July 13, 2007

WESTERN BONELESS WONDERS

        Andrew Roberts is the author of "A History of the English-Speaking Peoples Since 1900." His eloquent article, At stake in the Iraq war: survival of a way of life, begins with the following words:
        "Unless the English-speaking peoples step up, they'll lose the great struggle against radical, totalitarian Islam..." Read the rest here.

        Roberts book is a coda to Churchill's own work on the history of the English speaking peoples. As we watch the current replay of earlier wars, it's hard not to think that most Western politicians are born with an appeasement gene that overrides any knowledge they possess of history. Then again, it's up to real leaders to rouse the rest of us from our usual desire for comfort and ease, and thus far, no Churchills are in sight. Were Sir Winston alive today, we think he would modify the following comments to include Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and all their liberal colleagues.

"I remember when I was a child, being taken to the celebrated Barnum's Circus, which contained an exhibition of freaks and monstrosities, but the exhibit on the program which I most desired to see was the one described as 'The Boneless Wonder.' My parents judged that the spectacle would be too demoralizing and revolting for my youthful eye, and I have waited 50 years to see The Boneless Wonder--sitting on the Treasury Bench."
--Winston Churchill, January 28, 1931,
in the House of Commons, referring to Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald

February 18, 2007

UNLIKE THE DEMOCRATS, NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN WANTED TO WIN

        Horsefeathers has been critical of the politically corrrect utopianism of the Bush administration's strategy in Iraq. We continue to favor application of overwhelming killing force on the grounds that we're in a war, and in war there is no substitute for victory. Further, we believe that in war there should be no sanctuary for the enemy, neither mosques, schools, hositals or national borders. Yet none of the obstacles we face on the battlefield constitutes a greater threat than that posed by our own Benedict Arnolds. The following just about sums it up:

"...Neville Chamberlain's naivete may have helped bring on World War II, but at least he supported his country when war began. Norway's Vidkun Quisling and France's Vichy government under Marshal Petain may have collaborated with the Nazi enemy, but after their countries' defeats, not before.

We'd have to go back to Benedict Arnold to find Americans as eager as Murtha & Co. to see an American defeat on the battlefield.

They are working on the game plan of al-Qaida's No. 2, Ayman al-Zawahiri. In October 2005, Zawahiri outlined al-Qaida's plan in a letter to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, late head of al-Qaida in Iraq:

"The first stage: Expel the Americans from Iraq. The second stage: Establish an Islamic authority . . . over as much territory as you can spread its power in Iraq . . . in order to fill the void stemming from the departure of the Americans."

John Murtha and his perfidious friends are working on creating that void and completing Zawahiri's first stage. They are the appeasers Churchill warned about who hope that by feeding the Islamofascist tiger, it will eat us last."

See the rest here.

CHOOSING SIDES: AYAAN HIRSI ALI OR CONGRESSIONAL COWARDS

        On the same day that 56 white flag senators were rationalizing surrender as victory, cowardice as courage, Ayaan Hirsi Ali was on CSpan discussing her memoir, Infidel. For all those feeling despair about our situation, watch and be inspired that this courageous, articulate and beautiful woman has chosen to live among us, encouraging all to defend Western culture and its freedoms. Her refusal to be intimidated by barbaric savages should shame our lawmakers. It may take a foreigner, a woman like Hirsi Ali to recall us to our stronger selves. Do we want to become a nation of castrati, a cringing bunch of Chuck Schumers begging and pleading with totalitarians? For shame! Hirsi Ali may have arrived just in time.
See her talk here.

September 10, 2006

U.S. WARS

Here's the headline on the lead story of the online New York Times:

Cheney and Rice Defend U.S. Wars

        U.S.WARS?? We thought the Jihadis were involved? Guess not. It must have been the bloodthirsty Neocons who just wanted to launch unprovoked wars against innocent Muslims. Wouldn't the more appropriate headline have been: Cheney and Rice Defend U.S. War Policies? Instead the infantile grandiosity of the NYTimes fantasists sees the war we're in as totally created by Bush, Cheney, Rice and the dreaded Neo-Cons. For them it makes perfect sense that these are wars with a U.S., made in the White House, label.

