“The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it, and if one finds the prospect of a long war intolerable, it is natural to disbelieve in the possibility of victory.”
– George Orwell, 1/01/1946
(hat tip: The Corner)
The Internet home for American gay conservatives.
Ending the war quickly by losing it does actually seem to be the disheartening goal of way too many on the left. After all, it worked for Vietnam!
I find it ironic that so many libs are quick to toss the word “Orwellian” around without the slightest clue about some of the striking things Orwell actually said, which make it pretty clear he would have despised the whole pompous lot of them. He had a lot of disgust for the “peace faction” in England during the War, who he recognized were in effect pro-Nazi in their supposed neutrality.
And of course, “So much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don’t even know that fire is hot.”
So, is Newt now a “liberal?” After all, he was for the war on Iraq before he was against it: now that it’s more than three years into it, he says staying in Iraq after June 2003 was a big mistake. Most liberals opposed the war EVEN when it was going to be a “cakewalk.” But folks like Newt and Will and Buckley and ultimately all of you have already or will turn against the war because of its costs or because Dear Leader decides to “withdraw” aka “cut and run” or because of political expediency. Can you spell f-l-i-p-f-l-o-p?
BTW Amber, the comparison with WWII is INANE! Saddam’s Iraq was a third rate power when we invaded in 2003, Nazi Germany’s military at the start of the war in 1939 was stronger than that of any other European country.
What does the strength of the army have to do with anything?
I think it’s rather funny, actually, when anti-war people hold up WW2 as an example of a “just war”. Quite frankly, Hitler posed no credible risk to the US whatsoever. There’s no reason that we should have engaged in Europe. Actually, there’s little reason for us to have engaged Japan even considering Pearl Harbor. There was a finite limit to what either country could have held and it would have run out before the US mainland.
So why fight?
Answer that and you’ll answer why it’s right for us to depose Saddam and force a solution in Iraq.
#1 – You’re right, Amber, except always remember that we actually won the Vietnam War. The 1973 peace accords were reached on our terms, not North Vietnam’s. South Vietnam only fell in 1975 after an ultra-liberal (post-Watergate) Congress repudiated them and suddenly cut off all aid. That’s when the North saw their chance and re-opened the war, and the South perceived clearly that we were no longer on the South’s side. Sorry if you already know this – Maybe someone else doesn’t.
#3 – Synova, I agree. Hitler was no threat in the sense that Saddam was (nuclear and bio weapons and long-range missiles did not exist in those days)… and even Japan was no threat to us in the sense that al Qaeda is (Japan lacked the capability to attack our mainland). We fought them because it was right. The World War 2 comparison remains extremely apt and insightful.
(“right” because they both represented a hateful ideology of human evil, that threatened us IN THE LONG RUN, with promotion of democracy and freedom being the correct answer; compare and contrast to the various forms of Islamo-fascism, which threaten us in BOTH the short and long runs)
#3 “There’s no reason that we should have engaged in Europe.”
Apart from the fact that Hitler declared war on us. And, of course, Japan attacked us. You would have had us do NOTHING?!!! Of course, in stark contrast, Bushco attacked Iraq – didn’t even have the decency to declare war. As for forcing a solution in Iraq, actually it’s no longer under our control. So much for a “cakewalk.”
#4: Why do you guys always conflate al Qaeda and Iraq?
And BTW, I see there’s still no response on that “liberal” Newtie who wants to cut and run. Perhaps you’ve all been “newtered.” I also see more retired generals are speaking out against Bushco. Must be “liberals” too.
Iraq War Vet Slaps Down John “Retreat ‘n’ Defeat’ Murtha
#6 Hitler declared war on the US? When did he do that? *Why* would he do that when so many Americans supported him or believed we should stay out of Europe’s war?
And, Yeah, ignoring Pearl Harbor would have been hard to do, but multiplying the deaths hardly seems prudent in the long run. How many *more* Americans died who didn’t have to die? Did it bring the dead of Pear Harbor back? We don’t know that Japan would have gone beyond Korea and China and hey… SE Asia would probably be much better off and we may have even avoided Vietnam altogether.
These are exactly the sorts of arguments anti-war people give now. Iraq isn’t a threat, or else we’ve *made* the region a threat. Bull. The region is a serious threat due to the extreme social injustice and instability, the *creation* of an external enemy (US) in the interest of focusing unrest and hostility outward. And the fact that a few determined men can attack our soil and our citizens directly. (Ain’t technology grand.) Oh, and concerning Saddam… might we once again say “Children’s Prisons”?
