Comment on a comment
And my point-by-point response is:
Also I'm more than a little surprised to hear those liberal talking points [my emphasis] coming out of your keyboard...
-Did we learn nothing from our own adventure in Vietnam? (It was an adventure?)
That's an archaic term, taken from "national adventurism" as used by the British. And yes, it was quite an adventure for the kids that were there.
-Why the hell are we still in Afghanistan after ten years? ...we kicked the Taliban out of the country. (Wrong. Who do you think we're fighting over there? Mother Theresa?)
We're fighting people who are, in the words of Winston Churchill, the most treacherous, cowardly, and militarily inept people on the face of the earth. The myth of Islamic hospitality is just that; they will give you a meal and a place to sleep, and cut your throat when your eyes are closed. The only trust you can place in a Muslim is the certainty of betrayal and treachery.
-a national moral stance that reeks of the American imperialism (Do you really believe that? A "national" moral stance?)
In the sense that we, as a nation, are carrying out policies approved by the majority of the people, through Congress, yes, there is a "national" moral stance. The president is the poster child for that expression of national will, but that went to hell in the '90s with Willie & Monica, and is now no longer even a consideration. As with the rest of my comparisons to War II, our moral stance from 1941-45 was a righteous one. After that, it became warped. Instead of a stand-off, the Cold War became World War III, with "our" dictators versus "their" dictators. Had we just stood back and waited, communism would've collapsed under the weight of its faulty premises 30 years sooner than when the Berlin Wall finally fell.
-Do the hacks who run our government truly believe that other people, from societies that are totally alien to our own, want to be just like us? (It's true that some people don't want to be just like us, especially those who want sharia. But plenty do want to be just like us, and they keep trying to get here.)
Sure, this is the land of opportunity, where a big-city cabdriver can make more in a year than a cabinet minister in some benighted Third World country. I say more power to those who want to come here legally, assimilate at least the rudiments of our established culture--like learning English--and toss the dice in the capitalist system. Until recently, hard work has always been rewarded. One of those rewards is the freedom to hold on to the culture and traditions of wherever you came from. However, that doesn't encompass tribalism or demands for preferential treatment.
-We sold “Americanism” door-to-door in Vietnam, like encyclopedias or Bibles. We knocked on the door of the hooch, explained that we were there to help them, and if the hapless peasants didn’t buy it, we either shot them or relocated them to re-education camps, and moved on to the next village. (C'mon now.)
"We had to destroy the village in order to save it." Save them from what? The peasants I tripped over didn't know Ho Chi Minh from Richard Nixon, and didn't care which one was sitting on the throne in Hanoi or Saigon.
-Maybe, like the Russians, all they really wanted in life was a washer-dryer combo, a microwave oven (Do you think that's what the Cold War was all about? Washers and dryers?)
Yeah, pretty much. The key to that "winning hearts and minds" business boiled down to which goverment, driven by their specific ideology, was going to provide the best quality of life for the largest number of people. That's best measured in materialistic terms. The Soviets had that jazz about "from each according to his abilty, to each according his need", and we had the general attitude of "jump in there, do something and be somebody." We won.
-Somewhere along the road, we became intoxicated with our own moral certainty, and decided that if we were prospering as a people, then the rest of the world would be well-advised to follow suit. By the start of the 20th century, we were knocking on other nations’ doors, giving them our sales pitch, and if they didn’t buy it, we shot them in the head and moved on to their neighbors. (Yep, shot the whole nation in the head.)
Figure of speech. Ask the Libyans what they think about Teddy Roosevelt and his war on the Barbary pirates. We overthrew a whole sovereign country with one company of Marines and a couple of battleships sitting offshore. Actually, you don't have to go that far. Ask any Native American what they think about the doctrines of Ulysees Grant and Billy Sherman. Them heathen Injuns were sovereign nations when we got here.
