Posted on 12/29/2001 9:27:49 AM PST by Demidog
I am not an America hater by any stretch of the imagination. Nor are the plethora of folks calling for a re-examination of our foreign policies. But that's what we're called.
I wish I knew why.
I really don't want to be against any American. I don't like being on the butt end of insults. So if there were a way to somehow explain what it is that bothers me about our foreign policy without the resultant cries of "traitor! treason! Islam firster!" I would.
One of the main problems apears to be that any "agreement" with bin Laden and his band of murdering thugs is seen to be support. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is probably true that bin Laden knows that water is tantamount to life in the desert. If I agree with this, I am no more supporting bin Laden than you are by agreeing.
When we decry any actions taken by Israel, we are "anti-semites." When Israel admitted that they had set a booby trap near an area where children played and 5 Palestinian boys died when it went off, you couldn't get near the topic without being ridiculed.
This is puzzling to me. There is nothing wrong per se with Israel and certainly not Jews, but for certain they are not perfect. For some, Israel is perfection and any criticism is tantamount to racism. Those who disagree are shouted down with such fervor it makes one pause.
American policies aren't perfect either. It is arguable for instance that John Wayne's death from cancer could be attributed to nuclear tests performed back in the 40's. Movie locations happened to be in the area where tests occurred. Many film industry professionals who worked on movies filmed in Nevada died from cancer including that great American we called "the Duke."
Many soldiers who were in the vicinity of those tests also died from cancer.
Why is it an indictment on all of America to bring such mistakes to light? In general, the American population has no say so in the slightest regarding these sorts of activities nor do they have much say in our foreign policy.
But as usual, it is the American population that has to accept the consequences of Policy mistakes made by the government. To say that those who object to this "hate America" is completely absurd.
The truth is quite the opposite.
I love America. And those who decry our foreign policy blunders and the theft of our hard earned money that is necessary in order to carry out these blunders also love America. We're simply tired of having to pay the price for those mistakes, while those who carry them out never have to suffer the consequences.
One of the most bizarre claims by those who are calling us "America haters" and "Islam firsters" is that terorrists are simply angry that we are so democratic as a nation and love freedom. These terrorists "hate freedom" and thus hate America and Americans. They're "jealous," in other words, of our prosperity.
This is about as brilliant an analysis as claiming that Timothy McVeigh was upset that he was no longer an employee of the federal government and thus took out his jealosy and rage on that same federal government.
It is the analysis of the simpleton.
The fact is, we only know what the terrorists claim. Not that it matters much. The opinions of mass murderers are not that important. Clearly however, this is not what any of the terrorists are saying. What they are saying is that they believe themselves to be oppressed by our foreign intervention.
When students took Iranian embassy employees hostage, their reason given for such extraordinary measures was American meddling in Iranian internal affairs.
The Shah of Iran was our personally hand-picked leader for their country. The CIA had, in the time period between the time we basically annexed Iran during WWII, purposefully destroyed opposition to the Shah by using tactics they had learned in South America.
None of those tactics were even remotely related to "freedom" or the principles upon which this nation was founded. They were the actions of a government that believed the Iranian people were chattle and were not worthy of chosing their own leadership.
So what happened? A number of Americans paid the price for our meddling. When we allowed the Shah to enter America to receive medical treatment, the last straw was put upon the back of that proverbial camel.
And that is not to mention the American lives that were sacrificed in a botched rescue attempt. For some, these lives are expendable. They are the price a nation pays for being a "super power." I agree with that assesment. But I don't think we need to be a superpower. I don't think we need to meddle in the affairs of other nations in order to protect our borders.
As is proven time and time again, such meddling has a high price.
And therein lies the rub. Dying in order to defend this nation from an attacking force is national defense and is noble. Sending young men and women across the globe to secure oil fields and preserve the "American way of life" is a sick project. I for one, am not willing to lose a single American for the cynical goal of sub-dollar-a-gallon fuel for my SUV.
If that is the measure of value for an American life then you can call me an America hater all day long and I will be proud to wear that badge.