The idea that if we are just *nice* they won’t hate us is self-evidently foolish yet people think we can disengage and go back to the good old pre 9-11 days. The “cakewalk” strawman is almost embarassing to hear come out of someone’s keyboard. OH GAWD IT’S HARD…. WAAAAAH…. MAKE IT ALL GO AWAY.
It *is* hard and it *won’t* go away, so grow up and get some determination and will to prevail. The Iraqi people are smart no matter that they have incredible hurdles to get over. They *do* have historical precident for the idea of liberal reform (the guy the Baathists deposed believed in women’s rights). Abandoning them (which is what the US does best) would be criminal.
And why, since you probably would never have given Newt the time of day before, do you think he’s so sexy now?
Apart from the fact that Hitler declared war on us. And, of course, Japan attacked us. You would have had us do NOTHING?!!!
Saddam both declared holy war on the United States AND sent agents around to attack American citizens, including former President Bush. Furthermore, Saddam funded numerous attacks against our allies in the region, including Israel, and regularly fired on our aircraft and our allies’ aircraft patrolling the “no-fly” zone. Finally, Saddam systematically defied the UN’s restrictions on him and threatened those who would enforce said restrictions.
Finally, as for “conflating” Iraq and al-Qaeda, as GP has been citing for the past weeks, numerous documents are rising, even more each day, in which Iraq and al-Qaeda are conflating themselves with plans for joint aid and joint operations.
The only difference between Saddam and Hitler was that Hitler wasn’t paying liberals billions of dollars in oil money. Had he done that, Ian, you would have been whining how “wrong” it was to attack him.
Syn, NDT, why are you even trying to reason with an admitted partisan hack who freely confesses that he doesn’t really care about policy but only comes here to shill for Democrats?
#8: “Hitler declared war on the US? When did he do that?”
Dec. 11, 1941. Before he did that, it was expected that the US would only fight Japan.
http://www.worldwar2database.com/html/us_war.htm
“It *is* hard and it *won’t* go away, so grow up and get some determination and will to prevail.”
Don’t bitch to me. Bitch to the American people who have decided the war is not worth it after being promised a “cakewalk.” I always opposed the war on Iraq because it was foolish, unnecessary, and a distraction from what we were doing in Afghanistan.
“And why, since you probably would never have given Newt the time of day before, do you think he’s so sexy now?”
I think Newt is an opportunistic hypocrite. But he is one of YOUR heroes. Or is that “was” now that he supports “cut and run?” I really find it interesting how you folks remain tongue-tied about Newt’s defeatist talk.
http://tinyurl.com/n6sr8
#8 Synova — April 14, 2006 @ 12:00 pm – April 14, 2006
Hitler declared war on the US? When did he do that? *Why* would he do that when so many Americans supported him or believed we should stay out of Europe’s war?
Why would Hitler declare war on the US? Probably because of the Tripartite Pact that was signed in September 1940 forming the Berlin-Rome-Tokyo Axis alliance. Hitler declared war on the US three days (or so) after the US declared war on Japan.
The US could not have ignored Pearl Harbor, and probably–because of the American Firsters–delayed actively entering the war in the Pacific way too long. Japan had been at war in the Pacific since at least the early to mid 1930s (the Rape of Nanking occurred in Dec 1937-Mar 1938) and Japan’s expansionism was fairly evident.
#8 – Synova – Germany’s declaration of war is a red herring. It was a legal fiction that they carried out purely for the terms of their alliance with Japan, after the U.S. declared war (for real) on Japan. Hitler had absolutely no capability of invading the United States.
And yet we spent huge numbers of lives liberating Europe from him anyway. Because it was the right thing to do, basically. (And, like all morally correct courses, handled a long-term threat.) Imagine that!
And I agree, the idea of any of the leftist moonbats here suddenly being keen on Newt is the laugh of the week for me 😉
No we could not have, and should not have, ignored Pearl Harbor. Nor should we have ignored Germany’s expansionism or the horrors of the holocaust (though I get the idea that few people cared so much until after we got to the camp and got films of what our soldiers found.) Nor should we have signed on to the punative “peace” after WW1.
