I love to read truth.
In an effort to avoid repeating the carnage of World War I, much of the Western world tried to appease the growing threats in Europe and Asia in the years before World War II. Those who warned against the rise of Nazism, fascism and communism were often ridiculed and ignored.
Questions Raised:
- With the growing lethality and availability of weapons, can we truly afford to believe that vicious extremists can somehow be appeased?
- Can we really continue to think that free countries can negotiate a separate peace with terrorists?
- Can we truly afford to pretend that the threats today are simply "law enforcement" problems rather than fundamentally different threats requiring fundamentally different approaches?
- Can we truly afford to return to the destructive view that America -- not the enemy -- is the real source of the world's troubles?
More Truth
Consider that a database search of the nation's leading newspapers turns up 10 times as many mentions of one of the soldiers punished for misconduct at Abu Ghraib than of Sgt. 1st Class Paul Ray Smith, the first recipient of the Medal of Honor in the global war on terror.
Then there is the case of Amnesty International, a long-respected human-rights organization, which called the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay the "gulag of our times" a reference to the vast system of Soviet prisons and labor camps where innocent citizens were starved, tortured and murdered. The facility at Guantanamo Bay, by contrast, includes a volleyball court, basketball court, soccer field and library (the book most requested is "Harry Potter"). The food, served in accordance with Islamic diets, costs more per detainee than the average U.S. military ration.
I love it how the left will complain about how bad things are in Afganistan or Iraq, but they suggest no plan but to turn and run. America has been doing that since Carter. Not anymore.
New Enemies Demand New Thinking - Opinion of Donald Rumsfeld
