Posted by
Tzimisce on Thursday, November 16, 2006 2:25:47 PM
This is a line that I keep hearing over and over and over again
from leftists. And my response is always the same: "Really? How?" There
is an old saying: "Actions speak louder than words." A glance at
Liberal Democrat history with the military shows anything but support.
This
is a line that I keep hearing over and over and over again from
leftists. And my response is always the same: "Really? How?"
There is an old saying: "Actions speak louder than words." A glance at
Liberal Democrat history with the military shows anything but support.
The modern Democratic party tied itself to the antiwar movement of the
60's. Vietnam was a war that had been dragging since the first advisors
were sent there to stymy the spread of Communism at the end of the
Korea war in 1953. It was heightened by President John Kennedy (a
DEMOCRAT) who really got us involved. By the late sixties, Americans
were tired of a war that saw young people being taken away by a draft
and brought home in body bags.
Since our system requires a
majority, the Dems were quick to ride the wave of popular
antimilitarism. In fact, a lot of future Democrat leaders were active
in this wave: from John Kerry who came home and denounced his fellow
soldiers to Bill Clinton who fled to Europe to escape the draft.
Meanwhile the antiwar movement (driven by a hatred for everything that
even sort of reminded them of the military) were doing horrible things
like spitting on our troops, shunning them publicly or giving them the
"silent treatment". The idea that a lot of these people were
conscripted by law did little to ease the fervor.
One of the
loopholes in the draft was a clause saying that college students were
less likely to be sucked up for the army. Thus many impressionable
young people going from High School to College were inundated with
Marxist teachings by their professors. For some reason the minority
opinion is considered the best idea by elitists at the university
level. The end result is a large group of people unquestioningly
accepted that Communism is philosophy that only cares about all people,
is looking out for the good of everyone and treats everyone equally.
All these ideas were echoed in the civil rights/women's movement as
well which made them only that more popular. The weaknesses of all
these ideas were never even considered.
Meanwhile across the
sea, the people we were fighting were also learning how to manipulate
the system. The Viet Cong weren't the first to try to use the tide of
public opinion to win a war against the US, but they were the first to
use capitalize on technology like color television (and a media also
fueled by left wing antiwar sentiment.) Pictures speak a thousand words
and for the first time in history the horrors of war were brought into
the average American household.
The end result was a cementing
of the peaceniks with the Democrats. This alliance has lasted for forty
years and sealed control of both houses of Congress for Dems for twenty
years. Which brings us to the modern day.
The peaceniks (who
were all silent during Clinton's escapades into Kosovo, Serbia, the
Sudan and all the other places we blew up innocent people in the name
of Political Correctness) have been howling since 9-11. For the first
couple of years Democrats ignored them. But Iraq has changed a lot of
that. True most Dems voted for the invasion, but they're quick to drop
all of that to appease their base. Who is their base? It's mostly the
exact same people who opposed Nam and their empty headed kids who
mistakenly believe that the ex hippies really were the greatest
generation.
Now these people are in charge. The problem is
that the enemy we face today is very different than the enemy we faced
thirty years ago. The Viet Cong were fighting for control of a
geographic area. Al Qaeda is fighting what they consider to be a
Satanic enemy, they don't mind coming here to kill us (that was
illustrated by 9-11). The Viet Cong were using a Communist philosophy
that a lot of liberals both believe and have sympathy for. Al Qaeda is
using a religious philosophy. Religion has no place in Communism. Thus,
left-wingers don't believe these people's zeal. Leftists tell us that
Muslims don't mean it when they talk about God and the Devil. Peaceniks
quickly retranslate Islamic rhetoric into an argument about about
economics and the rich versus the poor.
Thus in the
liberal mindset we deserve what al Qaeda is doing to us. The same left
that always makes excuses for the inhumanity of our enemies are always
quick to blame our military for every charge of war crimes. The idea of
Liberal Democrats supporting the troops is a joke. What have they done
that shows how they "support the troops"? Democrats are *always* in
favor of cutting the military budget. That's interesting when you hear
people like John Kerry pointing out that the military is made up of the
poor and downtrodden - WHO MADE THEM THAT WAY? The military vote often
goes Conservative and Republican thus it is no surprise that it is
Democrats who passed the law closing polling booths on military bases
outside the United States. It was Democrats who threw out Florida
absentee ballots in Florida in 2000. It was Democrats who in the shadow
of Florida 2000 sponsored a bill that would close polling booths on
military bases in the United States as well. It's Democrats that want
to put our troops under the jurisdiction of international forces -
forces that could be comprised of the very people we're fighting. It's
Democrats who want our troops subject to world courts - courts that
again could be run by the very people we're fighting. If Dems "support
the troops" then why are John Kerry and Jack Murtha (two men who have
built part of their careers) talking about how our military is guilty
of war crimes? If Dems "support our troops" then why did they put a
lousy draft dodger (Bill Clinton) on the ticket? The idea that these
people love the military and "support the troops" is completely insane.
It's bizarre to me that anyone would suggest/believe that.