Posted on 10/28/2001 10:45:12 AM PST by clee1
Of course it is. It's working very nicely for countries which will allow their people to participate in it.
To dictatorships and Islamic tyrannies, allowing people the freedom to choose what to buy and not to buy will always be anathema.
Economic freedom is not the problem, the LACK of it is the problem!
Agreed. However, we do not presently face anything remotely similar to the United States being "destroyed." Those who say we do are using hyperbole. Even if the terrorists get hold of a few (or a few dozen) nukes and actually use them (not a particularly likely scenario) it would not mean the destruction of America. 10,000 nukes launched by the old USSR, that would have been the destruction of America. The threat we face today, in comparison, is merely annoying.
So we return to the ancient argument about whether the end justifies the means.
If you say that a "good end" justifies any means, you essentially join the Commies, who believe that any crime, no matter how enormous, is justified if it advances the goal of Communism by the tiniest amount. In practice, of course, this means that any action whatsoever is justified.
Those who refuse to allow that certain unpleasant means are justified by certain noble ends fall into the pacifists trap, in which maintaining my own moral superiority far outweight all possible conseqnences, no matter how great.
I think most thinking people are left with the uncomfortable realization that certain greatly important ends justify almost any means, but also that the slippery slope inevitable in war tends to a constant reduction in exactly how important the end that justifies horrific means is.
I believe our attackers are restrained from the physical destruction of our population at large only by their present capabilities, which will only grow unless we drastically change our course of action.
We recently saw our enemies' capabilities leap by several orders of magnitude, and it should be obvious that indiscriminate mass murder is their modus operandi. Another leap in capability will reasonably result in the death of millions and millions if you consider the biological technology sought, if not owned by our enemies, and the nuclear technology which is proliferating rapidly not just to terrorists but a number of states, including China who see the existence of America, as an ideology, anathema to their success.
The unfree world is dominated by tyrants who are unrestrained by moral ambivalence about mass murder. We stand as a beacon for democracy and as such are a threat to tyrants everywhere.
Believe me, if we only respond to this as a bombing, without looking at the long-term trends and implciations, we will see our destruction. If not by the physical death of millions of Americans, then by focring us to install tyranny here in order to save our own lives.
Aristocratic women had high status, although even they were theoretically under the life and death rule of the patria potestas. Their status came much more from being aristocrats than from being women.
One emperor, the Stoic Marcus Aurelius, was a virtual saint. He wrote admonitions to himself to avoid pride and live abstemiously. He practiced kindliness and generosity and was universally recognized as a uniquely moral and competent man.
Yet this kindly man was one of the emperors most active in persecuting Christians.
His son and successor was absolutely one of the worst Emperors, personally fighting hundreds of times in the arena, massacring Senators and maintaining a harem of hundreds of women and young boys. (Although there's no evidence he bumped off Dad, as in Gladiator.) This succession of perhaps the best Emperor by one of the very worst is a perfect example of the problem with hereditary monarchy.
I'm not disagreeing with your statements, just pointing out the difficulty of comparing one civilization to another.
Any civilization with a thousand-year+ history (2,000+ if you throw in the Byzantines) will have gone thru many phases. It is literally impossible to talk about "The Ancient Romans" with any accuracy unless a specific period is stated.
The truth is not arrogant. It is merely the Truth...
People who think they have the truth but do not have it, and who try to impose by force their "truth" on others, are by definition arrogant. A perfect example of arrogance is to impose by force on others, beliefs which one refuses to practice on one's self!
Arrogance is supporting a totalitarian regime whilst screeching about freedom.
Well, newsflash: that pretty much describes American foreign policy ever since we ceased being a republic and became an empire!
We ARE better. If you don't think so, don't let the door hit you..
What a nice example of arrogance. "We are better than you are. Do as we say or we'll bomb you (if you are foreigners) or strip you of your rights as an American, if you are an American". This is essentially what the jingoistic yahoo-cry "America, love it or leave it!" means.
You jingoists seem incapable of distinguishing between loyal Americans who criticize America out of love of what America is and once was, from those whose criticism is motivated purely out of hatred or indifference to what America is (or was). In your rush to out jingo each other, you give scant evidence that we really are better than foreign fanatics. Fortunately your types do not yet have an absolute grip on our foreign policy. You're just useful idiots for the globaloney neo-con warhawks who grow fat on Beltway foundation money.
Absolutely correct as to the first part. I disagree that their capabilities are only destined to grow. Their movement is essentially parasitic on Western civilization. They are unlikely to develop truly effective weaponry on their own, they can only steal or buy it from others. This is not a way to win a war in the long run.
