7 Years of 0 (zero) of terror attacks on U.S. mainland soil = success. If OBL and his ilk are too cowardly to return and strike here again, the end result justifies the means.


It is empirically incorrect to say that one cannot achieve peace through violence. Indeed, without violence, one could never subdue or eliminate those who use violence against the peaceful. Think Gary Cooper in "High Noon." Think Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid. Did Billy kill any more people after he was dead?

Thus the Japanese who committed unspeakable violence against much of the western Pacific Basin countries--and against the USA at Pearl Harbor--were subdued with violence and have been, other than buildin...

7 Years of 0 (zero) of terror attacks on U.S. mainland soil = success. If OBL and his ilk are too cowardly to return and strike here again, the end result justifies the means.


It is empirically incorrect to say that one cannot achieve peace through violence. Indeed, without violence, one could never subdue or eliminate those who use violence against the peaceful. Think Gary Cooper in "High Noon." Think Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid. Did Billy kill any more people after he was dead?

Thus the Japanese who committed unspeakable violence against much of the western Pacific Basin countries--and against the USA at Pearl Harbor--were subdued with violence and have been, other than building Nissan and Honda autos and Sony and Toshiba electronics, thus waging war against GM and Philco, peaceful ever since. I prefer the economic wars rather than the shooting wars myself.

Thus the Germans under Hitler were subdued and stopped incinerating Jews, though they do still rant against them and kowtow to Muslims, but I prefer their pusillanimous refusal to combat terrorism to their active commission of violence.

Get real, folks. The way to achieve peace is for the peaceful people to win the battle against the vicious. Which takes violence. Attributed to George Orwell: "Good people sleep well in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to commit violence in their name." Some quote it as: "We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm." But then it is impossible to determine if Orwell actually said this, but it sounds Orwellian.

In 1942, George Orwell wrote, in Partisan Review, this of Great Britain's pacifists: "Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help out that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, `he that is not with me is against me."...

"Since pacifists have more freedom of action in countries where traces of democracy survive, pacifism can act more effectively against democracy than for it. Objectively, the pacifist is pro-Nazi." ' A reviewer said, "England's pacifists howled, but Orwell's logic was implacable. The Nazis wished the British to no...

In 1942, George Orwell wrote, in Partisan Review, this of Great Britain's pacifists: "Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help out that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, `he that is not with me is against me."...

"Since pacifists have more freedom of action in countries where traces of democracy survive, pacifism can act more effectively against democracy than for it. Objectively, the pacifist is pro-Nazi." ' A reviewer said, "England's pacifists howled, but Orwell's logic was implacable. The Nazis wished the British to not fight. If the British did not fight, the Nazis would conquer Britain. The British pacifists also wished the British to not fight. The British pacifists, therefore, were on the side of a Nazi victory over Britain. They were objectively pro-Fascist." Which indeed they were! If one's actions give aid to the enemy and make it more likely for the enemy to achieve his objectives, then one is pro-enemy, logically. "It is logical," said Mr. Spock.

This logic applies to most of the Democratic leadership now, does it not? Then we have the warriors. The pacifists will never, no matter how often explained and no matter how often history and current events demonstrate the truth, understand that violence is the way to peace when confronted with the determinedly evil.

A Vietnam Vet wrote the following:
Rough men There's a character trait that's decided by fate Comes (sadly) to many, far too faint, far too late.

They won't face the aggressor, stand up to his ire

They have not the will to fight his fire with fire.

So they bend over backwards to see all sides as fair, Till they're faced with dragon breath fire in their hair.

Like our brethren in France, who'd know better than we, Yet seem never to learn, seem doomed never to see.

Yes, it seems there are some who're determined by fate, To possess not the courage to step up to the plate, Who shrink from all threat because nothing's worth war.

But how can they know lest they've b...

A Vietnam Vet wrote the following:
Rough men There's a character trait that's decided by fate Comes (sadly) to many, far too faint, far too late.

They won't face the aggressor, stand up to his ire

They have not the will to fight his fire with fire.

So they bend over backwards to see all sides as fair, Till they're faced with dragon breath fire in their hair.

Like our brethren in France, who'd know better than we, Yet seem never to learn, seem doomed never to see.

Yes, it seems there are some who're determined by fate, To possess not the courage to step up to the plate, Who shrink from all threat because nothing's worth war.

But how can they know lest they've been there before?

Thank God some have courage, the will, yes, the grace, To stand for the shirkers, stand strong in their place.

