I have read email after email, blog after blog, article after article since I began blogging over six years ago. I haven't always had my own blogs and in the beginning, I messed up the blogs so badly I had them deleted.
While achieving skills for my own blog at Townhall, I was "playing with" other blog platforms and eventually got the Word Press blog up and running. After I achieved the #1 slot at Townhall, I began "playing with" Blogspot at the suggestion(s) of other popular bloggers because they said it was fun to work with. While the Word Press blog gained some recognition,I began "playing with" Blogspot and decided to use my new Blogspot blog as the primary blog. I still maintain the others due to loyal readers, viewers and those that wish to leave comments.
As my learning curves began to show promise, at least to me, an odd analogy emerged. No matter the conflict; no matter the venture; no matter the conflict; no matter the goal; they take time.
For instance, The United States. Yes, we hear of our Founding Fathers and the Framers and the First President and how all gave their all and some even lost their fortunes in the process. But, how did they get to where they were? What took place between the end of the American Revolutionary War and the inception and ratification of the United States Constitution and how did we become the United States of America? Did it happen overnight? Did it emerge from sort of primordial ooze?
Perhaps you are wondering what this has to do with the title of this post. I would be. I was reading Spree's post today in regards to the Benchmark issues in regards to progress in Iraq that the Leftinistra are soiling their Depends over and I suddenly recalled a history exam essay which I wrote many moons ago as I was going for my degree(s) in American History and American Studies. I cannot locate that essay as I am not physically able to crawl into my attic and break the seals of boxes to look for it. Suffice it to say that the data at hand can be located here.
As the "war drags on" and as the "war is lost" and "we cannot win", I find it sadly comical and horridly ignorant to think that instant success in Iraq is obtainable. We live in a society where Instant Success is expected and if our microwave ovens are no longer functional, life for us ends. The end of the world comes down all around us if a Crime Drama takes more than 2 hours to solve, or if our Cappuccino Machines break down.
The Articles of Confederation of the newly free colonies was ratified in 1781. Presidents served for one-year terms. From 1781 to 1789, eight men served as President of The United States, as mandated in Article 1 of the Articles of Confederation. George Washington was actually our ninth president but the first president under the new Constitution because the Articles of Confederation were found to be deficient. That experiment was not so much a failure but a learning curve; an eight year long learning curve.
In our history there were other learning curves, the last major one in my estimation was the War Between The States. We are still learning and emerging.
So is Iraq. They had elections. Air Force Pundit tells a tale of tribal units joining American Forces fighting AQI. Al Anbar is no longer the worse place in Iraq. Operations Rolling Thunder and Arrowhead Ripper are rendering similar results in the Northern Provinces of Iraq.
AQI is on the run in Iraq and we are winning and the full force of the "surge" (horrible term for what is happening) is just now beginning to fall into full play. Three weeks ago, the total Surge Force was finally in theater. I suppose Reid and his fellow 16% Approval Ratings Crowds expected the surge to be over by now. If they knew what they were yakking about, perhaps we would be more understanding of their ignorance and stupidity. After all, one of Reid's people doesn't know that $2 exist...he thinks they are phony. What kind of an operation is Reid running anyway?
Some are demanding a political solution. Like Korea? That worked out well, right? How many troops are STILL in Korea and why? Sherman Adams; "At the moment of a Korean truce," he said, "we shall be in danger. There will be nothing in the terms of such a truce which will give any permanent relief from the ominous threat which confronts the free world." The Marxists were rather pleased.
That was a "political solution" and look where we are today in the Korean Zone. Is this what we want in Iraq? Another Korea?
Was Vietnam a military solution or a political one? Silly question I know but it needs to be asked. It was a political solution. And look at that aftermath. At least in Korea we left troops there to ensure South Korea remained South Korea. The Democrats completely abandoned the Vietnamese people and that resulted in the Killing Fields. Well done, Democrats. Well done.
Is this what we want in Iraq?
Here is my gut call.
The Leftinistra KNOW that a withdrawal will bring about a repeat of the Cambodian Killing Fields and thus they can lay the blame at GWB's feet. This will ensure (to them) a sure victory in 2008. They cannot afford to be seen as the owners of defeat of which they are. Troops cannot be pulled out of Iraq on their watch.
Should their efforts cause a loss in Iraq and, our troops are still in theater in 2008, the Leftinistra cannot afford a loss in Iraq and they will NOT pull the troops out.
Just a thought.
The Learning Curve here in this modern day is this; the Democrats are the Party of Defeat and must be challenged and exposed at and on all levels possible. It is our duty to do so as members of The new media.
