Posted on 05/16/2007 1:25:01 PM PDT by dcwusmc
Well, of course. One thing at a time. This is not a disproof of their expansionist tendencies, just evidence that they have a simple and obvious "from the center -> outward" strategy in mind.
You’ve got several pieces of an answer, for which I thank you. However, you’ve gotta back up your claim that I’m an anti-semite. If you base that on my lack of desire for GOVERNMENTAL aid to Israel versus PRIVATE aid which has no strings attached, I suppose I could plead guilty. However, if you are asserting that I would oppose the existence of the State of Israe, then I would tell you to go pound sand. I rightly resent government, especially fedgov, making decisions for me as to where my “charitable” contributions should go. So should you. I do NOT think that this means I oppose the existence of the Jewish state, as they are God’s Chosen people and it is NOT for me to make His choices for Him.
I appreciate your contribution to the discussion. /s
Most people, I among them, have a rather lengthy “better dead” list. However, there are several reasons why those on MY list still breathe my air... I am civilized; I have a clear recognition of right and wrong; and I could never be sure ahead of time that the target did not have armed bodyguards that might be able to defeat my purpose. Except for the last consideration, the muzzies do not share these characteristics. When they perceive weakness, they will attack. So what weakness in US did they perceive that made this the time to attack us? No, this is a legitimate thread with a proper question, but thanks for participating.
I knew I shouldn't have napped. That was my first answer.
Nothing that I can point to, sadly!
American Liberals are our weakness.
Did the U.S. Contribute in ANY Possible Way to Islamists’ Attitudes Prior to 9/11?
Mr Jimmuh Cahter sure did!
High Volume. Articles on Israel can also be found by clicking on the Topic or Keyword Israel. or WOT [War on Terror]
----------------------------
This is a question which requires a lot of thought and introspection. I realize and understand that many of you are pure knee-jerk, but try. Did the United States and the Federal Government in ANY way contribute to 9/11?
As a knee-jerk freeper I'm disqualified, but someone may wish to weigh in on our culpability.
Well, thanks. Actually, to this point a few have come close to my answer... that is, the perception of weakness on our part, which may well have been a major factor in them thinking they could get away with it. Sadly, they may not have been that far off the mark, considering all that’s going on right now... and I have no idea how to change that. But maybe I’ll come up with something... :^)
Well, thanks. Actually, to this point a few have come close to my answer... that is, the perception of weakness on our part, which may well have been a major factor in them thinking they could get away with it. Sadly, they may not have been that far off the mark, considering all that’s going on right now... and I have no idea how to change that. But maybe I’ll come up with something... :^)
If your point is that no foreign government should receive aid, then fair enough. That point alone is not anti semitic.
The effort to construe US Israeli relations in a unique way which does not apply equally to other nations is in my view anti semitic. Your post is oriented against Israel in an effort to understand how the US provokes the Islamic fascists.
The Islamic fascists hold an anti semitic view of Israel. It is a matter of utmost rhetorical urgency that this view be confronted and denied. Obviously as they chant death to Israel and death to America— they believe that the Jews of Israel shall be the first victim. We will certainly be the next according ot their design.
Anyone who wants to engage the question of Israel ought to be more careful in my view. The blatant, shrill, and obvious anti semitic hatred radiating out of the middle east should not be casually re figured as some bland political tension. It is a carefully cultivated and propagandized hate instituted by Mickey Mouse and every rhetorical tool of deception that can be had.
I obviously lack patience for a world that indicates confusion about the complaints of Bin Laden.
5 minutes on MEMRI.ORG ought to clarify matters for anyone who is confused about what is going on.
What do:
Somalia
The former Yugoslavia
Darfur
Kashmir
Ethiopia
Chechnya
Sudan
Indonesia
have in common?
Muslims with a gripe. Does the whole world need to look inward or should we just look to the Muslim world to see where the problem originates
And don’t forget their own infighting.
I like your (mostly) thoughtful reply. And, as far as I am concerned ANY foreign aid is wrong. Period. But my particular problem with governmental aid to Israel is that the strings attached to it HURT Israel’s ability to protect herself when needed. PRIVATE aid would not be given with those strings.
WRT the Shah and his downfall, I am saying that Jimmy the Peanut either created or contributed in a MAJOR way to the perception of our indecisiveness, and thus our weakness. You do recall, perhaps, that our embassy people were released on inauguration day, 1981, right?