What frustrates me is that although we were attacked, horrifically, on our own soil it is viewed almost entirely in a “criminal justice” political frame. Anything beyond a policeman-like search for the guilty party is viewed as illegitimate or “illegal.” Doing something about the whole pathological situation is labled “illegal.” Putting our people on the ground in the region *permanently* isn’t seen as prudent statesmanship, but is so frowned on by everyone that everyone is pretending (geez, I hope it’s pretending) that we don’t have those plans at all.
We have to live in this world and so do our children. So do Iraqi and Saudi and Sudanese children have to live in this world. I know that some people would like to believe that the world will be pie and spice if we just leave well enough alone, but wanting that to be true does not make it true.
Speaking of Pearl Harbor… some conspiracy sorts claim that we knew about it and let it happen so that the American people would support the war effort. I really would rather not wait for the follow up to 9-11 to get the American people to support *this* struggle.
And yet we spent huge numbers of lives liberating Europe from him anyway. Because it was the right thing to do, basically. (And, like all morally correct courses, handled a long-term threat.) Imagine that!
If the moonbat left applied consistent logic to WWII, they would explain it this way: RooseveltCo masterminded the invasion of Europe to assert American hegemony and seize control of their beer and sauerkraut. The Germans were incapable of democracy, and we shoudl never have tried to impose our will on them. Besides, Hitler and the Nazis were a distraction. Meanwhile, the real mastermind behind Pearl Harbor, was never captured and put on trial. Therefore, World War II was a failure.
the idea of any of the leftist moonbats here suddenly being keen on Newt is the laugh of the week for me
Well, Cal, leftists are idiots. They assume that since they have a Cult of Personality around Clinton, the right-wing works the same way. What they are far too stupid to understand is that conservatism is based on ideas, not personalities.
#14 – “…I get the idea that few people cared so much until after we got to the camp and got films of what our soldiers found…”
Indeed, it was so. Most people in the 1930s / early 40s didn’t want to believe the Holocaust was happening, and didn’t fully believe it until the liberating soldiers saw the camps and prisoners and films and records for themselves.
In fact… you could almost say that stopping or punishing the Holocaust was a RETROSPECTIVE JUSTIFICATION for the war 😉
C’mon folks. Surely someone on the right here is willing to display a shred of consistency and attack Newt for his cut and run defeatist talk that undermines our troops and the President at a time of war. Anyone? Bueller? Anyone?
Of course. Newt Gingrich is making an opportunistic stance that does not take into account the full situation; he is wrong, and he is taking a defeatist stance.
Now that that’s gone, why don’t you try answering the questions in #8 and #9?
#14 Synova — April 14, 2006 @ 3:10 pm – April 14, 2006
Your comment is a little confusing, but to try to parse it a bit…
On the same day that the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, they also attacked the Philippines (US commonwealth/territory), Hong Kong (British Crown colony), and they used the Vichy French bases in French Indochina to attack Thailand. That was Dec 7-8, 1941, and definitely showed their expansionist tendencies. The Holocaust (the Nazi’s Final Solution of what they perceived to be their Jewish “problem”) did not “officially” start until after the Wannsee conference in Jan 1942, although there were definite indications of their intentions beforehand. I’m not going to go into the question of whether the Allies could have stymied the Holocaust by bombing the railroad lines in Nazi-occupied Europe, because that issue is quite unsettled.
What frustrates me is that although we were attacked, horrifically, on our own soil it is viewed almost entirely in a “criminal justice” political frame.
Not exactly. Note that the US’s issue with Afghanistan following 9/11/2001 began when the Taliban refused to hand over Osama bin Forgotten. Based on that refusal, the US assisted the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan in toppling the Taliban regime. That wasn’t a “criminal justice” political frame, it was apparently intended as a self-help attempt at extradition for something along the lines of “victors justice,” which the Allies exacted on leaders in Nazi Germany and Japan following WWII.. Israel essentially did something similar in 1961 when it kidnapped Adolf Eichmann from–where was it? Argentina? The US also did it with Manuel Noriega in 1990. The demand by the US that the Taliban turn over Osama apparently didn’t work, since Osama is–as far as is known–not in American hands.
On the other hand, when one is fighting a war without fronts, how should one proceed? I guess that one could blow up everything in sight, but that would probably end up being counter-productive.
