Joseph Farah's imperial blinders
From the head honcho warmonger of WND:
Have we learned all the wrong lessons from Vietnam? Yes. Incredulous as it may seem that after not just one, but three, previous unconstitutional, imperial wars or conflicts - Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq War I - on behalf of the global schemers of the United Nations, Americans can still apparently be convinced to believe that we should gallop off to war against any nation who has not first attacked us or who had no preparations or even the ability to attack us. The majority support for Der Führer's Iraq War II demonstrated that beyond doubt. And yet again, the war was on behalf of the United Nations. In other words, we're the primary proxy fighting force for the U.N. tyrant cabal.
From The New American article, The UN and Iran: Here We Go Again!:
The principal reason given by President George W. Bush for invading Iraq was Saddam’s defiance of UN disarmament resolutions. “We have passed more than a dozen resolutions in the United Nations Security Council,” explained the president in his March 17, 2003 speech. “The Iraqi regime … has uniformly defied Security Council resolutions demanding full disarmament.... The security of the world requires disarming Saddam Hussein now.”
And how do I know that our military is utilized as a proxy for the U.N.? Again, from the same The New American article, The UN and Iran: Here We Go Again!:
Since the founding of the UN in 1945, the use of U.S. troops to enforce UN "police actions" or "peacekeeping operations" has resulted in large numbers of U.S. casualties wasted in no-win military ventures. The Korean War (officially a "police action") was of course waged under UN direction. Less known is the fact that the legal basis for our involvement in Vietnam was the SEATO (Southeast Asia Treaty Organization) collective defense treaty. Like NATO, SEATO was a regional subsidiary of the United Nations.
Yes, the U.N. has many tentacles and all are, or were, in the case of SEATO which was disbanded in 1977, connected to the one big octapus head headquartered in New York City. Why is this so difficult to comprehend? Should it be any wonder, then, why we have "lost," by folding our tent and withdrawing or destroying our materiel, every single major conflict we've been involved in since WWII? And leaving behind devastation, insurgencies quickened by our very presence as foreign invaders, not to mention leaving intact the enemy tyrant regime in our wake? No, not at all. During the Korean Conflict, the collectivists in our State Department, working in tandem with comrades in the U.N. hierarchy, were divulging intel of our military ops to the enemy. And the betrayals as observed by a Korean War veteran himself.
The central point that needs to be drilled home, however, is that we should not have fought, or be fighting, these conflicts in the first damn place! These post-WWII wars were, and are, unconstitutional; we engage in these, I sincerely believe, for the primary purpose of draining our treasury, our wealth, and diminishing our overall power gradually over time since all of these, with the exception of Iraq War I, and including the current quagmire in Iraq, end up being loooong, seemingly indefinite wars of attrition. And this one is breaking the bank literally, culling or maiming countless men and women who could've otherwise been economic productive members of society. It's a disgrace and it's immoral!
Joseph Farah is a walking, talking dichotomy, if nothing else. He claims to be a constitutionalist, not to mention a Christian, and yet he is one the loudest cheerleaders of imperial war. If he knew anything about key members of who we now call the "Founding Fathers," he certainly wouldn't be supporting this unconstitutional offensive war. Keep in mind, when I say "offensive" here I do not mean in the midst and operation of a war, when acting offensively is critical to total victory, I'm instead talking about a type of war here, engaging in a premptive war with no justification for doing so.
George Washington, in his Farewell Address, published on September 17, 1796, made the point about "to steer clear of permanent alliances" in the foreign world:
It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world, so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But in my opinion it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.
Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies. (empasis mine)
Thomas Jefferson also made reference to the same during his Inaugural Address in 1801. He said, ""Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations -- entangling alliances with none."
Mr. Farah needs desparately to become reacquainted with the Founders on many subject areas. He keeps yammering on that "we're at war" while he plans a 10th aniversary cruise. How quaint; the urgency of this WAR obviously must not have been imparted to him yet. It's obvious, he's quite at ease readying himself for a big bash and presumably has no family members patriotically and urgently volunteering to fight the evil "Islamo-fascists" instead. Yet everyone else should be? Please.
If we were really at war for the defense and very survival of our nation, he and most of the population at large wouldn't be, in essence, living large. There would be rationing, a mobilization of national guard and military units in preparation on domestic soil, a closing of the porous borders, an economy mobilized for war production, etc. Basically there'd be a transformation into a garrison state, in essence if not literally. None of that has occurred
Then again, perhaps Mr. Farah does indeed want this country morphing into some kind of a garrison state and everyone harboring a "siege mentality."
Is it that too many Americans learned all the wrong lessons from Vietnam?
Is it that our woefully broken educational system and immoral mass media have left Americans in state of self-hating denial?
Is it that we are simply incapable of remembering what happened 30 years ago?
Or is it that America's enemies have learned all the lessons exceptionally well and remembered how to apply them under new circumstances – in a war that actually means far more to the future of the U.S. and everything it means to be an American?
Maybe it's a combination of all four premises that set the stage for us now as America's elected officials and top policymakers prepare for surrender to the Islamo-fascists of al-Qaida just five years after Osama bin Laden incinerated 3,000 Americans in the worst-ever foreign attack on U.S. soil.
