Wednesday, October 20, 2004

Why We Fight

"Why We Fight" was a great series that came out of WWII. It basically served as "propaganda" telling the American people that the Nazis and Japanese were behaving like inhuman bastards and that they needed to be soundly defeated. I have since seen the series shrugged off as a necessary evil of the era but that it was a shame that the series producers sought to "dehumanize" the enemy. How anyone who is supposed to be aware of the history of the period cannot recall the horror of Nazi eugenics, the Holocaust (yes, that tired old saw), the rape of Nanking, the Bataan death march, forced labor, forced prostitution ("Comfort Girls" as the Japanese preferred to call them). If there was any dehumanization here it was done by the Nazis and Japanese who chose to dehumanize themselves.

Nowadays, when we have a nihilistic enemy just as determined to exterminate all who oppose them. However, we don't have films like "Why We Fight" instead we have the likes of Michael Moore who makes slanderous films riven with malicious editing, truth twisting and even forged evidence. The corpulent corrupter then gains the backing of a major political party, makes millions of dollars and then goes on to whine about how unfair America treats its citizens. In better days anyone who rooted for the enemy and received their endorsements during a time of war would be lucky if he wasn't tarred, feathered and run out of town on a rail.

Fellow timid woodland creatures, we do have reasons for why we fight. It isn't pretty, fights are never pretty, but it is necessary and the more "un-pretty" the cause the more necessary the fight.

This is very unpretty
(Viewer Discretion Advised: Extremely Graphic Content)

So how do Palestinian terror lend itself to the greater War on Terror? Saddam's financing of suicide bombers is legend and his ties to terror go deeper still. Deroy Murdock at NRO has this enlightening, if not disturbing, link. the link will become a permanent part of the sidebar until all the "Bush lied" silliness subsides.

Nightmares about (Heaven forbid) "President" Kerry's foreign policy are already coming true. The person most likely thought to be Kerry's NSA has been quoted as saying:

Our position is that he poses a major threat now in Iraq, a threat that frankly wasn't there before the U.S. invasion. But now we have got to go after him and capture him or kill him. Before the invasion, he was in non-Saddam controlled area, very minor, and didn't pose any imminent threat to the U.S., and was not in any way cooperating with al-Qaeda.

As always, Stephen Hayes offers unimpeachable analysis over at the Weekly Standard. I wish I could call this an isolated incident but it seems would-be Democrat VP John Edwards is just as loopy. He says:

"He's created something that didn't exist before the war in Iraq — he's created a haven for terrorists."

Again, that link is: Hussein and Terror. Someone e-mail to the "honorable" Senator Edwards because I can't without resorting to several colorful, uncuddly phrases.
Yet, the justification for a Kerry-as-President nightmare continues to grow. On CNN in 1994 Kerry responded to Frank Sesno's question, about whether it was worth American lives to intervene in the Balkans by saying, "If you mean dying in the course of the United Nations effort, yes, it is worth that. If you mean dying American troops unilaterally going in with some false presumption that we can affect the outcome, the answer is unequivocally no."
This from the man who insists that he would never allow a foreign power to dictate US long as that policy passed the "global test."


Post a Comment

<< Home