While achieving skills for my own blog at Townhall, I was "playing with" other blog platforms and eventually got the Word Press blog up and running. After I achieved the #1 slot at Townhall, I began "playing with" Blogspot at the suggestion(s) of other popular bloggers because they said it was fun to work with. While the Word Press blog gained some recognition,I began "playing with" Blogspot and decided to use my new Blogspot blog as the primary blog. I still maintain the others due to loyal readers, viewers and those that wish to leave comments.
As my learning curves began to show promise, at least to me, an odd analogy emerged. No matter the conflict; no matter the venture; no matter the conflict; no matter the goal; they take time.
For instance, The United States. Yes, we hear of our Founding Fathers and the Framers and the First President and how all gave their all and some even lost their fortunes in the process. But, how did they get to where they were? What took place between the end of the American Revolutionary War and the inception and ratification of the United States Constitution and how did we become the United States of America? Did it happen overnight? Did it emerge from sort of primordial ooze?
Perhaps you are wondering what this has to do with the title of this post. I would be. I was reading Spree's post today in regards to the Benchmark issues in regards to progress in Iraq that the Leftinistra are soiling their Depends over and I suddenly recalled a history exam essay which I wrote many moons ago as I was going for my degree(s) in American History and American Studies. I cannot locate that essay as I am not physically able to crawl into my attic and break the seals of boxes to look for it. Suffice it to say that the data at hand can be located here.
As the "war drags on" and as the "war is lost" and "we cannot win", I find it sadly comical and horridly ignorant to think that instant success in Iraq is obtainable. We live in a society where Instant Success is expected and if our microwave ovens are no longer functional, life for us ends. The end of the world comes down all around us if a Crime Drama takes more than 2 hours to solve, or if our Cappuccino Machines break down.
The Articles of Confederation of the newly free colonies was ratified in 1781. Presidents served for one-year terms. From 1781 to 1789, eight men served as President of The United States, as mandated in Article 1 of the Articles of Confederation. George Washington was actually our ninth president but the first president under the new Constitution because the Articles of Confederation were found to be deficient. That experiment was not so much a failure but a learning curve; an eight year long learning curve.
In our history there were other learning curves, the last major one in my estimation was the War Between The States. We are still learning and emerging.
So is Iraq. They had elections. Air Force Pundit tells a tale of tribal units joining American Forces fighting AQI. Al Anbar is no longer the worse place in Iraq. Operations Rolling Thunder and Arrowhead Ripper are rendering similar results in the Northern Provinces of Iraq.
AQI is on the run in Iraq and we are winning and the full force of the "surge" (horrible term for what is happening) is just now beginning to fall into full play. Three weeks ago, the total Surge Force was finally in theater. I suppose Reid and his fellow 16% Approval Ratings Crowds expected the surge to be over by now. If they knew what they were yakking about, perhaps we would be more understanding of their ignorance and stupidity. After all, one of Reid's people doesn't know that $2 exist...he thinks they are phony. What kind of an operation is Reid running anyway?
Some are demanding a political solution. Like Korea? That worked out well, right? How many troops are STILL in Korea and why? Sherman Adams; "At the moment of a Korean truce," he said, "we shall be in danger. There will be nothing in the terms of such a truce which will give any permanent relief from the ominous threat which confronts the free world." The Marxists were rather pleased.
That was a "political solution" and look where we are today in the Korean Zone. Is this what we want in Iraq? Another Korea?
Was Vietnam a military solution or a political one? Silly question I know but it needs to be asked. It was a political solution. And look at that aftermath. At least in Korea we left troops there to ensure South Korea remained South Korea. The Democrats completely abandoned the Vietnamese people and that resulted in the Killing Fields. Well done, Democrats. Well done.
Is this what we want in Iraq?
Here is my gut call.
The Leftinistra KNOW that a withdrawal will bring about a repeat of the Cambodian Killing Fields and thus they can lay the blame at GWB's feet. This will ensure (to them) a sure victory in 2008. They cannot afford to be seen as the owners of defeat of which they are. Troops cannot be pulled out of Iraq on their watch.
Should their efforts cause a loss in Iraq and, our troops are still in theater in 2008, the Leftinistra cannot afford a loss in Iraq and they will NOT pull the troops out.
Just a thought.
The Learning Curve here in this modern day is this; the Democrats are the Party of Defeat and must be challenged and exposed at and on all levels possible. It is our duty to do so as members of The new media.
No comments:
Post a Comment