#17 I’m not sure what exactly you want. I don’t think a single person has said that Newt is right. Is it really necessary to type the words Newt is wrong? This doesn’t convey any new information does it? Or do you want someone to say, “Newt is wrong about this, therefore he has always been wrong about anything he’s said, moreover, he will will always *be* wrong about anything he says in the future. Everything I ever agreed with about him is a lie because he is wrong about this now. Bad Newt! Bad!”
Is that what you’re wanting?
#19 “On the other hand, when one is fighting a war without fronts, how should one proceed? I guess that one could blow up everything in sight, but that would probably end up being counter-productive.”
First, by agreeing that we’re fighting a war we need to fight. Any discussion of how to proceed requires that common ground.
I don’t care if people support Bush or agree with his plan for winning that war, I’d just like for them to stop doing their best to undermine the effort. Even if Bush doesn’t have the best plan he *does* have a plan and even if people can’t bring themselves to support *fighting* it would make a world of difference if they could bring themselves to support bringing liberty and democratic rule of law to Iraq. Just about *any* plan for doing that wouldn’t interfere with military plans and would contribute to success there and eventually, we hope, to the end of a system of tyrannies that endanger us and the world. It would present a united national will that would be persuasively powerful and maybe we *would* get more results without the use of arms. Sun Tzu calls that national will the “Tao” which causes the people to be fully in accord. It’s the first thing he lists, above armies and generals. Do you think the military *prefers* fighting?
#20 — Even Newt himself has admitted a lot of his ideas are stupid. It doesn’t matter what Newt said. We are not a Personality Cult like the left. We do not pursue power for the sake of having power, like the democrats. The right is a movement of ideas. If Newt Gingrich want to start talking like John Murtha, that’s his prerogative, but we’re not a bunch of mindless followers who have to follow him over the cliff.
#18: “Now that that’s gone, why don’t you try answering the questions in #8 and #9?”
Well, I thought I did answer the substantive questions in #8. Several others struck me as rhetorical in nature. As for your post in #9, I have pretty much ignored anything you have to say since I began commenting here because I don’t find you any more honest on this blog than you are on your own blog. Since I no longer comment or even go there, I see little point in shifting debate with you to this blog. BTW, you DIDN’T ask any questions in #9 so your claim that you did is just another example of dishonesty on your part.
Ian said…
“I don’t find you any more honest on this blog than you are on your own blog……just another example of dishonesty on your part. “
That is just priceless.
An SAT question for everyone…
Ian : Honesty, as Osama : World Peace
What an utter fool.
Eric in Hollywood
#21 Synova — April 14, 2006 @ 6:29 pm – April 14, 2006
First, by agreeing that we’re fighting a war we need to fight. Any discussion of how to proceed requires that common ground.
Maybe so, but I don’t agree that the US war on Iraq was or is a war that “we” need to fight. Certainly not when it was begun. It diverted US attention from the need to pacify Afghanistan after the US and the Northern Alliance toppled the Taliban, which led to the mess that is Afghanistan today. And this was the second time in less than 20 years that the US has shirked its responsibilities vis-a-vis Afghanistan. The first was when the US basically turned its back on and largely ignored Afghanistan after the Soviets had been defeated there.
It’s not clear that the US could have significantly helped the Afghanis in either event, but diverting attention to Iraq certainly hasn’t helped matters.
On the subject matter of the post, taken out of context, the quotation is little more than a tautology, and a meaningless one, at that. In point of fact, the quotation came from a lengthy essay
Second Thoughts on James Burnham
The entire essay is interesting, but I find the following particularly interesting:
The irony is that Britain did disappear as a world power, and the whole of Western Europe was swallowed up by what amounts to a single great state–the EU–and neither required a triumph of totalitarianism.
raj said…
“The irony is that Britain did disappear as a world power…”
His “irony” is horseshit, and as such, renders his entire argument baseless.
Again, a leftist refuses to deny the veracity of Orwell’s quotation. I’m shocked.
Eric in Hollywood
“he says staying in Iraq after June 2003 was a big mistake.”
Actually that is a distortion of what Newt said, according to his website http://newt.org/backpage.asp?art=2921. Read the whole transcript- he doesn’t approve of many of the decisions made: disbanding the army, installing Bremer as proconsul, etc. but he also makes clear that U.S. will need to keep forces in Iraq for a long time.
But V the K is absolutely right- why should what Newt or anybody else says determine our opinion? Conservatives don’t all think in lockstep, as anybody coming to this blog should know.
