Tuesday, September 18, 2007

The Question for Anti-War Democrats

It is not worth “debate” with moonbats but I can’t help thinking there are still rank and file Democrats who revere Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and may benefit from a review of history. From the American Thinker.

Why Did FDR Invade North Africa? After the "day that will live in infamy" FDR's first land attack took place in Morocco and Algeria, then French colonies, in alliance with the British.

Why? Morocco is about as far from Pearl as you can get. Why punish the poor North Africans for what the Japanese did to us? Well, FDR understood the enemy, and so did the American people. It wasn't just Tojo who attacked the US on December 7, 1941. It was the Axis imperial alliance -- Germany, Japan and Italy. They were bent on world conquest, had already conquered most of Europe, and had to be stopped at a time and place of our choosing.

Back in the day, the Democrats were in their own way, for the interests of the American common man, with the understanding that American interests come first. This is before the Party of Roosevelt and Truman transforms into the party of global socialist unity. Perhaps I should not be surprised that individuals who aspire to one planet united under one rule, share similar sentiments and find common points of tactical agreement.

FDR understood that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was not an isolated incident, just as President Bush understood that the attack on America on 9/11 was not an isolated event. The liberals still don't get that. They who woke up on the morning of September 11, 2001 -- and promptly went back to sleep the day after that. None so blind as will not see.

Al Quaida (and the Khomeini cult) are mujahedeen in the martyrdom tradition of Islamic conquest, willing to commit suicide to bring the world back to the "purity" of a 7th century desert patriarchy. It was violent jihad that spread Islam with amazing speed in the two centuries after Mohammed, racing from small towns in Arabia to conquer swaths of Byzantium, Persia, Afghanistan, the Caucasus, the Indian subcontinent, North Africa and even the Iberian Peninsula. The message to each new target was the same: submit or die. That is still the message of violent jihad today.

The anti-war absolutists are so obsessed with the idea of one nation attacking another nation being evil, they fail to accept that a transnational “cult of martyrdom” is a greater threat to their idealized peace. Deposing a violent lawless tyrant in order to establish the “place of our choosing” to confront this cult may be one of the most courageous political decisions ever made, if it works.