Yesterday, I drafted a piece “Iraq: The Democrats 21st Century Cambodia?” I cross posted the piece at Third World County andI received a comment that linked to an editorial by Gordon Dillow in the Orange County Register from April 2005, which was written 30 years to the month after the final US pullout from South Vietnam.

Don’t take my word for this coming human rights disaster (funny how the Democrats hold themselves up as the champions of this issue, isn’t it?), read about a man and his father in the following editorial, then consider the human wreckage to have and to hold, when we pull out of Iraq, thinking it will stop the Islamofacsists from demanding more and more, until we are nothing left…

This month will mark the 30th anniversary of a shameful chapter in our nation’s history. Thirty years ago we abandoned a longtime ally, the Republic of (South) Vietnam.

And with it, along with millions of others, we abandoned Quang X. Pham’s dad.

Quang is an old friend of mine, a 40-year-old Mission Viejo businessman who came to the U.S. as a boy refugee from Vietnam and later served as a U.S. Marine helicopter pilot in the 1991 Persian Gulf War. His father, Pham Van Hoa, now deceased, was a U.S.-trained South Vietnamese Air Force pilot who spent 12 years in a communist “re-education” camp because he refused to leave his country when the North Vietnamese army swept through South Vietnam in April 1975 – this while America, after investing 58,000 of its own sons’ lives, stood by and washed its hands of the entire bloody and tragic affair.

And even though he became an American who loved his country and served it courageously in uniform, for many years that abandonment rankled Quang’s heart. It rankled mine, too.

Quang has written a new book about his father, and about his own experiences as a refugee who became an American Marine. It’s called “A Sense of Duty: My Father, My American Journey,” published by Ballantine Books (you can get more information at www.asenseofduty.com), and I highly recommend it for anyone who wants to understand what the Vietnam War meant to some of the people who suffered the most because of it – that is, the people of South Vietnam. It’s powerful, and moving, and in it Quang tries to dispel a myth about Vietnam that still persists.

The myth is that guys like his dad didn’t fight for their country.

“I just want to see South Vietnamese (military men) like my father acknowledged,” Quang told me. “Not made into heroes or anything, but just acknowledged for what they did. I wanted to set the record straight.”

Certainly the casualty numbers tell a story that’s far different from the myth. The South Vietnamese armed forces lost a total of about 250,000 men killed in the war – a number that, as a percentage of national population, was about 50 times greater than American deaths.

And the numbers of the maimed were even greater. Ten years ago, as a reporter for the Register, I went back to Vietnam to cover the 20th anniversary of the end of the war, and everywhere I went I would meet aging former ARVN (Army of the Republic of Vietnam) soldiers who were missing arms or legs or eyes, many of them reduced to beggary because the communist government offered no pensions or even menial jobs for former ARVNs. When they found out I’d been an American soldier in the war they would often break out yellowed, crumbling, long-hidden South Vietnamese military ID cards and tell me, “I was with you, I was with you.”

And they were.

Now, I know some of my fellow American Vietnam veterans will disagree with me on this subject. They’ll call me up and tell me bitter tales about “Marvin the ARVN,” about South Vietnamese M-16s that were in perfect condition because “they’d never been fired, and were only dropped once,” about South Vietnamese corruption and incompetence and cowardice. Certainly there was no shortage of such things, particularly in the ARVN’s politicized upper ranks.

But don’t tell me – or Quang X. Pham – that 250,000 guys died with no brave men among them. Don’t try to tell guys who got their arms or legs blown off that they didn’t fight hard enough. Don’t think that a lot of guys like Quang’s father didn’t have a sense of duty and honor, even as they lost their war, and their country, and languished in brutal communist prison camps for years and years and years.

In the coming weeks you’ll probably see and hear a lot of retrospectives about the Vietnam War, some of them truthful, many of them media myths perpetuated by people who were never even there – the same sort of myths that even now are being created about the Iraq war and the Americans who’ve been fighting it. More on that in a future column.

But if you think that the Vietnam War was strictly an American war, if you think that the people of South Vietnam weren’t worth fighting for, or with, then I have a suggestion.