We were sucker-punched on 9/11. They had been at war with us for over a decade. In our arrogance and complacence, we had simply ignored them (which must have really p*ssed them off!). Well, they aren't being ignored anymore. Things are changing.
another leap in capability will reasonably result in the death of millions and millions if you consider the biological technology sought, if not owned by our enemies
What capability is this? Three anthrax deaths in a month? They could go down to the local mall with a shotgun and do better than that. Biological weapons are militarily unreliable, although they might be great for causing fear, if your enemy's media cooperates, like the American media has.
All I am saying is that it would take thousands of nukes to destroy America in any meaningful sense, not a couple or a couple of dozen, which is the most any terrorist group is likely to come up with.
Could some enormous advance in biological or physical science make these statements of mine completely obsolete? Of course. However, militant Islamists are not a likely group to make such advances.
One suggestion to prevent them from doing so: Offer well-paying jobs here and future American citizenship to all Russian bio-weapon specialists. Many of them literally cannot feed their families and are thus tempted to work for whoever will pay them.
Their expertise could be put to use developing defenses for Americans and the rest of the non-terrorist world.
I sure hope you are correct. But our enemies are numerous, creative, emboldened and focused on our every move. I would be surprised if China is not a conspirator behind the scenes.
Stopping the possession of destructive technology is extremely difficult, and we can only hope to keep proliferation to a manageable level, by military and economic means.
The latest ecalation is just a point in a constellation of technological developments by Iraq, N. Korea, Pakistan, China and others. The middle east is an anomaly since the wealth and power and available technology of the tyrannies is amplified by oil money, but the trend is obvious.
I agree the anthrax stuff is not too fearsome, but I think it's more of a test of our civil defenses for something later than an all-out attack.
Perhaps the deaths of millions is not a present danger. The possibility of tyranny at home, led by our radical leftists, in the wake of more attacks, is also worrisome.
The culture that is exported like a virus inside hollywood movies is not compatable with traditional cultures. Consider the impact of consumer culture and ideology in the poor neighborhoods of Cairo. These are some of the most densely packed urban zones in the world. The Islamic culture is what keeps it livable for these people. Theft is practically non-existent, daughters are safe, sons respect their fathers. Sons have fathers.
These social groupings stretch back countless generations. You are suggesting that hollywood movies, abortion on demand, divorce on demand, smut, suggestive skimpy clothing, rap music, the general grasping, impatient, superficial and selfish mindset that is imprinted on consumer culture is going to benefit poor people in the villages and ghettoes of places like Egypt? No.
In any event, the mullahs are not going down without a fight. They are good nationalists and they will fight to preserve their culture. And I agree with their point of view. Not, of course, the bombing of the WTC, but with their general program of fighting to preserve their culture.
Look what has happened to the West? The Englishmen is practically a minority in London. Anyone who complains is a racist. We are being mixed so severely in America with the world's peoples that we will eventually all become mestizos. I happen to think European culture, the old one, is worth preserving. I find that I have something in common with traditional nationalists the world over.
People who think they have the truth but do not have it, and who try to impose by force their "truth" on others, are by definition arrogant.
Lets define the terminology, shall we. Definitions courtesy of the American Heritage Dictionary via Yahoo.com
I would post the definition of "truth" but I really don't want to debate what the menaing of "is" is.
arrogant
ADJECTIVE: 1. Having or displaying a sense of overbearing self-worth or self-importance.
2. Marked by or arising from a feeling or assumption of one's superiority toward others: an arrogant contempt for the weak. See synonyms at proud.
arrogance
NOUN: The state or quality of being arrogant; overbearing pride.
According to this definition, I would have to plead justifiable arrogance. American ideals (freedom, justice, equality) are superior to what passes for civilization in most of the world. I will not bend to the multicultural/PC/moral equivalence theories, and I will NOT apologise for my belief that America and Americans are the best that the world has produced. You say arrogant; I say proud.
proud
ADJECTIVE:
1. Feeling pleasurable satisfaction over an act, possession, quality, or relationship by which one measures one's stature or self-worth: proud of one's child; proud to serve one's country.
2. Occasioning or being a reason for pride: On January 1, 1900, Americans and Europeans greeted the twentieth century in the proud and certain belief that the next hundred years would make all things possible (W. Bruce Lincoln).
3. Feeling or showing justifiable self-respect.
4. Filled with or showing excessive self-esteem.
5. Of great dignity; honored: a proud name.
6. Majestic; magnificent: proud alpine peaks.
7. Spirited. Used of an animal: proud steeds.
I am Proud to be an American. For all our faults, we are the most free, most productive, and most compassionate, and most just people on the planet. We feed the world, engineer new technologies to increase the standard of living, donate huge sums to economic and humanitarian causes. OK, so in some ways we may be a little overbearing.
