How Liberals Lose Wars -- Careless Page

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Search | Check update time ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 19:52:37 03/20/06 Mon
Author: Richard
Subject: How Liberals Lose Wars

OK, it's time for the truth. Ann Coulter has said it. Hundreds, if not thousands of anonymous internet posters have said it. The Swift Boat Veterans For Truth have said it. And now I, a liberal, am saying it.

Liberals lose wars.

Oh how they lose them!

First of all, in order to understand this simple, and obvious concept, we need to understand what a "war" is. Think of the American Civil War, better known as "The War Between the States." Men lined up and ran at each other while firing, bayonets attached, while cannons fired, lobbing artillery into the enemy lines. The object was simple. Kill the enemy before he kills you. But what was the true objective? To gain ground? To encroach upon and occupy the enemy's territory, and conquering him?

Not really.

To force his surrender, and to have YOUR ideology triumph over his. It was a war of ideas, fought by men on the ground.

War is not chess. Chess is based on war, of course, and planning strategy within war can be a "chess match" between commanders, but the pieces are not simple ivory or plastic, inanimate objects with limited strategic value. The human pieces have feelings, and fears, and weaknesses, and may not always do as the commander had envisioned, for good or for bad. Their strategic value is much more fluid. Sometimes a knight may perform the actions of a rook, and so forth, and sometimes the piece may simply not do anything at all. You never know until the moment comes.

And that is what brings me to modern wars.

Class, can anyone tell me what the objective to the Vietnam Conflict was? It was not an actual war, of course, between the United States and North Vietnam. That would be ridiculous. We could just send in massive troops, air power, and tanks, and simply bomb them into submission, or even simpler, we could just annhilate them with nukes.

BAM!

No more North Vietnam. We killed a country, and we won.

But that was not the objective to the Vietnam Police Action. The STATED objective was to contain the spread of Communism. Most of your modern day Vietnam Warriors who either did or didn't fight there, depending on whether or not they did or didn't, of course, may honestly believe that containing the spread of Communism was the actual act of physical containment. "You may not go beneath this parallel; or spread beyond that river."

That is absurd.

Containing the spread of Communism is not that simple, as Communism is an IDEALOGY. It is a way of life. It is a political philosophy. So let me explain what the Vietnam Conflict was actually about.

In "Enter the Dragon," a man asks Bruce Lee's character "What's your Style?"

Bruce replies, "I practice the art of fighting without fighting."

"Let me see," he demands.

"Later" says Bruce, waving the man off, and actually demonstrating his art without the man realizing it.

The Vietnam Conflict was the art of Fighting the USSR without fighting the USSR, just as the Korean Conflict was the art of Fighting the Chinese without fighting the Chinese. Confused? I'm sorry to tell you, but considering the simplicity of the terms I've used, you are probably a complete idiot, and need not read further. Sorry.

The fact is, the United States has a PR problem with the more desperate, evil nations of the world. We are seen as soft; spoiled; unwilling to send hundreds or even thousands of our best young people to their deaths for dubious causes. And that's where the Godless Barbarians have a serious advantage over us. They ARE willing to send hundreds or even thousands of their best young people to their deaths for dubious causes. Without hesitation.

Both the Korean and the Vietnamese Conflicts were wars of propaganda. Violent, REAL propaganda. They were exercises in showing the enemy that we were, in fact quite willing to send hundreds or even thousands of our best young people to their deaths for dubious causes.

And when the hippies, and the peace activists poked and prodded the American people into seeing that their best young peopel were being sent to their deaths for dubious causes, something extroardinary happened. The American People said "hey! We really don't LIKE it when you send our best young people to their deaths for dubious causes!"

And just like that, the war was lost.

The truth was out. The enemy had been right all along.

Now, I'm going to catch some flack for some of this, and here's where I insure myself against that. Let anyone who wishes to disparage my words spell out our specific objective in Vietnam. Did we wish to occupy North Vietnam? Did we wish to show the USSR what it's boundaries were in the East? Or did we, in fact, wish to show them that if they were BAD, we would fight them, no matter how much death and suffering it cost us? Was it NOT a simple show of strength and resolve, to remind the Plundering Reds just what a frightening and well-equipped enemy they were up against? Was it NOT a concerted effort to get out the message, "don't fuck with the USA?"

It was. And don't let anyone tell you different. I've read what these people have said on these internet forums for quite a few years; heard them rant on movie screens and in bars; on radio shows and in Right Wing newspapers, and they've been QUITE CLEAR:

Bill Clinton INSPIRED Osama Bin Laden when he pulled out of Somalia. His big sin, his big tactical error wasn't in letting some troops die. It was in letting the world know that having troops die was distasteful to the United States, just like we did when we LOST in Vietnam. He sent the message to terrorists and despots that we are not evil, cowardly, dictatorial, bloodthirsty freaks like they are, and that is showing WEAKNESS. And that's being liberal.

Liberals lose wars, because wars are simple exercises to demonstrate that we are unafraid of wasteful, horrible, needless death; that in fact, we celebrate it, and will gladly do it anywhere, any time.

That's what the war on terror is about. It's to remind the Osama Bin Ladens, and the Saddam Husseins of the future that the United States is NO PAPER TIGER. It's not enough that we have enough Hydrogen Bombs to destroy all life on Earth. It's not enough that we have the industrial and financial clout to create any number of planes, tanks, Weapons of Mass Destruction and nuclear submarines. None of that matters, because Abdul the Raghead Camel Jockey thinks Uncle Sam is a pussy. And as long as he thinks that, we are in grave danger.

Danger of having a bunch of ragtag maniacs willing to strap bombs on themselves kill us in small quantities, picking off a few of us here and there all across the world, and occasionally getting lucky, and killing large groups of us at public events, such as the Superbowl, or just going about our business in crowded cities.

The best way to prevent this, of course, is to bomb him back to the stone age, taking out countless women and children, and getting some bona fide bad guys in the process, and if a whole lot of our young have to die in order to do it, well then all that does is remind him that we are serious as Hell.

Liberals like to remind the General Public that THAT is what the mission is. Liberals like to look for nuance, and rational explanations in what is sheer madness. Liberals like to say "HEY!!!! Mr. and Mrs. Ordinary American!!!! They want to send your sons and daughters to their deaths to get their message across!!!!"

And that's how liberals lose wars.

And if anyone doubts it, I will find literally HUNDREDS of posts from Right Wing posters to this, and other forums, who will back up every word; EVERY SINGLE WORD of what I have said here.

Good night, and good luck.

-Richard Davidson

Proud Liberal

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Interesting debating topic here. I'm gonna take this down the pub and chuck it at the common man (NT) -- Zoah (In agreement), 12:03:33 07/28/06 Fri