UNIONISM DECAYED 1997-2007 - It's my first book and it is an all out indictment of those who appease terrorists and call it peace. It's available right now for ATW readers so make sure you get your copy by emailing the editor! This is the book that dissents from the herd mentality that doing wrong can lead to right. It doesn't and thi
s book spells out WHY.
We'd really like to have you comment on our site! We want good conversation, no abuse and no trolls. I reserve the right to ban anybody who wilfully and persistently breaks these rules. So go ahead and speak your mind!
Sir Walter Scott was onto something when he wrote.."Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practise to deceive" all those centuries ago. The purpose of this site is to expose some of the deceits that constitute contemporary political debate, to provide a principled conservative voice of dissent and to make life.... that little less tangled!
David Vance
130 Comments
Reader Comments (130)
the war in Afghan was a war on terrorism it was a war of self defense and it was and is a war still widely suported.
Iraq: I dont think anyone has ever possited a reasonable excuse for this. Not at the begining, not in the middle and still not in hindsight has anyone ever explained this bloody fiasco.
Iraq was lead by a bloody dictator but it was also the only secular nation in the whole of the mid-east. it was as close to a modern western nation as did exist there and now there is nothing but religous terrorism left there.
Saudi Arabia is also lead by a dictator. Saudi Arabia funds terrorism and terrorist training. Saudi Arabia ferments religous conflict. Why didnt Bush invade them? maybe because him and the sixth sick Sheik are old freinds? Maybe its because the Sheik was always good for a generous campaign contribution?
The Dictator question is the most spurious of all! There are many more much worse than Saddam the most obvious of which is Kim Jong Il. Kim has already starved to death millions of his citizens> He kidnaps foreign nationals and forces them to slave labour. and he really does threaten the world with Nuclear Bombs
I do not think people don't support the soldiers its the supposed leaders who took you to Iraq and the wasted war that has if anything left us more vulnerable than ever
War IS hell.
But as long as there are animals on this earth there will be war. There is no choice of war or no war - just war on our terms or war on someone elses.
Whichever choice we make, we must always be prepared for it.
Good Vlog ,well argued , but wrong. It is silly to say the media want us to lose to Islamofascism. Nobody in their right minds would want us to be overrun and defeated by Talibanists. Sean's comment above is worth reading and digesting for the good honest common sense appraisal that it is. We should view the 'War on terror' and the military action in Iraq as seperate issues. If we really wanted to launch a traditional military invasion and occupation to best assist the defeat of militant violent Islamic threats to the west we should have done so against Saudi Arabia not Iraq. Comparisons with the second world war are inappropriate. Th econventional military battles involving thousand sof troops fighting and dying on the field were the ONLY way of winning that real threat to our existence which came from a nation capable of genuine military conquest. , the same is just not true today. The battle against the threat of terrorism will be won by security and intelligence, not old-style wars ,invasions and military occupations.
Exactly.
My argument stands.
Let me see if I understand your argument. Since Hillary Clinton does not "want us to be overrun and defeated by Talibanists" then you and Hillary Clinton are on the same side.
I think we're closer to winning the war already!
Not wanting to be defeated is one thing. Doing something about it is something else.
Actually, I think Hillary's primary concern is for..Hillary, but IF she wants to FIGHT a war on militant Islam, rather than discuss it in rhetorical terms, great. The more we unite the better.
Winning the war on Islamofascism does not necessarily mean that every step the US/UK has taken so far is right. Neither does it mean that all the actions you applaud were correct and that those who don't share your view are 'surrender monkeys'.
Re: The more we unite the better.
See http://www.mg.co.za/articlepage.aspx?area=/breaking_news/breaking_news__international_news/&articleid=297045
"Senior members of Congress, including Hillary Clinton, who recently returned from Afghanistan, have been pressing for more resources to avoid a repeat of Iraq.
"Richard Boucher, the US Assistant Secretary of State, who was in Brussels on Thursday preparing for Friday's meeting, said Nato would "take the initiative" to drive Taliban fighters out of their sanctuaries to pre-empt any spring offensive."
US/UK/NATO full offensive against the Taliban works for me.
Aand we. I do wish we could back to the spirit that flowed immediately post 9/11. United we can beat them. I also think that the US should not be expected to do ALL the heavy-lifting and that ALL other democratic states should be helping. Too many sit back and let young Aamericans (and Brits) do it all.
I really do agree with Alan and have thought for a long time now that left and right need to unite properly over the WOT for this reason.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/printer-friendly/27540/the-new-antiislamist-intelligentsia.thtml
Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terrorism and never did
It all depends by what is meant by'follow through'
Was the invasion and occupation of Iraq a proper example of 'following through' ?
That is an excellent description of what happened with Iraq.