…in Afghanistan? Let’s hope that the new administration is reading this. Let’s hope even more that they want to win that war, and not just “end” it.
14 thoughts on “A Road To Victory”
Comments are closed.
…in Afghanistan? Let’s hope that the new administration is reading this. Let’s hope even more that they want to win that war, and not just “end” it.
Comments are closed.
Good God, just reading the headings is scary enough.
With the exception of FDR and Harry Truman has there EVER been a Democrat Administration who was willing to fight a war, kill the enemy, and win, instead of talking to them and making them “understand our differences”?
I can tell you this, coming from the troops, our military isn’t happy with the prospect of “fighting” for President BOHICA. They have no idea, or hope, that he’s up to it.
PROLEGOMENON! The writer was channeling William F. Buckley!
With the exception of FDR and Harry Truman has there EVER been a Democrat Administration who was willing to fight a war, kill the enemy, and win, instead of talking to them and making them “understand our differences”?
Yes there has been, Steve. There was the Jefferson Davis Administration.
Jim,
I was kind of thinking of more current times. But you are right about Davis. So we have 3 in 233 years, one of which was the leader of the Confederacy, who was defeated by a Republican.
That’s not a great track record.
Ouch. Jim walks himself into these bad comments the way Obama walks into Marine 1.
The Jefferson Davis example makes a point. Namely, that in certain parts people cared more about fighting than about being right. When they lost — which was inevitable because their cause made no sense — they first blamed the media and then they very bitterly blamed liberals. They were incapable of blaming themselves.
And guess what, that’s still the attitude in those same states.
Actually, the answer is the Truman administration. No doubt Jim thinks that we should have negotiated with Tojo.
And in his comments about the south, he demonstrates the mindless bigotry of the left.
Actually, the answer is the Truman administration.
Besides Wilson, FDR, Truman, and Clinton, what Democratic president has ever won a war?
There is another interesting twist to this discussion too. If a President fights a war hard but loses, as for instance Jefferson Davis and Lyndon Johnson did, then he’s just as big a coward as if he didn’t fight at all. Doing what right-wing voters demand counts for nothing if you fail and discredit the cause.
Actually, soon enough that will be the history that they write for Bush too. That he seemed good at first but was too wobbly with Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan.
And in his comments about the south, he demonstrates the mindless bigotry of the left.
Yeah that was the argument at the time. The abolitionists were the real bigots: they were prejudiced against the South.
Abolitionists weren’t leftists, or bigots like you.
Abolitionists weren’t leftists
That’s exactly what the Radical Republicans were or how they were seen in the 1850s. They weren’t just for Negro equality; they were also feminists, they were vegetarians, they were pacifists, they wanted to ban tobacco, they wanted wealth redistribution, and they were too permissive with immigration. It was the whole deal.
Well, except for gay rights. That was the one scandalous social objective that even conservatives didn’t consider throwing at the Radical Republicans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1856-Republican-party-Fremont-isms-caricature.jpg
Namely, that in certain parts people cared more about fighting than about being right.
You mean like your comments. Those comments where you blame Republicans or Rand for everything. It is because you just want to argue with us. If that’s not the cause, then I would suspect you would comment less, because I haven’t seen where you routinely agree with the blog host on anything? You always want to argue with him, and you have been proven wrong many times.
> The Jefferson Davis example makes a point. Namely, that in certain parts people cared more about fighting than about being right. When they lost — which was inevitable because their cause made no sense — they first blamed the media and then they very bitterly blamed liberals.
Actually, they blamed Republicans.
Note that they had considerable support in the media. But, being Democrats, they’re not happy if anyone is allowed to disagree with them.
Those comments where you blame Republicans or Rand for everything.
I don’t blame Rand for anything. I disagree with him on many points, but nothing that has gone wrong is his fault.
As for Republicans, well that really means more than one thing. Republicans voters are in most cases fine people, but even fine people sometimes misplace their trust. Republican politicians are a mixed bag. Some of them are competent statesmen. But some of them are basically modern-day fire eaters and their guidance is just plain bad for America.
I would suspect you would comment less, because I haven’t seen where you routinely agree with the blog host on anything?
I actually haven’t been commenting much lately, precisely because it didn’t seem worthwhile to just keep disagreeing. This thread started when I responded to commenter Steve, not to Rand.
Actually, they blamed Republicans.
That’s right, Andy, they blamed liberal Republicans. In the 1850s and 1860s, the Republicans were the liberals and the Southern Democrats were the conservatives. Hence the campaign poster in which Fremont is accused of supporting radical liberal causes such as feminism, wealth redistribution, and Negro equality.
> That’s right, Andy, they blamed liberal Republicans.
Which were mostly repackaged Whigs.
Note that “liberal Republicans” of the 1860s weren’t “liberal” in the same sense as “liberal democrats” today.
Note that in the 1960s, it was democrats who were still pushing the same control. Someone else will point out that nothing much has changed.