Talk to a guy like Quang X. Pham.

And ask him about his dad.

Read the book. See history throught the eyes of one who has been there and project into the future as to what might be as a result of taking counsel of our fears.

Update 11/17/2206:

From John of Castle Arrgghhh!, an email of an Army Officer, who has had mulitple tour in Iraq. He sees something over there and it says we’re about to do what this post is about, in the minds of the Iraqis, friend and foe alike, from David J. Baer, CPT(P), IN, 3/2/6 IA MiTT Team Chief:

By all means send my note on to his family. Before I got this job on the MiTT, I was a mechanized infantry company commander in southeast Baghdad and I lost two soldiers so I know what it’s like to write letters of condolence and what kind of loss his family must be feeling. You always hear certain people in Congress talk about leaving Iraq because of the horrible casualties we are taking and whatnot. However, they never seem to be the ones with family over here doing the grunt work. And as for casualties, each loss is a blow, but overall we have been extremely lucky to have as few deaths as we have had since 2003. No one in D.C. ever seems to ask guys like me what we think because they know that we would tell them that we have to stay until the job is done. If you want to win in Iraq, you have to take the gloves off like we did in OIF I and OIF II. We were aggressive and violently kinetic. It worked and the bad guys were deathly afraid of us and the people of Iraq respected us. Now we use kid gloves and the bad guys walk all over us and the people of Iraq don’t think they should support us because we may pack up and leave and then they would be the object of reprisals. It’s the hard right (lots of offensive action and firepower and not afraid to use it in a city) or the easy wrong (the kinder, gentler approach to dealing with terrorists to try and avoid casualties). I know which one works and which one doesn’t. I know which one will solve this “problem”. It will break a few eggs, but in the end we will have an omelet that will be passably good and tasty.

How about them apples? Act strong, be respected. Act weak and suffer attacks.

H/T: Third World County reader DC

Trackbacked at: CAstle ARRGGHHH!!!

Recently, the discussion was about the Tet Offensive and how the events of February, 1968 related to current day situations was posted on this blog here and here.

Possibly now, it is the moment to get ahead of the power curve and discuss the big picture that happened 30 years ago, and see if it may relate to what happens next….

So, Richard Nixon was President. The Democrats had control of the Congress. The President, as he promised in his election campaign was pulling our troops out of ground combat positions, yet left the promise of support for the South Vietnamese Army, using the strategy of “Vietnamization,” a process of turning the war over to the ARVNs, as they were able to handle it.

Effectively, in 1972, our ground combat forces were out, safe advisers left the ARVNs. While the president is the Commander-in-Chief, Congress controls the money (you’d think people would quit accusing the presidents, of any time, of what goes on with the budget, but, once more, I digress). So Congress cut off the funding for the supporting arms and the supplies from America going to South Vietnam. Now, the study of history over the ages shows the winner of wars is the country who has the best logistics and can out-produce the adversary in the fight. When “we” (the Democratic Congress) pulled appropriations from the war support effort for our allies, they sentenced them to loss of the war, and, in many cases, death in a very literal sense.

So in 1975, the NVA rolled into Saigon and raised the North Vietnamese flag in that city. It was over. What next? The Communist rebels in Cambodia, led by Pol Pot now had nothing to fear and a totalitarian government came into power and the killing fields became a part of life, as about 1/2 of the population of Cambodia was killed it’s own.

Why did the conquest of South Vietnam and the mass murders happen across the border? There was no nation with the power to let them know this wasn’t acceptable.

What does this mean today?

We already know there is simmering hate in Iraq between the Sunnis, the Shiites and the Kurds. We have not yet been able to help them understand there’s a better way to solve issues than to murder 75 people a day, using very brutal means.

Add to this, there is at least one neighboring country, Iran, already stirring the pot, for for us to have an ally, let alone a foothold in the region, keeps them in check, unable to carry out their desires to control much of the region. Syria is a player, too, but seem to at least be keeping their head down and themselves out of the media coverage.