#28: The problem Amber is that if any Democrat said what Newt did, he or she would be branded as a traitor by you and the other conservatives who post here. But when Newt says it, you first have to be dragged kicking and screaming to even comment and then all you say is you disagree with him.
In any event, it doesn’t really matter: support for the war is crumbling and the crunch for our military is coming within the year. I suspect that’s why the retired brass is speaking out now. But it’s all for naught: Bush will likely keep Rummy on and even if he doesn’t, who could take his place and have any impact on the Iraq debacle? Hell, the much ballyhoed election took place four friggin’ months ago and there’s still no government in place! The Taliban is on the comeback in Afghanisrtan and now we’re talking about starting a third warfront in Iran with nukes no less. Bushco is headed for a trainwreck – too bad they’re taking the rest of us along for the ride.
#29 Ian — April 17, 2006 @ 2:11 am – April 17, 2006
Bush will likely keep Rummy on and even if he doesn’t, who could take his place and have any impact on the Iraq debacle?
Of course Bush will keep Dumsfeld on. Bush doesn’t have anyone to replace Dumsfeld with, and, even if Bush did, replacing Dumsfeld now would be tantamount to an admission of defeat and incompetence on the part of both Dumsfeld and himself.
The two resident dipshits chime in yet again…
Never fails, does it? Mention Bush, Rumsfeld, et al, and these two lose their minds.
Ian is particularly interesting for his desperate grasp at straws. The fool can’t read 2+2 without finding a way to make it 5, then spends the better part of a week trying to find someone who’ll challenge him. When someone eventually does, he either bitches that nobody challenged him earlier, changes the subject, or both.
Suffice it to say this “thoroughly repugnant little shit” has done a fine job destroying whatever credibility he may have had since first emerging from the floorboards of this site.
As for raj, isn’t it revealing that this sad little boy has to resort to DK-style syntax? His arguments are so bereft of substance, he’s left little alternative but to attempt juvenile taunts.
Isn’t it saying something when Patrick (Gryph) becomes the default Democrat voice of reason? At least this fellow actually debates absent petulance.
Eric in Hollywood
#31 HollywoodNeoCon — April 17, 2006 @ 10:10 am – April 17, 2006
Consider it sarcasm.
I’ll be sure to use the HTML tag “/sarcasm” next time.
But I’m surprised that someone, like you, who claims to have received advanced education at fine arts colleges cannot recognize sarcasm. Maybe your fine arts education at your vaunted trade schools left a little to be desired.
#31: First you call me a “thoroughly repugnant little shit”
Then in reference to raj, you whine: “his arguments are so bereft of substance, he’s left little alternative but to attempt juvenile taunts.”
Wingnut hypocrisy? I rest my case.
Yet again…idiocy invades my morning liberal-denouncement.
If certain folks didn’t fill each of their comments with spite and venom, then perhaps their sarcasm would have been far easier to detect.
As for Ian, I stand behind the TRLS moniker. Giving this buffon substance would be to cast pearls before swine.
There endeth the lesson.
By the way, nothing wrong with juvenile taunts, as long as one doesn’t attempt to pass them off as debate.
Asshole.
#33 Ian — April 17, 2006 @ 11:35 am – April 17, 2006
Then in reference to raj, you whine: “his arguments are so bereft of substance, he’s left little alternative but to attempt juvenile taunts.”
Wingnut hypocrisy?
It is indeed wingnuttery. Hypocrisy? I’m not so sure. Wingnuts are so full of themselves that they probably believe what they say. Like their cohorts among the Brent Bozos (Media Research Center, CNSnews–the Christian, no Conservative, no Cyber News Service), the Joseph Farahs (WorldNutDaily), the Reed Irvines (of the inAccuracy in Media operation), and other like-minded people, of the world. All of whom were sycophants of St. Ronald Reagan. Some of us have followed St. Ronald’s successors for a while. Apparently unlike HollywoodNeoCon.
Oooooooh…
So the resident dipshits have decided to team up?
Not unlike a couple of poseur twinks who delude themselves into believing they’re the sexiest guys in the bar.
The shallowness is laughable, kids.
The problem Amber is that if any Democrat said what Newt did, he or she would be branded as a traitor by you and the other conservatives who post here.
Do you miss the irony in that statement?
Amber pointed out that you distorted what Gingrich said.
You tried to synchronize Gingrich with the Democratic Party line, and failed.