Thank God we have stalwarts who'll stand for us all, Who will rise to the challenge at their nation's call. The faint-hearted, who fear, whose reaction is flight, Have no comprehension of those who will fight.

To hide their own trepidation they attempt to demean The rough men, who defend them, as barbaric, obscene. Yet these rough men stand ready, hard weapons to hand, To put placaters behind them, draw a line in the sand, To preserve for the peaceniks what they won't defend, So their own unearned freedom won't perish, won't end.

To appeasers, rough men are coarse government tools. To rough men, appeasers are dumb delusional fools.

Russ Vaughn 2d Bn, 327th Parachute Infantry Regiment 101st Airborne Division Vietnam 65-66

Thank heaven for rough men. Thank heaven for George W. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld. As Lincoln said of Grant when some complained about his keeping Grant in charge of the Union Army, "He fights." What is important for a victory over evil is that the battle be fought! One can't win a battle one refuses to fight.

Today 9:51 PM The REAL Napster:
A Vietnam Vet wrote the following:Rough men There's a character trait that's decided by fate Comes (sadly) to many, far too faint, far too late.
They won't face the aggressor, stand up to his ire
They have not the will to fight his fire with fire.
So they bend over backwards to see all sides as fair, Till they're faced with dragon breath fire in their hair.
Like our brethren in France, who'd know better than we, Yet seem never to learn, seem doomed never to see.
Yes, it seems there are some who're determined by fate, To possess not the courage to step up to the plate, Who shrink from all threat because nothing's worth war.

You know what Napster...

Today 9:51 PM The REAL Napster:
A Vietnam Vet wrote the following:Rough men There's a character trait that's decided by fate Comes (sadly) to many, far too faint, far too late.
They won't face the aggressor, stand up to his ire
They have not the will to fight his fire with fire.
So they bend over backwards to see all sides as fair, Till they're faced with dragon breath fire in their hair.
Like our brethren in France, who'd know better than we, Yet seem never to learn, seem doomed never to see.
Yes, it seems there are some who're determined by fate, To possess not the courage to step up to the plate, Who shrink from all threat because nothing's worth war.

You know what Napster, you're right. I'm glad China, the US, and France united against the expanding Vietnamese empire. That was a close one, so close to taking over the world in fact.

"Vietnam was under Chinese control for a thousand years before becoming a nation-state in the 10th century. Successive dynasties flourished along with geographic and political expansion deeper into Southeast Asia, until it was colonized by the French in the mid-19th century. Efforts to resist the French eventually led to their expulsion from the country in the mid-20th century, leaving a nation divided politically into two countries. Bitter fighting between the two sides continued during the Vietnam War, ending with a communist victory in 1975."..."In 1978, the Vietnamese army invaded Cambodia (sparking the Cambodian-Vietnamese War) to remove the Khmer Rouge from power. This action worsened relations with China, which launched a brief incursion into northern Vietnam (the Sino-Vietnamese War) in 1979"...

--Wikipedia

Yep great work stopping that expanding empire......pheewww close one

You go right on thinking it was about stopping a Vietnamese Empire.

Oh,
and go right on citing Wiki for "findings" rather than using as a
process tool as any open-source reference can be only be good for.

I guess you're missing my sarcasm about calling a former Chinese colony, then French colony subdued by force an "empire"

:-|

BTW History books show this too. It's not a wikified piece of information. But maybe you will believe CNN telling you the same piece of information.

"1883

French colonialism


French Catholic missionaries arrived in Vietnam in the 1600s. Over
the years their success at converting the Vietnamese make the
missionaries a target of pe...

You go right on thinking it was about stopping a Vietnamese Empire.

Oh,
and go right on citing Wiki for "findings" rather than using as a
process tool as any open-source reference can be only be good for.

I guess you're missing my sarcasm about calling a former Chinese colony, then French colony subdued by force an "empire"

:-|

BTW History books show this too. It's not a wikified piece of information. But maybe you will believe CNN telling you the same piece of information.

"1883

French colonialism


French Catholic missionaries arrived in Vietnam in the 1600s. Over
the years their success at converting the Vietnamese make the
missionaries a target of persecution by the country's rulers.
Concealing its colonial intent, the French in 1858 use the persecution
as the pretext to invade southern Vietnam. They capture Saigon in 1861
and, after taking the northern part of the country in 1883, force the
emperor to sign a treaty ceding control to France."


http://www.cnn.com/interactive/specials/0004/history.timeline/5.html