So, the time may come, if the Democrats can strong arm their agenda to withdraw, whether by getting the President to acquiesce to this via the “bi-partisan” Iraq Working Committee, or by the pulling of appropriations for any support of our troops. The Department of Defense will end up with no choice to bring the troops hone, or at least out of the battle zone of Iraq.

My prediction: The Sunnis, having been in power for so many years, used to being able to, even as a minority, rape the other cultural groups of the country, literally and figuratively, feeling they have some right to murder and torture as they feel. So, the Sunnis will come back with a vengance at the Kurds and Shiites. Bloodshed…and much of it.

Add to this the military power to the East, the Iranians. They, with their affinity for the Shiites, the majority culture, will now roll across the border and become directly engaged with the Sunnis. Bloodshed.

The Kurds, who have rebuilt much of the infrastructure to the north, and are already prospering from the oil flowing, will most likely get attacked by the Sunnis and Shiites, and the Iranians, as they have valuable resources and are using them.

If we thought we stepped into a hornet’s nest in 2003, we haven’t seen anything that will be like this. The locals of the area will feel empowered to kill and plunder in even more horrific manners and scales than they have, for they now see “we” (and I substantially contribute this to the Democrats and the Liberals) don’t have the stomach for it. Much like asking someone to be an EMT and all they can do at any car accident is to stand by, while people bleed to death, throwing up. Those people, politically, are the Democrats and they, in this scenario, would decide it’s better to legislate against people having car accidents, rather than finding those who can take care of such messy conditions, and wait until things are safe to toss their cookies.

More and more, I am coming to see the Democrats in modern times are the party of death and destruction, with pools of blood running from their hands. They do this, not because it’s the best course of action for the rest of the world, or the country, but so they can ascend to positions of power, where they can rent the Lincoln bedroom out to friends to raise money, so they can buy their way back into power.

I can only figure their deep dissatisfaction with the War on Terror, is they see the revenues of President Bush’s tax cuts flowing towards Iraq, and not into their hands, to bribe the voters of the next election with their largess.

The Democrats and Liberals have never acknowledged they had a part in approximately 3M deaths in SE Asia after 1972. They cannot, for they would have to face their part in mass murder.

They stand on the edge of history and are prepared, with a complete disregard for history, their own, and that of world events, ready to loose the executioners in the Middle East, first, and later in Africa and Europe. They will then turn their face from the horror and go back to their fund raisers, not even consciously aware of their shameful part in the deaths.

My gallows humor would be to think maybe they are thinking of this outcome as a help for the environment, for after all, it’s people and the demands they place on industry, that cause greenhouse gasses and causes desertification and the now, the acidification of the oceans. If we have a few less million of us to cause pollution, let alone perpetuate the species, then we’ll not have to worry about running the air conditioners quite so long at the homes and offices of liberals.

Update 14 Nov 2006: See this follow up post, too!

Cross posted at:

Third World County

Trackbacked at:

Eagle Speak

Days later, I’m still waiting (not so anxioulsy, becuase I got tired of turning blue in the face, like my mom said I would) for an angry response from the feminists of the US, or anywhere in the world…

I guess that begs the question:

If an Islamic Cleric makes a horribly sexist and clearly misogynic speech and no feminists respond, is it then acceptable to agree with him?

Side note: He also dissed all men, who, as someone on one of the blogs commented, could be looked at as no more than leg humping morons, who cannot resist their animal desires.

But…this story has “legs,” and adds an interesting twist:

Sheik al Hilaly says he won’t quit.

Another side note: Note the caption on the picture for the article. I’d say the media’b’Allah are in their glory, once again, misrepresenting reality.

So, the man who thinks so little of women as to call them uncovered meat, tools of Satan, and wouild be run out of Washingotn, DC, tarred, feathered and torched (if, and only if, he was a Republican) for comments far less extreme, thinks he’s on the right track.

Now, take a look throught the window of an Islamic leaders mind, and, realize he is in Australia, not in the US, or a Middle Easertn country:

After midday prayers today, the sheik was besieged by a group of reporters who asked him whether he would bow to demands and quit.

