Bo knows and so does Woody!
Do we truly appreciate the similarities between football and war?
Football and war are very similar except war doesn’t have a time limit and there could be multiple venues between the adversaries – N.B. there was the 7 Years’ War, the 30 Years’ War, the 100 Years’ War, and the World War (World War I – first half, World War II – second half).
The principles of war (and football) include mass, offense, objective, surprise and unity of command, among others. Dithering is not!
The ultimate objective of both is to win! There is no such thing as a moral victory in war ... unless you think German troops marching through the Arch de Triomphe or U.S. personnel leaving the American Embassy in Saigon by helicopter are moral victories.
But when a football team’s commander-in-chief says he is not going to employ his maximum (11 men) force, but that only nine or 10 men on the field would be sufficient, the advantage goes to the opponent.
And when he tells the opposition what our strategy and tactics are ... the advantage goes to the opponent.
And when he places onerous rules of engagement (restrictions) on his own team ... the advantage goes to the opponent.
And when he tells his opponent that he intends to start withdrawing his players in the fourth quarter and have all of them off the field by the two-minute warning ... the advantage goes to the opponent.
Obviously, all those actions do not create the environment for victory.
One of the great captains in military history Douglas MacArthur not only said that “there is no substitute for victory,” but also that our greatest military strength is the patriotic American soldier. He never intimated, implied or said in his speeches and writings that our greatest strength is our diversity.
In summarizing this comparison of war and football, I paraphrase the local lingo, jargon, argot or whatever – You gotta play to win, in order TO WIN!
The ‘green movement’
The overreaching and extreme offers by our top leadership to fund the new “world order” are totally ridiculous.
Haleru Clinton has said that our country will contribute towards the 100 billion dollars a year climate-change fund. Her implication was that we would be a major contributor. If we contributed half that amount it would be equivalent to 1 billion dollars for every state that is currently struggling with staggering budget deficits. Wow!
Apparently, our president and his czars are now capable of making huge dumb commitments to the world without obtaining the approval of Congress. Charles Krauthammer of the Washington Post was correct about “environmentalism” being the new key U.N. movement of the day to get America’s money.
The United States must first consider its own monetary problems, and only secondarily consider helping the poor of the world with realistically reduced amounts and with specific targets.
Congress should also impose power restraints on the EPA. Arbitrary regulations that force businesses into unrealistic and costly paths are not conducive to helping private enterprise. Congress should thoroughly consider the harm the new rules will do to businesses and to the taxpayers.
Charles Lanchantin Jr.
Who’s gone over the top?
In C.W. Griffin’s “Over the top for Sarah” letter to the editor in the Dec. 18 issue of the AFN, he refers to Barry Smith’s column about meeting Sarah Palin as “insipid.” He calls Smith a “sucker,” a “victim,” a “dupe” and “wallowing in ignorance.” He calls Sarah Palin “a conscienceless con artist” and a “serial liar.” Now that’s going “over the top.”
A diatribe such as this serves only to embitter the dialogue and embolden those, such as myself, who have never before written a letter to the editor, to come out of the woodwork.
Perhaps it’s time to realize that not all of us are happy about Marxists running Washington and having our “representatives” spend our future into oblivion. There are alternatives, there are differing opinions, and they are being heard. Deal with it!
And to David Daggett (“What has Palin done?” AFN, Dec. 11), who suggests that Sarah Palin has accomplished nothing, I would ask: which of the following is on your resume? Mayor, governor or vice-presidential nominee? Had a No. 1 best-selling book even before its release?
As for role models, I wonder if Daggett would prefer to have those parents and grandparents stand in line for Sen. John Edwards ... Gov. Mark Sanford … tax evader, Rep. Charles Rangel … Tiger Woods … Michael Vick…? The peaceful “tea-partiers” to whom he deprecatingly alludes aren’t the real problem with our nation after all.
It is time once again to revere common sense and morality and to choose as leaders, representatives and heroes those who respect themselves. The United States of America and the founders and fighters who created and have preserved it, those who have a conscience and simply know what is right and what is wrong.
What have we become?
What do we want to be?