September 05, 2006

AUSTRALIA: UNINTIMIDATED BY MUSLIM 'OUTRAGE'

"...Australian Muslim representatives are voicing outrage at comments by the country's two top politicians, who urged immigrants from Islamic societies to fit in, learn English, treat women with respect, and shun extremism.

An Islamic leader warned that the remarks could antagonize Muslims and lead to a repeat of incidents such as the rioting in a Sydney beachside suburb last December, when groups of youngsters -- described as having a Middle Eastern background -- fought with whites.

Prime Minister John Howard late last week said migrants should integrate into the way of life in their new country but that a minority of Muslims was opposed to accepting Australia's values.

"Fully integrating means accepting Australian values -- it means learning as rapidly as you can the English language if you don't already speak it," he said in a radio interview.

"People who come from societies where women are treated in an inferior fashion have got to learn very quickly that that is not the case in Australia."

Howard's remarks drew a swift and critical response from Muslim leaders.

Ameer Ali, chairman of an advisory group set up by the government to combat extremism in the 300,000-strong Muslim community, told a radio station the remarks could stoke violence.

"We have already witnessed one incident in Sydney recently in Cronulla," he said in reference to last December's riots. "I don't want these scenes to be repeated because when you antagonize the younger generation ... they are bound to react..."
See the rest here.

September 01, 2006

RUMSFELD'S REMINDER: THE ALARM WENT OFF 5 YEARS AGO. STAY AWAKE.

        When reading the Mainstream media it's useful to keep in mind dream logic. To understand dreams one must appreciate the power of fantasy to overcome reality. Not only is the adult sense of reality suspended during dreams, but it is replaced by a dream sense of conviction, so that only on waking does the dreamer understand he was deluded while asleep. Freud once pointed out that we are all psychotic--in our dreams, meaning that the adult waking sense of reality and judgment is temporarily suspended during sleep. However, states of consciousness vary, so one may be only partially awake even when not actually lying in bed at night, fully asleep.
        If you keep in mind that modern liberalism is a shared waking dream, a wishful fantasy of omnipotence, of a peaceful world requiring only the dreamer's good will and boundless empathy for the oppressed, then it becomes relatively easy to understand our media's agenda. They are partially asleep, and therefore can't acknowledge the deluded nature of their belief system, for to do so would awaken them to painful realities. Instead, they reshape the world in accordance with their liberal dreams. In that dream world we have no enemies who want to destroy us because we're Jews and infidels, only friends we need to sit down and talk with sympathetically. In dreams we're all self centered and the cause of wondrous events. In dreams we create our enemies and we can transform them instantly into friends by properly appreciating their grievances and wishing away their rage.
        Recall what it's like when you've awakened a happily dreaming child to tell him he has an unpleasant task to perform. You will then understand the reaction of liberals to the war launched against us by Jihadis. They go back to sleep. First comes denial---it's not really a war; then comes scapegoating---it's the neocons, the Jews, Israel, it's the Cowboy in the White House, it's a minor law enforcement problem, Saddam has nothing to do with the Jihadis, etc. When the President and the Sec'y of Defense persist in their attempts to awaken the childish dreamers to the reality of war, they respond with tantrums. Notice there is almost no reasoned effort to dispute the President's and the Sec'y of Defense's history lessons, but like small children awakened from a pleasant dream, they react with aggrieved anger---how dare you wake us from our nap.
        The problem is not reducible to one of simple partisanship. If it were it would be easily dealt with through rational argumentation. The mainstream media is not merely the public relations and support group of the DNC, it is the propaganda arm of the utopian yearners for a perfect world, a world that exists only in sleep and dreams.
        The Sec'y of Defense complains that the mainstream media prefer stories of misdeeds by our soldiers to stories of heroism. However, this makes sense, for tales of heroism involve recognition that sometimes it's necessary to kill an enemy and to lay down one's life to defend our way of life and values. In the dream world of multicultural liberalism, there are no values that are superior and therefore worth fighting and dying to preserve. Ironically, Congressional Medal of Honor winner, Paul Smith (see below)gave his life so that our media elites could continue their uninterrupted slumber. For the rest of us, it is a painful and stirring reminder of what we're fighting for in World War IV.

