Posted on 09/12/2001 9:12:07 AM PDT by Fury
I agree. The crux of the problem is a shrinking world where people with competing outlooks (Western - Muslim) have to bump shoulders.
Muslims don't even want to see our women's bare shoulders, much less bump into their bare shoulders. They like their women under wraps.
Don't worry. I realize I'm oversimplifying the problem.
the big totalitarian-filled world.
Dude, you need to get out once in a while. Who's the one with his head in the sand? A "big totalitarian-filled world"? You want to go to war with the world? OK fine, you go first. The rest of us are patriots who actually believe in the rule of law and justice. THAT is what made America great, not its ability to kick everyone's ass around the world. It is amazing how quickly you and your neocon buddies are to turn your back on our basic national values.
I don't think being a paleo means letting your country be bombed into oblivion without fighting back.
Damn straight! I want to see serious pain inflicted on every scumbag involved in this. But the difference between us and them is that with some very shameful exceptions, we as a nation do not support the bombing of innocents. We believe in rule of law and justice. These armchair warriors would like nothing more than to send someone -- someone other then them, of course -- to war on any given day of the week.
(the Pentagon is a mile from where I'm sitting)
Howdy neighbor. Pretty damn scary when the plane was overhead, wasn't it?
Attributed to Caligula. He was hated, with good reason, but after a while he was no longer feared, and was murdered. Oderint dum metuant is strictly a short-term policy, with limited long-term value.
This kind of insulting outlook is exactly why I have a growing intolerance for Neo-conservatives.
>Public opinion supported the Vietnam War almost to the end of it; it was the elites and the intellectuals who turned against it, not ordinary Americans.
So we should forget the Constitution and wage war based on public opinion??????
>Idealism, like terrorism, has — can have — no borders.....American idealism cannot be contained.
Idealism, like terrorism, has killed millions upon millions of people. (See The Idealism-Realism Schism.) To sacrifice constitutional principles for selfish, idealistic crusades is not only un-American, it's morally wrong.
Wrong. Liberals are anything but isonlationists. Look at Clinton's military endeavors. They believe we can spread good will throughout the world by sending our military on socialist humanitarian missions. Liberals were all behind the bombing of Serbia, remember.
...we must not attack blindly: we must be very sure and be able to prove to ourselves and the world that the nation we attack is indeed guilty of this act against us.
I agree again.
http://lawbooksusa.com/art1/article1seceight4.htm § 131. Declarations of war and maritime operations.
No one man or coterie can declare war. That can be done only by the two Houses of Congress, elected by the direct vote of the people. "The genius and character of our institutions are peaceful,'' said the Supreme Court of the United States (1849), "and the power to declare war was not conferred upon Congress for the purposes of aggression or aggrandizement, but to enable the general government to vindicate by arms, if it should become necessary, its own rights and the rights of its citizens." In the foregoing case the question was whether the city of Tampico, Mexico, while in the military possession of the United States in 1847, ceased to be a foreign country so that customs duties could not be laid on imports from it. The answer was No. While the United States may acquire territory, it can do so only through the treaty-making or the legislative power--the victories of the President as Commander in Chief "do not enlarge the boundaries of this Union, nor extend the operation of our institutions and laws beyond the limits before assigned to them by the legislative power." Half a century later a somewhat similar question arose after the war with Spain. Puerto Rico and the Philippines were ceded by that Government to the United States. Did the acquisition change the status of the islands so that they ceased to be "foreign countries" within the meaning of the tariff laws under which duties had been paid by their citizens on their exports to this country? Next, how were they affected by the clause of the Constitution requiring that "all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States"? In a series of decisions in what were called the Insular Cases, extending from 1901 to 1905 the doctrine was established that it is for Congress first to determine when territory is to become a part of the United States.
Look at all these characters screaming for Arab blood.
...without concern for who is innocent or who is guilty. Not all that different from the cowardly terrorists themselves. This "war on terrorism" is just feel-good sloganism. If we follow the neocon route, we will engage in endless tit-for-tat slaughters like we see in Israel today. I wonder if most Americans really want to live in an Israel-type country. If we remember who we are and what we are about, we will find these bastards and one-by-one make sure that they meet their justice, with all of us watching. That, rather than a blanket war on all the "others", will send the clearest message to future terrorists: we CAN find you and those who assist you.
But the Republic vs. Empire framework seems naive and outdated. We were an embryonic empire when we expanded to the Mississippi, the Caribbean, the Rockies, the Rio Grande, the Pacific and beyond. When we developed the world's biggest and richest economy, we became involved with the rest of the world, even if we didn't want to. Whatever we wanted, we would be dragged into the world's affairs, as we were in 1941, or we would find it impossible to stay out, as we did on other occasions. If it is Bin Laden behind this, it wasn't primarily our vices or abuses that got us into this, but our virtues: we armed the Afghanis to fight against the Soviets.
So the debate goes on about where we should be involved, but we might recognize that we can't go back to Jefferson's day. A lot has changed over two centuries. Also, we probably shouldn't think of Jefferson and the founders as wholly without imperial tendencies of their own. The alternative of reverting to city-states or independent provinces or regions, which seems to be the real agenda of some paleos, was rejected by the founders. It doesn't seem suited to bring about greater peace or security today either. Remember that peaceful, commercial, pacifist Europe has been troubled by terrorism longer than we have.
And if the scumbags are individuals, although many, and hide among and are protected by those innocents? If they reside in population centers surrounded by people who have nothing to do with their actions, but underground and undetectable?
How then, my friend? 
If they reside in population centers surrounded by people who have nothing to do with their actions, but underground and undetectable? How then, my friend?
I take by the way you pose the question that you already have decided upon an answer. You want to flatten innocent civilians? Just say so if that is what you and your friends here are implying. Let's hear it if this is your position.
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.