January 3, 2007

Anyhow, when did victory become a distinct and identifiable Republican characteristic? I'm not saying it is - but there are certainly a lot of non-Republicans out there who believe it without question or hesitation.

Because Defeat never found a more willing concubine, nor a more fertile mind to plant it's foul seed into than the mind of someone who is permanently poised to find fault with only their spouse, only their family, only their country, for the misfortune which befalls innocents who die at the hands of brigands, thugs, criminals, headchoppers, and murderers, while they sit oblivious to these and similar evils being perpetrated in their presence. It is a characteristic of a Coward that they cannot face a threat without hiding or running away. Fear conquers all reason and civilized conduct.

It is somehow a government's fault that airplanes aren't safe enough to never fall from the sky, even when piloted by jihadists with murder motivating them. Somehow the honest Christian victim's fault for provoking the "Beast-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named", in some Harry Potterish fantasy world, where Muslims are too powerful to be opposed for pursuing jihad against innocent people despite the violations of millenia of "civilized law".

Liberal minds believe in an all powerful entity, called the government, which can force you to do only the good and proper things in life, under pain of Death, but they fail to see the Death rendered by criminals on honest citizens as anything other than a product of a misspent childhood, or abusive parents. Only the State knows how to obtain order and discipline from the human condition. Not God. Not Reason. And not the minds and backs of sturdy Men who believe in Freedom for All.

When did Republicans become associated with Victory? When Dhimmicrats embraced Defeat! Defeat, the surest path to Death and to Hell is the political path paved with only your party's best interest in mind, and not the lives of your countrymen. Either stand up for what you want defended, or lose it altogether.

Dhimmicrats have chosen their poster child. It is Osama bin Ladin ruling a caliphate which insists America must submit to the will of bin Ladin or be attacked and killed wherever and whenever a good Muslim can do so. Submit or Die.

That is when Defeat became a Dhimmicratic characteristic. And Victory became a Republican associate.

Color me Republican if that is the definition of Victory. For Victory is all that matters to me at this point. Victory in the War on Terror. Victory against radical Islam. Victory in Iraq. Victory in Afghanistan. Victory for my kids, my family, my country. Victory for civilized American society, worth defending and dying for. Give me such a Victory....

...or give me Death.

Subsunk

If you believe in appeasement, defeat in Iraq would show that we were wrong to stop talking and start fighting. If you believe in pacifism, defeat would demonstrate that war is futile even if your motives are good. If you believe in globalism, defeat would suggest that we should have acted strictly in concert with world opinion. In short, if you do believe in appeasement, pacifism, globalism (and many leading Democrats do), your wish for defeat is no evil or traitorous urge. It is merely logical. -- Some Ideologies Are More Sympathetic Than Others

Anyhow, when did victory become a distinct and identifiable Republican characteristic?

I find in that question the most chilling spectres I've ever encountered in all my life as an American. May God help us all.

This is a symptom of something I wrote about a couple of years ago: "...there is an unfortunately large movement in America whose political goal is for the United States to be defeated militarily. To them, any effort on the part of the military to do their job well, any activity that brings "mission success", will necessarily be viewed as a partisan attempt to undermine their political goal of an embarrassing defeat and humiliating retreat..."

To some people Victory cannot be non-partisan because victory would help the Republicans in the next election and could make it easier for hawks to argue for the next war. It is worth it to these people for us to lose if it gives them political power to build their utopia and/or prevents the next "American Imperialist Project." Sure American soldiers will die, but you can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs. Plus they get to live out the fantasy (or relive their idealized youth) of being a brave revolutionary fighting against The Man on behalf of the oppressed.

"Anyhow, when did victory become a distinct and identifiable Republican characteristic?"

The US Military proved that it was a Juggernaut in the 1940's. If the boys at Fort Hood decided to go on a joyride to the tip of Argentina tomorrow morning at 9 there really isn't anything that could stop them.

The rest of the world knows this. There isn't a professional military officer in any of the worlds Armys or Navys that would seriously consider opposing the US military.

The rest of the world is therefore left with a bit of a problem...how to control the US? About the only way is to convince the American public that "War never solved anything" or that "War is always wrong". Slipping those terms into Western Socialist/Marxist dogma was a pretty easy job. Democrats by definition are receptive to Socialist Dogma.

Hence, if one doesn't believe the only part of Socialist Dogma that the various Socialist Utopian Paradises of the World need you to believe(war is always wrong,never solved anything blag,blah) then you are a Republican WingNut.

As we saw in the case of Joe Lieberman, a Roosevelt Democrat can't win his own parties primaries. As a result, if there any Roosevelt Democrats in the Democratic Party Leadership...they are "Closet Roosevelt Democrats".

Another phrase for "Closet Roosevelt Democrat" would be "The Silent Majority"...or as a Japanese Admiral once remarked "A Sleeping Giant".

In any case, from the persective of the Socialist Utopian Paradises talk of "Victory" or the "US Military being a force for good" must be kept out of American Schools and Universities at all costs.

Think of it this way,
Anyone looking towards victory is obviously results oriented.
While every good Democrat and/or Liberal knows the proper focus should be on the process.
Ergo, anyone who mentions victory is a Republican/Conservative/NeoCon/etc.

To a Democrat, victory in Iraq sounds like means testing.

Greyhawk, I must respectfully disagree with you. Democrats and Liberals embrace victory. They crave victory. Where you make your mistake is assuming that they want America, her allies and her vital interests to prevail. No, they are always rooting for America's adversaries.

O, I am just a hater? OK, lets start where before WWII they opposed Nazi Germany, then when the Pact of Steel was signed they opposed war with Nazi Germany and then when Operation Barbarossa occured couldn't do a 180 fast enough. Or was it a 360?

Or when they did everything they could to ensure defeat for S. Viet Nam, finally succeeding when they cut off funding in 1975. Or when Kerry et al met with Nicaragua's Ortega to assure him they would stop America from helping the democracy lovers in that country. Maybe the human shields protecting the Islamofascist baby killers in Israel? Or Iraq with Saddam. And now their conduct to stop democracy in a land of brown people. Perhaps a little discrimination at work?

O no, Greyhawk, you are wrong. National Democrats in America are all about victory, just not their country's.