The Islamic clergyman smiled and shook his head, saying in English: “After we clean the world of the White House first.”

Note the captilization. Note there isn’t a “White House” thingy in Australia, but, yep, you guessed it, in the US. So, it’s really all about the US.

Clue for the liberals/Democrats/anti-war crowd: Go ahead, get your “Man” (which may include HIllary) in the “White House” and see if the Sheik changes his rhetoric. He didn’t say: “After we clean the world of the George Bush first,” which would have rendered an entirely different meaning to the conflict.

But then, they just hate George Bush, too, and it’s not just for Muslim Clerics anymore!

Trackbacked at: Point Five, Church and State, Woman, Honor Thyself, Right Wing Nation, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns

A few days ago, as the media’b’Allah was full of printed ‘shouts’ of “Tet! TET! TEEETTTT!!!!!,” I posted some of my thoughts on the similarities and differences of the analogy of the Tet Offensive in Vietnam and the War on Terror now. David of Third World County added to the analysis on his blog.

This morning, while scanning Town Hall, I came across this editorial from someone who comprehends the issue far better than I ever will, LtCol. Oliver North, USMC (Ret).

He was on the ground in that war, as an Marine Officer in an infantry company. I was still in High School, but we see the issue form a common view point:

The war in Vietnam wasn’t lost during “Tet ’68” no matter what Cronkite said. Rather, it was lost in the pages of America’s newspapers, on our televisions, our college campuses — and eventually in the corridors of power in Washington. We need to pray that this war isn’t lost the same way.

Amen, brother, amen!

From MS NBC, it seems Kim Jong Il is “sorry” he upset so many, in the “region” (read: China) and around the world.

I’d like to have been a fly on the wall when the represenative from the Chinese government walked in and said: “This conversation never happened…” and went on to tell the little man just what he was going to do next. I’m sure saying “I’m sorry” was but one of the steps to redemption that was issued, followed by a list of things that would no longer find their way across the borders, such as food and fuel….

It will be many, many years before what happened in the last few days in an office in North Korea, but…that’s the way “history” works.

Update 10/24/2006: OOPS! Just kidding! great…well, you know, the left thinks all things are settled if someone says “I’m sorry!” What are they to think now?

Most likely it will be light blogging this weekend….but not sure yet.

Anyhow: Thought of the moment that confounds me:

The left wing/liberal mentality really hates this war. They mostly show it by claiming they hate President Bush, but they also drag out the “No War for Oil!” signs, too (BTW, I like that war right now). These are the same people who have culturally “evolved” to ensure that human rights have been stretched to the nth degree, using an “umbrella” argument about a right to privacy being stated (not so) clearly in the Constitution.

The next few statements are presented for the purpose of illustrating my upcoming points:

As a result, women have attained positions of very high economic and social levels and pretty much do what they want.

Homosexuals are pushing hard, and have succeeded in some school districts, of taking a message about sexual experimentation into the middle and elementary level of schools.

Children are lobbied to become sexually active, and given the freedom to make major medical decisions about their lives, to the exclusion of parents being told of such conditions. Adults, other than parents, and sometimes not even known to the girls, have become accustomed to transporting them to where they can get abortions.

Christian or Catholic references are being removed/banned from being seen or talked about in public at an alarming rate. Islamic advocacy groups have successfully lobbied to teach Islam, for up to three weeks, including requirements to memorize verses from the Koran and pray to Allah in schools around the country.

These are factual conditions that exist today and efforts to reverse them are fought with lots of money and very high powered lawyers and judges.

Ok, that being said, the same political mindset that supports all of this are the ones against the war against terror and get particularly upset when it is couched as the “war against radical Islam.”

Yes, the confounding part: The Islam that would sequester (or quarantine, if you prefer) women to their homes, would not allow them to vote, to drive, to wear swim suits skimpier than their underwear, and would allow them to the beaten, but not so bad as to leave marks; The Islam that would allow stoning to death the woman if they were caught exercising their “sexual freedom;” The Islam that would hang a teenage girl for having sex; The Islam that would allow male members of the family to kill their sisters/daughters is they talked back to to them and demanded to be able to marry who they chose.