The President of the United States of America, authorized by Act of Congress, March 3, 1863, has awarded in the name of Congress the Medal of Honor to

Sergeant First Class Paul R. Smith
United States Army

For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty:

Sergeant First Class Paul R. Smith distinguished himself by acts of gallantry and intrepidity above and beyond the call of duty in action with an armed enemy near Baghdad International Airport, Baghdad, Iraq on 4 April 2003. On that day, Sergeant First Class Smith was engaged in the construction of a prisoner of war holding area when his Task Force was violently attacked by a company-sized enemy force. Realizing the vulnerability of over 100 fellow soldiers, Sergeant First Class Smith quickly organized a hasty defense consisting of two platoons of soldiers, one Bradley Fighting Vehicle and three armored personnel carriers. As the fight developed, Sergeant First Class Smith braved hostile enemy fire to personally engage the enemy with hand grenades and anti-tank weapons, and organized the evacuation of three wounded soldiers from an armored personnel carrier struck by a rocket propelled grenade and a 60mm mortar round. Fearing the enemy would overrun their defenses, Sergeant First Class Smith moved under withering enemy fire to man a .50 caliber machine gun mounted on a damaged armored personnel carrier. In total disregard for his own life, he maintained his exposed position in order to engage the attacking enemy force. During this action, he was mortally wounded. His courageous actions helped defeat the enemy attack, and resulted in as many as 50 enemy soldiers killed, while allowing the safe withdrawal of numerous wounded soldiers. Sergeant First Class Smith’s extraordinary heroism and uncommon valor are in keeping with the highest traditions of the military service and reflect great credit upon himself, the Third Infantry Division “Rock of the Marne,” and the United States Army.

August 18, 2006

ISRAEL'S FAILURE: THE SAME DIAGNOSIS APPLIES TO THE U.S.

        Yuval Steinitz (see below) has written a withering critique of Israel's approach to war. Where a Patton was needed, they got an incompetent Halutz and a bumbling Olmert. Horsefeathers discerns no American Pattons either. Hopefully, some will arise to replace those who seem to have spent more time at the Kennedy School, learning diplomacy, instead of the art of war. Steinitz, citing Victor Hanson's historical studies shows that the Western way of war has succeeded by its effectiveness at killing the enemy, by taking the ground battle to him using speed, surprise and flexibility. Patton is the archetypal Western battle commander. He made the essential point about the need for ground troops to be always on the offensive, colorfully but memorably. He also made clear that the emphasis must be on killing the enemy, not minimizing casualties.

"War is a bloody, killing business. You've got to spill their blood, or they will spill yours...I don't want to get any messages saying, 'I am holding my position.' We are not holding a Goddamned thing. Let the Germans do that. We are advancing constantly and we are not interested in holding onto anything, except the enemy's balls. We are going to twist his balls and kick the living shit out of him all of the time. Our basic plan of operation is to advance and to keep on advancing regardless of whether we have to go over, under, or through the enemy. We are going to go through him like crap through a goose; like shit through a tin horn!.."

        The Post-modern, Western way of war prides itself, not on victory, but on minimizing casualties. Israel strove so hard to limit civilian casualties (getting of course no credit from the world's Jew haters) that it neglected to defeat its enemies. Instead it expended much effort explaining why victory was unachievable. Recall this: our enemies killed 3000 American civilians in one day--and celebrated-- while we search for every opportunity to flagellate ourselves over the deaths of one enemy prisoner. Israel is at war for weeks and kills less than a thousand and diplomats cry halt. The most damaging fallout from Israel's delicate, politically correct prosecution of the war, is that the surrounding jackals, having drawn blood, will seek a second holocaust soon with renewed vigor.
        America is deeply infected with the same disease of political correctness. We too have forgotten how to wage war and too many of our Generals seem to have spent more time learning the arts of diplomacy than the art of war.

The war that was led astray
By Yuval Steinitz

Why was Israel prevented from trouncing a relatively minor terror organization, like Hezbollah, operating from the smallest, weakest nation in the region? How did we fail, not only to achieve our declared objectives, but in the far more vital effort of protecting the State of Israel from a missile and rocket attack for more than four weeks? Was this a specific failure of an inexperienced political leadership? Or perhaps the product of haughty, arrogant Israel Defense Force top brass, who closed its ears to criticism of exaggerated dependence on air power? Or perhaps, are these all symptoms of a far more serious disease: the culture of war we adopted since the first war in Lebanon in 1982...
See the rest here.

<< Back to Horsefeathers