The Daily Okie: Quick Thought on Iraq and Democrats

I saw a bumper sticker yesterday while driving around, one I've seen a few times before but had a new insight on as it leaped out at me yet again. The bumper sticker said, "Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam." Some of you may have seen it also. The sentiments behind that bumper sticker illustrate why Democrats can never, ever be trusted again on foreign policy concerns. In the minds of most Democrats, war can never be waged successfully without turning into yet another Vietnam (and should never be waged, anyway...war is icky). I can state it as the Democrat Law of Martial Thermodynamics: all wars must tend toward chaos and lead to another Vietnam. As long as Democrats see all wars as Vietnam, a war they consider a triumph for their "side" even though nearly everyone else sees it as a defeat for America, the American people will never trust them to put America first in any conflict with other nations. Their ridiculous push of the rights and needs of other countries over American interests, in everything from the environment to economic issues to agriculture to "good will," only reinforces this concept of "them before us" that Democrats seem to cherish. All of it stems from this core "progressive" ideal: "Who are we to say what is right or wrong?" (Apparently, that ideal only holds for other countries, though, not within our own...it's perfectly acceptable for them to tell the rest of us Americans how we're wrong on so many things.)

Consider this idea: today's Democrats preserve the same ideas of constant weak diplomacy that many in Europe displayed in the 1930s during the rise of Hitler's Third Reich. In those days, the zeal to "observe international sovereignty" and the desire to keep everyone happy, displayed most notably by Britain's Neville Chamberlain and his concept of appeasement, led directly to the escalation of hostilities as Germany invaded Poland and officially started World War II. Most interesting is the idea that Chamberlain held, that war is "futile;" many of today's Democrats undoubtedly believe the same thing. It was only with the elevation of Winston Churchill to the position of Prime Minister that Britain and consequently the rest of Europe found its backbone and did what needed to be done.

Another prime example is their general stance in the War on Terror, in which the answer is not to attack Islamist extremism, but rather to blame ourselves for all the "wrong" things WE'VE somehow done in the past, as though we brought this to our own door. If we just talk to them, if we just listen to their grievances, we can make everything right again, and they'll love us. They would let us get hit again and again and again by an enemy who has no desire to talk to us, no desire to work out the grievances. Indeed, Dinesh D'Souza makes the case that it is Democrats' liberal ideals spreading throughout the world that has raised the ire of these extremists. Would a Democrat be willing to sit down with an Islamic terrorist, only to be told, "you must repent from your evil ways and convert to Islam?" Would Hillary happily wear the burqa and put away the cleavage that made so much of a splash just a couple of weeks ago? Sure she would.

No one wants war, unless they are a psychopath. However, sometimes war must be waged, not because we want it to be, because there are those in the world who have not evolved their moral sense above the level of a common dog. Those people will do as they wish because that's what they want, and the only redress they understand is a rolled-up newspaper across their backsides. Sometimes lines must be drawn and, more importantly, defended even to the death. Unfortunately for America, a Democrat's line almost always leads back to Vietnam and that "war is futile" idea. For that reason, I would never trust them to do what needs to be done, as Churchill did. And yes, I will question their patriotism at every turn, because those who will not stand up and fight for what is important, those who will put the needs and concerns of others above their own country's interests, above the interests of their own culture or society, are definitely not patriots. Observe Webster's definition for "patriot:"