Posted on 10/28/2001 10:45:12 AM PST by clee1
Lots of people would have disagreed with you. In the Middle Ages, an opponent of the local ruler, or even sometimes a person who had fallen into his disfavor, had only to flee across the nearest border and he could gain freedom and even allies to revenge himself.
Under the Empire, there was nowhere to flee for those who were out of favor of the Emperor. In essence, the Empire was a political monopoly, feudalism had some features in common with free-market economies.
Feudal societies are not usually very progressive, but they are also inherently sloppy in their opporession. This sloppiness allowed for many people to lead a relatively free existence, as compared to a modern totalitarian society.
American omlet construction should be about freedom for all.
However, we should keep in mind Burke's comments about the French Revolution. Before we celebrate that others now have the freedom to do whatever they want, we should find out what it is they want to do. Maybe they'll their new freedom to attack us.
Not everybody on the planet has the same ideals or aspirations as most Americans do. For some, the destruction of America is their highest ideal. Their freedom to implement this aspiration is the problem, not a solution.
If everybody on the planet were freed from oppressive governments, our problems would not disappear. Some of them might get worse.
So should we just accept that disadvantage and admit defeat? I agree it's a serious disadvantage abroad, and even more so at home. I don't thnk there's any way arouund it, and our enemies understand us, and they are actively using our reluctance to kill civilians against us.
I am afraid the only solution is the physical destruction of those enemies we can hit with regrettably large numbers of collateral damage, and the economic and technological reduction of those we can't hit directly.
In a more serious era, we recognized the threat, we could psychologically accept the requirements it laid upon us, and we firebombed Germany, and nuked Japan.
The 'burdens of war' don't mean just long lines at the airport, or even rationing -- more importantly it means watching and supporting your government slaughter foreign civilians because you know in the big picture that it's a just cause, and it's better for free societies to survive the trials of history than tyrannical ones.
It sounds ugly, but it's the truth, and war is ugly.
Look at it this way: During Prohibition, Al Capone and his buddies had tremendous influence in Chicago. Should we have destroyed the city of Chicago and all its inhabitants to get him?
I realize that collateral damage is inevitable in war, especially when one side inetntionally used civilians to hide behind. I do not believe that we should therefore kill millions of civilians to get at a few hundred or thousand terrorists.
Our refusal to do this is what makes us morally superior to the terrorists and puts the lie to those pushing morel equivalency.
That is why we have a small window of opportunity to dismante the ability of tyrannical states to accomplish this, if it's not too late. To pretend that isolationism will, or would prevent these tyrants from attacking us is not realistic, based on radical Islamic intolerance for any system other than their own.
We take the heat because we are the most successful, attractive alternative to their sick vision of the future world. The time is now to take drastic steps to prevent that vision from becoming reality.
However, I am very literate, and I do believe the American Way is the best way, with some justification.
Am I to suppose that your way of dealing with clear and present threats to our nation is to just pat the tyrants on the back and bury our collective head in the sand?
I suspect you are a DU'er, and can only come up with responses like "nazi" and "half-literate". BTW the literate phrase would have been "semi-literate".
You cannot legislate or force morality upon people nor can you legislate or force acceptance upon people.
It has been tried several times recently and not worked.
I think the word you're looking for is fascism.
Well, we were never forced to declare war against Chicago either. The stakes are quite a bit higher. The similarity with WWII and with all of life, is survival of the fittest. That is what we are facing. Our moral superiority is worthless if we are destroyed in the process of maintaining it.
I agree that some extreme measures, especially those domestically, would be self-defeating, but that bar has been raised awfully high, now that our very existence is under explicit, and probably very credible threat of destruction.
Thank you for being polite. I thought I was plenty thoughtful - but reasonable people are free to disagree.
You cannot legislate or force morality upon people nor can you legislate or force acceptance upon people.
No, but you can refuse to do business with or be friendly with those that don't accept a civilized society.
It has been tried several times recently and not worked.
Name ONE time in the history of the world when evil has not eventually been defeated by good.
I think the word you're looking for is fascism.
Wrong. The word I am looking for is "peace" - it is an impossibility while the majority of the world lives under repressive regimes, many supported in the past by OUR government.
All I am trying to say is that America needs to support the ideals that founded our Nation, while rigorously opposing governments that reject them. That's all. If while supporting these ideals we come under attack (a la 9-11) we should spare no mercy while dealing with the enemy, moral relativism and political correctness be damned.
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.