-Today, the “War on Terror” is not a declared war, by the tenets of our Constitution. Terror is not a city-state, or a country. It’s a state of mind... There is no specific geographical region or society to declare war on. It’s like playing whack-a-mole (So does that mean we shouldn't fight terror any more? Thomas Jefferson was fighting the Muslims, aka the Barbary Pirates, as far back as 1802. The Poles were fighting the Muslims and saving Europe as far back as 1683. This is a very old war.)
What I mean when I use the terms "ruthlessness and efficiency" in regards to contemporary foreign policy and opposing terrorism is very simple: kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out. Any act of terrorist aggression should be met with an overwhelming surgical response, i.e. total annihilation of the perpetrators. We should get a clue from the Israelis; we don't need to march into a country with a "coalition" army of the unwilling ready to perform the unspeakable, after obtaining permission from the UN to wage an undeclared war of opportunity. As one of my mentors said: "If somebody slaps you, you don't turn the other cheek. You cut his hand off. If he then cuts your ear off, you cut his f---ing head off." If we stand on our strength and that principle, and fear no evil because we're the meanest motorscooters in the valley, then we don't need to be dictating half-assed terms to the rest of the world. The Soviets had a decided military advantage during the Cold War, but they never jumped off because of the MAD doctrine of mutually assured destruction. To their bitter end, the Soviets kept their bets on an ideological triumph, not some precipitous action that would've left them a smoking ruin. They knew their ideology had a chance if they survived as a society. If we strike hard and fast at terrorism and aggression, kicking ass and taking names, and then settle back in our collective national lawn chair to await responses, we might soon find that there are none.
-we started fiddling in earnest with the destinies of other countries and cultures, starting in Korea. One undeclared war of opportunity led to another, and has not ceased. Like a heroin addict seeking to recapture that first orgasmic high, we are fighting the “war on terror” like War II, replete with nation-building and “my-way-or-the-highway” proclamations. (So I guess it would have been better if we left Korea to the communists? The South Koreans would be better off today if they were part of the North? Maybe it would have been better if we just left the whole world to become Nazis or Japs or commies? And now you want to let them all submit to sharia?)
I think that if we had left communism to run its inevitable course to ruin, without providing them a common, general enemy to oppose by perpetuation of their ideology, we would've won the Cold War a lot sooner. Instead of Radio Free Europe and the endless bush wars, we should have stood off with the attitude of "Okay, if you've got such a great idea, make it work." The ruthless part of that is no foreign aid, no charity, no "humanitarian outreach". When slavery and parasitism turns to famine, anarchy, and genocide, the basics of human nature--what the Founding Fathers called "our God-given rights"--will kick in, and the people trapped in a no-win situation will rebel and set things a-right. The uprisings in Iran that Jughead failed to back were proof of this. It will be a terrible thing to watch from afar, but if we're not involved, we can be here as a guiding light of the better course to take when the dust settles.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying America never made a mistake, but you're starting to sound a bit cynical Possum.
America made plenty of mistakes, but they never deterred my devotion to the basic concept of the United States, as the Founding Fathers envisioned it. What I'm lamenting these days is my 30 years of service to sinister causes that I deluded myself into believing were the best for everybody. As I said in my earlier comment: a cynic sees the glass as half-empty, not half full. I see the glass as shattered, and the water already absorbed on the desert floor. We passed the tipping point when the national debt surpassed the GDP. It's now "deja vu all over again" as we re-live the fall of the Roman Empire.
A number of big-brain genome specialists say there's a "death gene" that triggers in our bodies about the age of 45 or so, leading to physical decline and ultimate discorporation. I'm glad mine is already active, so I won't have to see the worst of what's to come. We're going to lose the election this fall, and when fully unleashed, our foreign-born Muslim socialist president will place us at the mercy of the world. The Koran makes no allowances for mercy for infidels, so this ain't gonna be pretty. The rat race is over; the rats won.
For some reason, I'm hearing Freddie Mercury singing the last lines of "Bohemian Rhapsody": "Nothing really matters...nothing really matters any more."