The very people who have gained so much in freedoms in our society are the ones who would wish us to welcome, with open arms, the religion that would first line them up and inform them they would not only not have those freedoms anymore, but would tell them the consequences. They welcome the one state religion, yet scoff at the one that has been the dominant one in this culture for over 200 years, and has been a part of ensuring and supporting the freedoms the society now “enjoys” as a result.

Oh, well, it’s not looking good for the “good guys.”

Lots of discussion on President Bush acknowledging that the situation today in Iraq could have a resemblance to a battle fought almost 29 years in the past. Almost a year ago, I blogged about echos of the 1968 Tet Offensive in the current conflict.

Executive Summary of Tet:

The Tet Offensive was conducted during an agreed upon truce between the beligerants in the conflict.

The NVA used the Viet Cong as an “ablative shield.” This worked to clear out the “tainted” South Vietnamese fighters by sacrificing them “for the cause.”

Despite a few VC getting into the US Embassy compound, they were all killed in the yard, and did not get into the building.

The US and international press presented the Tet Offensive as a success for the forces opposing the Government of South Vietnam.

The press was wrong in a military sense, but were correct in the historical context, yet they had no clue at the time how correct they were.

The NVA understood the power of the press had “crossed over” and had become more of an effective weapon that raw military might, which led to the strategic move.

———————————
Commentary for today:

Yes, it is similar to today in the sense that the enemy understands:

• 1) How we have abandoned, as a culture, any significant effort to keep ourselves informed beyond the headline of any article, or cover statement of current news magazines;
• 2) Anything the tradtional media states must be true and;
• 3) The public contains significant numbers of skeptical people who believe the US Government is behind all the conflict for the purpose of lining their pockets, or those of their friends in industry;
• 4) Regardless of how devastating such an effort is in the short run in terms of physical resources or manpower it is to them, it has the potential to cause us to turn our gaze away and vote for the appeasers, just as was done in Spain.

Differences:

• 1) We have historical perspective, as a result of the long term effect of the 1968 events to view this period in history;
• 2) The war then was defined by soverign nations and international boundries, fueled by an idealology, this time it’s a war defined by one side with national boundries, and an opponent that knows no territorial constraints, yet it still filled by an idealology;
• 3) If the insurgents do make a “final sprint” in the hopes of biasing the outcome of the November 7th elections, they will be in poor logistical shape to follow up on any attacks, therefore we need to be ready to step up and squash them when they are at a low point militarily and;
• 4) Our political leaders can use this analogy to their advantage, while the press will try to use it to the nation’s disadvantage.

In the aftermath of the Tet Offensive, and even the Vietnam War, both sides of the equation, the Coalition and the insurgent forces, can take lessons learned away from the Tet Offensive. It is not a perfectly modeled analogy, but it has similarities. It would serve the press well to do some more detailed study of the actual battles across South Vietnam. It would serve the military, and our political leadership well to study the battles across South Vietnam.

If the military has read the tea leaves correctly, they will have stockpiled supplies, pre-postioned troops and tactical/strategic reserves, and have shored up the defenses. In addition, focused analysis of intelligence, to help tactically prepare for the next 3 1/2 weeks. Once the battle has joined, then it will be time to crush the exposed enemy forces, then be prepared to follow them, physically or via collected intel, back to their safe houses to continue the fight, with one intention to eliminate every possible combatant, then, they will have correctly interpreted the lessons of February 1968.

The press should spend some time studying history, beyond what some old timer in the press room tells them. I’m sure George Stephanopoulos doesn’t comprehend the bigger implications this all has within the story from a war long ago, which I discussed above. If he somehow thinks the current levels of violence, like Tet will cause us to “cut and run,” he has to understand the US military didn not “cut and run” from that battle, in fact, they stood tall and obliterated the VC in massive numbers. We are doing the same thing today. If anyone cut and ran, it was the Democratically controlled Congress, that withdrew funds from the Vietnamization effort and the US military for non-Army support for the ARVN forces.