Or maybe it's an indication we as Americans just don't have the intestinal fortitude – or the moral courage – to stand up to people willing to fight and die for something bigger than themselves, no matter how evil that cause may be.
This is what is going through my mind today as I watch history repeat itself in Washington – as armchair generals in the House and Senate vote to go to war, authorized expenditures for that war, approve new leadership with a new plan for that war, debate whether that new plan makes any sense, then pass non-binding resolutions against the new strategy developed for and approved by the commander in chief.
If you're as old as I am, you've lived through this kind of charade before. Back in Vietnam, when the cowards in Congress finally and inevitably ended all financial support to the allies with whom our troops had fought for so many years, it ended predictably in a holocaust – millions victimized by the killing fields of Southeast Asia dead and tens of millions more enslaved by Communism for a generation.
Have we learned all the wrong lessons from Vietnam? Yes. Incredulous as it may seem that after not just one, but three, previous unconstitutional, imperial wars or conflicts - Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq War I - on behalf of the global schemers of the United Nations, Americans can still apparently be convinced to believe that we should gallop off to war against any nation who has not first attacked us or who had no preparations or even the ability to attack us. The majority support for Der Führer's Iraq War II demonstrated that beyond doubt. And yet again, the war was on behalf of the United Nations. In other words, we're the primary proxy fighting force for the U.N. tyrant cabal.
From The New American article, The UN and Iran: Here We Go Again!:
The principal reason given by President George W. Bush for invading Iraq was Saddam’s defiance of UN disarmament resolutions. “We have passed more than a dozen resolutions in the United Nations Security Council,” explained the president in his March 17, 2003 speech. “The Iraqi regime … has uniformly defied Security Council resolutions demanding full disarmament.... The security of the world requires disarming Saddam Hussein now.”
And how do I know that our military is utilized as a proxy for the U.N.? Again, from the same The New American article, The UN and Iran: Here We Go Again!:
Since the founding of the UN in 1945, the use of U.S. troops to enforce UN "police actions" or "peacekeeping operations" has resulted in large numbers of U.S. casualties wasted in no-win military ventures. The Korean War (officially a "police action") was of course waged under UN direction. Less known is the fact that the legal basis for our involvement in Vietnam was the SEATO (Southeast Asia Treaty Organization) collective defense treaty. Like NATO, SEATO was a regional subsidiary of the United Nations.
Yes, the U.N. has many tentacles and all are, or were, in the case of SEATO which was disbanded in 1977, connected to the one big octapus head headquartered in New York City. Why is this so difficult to comprehend? Should it be any wonder, then, why we have "lost," by folding our tent and withdrawing or destroying our materiel, every single major conflict we've been involved in since WWII? And leaving behind devastation, insurgencies quickened by our very presence as foreign invaders, not to mention leaving intact the enemy tyrant regime in our wake? No, not at all. During the Korean Conflict, the collectivists in our State Department, working in tandem with comrades in the U.N. hierarchy, were divulging intel of our military ops to the enemy. And the betrayals as observed by a Korean War veteran himself.
The central point that needs to be drilled home, however, is that we should not have fought, or be fighting, these conflicts in the first damn place! These post-WWII wars were, and are, unconstitutional; we engage in these, I sincerely believe, for the primary purpose of draining our treasury, our wealth, and diminishing our overall power gradually over time since all of these, with the exception of Iraq War I, and including the current quagmire in Iraq, end up being loooong, seemingly indefinite wars of attrition. And this one is breaking the bank literally, culling or maiming countless men and women who could've otherwise been economic productive members of society. It's a disgrace and it's immoral!
Joseph Farah is a walking, talking dichotomy, if nothing else. He claims to be a constitutionalist, not to mention a Christian, and yet he is one the loudest cheerleaders of imperial war. If he knew anything about key members of who we now call the "Founding Fathers," he certainly wouldn't be supporting this unconstitutional offensive war. Keep in mind, when I say "offensive" here I do not mean in the midst and operation of a war, when acting offensively is critical to total victory, I'm instead talking about a type of war here, engaging in a premptive war with no justification for doing so.
George Washington, in his Farewell Address, published on September 17, 1796, made the point about "to steer clear of permanent alliances" in the foreign world:
It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world, so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But in my opinion it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.
Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies. (empasis mine)
Thomas Jefferson also made reference to the same during his Inaugural Address in 1801. He said, ""Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations -- entangling alliances with none."
Mr. Farah needs desparately to become reacquainted with the Founders on many subject areas. He keeps yammering on that "we're at war" while he plans a 10th aniversary cruise. How quaint; the urgency of this WAR obviously must not have been imparted to him yet. It's obvious, he's quite at ease readying himself for a big bash and presumably has no family members patriotically and urgently volunteering to fight the evil "Islamo-fascists" instead. Yet everyone else should be? Please.
If we were really at war for the defense and very survival of our nation, he and most of the population at large wouldn't be, in essence, living large. There would be rationing, a mobilization of national guard and military units in preparation on domestic soil, a closing of the porous borders, an economy mobilized for war production, etc. Basically there'd be a transformation into a garrison state, in essence if not literally. None of that has occurred
Then again, perhaps Mr. Farah does indeed want this country morphing into some kind of a garrison state and everyone harboring a "siege mentality."
posted by dixiedog @ 2/13/2007 06:10:00 AM
|