As far as the “evil and misguided” policies, I am not trying to lay all or even most of that at Bush’s feet. It goes back a ways. Again, to Jimmy C. and prior.
But putting the country on a “war-footing,” similar to that during WWII, but with less rationing, would have been the simplest and quickest way I can think of to do several things, including getting the whole country involved in the situation, where EVERYBODY knows what is happening and is convinced that he or she is part of the solution; taking away the DemoRat ability to undermine the effort because the sedition and treason statutes could be invoked; commit the nation, in so many words, to WIN the war instead of just slapping our enemy in the face a bit and pissing him off.Over the years I have learned a lot of Marine Corps history after WWI. Throughout the “Banana Wars” in Central America and then the Pacific in WWII, Korea and Vietnam, a few things stand out. Namely, if you want to WIN against barbarians, you have to get down in the gutter with them, stomp them until they CAN’T get up any more, then keep stomping them until they lose the will to TRY to get up. Only after that can you treat with them. The Islamists are barbarians. Any treatment short of what I described will only be perceived by them as weakness. And weakness begets more war, sure as the sun rises in the east. NOW am I clear enough?
As far as the “pure as the driven snow,” there are way too many who seem to think (if they think at all) or “feel” that there needs to be NO discussion of how we might have done things differently in order to achieve a different outcome. When this is all over (maybe in my great-grandkids’ time), I want to see this country restored to its original state vis-a-vis the Constitutional limits on FedGov and I want to be sure that we do nothing to create conditions which cause this cancer on mankind to recur. Sort of like, my smoking helped cause my lung cancer. Now that it’s gone, should I continue to smoke?
A LOT of the problem lies with the muzzies, there’s no getting around it. But not the whole of it. IMHO, part of it lies with the arrogance of our “leadership” back numerous years that said that they were somehow qualified to do what no one else could do before them: Impose a “peace” in the area which ignored the thousand plus years of hatreds. So my question is more akin to this: You smoked. You got lung cancer. Now the cancer is cured. Should you take up smoking again? Or should you look into the possibilities and maybe do something different from now on and eliminate that threat to your health? That “self-created” threat. The muzzies are a cancer on mankind. Which perception of US did they have which led them to believe that 9/11 was a good time to attack us? How do we clear up that misperception so that they never want to try it again? Or do we just continue smoking?
If I didn’t make it clear enough, I am opposed to ALL foreign aid.
My post is not intended at all to oppose Israel. If you got that impression then I wasn’t clear enough. And I am not at all opposed to PRIVATE aid to Israel; the contrary is true. Would that ALL the aid to Israel were private, that there could be no strings to it and that it would show the true spirit of kinship we REALLY feel toward Israel. Government to government is what I do now and will always oppose. It does NOT show the genuine feelings of Americans to our brothers and sisters in Israel. Whether we be Jew or Gentile, they are kin, in a manner of speaking, and well need and deserve our voluntary, PRIVATE, individual support.
Ok, fair enough. But surely you realize that getting from the current state A=we engage in tons of "foreign aid" to Z=no foreign aid whatsoever would represent such a quantum leap that it is not realistic to suggest as a feasible alternative path we "could have" taken.
But my particular problem with governmental aid to Israel is that the strings attached to it HURT Israel’s ability to protect herself when needed.
This is a fair point and I actually agree with it as stated. (Doesn't mean I seek to discontinue our aid to Israel, but I do understand the point)
Let me ask you this however. In your ideal world, would we allow Israel to purchase arms and/or materiel from us (i.e. U.S.-based suppliers)? If so, we'd still get basically all the blame we currently get for "helping Israel". If not, on what grounds?
WRT the Shah and his downfall, I am saying that Jimmy the Peanut either created or contributed in a MAJOR way to the perception of our indecisiveness, and thus our weakness.
Clearly. My point is, however, if it hadn't been that, it'd have been something else. Whether we supported the Shah, didn't support the Shah, too weak & allowed the revolution, or had actually stood up & intervened to suppress the revolution, the Muslim-imperialists would have found some grievance to put in their crazy writings.
That is why it's not worth wringing our hands over.