Overbearing
ADJECTIVE:
1. Domineering in manner; arrogant: an overbearing person. See synonyms at dictatorial.
2. Overwhelming in power or significance; predominant.
I case you haven't noticed, the USA is Overwhelming in power or significance; and we ARE the predominant. power on the globe. Whether you like it or not.
>>Arrogance is supporting a totalitarian regime whilst screeching about freedom.<<
Well, newsflash: that pretty much describes American foreign policy ever since we ceased being a republic and became an empire!
Newsflash: America is not an Empire and it never will be. I will admit that America has made some terrible foreign policy mistakes in the name of expediency, but we are the major supporter of free societies around the world.
"We are better than you are. Do as we say or we'll bomb you (if you are foreigners) or strip you of your rights as an American, if you are an American". This is essentially what the jingoistic yahoo-cry "America, love it or leave it!" means.
jingoism
NOUN: Extreme nationalism characterized especially by a belligerent foreign policy; chauvinistic patriotism.
I say - If you are a free market, democratic society, you are our friend. If you are not, then you aren't and will have to make your way without ANY help from us. If you attack us, you are dead meat! What is so belligerent about that? It is certainly a long way from bombing all disagreeing foreigners, and striping Citizens rights. BTW, and FYI, I would die for YOUR freedom to express your thoughts and beliefs. I seriously doubt you'd be willing to die for my similar rights. I would also give my life protecting my country from all enemies, foreign and domestic - would you?
I think you are due for your next prozac pill.
Are human dignity, security, and self determination and tolerance of others only good for America?
International exchange and foreign influence are not particular to any single nation or era. Technological advancement and global reach were once greatest in the 'traditional' Middle East. They were surpassed in success and influence by western Europe, and most lately America.
Those crazy modernists of Mesopotamia who developed agriculture and wealth and spread it around -- were they anti-tradition imperialists too?
Radical leftists are the least likely people to benefit politically from future attacks. They've spent far too long down-grading America and the importance of our military and intelligence communities to have much credibility. The attacks on 9/11 were an absolute disaster for them. They do best when people do not perceive an exterior threat. In the present climate, they are essentially irrelevant.
What might happen after a years-long war we are perceived as losing might be another story, but how that would play out is just speculation at this point.
I called you neither a Nazi or a fascist. Sorry for my misunderstanding.
Nationalists assured that Nazis and fascists came to power by fostering a sense of entitlement in themselves for just BEING Italian or German I don't have a sense of entitlement because I'm an American, I have a sense of pride for what America stands for: Life, Liberty, Justice and Equality.
We are blessed, by God, to be Americans That is almost entirely my point. We are blessed to be here, prospering under our system. Our way of government and economy should be encouraged throughout the world because it works best for the most people.
...But the most powerful nation in the world reveling and glorying in a war against a nation that has people in it that don't know what year it is, much less why we're bombing them...that ain't right. There is NO glory in war! There is ONLY glory in Peace. The problem is that peace will not come until those that perpetuate evil are totally defeated.
I apologise for the DU'er remark. It was uncalled for...
BTW relative dates on screen names is really irrelevent. I was a lurker for years under another screen name.
Kudos for a well-thought out response. Not everything that comes out of America is good, or right, or something we should be proud of. The idea that something is good because it is American is too idiotic to even argue against.
The things you mention, and many others, I would argue are a perversion of what American culture stands for. I contend we are just in the first phases of a reaction that will put much of this filth behind us.
Is what America stands for the Declaration of Independence and the Gettysburg Address, or is it Snoop Dogg's latest album? Obviously, at present we are both. People will fight and die to defend the ideals of the first category, but I doubt many will do so for the perversion of American culture found in the second.
In essence, I expect the next few years to see us redefining what American culture is. I hope it winds up as something I can be proud of carrying into battle against what our enemies believe. I'd hate to die fighting for Larry Flynt as the symbol of what America means. I think a lot of American feel the same way, but this is a huge ship and it takes a long time to get turned around. Much of the filth we've been immersed in has been the luxury of a free, prosperous and peaceful society.
I hope we'll remain free. Prosperity will eventually return. Peace seems unlikely in the near future. I am (cautiously) optimistic.
If you dare to attack us or assist others in attacking us, you are our enemy and will be mercilessly distroyed. It is time that America once again defend freedom, and the countries of the world have a choice to make. Civilization and peace, or isolation/distruction if necessary.
His premise seemed to be to hide in a hole and forget we are the greatest Nation on the planet.
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.