US Honorable Causes -- Dishonorable Protests
anonymous
of the US military break briefly into tears when confronted about his
feelings over the hatred the South Koreans had been pouring out on the
US over their feeling that the US was there protecting them. Interviews
with some showed they thought of the South and North as just "Korea".
They want to unite with the North.
Why the emotion? Because he is a true believer in the cause of
protecting South Korea. Because he understood the horror of North Korea.
Because he saw himself not even as a servant of the US military, but of
the cause of the protection of the South.
People say, "The US just wants oil in Iraq". Which doesn't make much
sense, and there are so many other motives. There are clear terrorist
ties. There have been twelve years of games with Saddam. But, the
majority of people who may be fighting there, they will have in their
minds and in their hearts, the cold brutality of Saddam... against the
Shiites and the Kurds.
I see a lot of political games on these groups. Some people saying, "The
Kikes are controlling the US military", others saying, "The Kurds are
greedy bastards, trying to make money off oil", and still others coming
up with another innovative plot of their own.
When they ask what they think is a rhetorical question which they
believe will strike the bone, they only reveal their own ignorance, for
these questions have all already been answered.
If they can blame the US on anything at all. They can and they do. The
same goes for Israel. You hear them up in arms about the US war in
Afghanistan even still. Yet, most of the casualties came from the
Northern Alliance -- and the Northern Alliance gave the Soviets most of
the casualties. While the Arabs in that war walked around as if they
were princes (according to Afghani statements). In fact, the Arabs even
went to war with Afghani battalions they thought "weren't Muslim enough".
Yet, that Soviet-Afghanistan war killed ten million people, ten million
Afghanis. No one shouted about it. There were no street protests. There
were no mass, worldwide movements against it.
And, the Soviet Union ravaged Eastern Europe. Who looked out for Eastern
Europe? The Marxist French? The Germans?
Meanwhile, Russia is embroiled in Chechnya, and France in Algeria and
the Ivory Coast.
But, where are the protests and the international movement?
Did Algeria ask France to stay involved in their country? Do the people
of the Ivory Coast want France to broker a "peace" deal? (No, they
chased them out, waving US flags).
Yet, you see a lot of people wailing about the first Gulf War. You don't
see a lot in Kuwait. You see them in South Korea and Italy and Brazil.
They talk about "conspiracies" and "plots", outside of Kuwait.
Not that a lot of have not returned the US no favor in Kuwait, because
we stand up for the oppressed Jew. But, there remains a lot there who
are grateful we came in and did what had to be done. It is unfortunate
the UN decided for us not to continue to Baghdad. Another mistake of the
UN the US is paying for.
Maybe France, Germany, and Russia wanted to keep dealing with Saddam.
In the end, the false accusations won't stop. The screaming won't end.
The hate will not leave. The slanderous desire for genocide in their
hearts will only grow. And, the whole earth will have to pay because
they can't just sit down and live their lives peacefully.
There will be more terrorism and more war because of these people. They
have something very dark in them stirred up. It is already dead, it
won't die again.
Our future is likely more grim than what anyone could ever imagine. The
Black Plague was nothing compared to what our next century will probably
be like -- just look at the last century. And, consider, who marches for
the 100 million plus Communism killed? No one.
So, history repeats itself. The adage is proven true.
anonymous
> People and groups of all interestss use times of unrest
> and threat as an opportunity to promote their own agendas.
> Troubled times amount to a "roll of the dice", politically
> speaking, an opportunity for the low to become mighty and
> the mighty to be laid low. Nobody wants to miss their chance.
>
> Of course, any new bosses will rapidly become indistinguishable
> from the old ... but that's the nature of things.
>
> Western 'leftists', especially American ones, have been
> feeling a bit neglected of late. They miss the power and
> the glory of the 1960s and want to relive their childhood
> once again, using a new generation as footsoldiers. They
> must, because too many of their old stalwarts grew up and
> learned better. Jobs, families, homes, mortgages, cars,
> bills, college tuitions, responsibilities ... the old
> 'hippies' and radicals now ARE "the system" and are no
> longer free to rock the boat. Ignorant punks living off
> of daddys money though ... hey, throw in some beer and
> sexual licence and you've got 'em by the 'nads.
>
> So, they have taken the tried and true 'anti-war' rhetoric
> off the shelf, brushed off the dust, shined it up, and now
> use the present unrest as a launching platform for the same
> old bullshit. All in all, it's probably NOT going to work.
>
> This is NOT the 'peace & love' generation anymore, but the
> itchy trigger-finger generation with a culture of and
> taste for violence and corruption. True, giving them an
> opportunity to play the moral superior will draw some
> into the fold ... but they will depart as quickly as they
> arrived. Too much of the 'left' now sounds old, creaky,
> hollow - and even the ignorant youth can smell it. This
> is not the "new generation", just the old generation
> re-warmed in the microwave.
>
> In the end, the youth will likely develop their own
> unique agenda and perspective ... and the old 'left'
> will lose control of them. Maybe the leadership
> knows this, but hopes to do as much damage as possible
> before the troops defect ? They had better be careful.
> I have the sneaking suspicion that generation X.5 will
> eventually take the extreme 'left' AND extreme 'right'
> and put 'em all up against the wall.
Extremely acute observations!
As somewhat of a member of the generation after the 60's, being 32 now,
I know a lot of the differences between these two. For one thing, while
I was a teenager, I saw a lot of my friends go off, not to war, nor to
pot, nor LSD -- but heroin and crack. They died, became nameless
junkies, or ended up in institutions.
Marxism has a pretty solid plan underneath it all. Simply use every and
any means possible to attempt to put the people in unrest -- to lead
them to a violent revolution. Ethics, truth, are unimportant, for they
see themselves above the "old" paradigm of moral absolutism. They are
big believers in the theory of moral relativity.
Historically, when the guns do start getting drawn, if they do, it is
not neccesarily the Marxist who wins. No, just the bloodiest and most
ruthless wins. Often times they take out their own, more moderate groups.
And, unfortunately, we do have such a remnant of the baby boomers who
"rebelled", as you say, though I have for a long time now seen this for
what it is: a population surge where the desires of youth might overrule
the rules of past generations... not "traditions", but things like
"common sense" and "decency".
While they felt they were conquering some serious problems... in fact,
they conquered nothing at all, except for restrictions on fornication
and drug use.
It was the conceit and arrogance of youth, too powerful. Common for
young successes who have never tasted power. The corruption of children
spoiled rotten.
>>. . . .