohito VII, says a lot of what had to take place in order for these scenarios to not exist. And it cost many the ultimate price. There were naysayers during WWII as well, although not to the extent we see today in the War on Terror. It took great men to lead, to forge a plan and stay the course until ultimate victory. There was no talk of "honorable withdrawal" (Chappequiddik Ted). One of my favorite historical figures had this to say during the dark years of England's struggle for survival during the Battle of Britain:
"Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory there is no survival."
Winston Churchill
Another great man lead the United States to ultimate victory in the Cold War:
"A leader, once convinced a particular course of action is the right one, must have the determination to stick with it and be undaunted when the going gets rough."
Ronald Reagan
Before the second Iraq War was waged, many "great men and women" on the left gave us the clarion call to forge ahead against Iraq and bomb Baghdad with cruise missles during operation Desert Fox, and even after that great and notable engagement. The following links have lists of quotes from these "great men and women"...before the bullets flew:
Dr. Horsefeathers: Quotes in Favor of War in Iraq
More "Courageous" Iraq and WMD Quotes
Since March 2003, after removing Saddam, after setting up a provisional government after free elections, after rebuilding the infra-structure, and while engaging a foreign terrorist campaign in Iraq, we are facing challenges that require clear decisions and undaunted perseverance. Now that the going is rough, listen to these brave and notable "greats;" calling Bush a liar, calling him a loser, calling him a conspiratorialist, charging him with "fixing" the intelligence, keeping a tally of the dead and asking if it is worth the loss of life. I'm telling you, you are seeing the midst of this gross cowardice and political "covering of the ass," the making of a great man in George W. Bush in the face of adversity. People now don't see it, appreciate it, or are willing to admit it; to do so might mean a dynasty of Republican power for the next generation. And that, to the Left, is unconscionable!
Unfortunately for Churchill, almost immediately after WWII ended, the British people threw him out of office. Greatness isn't recognized or appreciated by a fickle public, at least not right away. It's usually the next generation that sees it most clearly. I think this will be the case when George W. Bush ends his term on the presidential "rack." History will see the characteristics of a giant in this man, and all the whiney little people with their "great quotes of courage" before the war, will be seen as irrelevant. Maybe before it's too late, they can become relevant to human history. All they need to do is look down at their feet and see once again, the mighty shoulders they stand on.
posted by Underground Logician @ 6:42 PM
7 comments
7 Comments:
Underground,
Here is where we disagree (although I greatly respect your thoughts). Although Reagan and Churchill were great men of conviction, and I respect them immensely, I don't believe they would have sanctioned going over to Iraq.
Did I want us to go into Iraq? Yes, as did many other Americans. But my methods weren't pure. I wanted revenge for their attack on our thousands of innocents, and I knew Iraq was harboring some of the terrorists that were related to the 9/11 attack.
Was it good for the people of Iraq? Of course! Saddam was an evil dictator, and I hope he's put to death for his crimes. It broke my heart to hear of the childrens' prisons. He should be flayed alive for that alone.
But we are not the World's Policemen. If we choose to become that, then we need to collect the dues that our own police collect from us in order to do their duties. We can't afford to save the world through our military, no matter how many atrocities occur.
There are regimes that are equal to Saddam that continue to exist today, because Bush is not motivated to go there. We must decide what we will do, and make our national policy consistent. If we are to attack Iraq because of their harboring terrorists, then we need to make our next priorities Syria, Saudi Arabia, and of course, Korea.
Hi Saur!
The fact that we don't go and remove every tin-pot dictator that is ravaging their own country is proof that we DON'T act like the world's policeman. Immediate example is Mugabe in Zimbabwe. However, Iraq is a part of our national security interests precisely, as the quotes of those who initially supported our move against Saddam state, because he harbored terrorists; he could have sold his stockpiles of weapons to the highest bidder; and posed a threat to our allies, primarily Israel and secondarily to Turkey, Kuwait and other Middle East countries that are key players to Mid East peace.
If Bush is consistant, he WILL go after Syria, Iran, and Korea; probably Syria first, for they are the ones most likely holding Saddam's WMD's. However, we need to be patient.
The difficulties that we have been struggling with are mainly due to the fifth column of liberalism within this country. I think it has had a deadly effect on our ability to conduct this war, and has dampened the patriotism that causes young men and women to join our military.
