Log in

View Full Version : DéjÃ* Vu, All Over Again



Torog
08-19-2005, 12:18 PM
DéjÃ* Vu, All Over Again
By: Bill O'Reilly for BillOReilly.com
Thursday, Aug 18, 2005 http://billoreilly.com/currentarticle/


Thirty-five years ago this summer, the USA was exploding in protest over the Vietnam War. And today, the radical left wants to revisit those awful days by replicating the anti-war movement over the Iraq conflict. The question is - will they succeed?
As you know, the radicals have latched on to Cindy Sheehan, who lost her son Casey in Iraq. Mrs. Sheehan strikes me as a decent woman who has no clue with whom she is currently swimming. Sensing a chance to humiliate President Bush, the Michael Moore crowd has rallied around Mrs. Sheehan, who has become the anti-Iraq war poster person. But it's sad to watch this woman being used by organizations that not only oppose the Iraq war, but believe the USA is a fundamentally flawed nation. Cindy Sheehan's byline now leads the Michael Moore website. Is she really that bitter?

It is one thing to object to a war; it is quite another to throw in with people who are consistently hateful towards traditional America. Cindy Sheehan now calls President Bush a murderer, and the USA an "imperialistic" country. But the woman has paid a price for her political leanings. Her husband filed for divorce last week, and some reports cited his wife's radicalism as one of the reasons.

I don't believe Cindy and her radical left pals will succeed in dividing the country this time around. It is true that most Americans now believe the Bush administration is fumbling the war, and that may well be true. Certainly, the continued violence in Iraq is troubling, and it is an open question as to whether the Iraqi people themselves will fight hard enough to win freedom, and that is the crux of this matter.

The communists prevailed in Vietnam because they had a stronger will to win than the U.S.-supported South Vietnamese. At great sacrifice, America gave the South a chance to be free. They did not step up. The result was decades of totalitarianism that continues to this day, and millions of South Vietnamese and Cambodians murdered by the communists. Funny how the radicals never mention that, or the decades of atrocities committed by Saddam Hussein.

President Bush has made two major mistakes in Iraq. The first is keeping Donald Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense. Rumsfeld, understandably, is simply exhausted. He needs to be replaced by a battle-hardened commander who will bring a fresh perspective to the conflict.

Second, Mr. Bush must define the danger he sees if the USA "cuts and runs." The WMD controversy and poor post-Saddam planning does matter now. Terrorists want to kill us, and a victory in Iraq will embolden them and deliver huge momentum to their jihad. Why isn't the President on TV everyday saying this? If America cuts and runs in Iraq, the place will devolve into another terror state where Al Qaeda will have free reign.

No one in their right mind would want Michael Moore or George Soros or Cindy Sheehan calling shots in the war on terror. If Mrs. Sheehan had any perspective at all, she would also protest outside the homes of Bill and Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and Tony Blair, all people who understand that cutting and running will lead to disaster for the USA. But in my opinion Mrs. Sheehan isn't interested in the big picture, she just wants to embarrass Mr. Bush.

The question is, will Americans buy what Cindy Sheehan is selling, or, instead, focus on what is really going on here? Unlike Vietnam, we are now fighting a war against people who want to come to our country and destroy it. These people are the driving force behind the "insurrection" in Iraq. They have chosen this battlefield because America made a mistake by underestimating the difficulty of imposing democracy in a culture that does not revere it.

Once again, that mistake is history. What President Bush must do now is clarify the stakes in Iraq and rally Americans to support the global war on terror. If Mr. Bush does not do that, America will be in big trouble.

F L E S H
08-19-2005, 01:57 PM
You know, just because you oppose Bush, the war, and 'traditional America', whatever that means, it doesn't mean you're a radical leftist. God damn that annoys me.

amsterdam
08-19-2005, 02:10 PM
what do you give a shit??you arent American.

amsterdam
08-19-2005, 02:21 PM
canada's got enough of their own problems.

Torog
08-19-2005, 02:29 PM
You know, just because you oppose Bush, the war, and 'traditional America', whatever that means, it doesn't mean you're a radical leftist. xxx xxxx that annoys me.
Howdy FLESH,

Well..I reckon that yer right,it don't necessarily mean that 'you're a radical leftist'..it could also mean that one could be a terrorist,commie or socialist. I'm old enough to know what 'traditional America' is,and I understand if y'all younguns don't or if one has never lived in America and doesn't understand our unique ideals and freedoms,that make us the greatest nation the world has ever known in recorded history.

