June 28, 2006

Old Ideas for New Times

*Found this in my clipboard program history, I think I wrote this about the first time Murtha came online or just there abouts*

It is quite amusing and intersting the asymmetrical tones of this political conflict. The Democrats use people like Kerry and Murtha because their war efforts make it hard for Republicans to criticize them. One of the reasons why Democrats nominated Kerry, cause they thought he'd win given the Republicans support for the military. Why wouldn't Republicans and Independent Americans vote for Kerry?

There's two sides to this issue, and perhaps even more, as with all asymmetrical conflicts. The Democrats don't appreciate military service as a virtue in itself, seeing it for its political benefits. The Republicans and mainstream America truly values the armed forces, making it a political hot potato, everyone wants it so they're all fighting over it and getting burned in the process.

A very insightful look into how having obvious strengths and strong points makes you vulnerable to enemy attack and infiltration. once the enemy knows your weak points, he can know where to attack, and where to avoid.

But the Democrat's plan didn't quite work. Maybe because they didn't realize that the American people value the military and military service not because it is "military and war like" but because it serves the purpose of protecting the US Constitution and the American people. Why does that make a difference? Because, if "war heroes" like Kerry or Murtha ever acted to harm the US Constitution or the American people, their military service is not going to prevent people from acting against them. This is the difference of swearing allegiance to the government of the United States and the President of the US, to swearing an allegiance to the US Constitution against all enemies, foreign or domestic.

From what I've witnessed, Americans don't tend to put the military upon a pedestal, appreciating its existence and not its purpose. It is a bad analysis of Americans, when the Democrats conclude that military service will defacto make them right, presumably because people don't know better than to put their faith in the military.

This kind of exploitation is troublesome, but it is also ineffective. Don't expect loyalty from people that you mistrust and abuse. Loyalty in human affairs go both ways, or else it doesn't exist.


Anonymous wozza said...

the military isn't the problem........... and none but the hardest core pacifistic democrat would say so. Individual military men do good service for their country.

the main beef of the Democratic party (and the rising number of people who think iraq was amistake, btw now a majority) DO NOT BLAME THE TROOPS!!!!!!!!!
they blame the people giving the orders, the civillians who never served a day in their lives of front row combat duty.

lest we forget Kerry actually volunteed for Nam..... and the thanks he gets for that is Michelle Malkin claiming he shot himself on purpose during his THIRD tour of duty.

And murtha was in the Marines twenty something years, he could have left after a certain number, and John Glenn was a military man now a democrat. And all the Iraq vets (volunteers) standing for election in November are Democrats.

And while we are on this subject all the weapons systems Kerry was pilliored for voting against are the ones Rumsfeld went to the Hill in 1990 and said "we don't need these anymore, soviets are gone new threat requires different stratergy and weapons".

there are trully two sides to every story


29 June, 2006 20:44  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home