Our leadership needs to prepare us for a potential “October Surprise” from the enemy in the form of massive, coordinated, widespread and well documented attacks, and also the knowledge that our military is prepared to take it to the enemy and put the dampers on civial war, insurrection and other violence behind us and the people or Iraq. If anything, President Bush should highlight that it was the Democrats who lost their nerve in the face of the enemy, but only after a Republican took office. They certainly supported the war (and the dreaded “military-industrial complex”) while Kennedy and Johnson were in office. If any lessons should be taken away from Tet, it is that one in the last sentance.

As a final statement, even General Giap acknowledged to a US officer, many years later, that the NVA/VC never won on the battlefield of Vietnam, but he also stated, wisely and accurately, that fact was also completely irrelevant.

Trackbacked at: Mudville Gazette, Samantha Burns, Blue Star Chronicles, Stuck on Stupid, TMH Bacon Bits, Linkfest Haven, third world country, Castle ARGGHHH!

From Maps of War, a Flash presentation that tracks what “empires” controlled what territory in “the Old World.”

I can’t get it to play nice here, just like I still can’t get YouTube embeded objects to not mess up my layout, so go there and enjoy the history lesson in a few short moments.

Nothing like a dose of history to open your eyes…

Bear with me for a few paragraphs, for I need to lay a foundation for my point, before I dive it.

I’ll admit, the public discourse is wearing me out. Quite honestly, it sickens me to listen to talking head after talking head, or products of the American public education system of the last two decades respond to serious questions with what their opinion is. I don’t want an opinion when there’s truth to be had. The public educational system, however, has convinced people they need to respond to their feelings.

Hence, idiotic polls by agencies like CBS with this report as the outcome: “Poll: A Split On Confronting Terrorism”. About a year ago, i spent some valuable time blogging about the difference between truth and an opinion. It’s in the junior blog somewhere, and it applies here, but I don’t have the motivation to dig it up just now.

Of course there will be differences of opinions in how to execute a war fighting strategy and, in lower levels, tactics of same will be addressed.

Peopel with high school educations feel empowered to call into talk shows and tell people who spend a better part of their waking hours studying the issues, and try to tell the host that the President is killing innocent people, he knew there were no WMD and he sent popel there anyway.

Give.me.a.break. I didn’t have my “awakening” until the taxpayers sent me to 9 months of Command and Staff college. Not to say everyone needs an MA to speak on the topic, but it would be nice if they bothered to pull the iPod ear pieces out of their ears during the waking hours and took some time at the public library or local meag bookstore, doing some reading on the topic, before pretending they know what’s going on. I wish they’d do the wise thing and recuse themselves, much as is done in the legal system, if you are in a position to bias the outcome because of what you do/do not know.

My evidence is shown here, from the CBS article:

THE U.S. WILL BE SAFER FROM TERRORISM IF IT…

Confronts terror groups and states in the Mideast: 47%
Stays out of other countries’ affairs in Mideast: 45%

Just what, pray tell, do these valient individuals base their response on?

Which brings me to another point of ranting: Why can’t our leaders do it, if the other leaders are (or the reverse case)? A few days ago, the President mentioned, to a group at a meeting that he wondered if the US was going to have a 3rd awakening. This drew comments from the press, and they feigned fear of a “theocratic” government. Frst off, people need to chill out. Second off: Presidents of Iran and Venezuela stood before the world and prayed, one in the style of his Catholic heritage, the other in the Islamic faith. Not a peep out of the press, in fact, it looks like it was purposely ignored, so the press could always claim “plausible deniability” for the time being.

Now, get this:

IN TREATMENT OF POWs, THE U.S. SHOULD…

Follow international agreements: 63%
Do what it thinks right, regardless of what other nations think: 32%

News flash: We are treating “POWs” (defined therein in the Geneva Coventions as military members of a nation). I wonder if they would choke in horror if they knew that illegal combatants (those who are not wearing said uniforms while engaging in combat) are subject to summary execution? I doubt it would happen, but the old line : “Be careful what you wish for comes to mind.” If DoD directed firing squads, the same 63% would howl, but it would only be a case of answering an importatnt question from their place of ignorance….I’m glad we have a man at the helm with more compassion and sense than to give them what they ask for, for they don’t know what it is.