Have a good one ...

amsterdam
08-19-2005, 02:35 PM
no,flesh is a lefty plain and simple.he is from canada,what do you expect.

people seem to think "real america" dosent exist.all these lefty talking points are all we here through the media as if that is what americans are talking about.then, when elections come around all those ideas(or lack of) are completely rejected and the lefties are marched out of office to the shock and dismay of all the left in our country.

tokosan
08-19-2005, 06:28 PM
**officially revokes Torog's right to post comments or stories from Bill O'Reiley**

Dude's full of shit! Case closed!

God
08-19-2005, 11:34 PM
Americans would still be sipping tea and eating crumpets if it weren't for dissent.

"The fundamentalist mind, running in a single rut for fifty years, is now quite unable to comprehend dissent from its basic superstitions, or to grant any common honesty, or even any decency, to those who reject them."
- Henry Louis Mencken

Psycho4Bud
08-19-2005, 11:39 PM
Dissent is best expressed at your polling stations or through petitions. :D

F L E S H
08-20-2005, 02:20 PM
amsterdam, you're really an idiot. all I said was that not only radical leftists oppose Bush and his war. My comment about traditional America also stands, because what's traditional America for you might mean nothing to other Americans. Do you care about the traditions of the American Indians? Do you care about the traditions of millions upon millions of immigrants who've been arriving since the 19th century? But nah, they weren't cowboys, so they'll never be real traditional Americans.

I said it once and I'll say it again, I'm not a lefty, and if I was what would be the problem anyway? You're so quick to throw about political affiliations as if they were insults... I don't understand that.

ermitonto
08-20-2005, 02:25 PM
I'm proud to be a radical leftist. Nothing wrong with it at all.

"Anarchists are opposed to violence; everyone knows that. The main plank of anarchism is the removal of violence from human relations. It is life based on freedom of the individual, without the intervention of the gendarme. For this reason we are the enemies of capitalism which depends on the protection of the gendarme to oblige workers to allow themselves to be exploited--or even to remain idle and go hungry when it is not in the interest of the bosses to exploit them. We are therefore enemies of the State which is the coercive violent organization of society." --Errico Malatesta

tokosan
08-20-2005, 05:58 PM
ermitonto, in anarchy, i am a little fuzzy.... please explain to me how these things are accomplished in a society with complete freedom.

--Defense from other armies
--police, stopping crime
--feeding the masses
--political stability, being safe from military coup

ermitonto
08-21-2005, 11:40 AM
ermitonto, in anarchy, i am a little fuzzy.... please explain to me how these things are accomplished in a society with complete freedom.

--Defense from other armies

Voluntary popular militias. Why does community defense have to be controlled in a centralized, hierarchical manner? Voluntary popular militias show up time and time again throughout history. Take a look at the French Revolution, the American Revolution, the Russian Revolution, the Spanish Civil War, the Commune of Paris, the Polish resistance in WW2, the ongoing struggle in Chiapas, etc. I don't buy for a minute that people cannot organize themselves in defense if need be.


--police, stopping crime

Again, why can crime only be solved in communities by hierarchical, centralized organizations? If anything the current solutions make things a lot worse. Capitalism and its class inequality breeds unemployment and poverty, which any social psychologist can tell you are the best predictors of crime. And when we do catch somebody committing a crime, what do we do? Send him away for a few years to a university of crime (prison) where social relationships are dominated by violence, and that is expected to rehabilitate the offender somehow.

Here is a good explanation of how crime might be handled by an anarchist society:
http://www.anarchistfaq.de/secI5.html#seci58


--feeding the masses

Capitalism does a very poor job of this. We have much more than enough food to feed everyone in the world right now, yet millions still live in hunger. For instance, every year lots and lots of grain is destroyed deliberately (more grain than could solve the famine crisis in Africa) to inflate prices so some capitalist firms can make more money. Under socialism, the means of production and the means of living would be the common property of everyone, run by federations based on free association, so all that wasted food could actually go to the people it needs to go to.


--political stability, being safe from military coup

Again, voluntary popular anarchist militias, like those which fought valiantly against the fascists in the Spanish Civil War and those in the Ukraine which resisted many foreign armies before being betrayed and crushed by the numerically superior Bolsheviks during the Russian Revolution.

Anarchy is not the absence of organization for running society, as many would have you think. It is the rearrangement of that organization in a bottom-up approach rather than having some people at the top telling everyone else what to do. I can't think of a single practical function of the government that could not be handled by institutions based on direct democracy (collective decision-making by the people affected by the decisions) rather than authoritarian hierarchy.