Time Traveling With Today's Democratic Party
The sacrifices are too great... You can't win this thing militarily... It costs too much... It's a quagmire... It's Vietnam... We need to redeploy troops to Okinawa.
Can you imagine if today's democratic party were leading this country at any other time in history? What flag would we be saluting today?
Today's democratic party feels that the sacrifice of 2,800 men and women over a three year span is an abysmal failure. What is the lasting power of this feeble group? And, how would today's liberals fare at defending this great country?
Let's take a look...
"Fellow citizens, we cannot escape history."
Abraham Lincoln, Annual Message to Congress, December 1862
Democrats would have quit the Civil War after the first major Battle of Antietam where over 3,600 Americans lost their lives-
The Battle of Antietam (also known as the Battle of Sharpsburg, particularly in the South), fought on September 17, 1862, near Sharpsburg, Maryland and Antietam Creek, as part of the Maryland Campaign, was the first major battle in the American Civil War to take place on Northern soil. It was the bloodiest single-day battle in American history, with almost 23,000 casualties.
During this first major battle of the Civil War America lost nearly seven times as many troops than in three years in Iraq.
During World War I the United States lost over 100,000 men on and off the battlefield.
Today's democrats never would have lasted those two years of American involvement.
Also in World War I:
The Progressive Left in the US had the same arguments nearly 100 years ago:
Women progressives, including Jane Addams, suggested that war represented the male principle of physical force and would end when the mother viewpoint prevailed in international diplomacy. Socialists opposed the war, believing that the struggle was among rival capitalist and imperialistic societies in Europe.The Korean War lasted 3 years from June 25, 1950 to a cease-fire on July 27, 1953.
But this war would have ended much, much ealier since 37,000 Americans were killed during this 3 year time frame.
After the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, and killing over 2,400 of our sailors and marines...
...Today's Democrats would have immediately surrendered.
So the question is...
Is this really the party that needs to be in charge of this country today?
A Jacksonan has interesting figures on the "Causes of Death of Active Military Personnel."
Arena of Ideas has an interview with an Iraqi on how things are really going in this former Baathist regime.
posted by Gateway Pundit at 10/26/2006 04:08:00 PM
10 Comments:
The loss of life at Antietam in a single day indeed exceeded the total losses of the US in Iraq to date, but those killed amounted to something under 4000. The 23,000 figure refers to "casualties," and includes those killed, wounded, captured, and MIA.
Thanks, Adjorum. I've updated.
Is this really the party that needs to be in charge of this country today?
No.
And just to nip things in the bud FDR would not be a member of today's Democratic party. Neither would JFK or Harry Truman. They all would have gotten the Joe Lieberman treatment by the nutroots. In fact the speech that Zell Miller made at the Republican convention would have been one that FDR, JFK or Harry would have given.
On a sidenote FDR would have locked up everyone involved with that jihadi snuff video over at CNN and had them prosecuted for sedition and treason, too.
And the US population just broke 300 million. Makes you think about the price of freedom.
Losses are always hard, but those trying to use the loss of life in a fight against tyranny and against those seeking to bring down Nations and enslave free people... those are the worst as they put a price on liberty and freedom for others. And in doing devalue it for themselves. We lose more people to infected cuts, lesions, scrapes and post-infection surgery by more than an order of magnitude higher every year than all of the combat deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq to date. Yes, more than 10 times. The ninth highest cause of death in 2000 was just that... saving lives means that you take care of yourself, treat those minor scratches and scrapes and don't become a statistic. That would save lives, but we know that and many still don't do those things. Deaths of Americans to end tyranny and help people to be free is one thing, but death due to pure and absolute negligence of *yourself* is something else again. And even in Iraq the leading causes of death is accident and illness, at least in 2004... combat sputters along third and far smaller than the first and not able to overtake the second.
Folks die in the military at a high rate because there is so much heavy equipment and materials moving around and one false move...
The nastiest year for deaths was 1918-19, when 500,000 Americans died due to the Spanish Influenza. And let us not forget the 1900 Galveston Hurricane which swept away 6,000 to 8,000.
And when we look at the survivors of tyranny and hear their testimony in Iraq, can we really say it isn't worth the price?
In 1999 a survey of Military Elites were asked how many deaths did they think Americans would take to just get rid of WMDs in Iraq, none of this other stuff, mind you. Their answer: about 6,000. Media Elites and pundits and others that opine on such things in high circles were asked the same and came up with: a bit over 19,000. The population was *also* polled so that Citizens could answer that self-same question and the answer: nearly 30,000. Americans expect soldiers to die in a fight for freedom and to free others. When the average citizen was polled on how many they thought had died in Bosnia, the average was: about 170. The real answer: ZERO.
And to establish this Nation 10% of the population died. Was that not worth the price?
Using death as a reason to run from those trying hard to bring Empire back and end the rights of individuals not only dishonors those that have died *for* freedom, but gives comfort to those looking to *end it*. There are long term consequences to doing that... just when *does* America *stop* running to stand up *for* what it was founded upon?
Historical Perspective! I love it. I wrote a similar piece a while back in response to someone asking me "are we safer now"...
well done.
Speak of history repeating itself, read about the Copperhead Democrats during the Civil War at - http://www.civilwarhome.com/copperheads.htm
“Most Northerners believed, not without reason, that Peace Democrats had prolonged war by encouraging the South to continue fighting in the hope that the North would abandon the struggle”
GML
...was the first major battle in the American Civil War to take place on Northern soil."
Actually, that would be Gettysburg. Maryland was a southern state before the civil war began, dating back to the late 1700's.
At that point in the war, Maryland was as far north as the confederates had gotten but the Battle of Antietam itself was not fought on northern soil because Maryland was and is south of the Mason-Dixon Line.
The US had a population under 35 million when the battle of Antiedam occurred, including the Confederate States! 23,000 casualties would be nearly 200,000 or so in today's population of 300 million.
Total Civil War casualties of 970,000 killed and wounded amounted to 3% of the nation's population!
Food for thought.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home