But putting the country on a “war-footing,” similar to that during WWII, but with less rationing, would have been the simplest and quickest way I can think of to do several things, including getting the whole country involved in the situation, where EVERYBODY knows what is happening and is convinced that he or she is part of the solution;
I confess to being puzzled by people who suggest that "getting the whole country involved in the situation" (with some rationing, I gather?) would have somehow led to a better situation than the one we have at present, where 99% of the country is NOT AFFECTED IN THE SLIGHTEST by our current military operations and yet half of whom have spent the past four years doing practically nothing but shrieking nonstop about how horrible and terrible it has been that we invaded Iraq and how immediate the need is for the occupation to cease.
I just can't help wondering how shrill that whining would become if all those people were actually "involved in the situation". I admit, I am loathe to find out, and so I just do not consider it a state of affairs to be sought after. Usually this is the stage in the argument where the person putting forth your view says something like, "but if everyone was involved, then um we'd all see the importance of the struggle and uh we'd all be united and, like, it would be better".
I don't buy it for one single second.
The Islamists are barbarians. Any treatment short of what I described will only be perceived by them as weakness. And weakness begets more war, sure as the sun rises in the east. NOW am I clear enough?
Fair enough but this seems part of a different argument; what does it have to do with the supposed need to examine our nation's past foreign policy behavior for "contributions" we've made to Islamists' attitudes?
As far as the “pure as the driven snow,” there are way too many who seem to think (if they think at all) or “feel” that there needs to be NO discussion of how we might have done things differently in order to achieve a different outcome.
Saying there need be no such discussion (for example, because it's unhelpful, a point others in this thread made before I) is not the same thing as asserting that our nation is "pure as the driven snow". Again: it's a straw man.
and I want to be sure that we do nothing to create conditions which cause this cancer on mankind to recur. Sort of like, my smoking helped cause my lung cancer. Now that it’s gone, should I continue to smoke?
No, but even granting that smoking caused your lung cancer - something we can infer with FAR MORE certainty than we could ever infer a construction like "9/11 happened because Jimmy was weak on Iran" - examining that behavior and thereby "abstaining from smoking in the future" is NOT the best way forward for you. One needs to go in for (depending on type..) surgery/ chemo/ radiation, and then continue with all the followup appointments, etc. As I'm sure you realize, "let's figure out what I did to make this happen" is NOT a good way to cure/treat/manage lung cancer! :-)
Anyway, at some point I do have to point out the analogy breaks down. Cancer is a battle with an adversary that is not conscious, does not have motives, does not have thoughts, feelings, a culture or a psychology. That is why one can at least hope to make good explanations for the onset of cancers that involve only the cancer patient - namely his behavior, environment, and/or genes.
But when discussing a struggle against human adversaries, fascist Muslim imperialists in this case, any attempt to seek "explanations" that refer only to us and our behavior is bound to lead to a lousy and unhelpful explanation. These are people, and cannot be treated as some passively-responding chemical or virus or bacteria or electric field, about whom we can somehow calculate, as if according to some physical law, that we "contributed" to their behavior by doing X and thus whose behavior we can "alter" simply by not doing X. I would say at best this line of thinking appeals because it is emotionally satisfying: after all, offers the promise that we can have some control over a situation that so many of us feel so helpless over.
I don't think the possibility of such control exists however. Emotionally satisfying or not, the explanation is still wrong. This is a struggle against other humans - in most cases crazy, pathetic humans, yes, but humans. They have their own motives and feelings and responses, and chances are, if we hadn't done X to piss them off, we'd have done Y. Trying to track down all the "X"'s we did is a fool's errand because you'll never in a million years predict, and prevent us from doing, all possible Y's. Unless of course you radically alter the fabric of our country. By - among other things - making it less free.
p.s. Best of luck w/the cancer.
I know analogies are of only limited usefulness, but that was the best I could think of... Indeed, one would have to go through the whole treatment regime, but I HAVE known those who would continue smoking afterwards...
And, no, thankfully I don’t have such a cancer; though a smoker for many years, my wife motivated me to finally have my last one over four years ago... after a relapse just after the start of this Iraq fracas, which brought back some unpleasant memories from the sixties (RVN related). I had promised her I’d quit in 2000, just before we got married. She was actually OK with me smoking, even though she didn’t like it much at all. But when she confronted me in ‘03, she told me that it had been MY choice to quit, so now if I didn’t quit she was gonna kill me. So I’m four years and counting.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.