As far as the part about worrying about what others think, it seems to be, in my experience and opinion, that those who got me to “outperform” my self-imposed standards didn’t get my love in several cases, until years later, when it became clear the value of their hard pressed teachings. Teachers, baseball, basketball and swim team coaches alike have had a place in my life in helping me achieve what was better, right and more successful. We didn’t get to where we are as a nation because we copied the Euorpean ways an means of governance and social interaction for a reason: It had failed our forefathers. And, in my great admiration, they did what today’s protestors of our government should do when persecuted: Pack ther possesions you hold dear and go and build the country you define by your protestations. It should be easy to figure out: Just don’t elect George Bush as your President and study him well, so you make sure whatever it is he does in a situation, you do the exact opposite, to remove any possible connection to the man you hate so much. Oh…in the stream of consciousness mode, this has great possibility for terrific satire potential, combined with analysis of what the most likely outcomes would be of no military, no oil, no greenhouse gas producing items, no aerosol powered deoderants, and only vegtables to eat, produced with the use of no pesticides…but I digress…

So…finally taking the long way around, the biggest bone I have to pick is those who act like they know what it is to be the final authority in matters of great gravity, the point of my title.
Read the rest of this entry »

I don’t know, but I sure wish I did. Today, more “if you say we are violent, we will kill you” mentality from the Religion of Peace:

“Pakistanis protest, cleric says Pope should be crucified”.

Kool. I guess they sort of like some of the story of Jesus Christ.

In the face of the “rage riots” (I’m claiming this term!), I can’t for the life of me, figure why some people still insist it was a bad thing to put our treasure into spreading democracy. We had the stampedes that killed Muslims over the penning, by cartoonists, of likenesses of “The Prophet.” Cars burned by the hundreds during night riots in Paris and other parts of France. Muslims terrorists causing mass confussion during the hajj, where Muslims on their holy pilgrimage then, in the effort to save themselves, killed themselves. Those are but a few moments of insanity that show they are using very flawed tactics if the plan of the greater strategy is to take over the world.

It seems to me, in a democratic (well, actually, a representative republic) society, we just call each other bad names in the publically used news sources, as a way to voice our displeasure. I would think those not in power around the world, would cheer the onset of this style of government, for it certainly would increase their life expectancy. On the other hand, modern psychology points out battered wives return and average of 3-4 times, before they leave for good. Sad, but true fact of accepting the attitude of victimhood. I’m speculating there is much of this in some of the very countries who riot to see us die, claiming the right to attack the US based on what the southern Europeans began 600+ years ago (when the US did not exist, and before Colombus set out sailing West to the unknown), as they saw the choice was to die, or not go quietly into the night and the pages of history (that likely would never have been written if the crusades of the faithful Muslim warriors had succeeded at the beginning.

Also, it seems thre is a new job skill out there in the professional arena, where it’s easy to muster up workers for a multi day “rage riot” series. I wonder if anyone has already trademarkled “Rent-a-Riot?” Several poitns of discussion spawn from this, such as: Is it just the unemployment rate is too high in those countries? or…does it pay well enough for the few days, that you can subsist off the proceeds in the time between going out to risk a rubber bullet in the chops, or large concentration of CS gas? Do you get a bonus for places where the police are more agressive and actuarial tables predict violence will come your way more often?

I guess if I dug around the net, I might find the PD for the Operations staff for “Rent-a-Riot” International. It seems like that would be a fairly stable position in the long term (or until the 12th Imam arrives to the sounds of nuclear weapon detonations).

So what is the long term legacy of the Muslim faith? The Pope saw it, throught the eyes of men of the past, who struggled as we are, with those who would take up the sword (dull knife) to force conversion.

Just thinking….