Cowardly Lions
Have you ever wondered why there are so many sovereign nations within such a small geographical area in Western Europe? France, Spain, Italy, Switzerland, Netherlands, Germany, England and so on. How did these nations come into being? They all came into being by virtue of war. That's right my friends, war was the birthing process for these nations as most of them became sovereign after victory on the battlefield. The most important point in understanding this concept is that for a nation to be "independent" they must first win on the battlefield. In a way we can view war as the birth pangs of national delivery and in many ways the similarities don't end there. After victory in battle the nation is born and continues to grow from "childhood" into adolescence and finally into adulthood. After the initial war, nations settle into a period of growth, either slow or rapid, and every now and then gets into a fight with other nations for various reasons.
The United States of America is no exception to this rule. In fact, very few nations can really consider themselves sovereign without the refining process of war that steels them to the reality of nationhood. An argument can be made that some nations can help others achieve independence but you will note that someone else has to pay the price for this independence. In 1991, the United States under the political aegis of the UN, liberated Kuwait from the hands of Iraq under Saddam Hussein. In this case, Kuwaiti themselves did not/could not wage war but it was the Americans that could and did paid the blood-price for their independence. The same is today occurring in Iraq and Afghanistan. Their independence, from the Baathist Party in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan, is still bona fide because Americans have died in battle and have been victorious on the battlefield even though the Iraqi and Afghan people themselves didn't engineer their liberty. They may be on the receiving end of terrorism but that is not the same as dieing on the battlefield fighting for one's sovereignty. In fact, the ongoing terror attacks in Baghdad and Kabul are not related to the initial victory over the Taliban and Saddam Hussein by American armed forces but are directly related to the lost political momentum in Washington D.C. under President Bush. The terror attacks in both these capitals are extant because Syria and Iran have felt that they need not worry about an American military offensive that would end their sovereignty and thus are free to wage their terror attacks without fear of reprisal.
Why do they, Syria and Iran, not fear reprisal? Because the West has embraced cowardice as a virtue. Osama Bin Laden himself knew this when he initiated his own declaration of war against America during the '90's when President Bill Clinton was our, dare I say, "Commander and Chief". The Mohammedans felt that the West could be bullied into subservience by another means of war i.e. International Islamic Terrorism and the Muslims were correct in this view. However, the Republican interregnum of George W. Bush put a wrench into this cosmic view, perhaps even a curve ball analogy would be more appropriate. You see, the conspiracy of 9/11 would have worked more smoothly had a Democrat been in power and not a Republican. Osama was no doubt banking on a Democrat Presidency (with their passivist ideology) when his plans were hatched to hijack American airliners and fly them into economic (WTC), military (Pentagon) and political (White House) targets in the mid-1990's. The careful planning and long range logistical support could not be backed down due to the almost impossible victory of George W. Bush in 2000. The conspiracy had to continue as so much was already invested in such an endeavor. The rest as they say is history. I'm quite positive that Osama and company were not expecting an America on the offensive with GROUND TROOPS as they were expecting perhaps a missile attack or air attack in Afghanistan as was the normal standard operating procedure for dealing with terrorism as evidence by President Bill Clinton all throughout the '90's in the Middle East and in Kosovo.
The 2006 mid-term election of Democrats therefore must be considered a God-send (Allah-send?) for Osama and his Al Qaida terror network for all of the obvious reasons. The Moslems know that the Democrats will not wage war for any reason and thus have embraced cowardice on the battlefield and certainly history has proven the Mohammedan correct. Even today, we have a Democrat majority embracing retreat from Iraq for what reason? Because American troops are dieing? What about Afghanistan? They are dieing there too but funny, I don't hear any calls to leave there (not yet at least)? And what happens if American troops are shot-at in Germany or Japan? Will we leave there as well? The Mohammedans know that Democrats and their willful accomplices in Academia, Judiciary, Government, Media, and Business will cower before the Lions of Islam because it is not in their heart to be sovereign and thus the Left will not fight for our political independence. This cowardly malaise infecting Washington from the Left is exactly what the Muslims need to wage their asymmetric war of attrition to victory. And with victory, they shall achieve independence from the West. All they need now is a Democrat Presidency to make their plans complete.
The United States of America is no exception to this rule. In fact, very few nations can really consider themselves sovereign without the refining process of war that steels them to the reality of nationhood. An argument can be made that some nations can help others achieve independence but you will note that someone else has to pay the price for this independence. In 1991, the United States under the political aegis of the UN, liberated Kuwait from the hands of Iraq under Saddam Hussein. In this case, Kuwaiti themselves did not/could not wage war but it was the Americans that could and did paid the blood-price for their independence. The same is today occurring in Iraq and Afghanistan. Their independence, from the Baathist Party in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan, is still bona fide because Americans have died in battle and have been victorious on the battlefield even though the Iraqi and Afghan people themselves didn't engineer their liberty. They may be on the receiving end of terrorism but that is not the same as dieing on the battlefield fighting for one's sovereignty. In fact, the ongoing terror attacks in Baghdad and Kabul are not related to the initial victory over the Taliban and Saddam Hussein by American armed forces but are directly related to the lost political momentum in Washington D.C. under President Bush. The terror attacks in both these capitals are extant because Syria and Iran have felt that they need not worry about an American military offensive that would end their sovereignty and thus are free to wage their terror attacks without fear of reprisal.
Why do they, Syria and Iran, not fear reprisal? Because the West has embraced cowardice as a virtue. Osama Bin Laden himself knew this when he initiated his own declaration of war against America during the '90's when President Bill Clinton was our, dare I say, "Commander and Chief". The Mohammedans felt that the West could be bullied into subservience by another means of war i.e. International Islamic Terrorism and the Muslims were correct in this view. However, the Republican interregnum of George W. Bush put a wrench into this cosmic view, perhaps even a curve ball analogy would be more appropriate. You see, the conspiracy of 9/11 would have worked more smoothly had a Democrat been in power and not a Republican. Osama was no doubt banking on a Democrat Presidency (with their passivist ideology) when his plans were hatched to hijack American airliners and fly them into economic (WTC), military (Pentagon) and political (White House) targets in the mid-1990's. The careful planning and long range logistical support could not be backed down due to the almost impossible victory of George W. Bush in 2000. The conspiracy had to continue as so much was already invested in such an endeavor. The rest as they say is history. I'm quite positive that Osama and company were not expecting an America on the offensive with GROUND TROOPS as they were expecting perhaps a missile attack or air attack in Afghanistan as was the normal standard operating procedure for dealing with terrorism as evidence by President Bill Clinton all throughout the '90's in the Middle East and in Kosovo.
The 2006 mid-term election of Democrats therefore must be considered a God-send (Allah-send?) for Osama and his Al Qaida terror network for all of the obvious reasons. The Moslems know that the Democrats will not wage war for any reason and thus have embraced cowardice on the battlefield and certainly history has proven the Mohammedan correct. Even today, we have a Democrat majority embracing retreat from Iraq for what reason? Because American troops are dieing? What about Afghanistan? They are dieing there too but funny, I don't hear any calls to leave there (not yet at least)? And what happens if American troops are shot-at in Germany or Japan? Will we leave there as well? The Mohammedans know that Democrats and their willful accomplices in Academia, Judiciary, Government, Media, and Business will cower before the Lions of Islam because it is not in their heart to be sovereign and thus the Left will not fight for our political independence. This cowardly malaise infecting Washington from the Left is exactly what the Muslims need to wage their asymmetric war of attrition to victory. And with victory, they shall achieve independence from the West. All they need now is a Democrat Presidency to make their plans complete.
posted by Bruce R. McConnell | 8:24 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home