Very well said, Monte. What liberals don’t understand is that its not warmongerism to defend your interests or come to the rescue of an ally. Indeed, there must have been a better way in Korea - maybe if north Korea wasn’t run by trigger happy nuts and not invaded south Korea then there would have been peace. (I understand Dean Acheson’s speech may have emboldened Kim Il Sung to invade). Had we not come to the rescue of the Koreans, what would have the communists have done? Hard to say. If they had not not encountered any opposition then its likely that they would have been emboldened to keep marching into other areas. We had a monopoly on nuclear bombs at the time and were in a position to use them without “mutual assured destruction” happening. We obviously didn’t but I read that Eisenhower hinted through diplomatic channels that he was considering using nuclear weapons if the north didn’t agree to a ceasefire.
A shameful episode in our history is the abandonement of South Vietnam by liberal Democrats in the 1970’s. The liberal Democrat Mcgovern wing of the Democrat party tied the hands of Nixon and later Ford so that they couldn’t even provide crucial air support to repel the North Vietnamese army as it marched south in an invasion that broke the Paris Peace Accords. But communists do that, don’t they. And liberals call themselves peacemakers because they refuse to do anything to defend their allies. Shameful.
The liberal Democrats called Reagan a warmonger. All he did was support a strong military, research and fund SDI, conspire with Pope John Paul 2 and Thatcher to give the crucial push to topple the Soviet communist empire once and for all. Without a shot, almost. And the Nobel Peace prize goes to Carter of all people
Ishii