It's easy to see that the Liberals were all in favor of eliminating Saddam while Clinton was in office. This is the RIGHT decision, and it worked in favor of their political objectives by supporting it. I have no complaint against that. If you do a good job, you should get the credit and be rewarded! But now that there is a Republican in office, going after Saddam and fighting in Iraq is still the right thing, however, the "wrong" party is in power. Should Bush succeed, it will benefit the Republicans politically. It is enormously hypocritical on the Democratic leadership to feign their revulsion toward Bush.
This will work for the Dems only if Americans in general forget what these "heroes" said about Iraq during the last eight years. That's why I posted the links. Check it out!
Underground,
I'm not ignoring you. Pls. forgive...just super busy. I'll get back to this.
Hey, no need for me to forgive. Do the life thing! This is just blogging.
UL says:
There were naysayers during WWII as well, although not to the extent we see today in the War on Terror. It took great men to lead, to forge a plan and stay the course until ultimate victory. There was no talk of "honorable withdrawal" (Chappequiddik Ted)
In WWII, we were attacked. We had a right to defend ourselves. In the Afghan war, we were correct in going after the terrorists who took part in the planning and execution of the Sept. 11 attacks, (although we didn’t go into Saudi Arabia, from whence 15 of the 19 hijackers came.)
Iraq did not attack us on 9/11. Bush justifies his attack now saying we have to fight the terrorists there so they won’t fight us here. Well, there were not the thousands of terrorists there until the Iraqi war drew them in. But there were terrorists in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc. Bush does not advocate going there to fight them so we don’t have to fight them here, does he.
And your swipe at Senator Kennedy is unworthy. Just as people forgive Bush for his drunken past and his criminal use of illegal drugs, cocaine, when will people get over what happened 36 years ago?
Ted Kennedy didn’t plan the death of Mary Jo, it was the result of an accident --a horrible tragedy compounded by his irresponsible behavior after the fact. Laura Bush’s automobile accident that killed a former boyfriend of hers was a terrible tragedy, too. And I don’t believe anything is served by ridiculing her for that terrible time in her life.
Christians believe God is the final judge. If that is true, the Christians I know who will never let go of what happened to Senator Kennedy and continue to bring up and torment him with his tragic past are the most unforgiving, mean-spirited people who hold faith. Jesus’ admonishment “Judge not lest ye be judged” doesn’t seem to have any resonance with those particular Christians.
I had a Catholic friend, a Ted Kennedy hater, who said to me that “someday he’ll get his.” He’ll get his? I was astonished. This man wished more misery on Ted Kennedy than he has already endured. Three brothers killed in service to their country, he himself was involved in a plane crash in which he was nearly killed, his son Edward Kennedy, Jr., had half a leg amputated from cancer when he was a teenager, his daughter Kara is fighting lung cancer, his brother Bobby’s two sons dead, one from drug abuse, the other in a skiing accident, and his nephew, John F. Kennedy, Jr. dies tragically in a plan accident, along with his wife and sister-in-law. He’ll get his? I think he’s gotten plenty. And this Catholic wished more misery and tragedy on this man. Nice.
I’m astonished that you, a former pastor, would hold him in contempt for so long. As a pastor, how would you have advised your flock in their attitude toward Senator Kennedy after the tragedy? Would you have counseled forgiveness and leaving judgment to God? Or encouraged them in continued contempt and ridicule over 36 years every time his name is mentioned? Chappaquiddik Ted? Indeed.
The reason I have little respect for religion is that usually, when there is a real test for people to rise above their natural inclinations to malice, their religion seems to fail them. If religion can’t encourage people to be their better selves in small tests, then what good is it? How can a moral compass be of any use in a really significant challenge?
I would like to speak more to the rest of your post, but I’ve got to attend to some business. Until next time.
Isabella:
Your rebuke is taken and I will consider it. I meant that statement as a dig and you are correct to point it out. But, may I make an observation about your comment on religion? It isn't our religion that fails us, it's we who fail our religion. It is my human weakness that refuses to be bound by the requirements that Christ binds me, and then I get cocky. My moral compass may point me North, but I still have the freedom to turn South. So, thank you, friend, for speaking plainly. I will watch it in the future.
As to your future comments, feel free to speak.
Respectfully,
UL
I'd comment, but commenting after Isabella is like an actor working with children. There is no way you can follow that, your thunder has already been stolen. So I butt out of this one, more than slightly in awe!
Post a Comment
<< Home