Posted by
JDComments on Thursday, December 07, 2006 10:17:55 AM
The leftist Guardian newspaper in Great Britain, in an article on the ISG, makes the following remark:
The Baker panel recognises, as does Bush, that the central plank in US policy in Iraq over the next two years has to be a dramatic reduction in US casualties. At the present rate, in only a few days more Americans will have died in Iraq than on 9/11; if you add the US death toll in Afghanistan, that point has already been reached. Bush's war on terror has killed more Americans than Bin Laden's terror.
Now this is just a more blatant form of the false milestones that our media is constantly throwing in our faces, and I at least give this writer credit for not sugarcoating the same thought our more furtive newsman only imply. But on this celebration of Pearl Harbor Day, I have this question for him [and I actually emailed it , but am not holding my breath waiting for a reply]: Does this mean that the US should have ended hostilities with the Axis when our war casualties approached those of Pearl Harbor's [2388]? If so, and we had, I wonder how this reporter would have liked working under a Nazi regime, for he surely would be.
Liberals in the West have become so fixated on individual lives that they have lost hold of the concept that some things are worth dying for, indeed demand the ultimate sacrifice. Our children's future is one of these, and while every life lost is mourned, if we cannot accept that in this world, against these kind of enemies, we are going to die to save what we value, then we might as well shut off the lights now and begin prostrating ourselves in the direction of Mecca.