I criticize our foreign policies because they result in the deaths of American soldiers and citizens at home and abroad. In no way do I criticize Americans. In the aftermath of the Trade Center attacks, it wasn't the government that responded with such ferocity and bravery. It was the average American.
The Beaurocrats were busy playing CYA and letting us know that none of this was their fault. In the meantime, Americans came up with over 60 million dollars in cash and even more in valuable resources in spite of the fact that they are taxed to the extreme in order to pay for the very policies that helped to incubate the attacks of 9/11.
America proved it's greatness in the response to the attacks. The government proved it's complete disregard for human liberty by passing laws which violate the spirit and letter of the Supreme law of the land. Even while the fires were still burning.
America is a great nation and is full of great people. Unfortunately its leaders have no respect for its people or its laws. Pointing this out is not showing hate for anything but the lawbreakers who do so.
Probably a statist conspiracy.
Wrong! I am holding to the same burden of proof that DD and X require to implicate OBL in the WTC attack. The burden of proof works both ways.
Are you now accusing the government of faking those tapes?
Maybe it isn't our "Foreign policy" that's insane.
The editing has been explained as the removal of the areas of the tape that could not be decifered. There was an effort made to eliminate any cryptic style messages to any additional terrorists that may be waiting for orders. This was explained several times by the government. Take it or leave it but you asked.
To: Demidog
Prove that the hard evidence was available and that Bush supressed it.
Prove that the documents were not examined
and considered not useful in the investigation.
Prove that no sensitive documents would have been released..."
# 430 by RGSpincich
************************
That's the point I'm trying to make, RGSpincich.
Proof requires evidence.
The needed evidence is being withheld by Bush.
We can only operate on the information we have,
even if the evidence is only what we find in the media.
By the information I have,
Clinton committed treason.
Without doubt, he committed purjury and obstruction of justice.
By the admitted fact of Bush's Executive Order
withholding information of the Clinton administration's crimes,
Bush is protecting those who committed the crimes.
Withholding information pertinent
to an investigation is a crime in itself.
Ordinary citizens would be charged
with obstruction of justice,
and accessory after the fact.
Bush has even more responsibility than that.
As President, he is called upon
to enforce the laws of the United States.
He's letting Clinton get away with treason.
Hmmmm....the POTUS tells the nation he has evidencethat OBL is the guilty party, yet refuses to provide the concrete evidence that OBL did this. OTOH, they've released a tape, or was that two, that have been edited, or whatever....and in the best light, it appears that OBL was gleeful or rejoiced and thanked Allah for what transpired.
When has glee or rejoicing been proof of guilt? We saw people in the streets of Palestine rejoicing over the news---they're guilty, too--these dumb poor bastards that greatest accomplishments seem to be using sling shots?
That said, there is an EO or PDD or some such that the Prez signed advising the A/G, as head of DOJ, to refuse to release any documents regarding investigations. Is that what you are wanting DD to provide you with? Or, are you asking him to 1) break into DOJ and steal some documents or 2) find a leaker who would do that, or 3) what? I find it hilarious because CONGRESS has asked for the documents and the Prez has told Ashcroft "do not provide" under color of executive privilege, and yet you are expecting DD to somehow obtain such documentation. BTW, we do know for a fact that there is a "Charles LaBella" memo which has consistently been refused to Congressional committees unless redacted to the point it looks like a kindergartner was using DOJ papers for doodling purposes!
Say you've been accused of a crime, Roscoe. You do a deposition and its edited by the court. Will you get a fair trial?
This is a couple of excerpts from a Phil Gramm speech made on July Fourth, in the year 2000 at the National Liberal Club. He is talking about a free trade agreement with Great Britain. I hope everyone reads it in its entirety.
"...Let me say that this is not an issue that Americans get up in the morning thinking about. But I would be willing to say that with a weeks work I could offer an amendment in the Senate - and have it adopted - which would give the president the power, the mandate to begin to move towards negotiating a free trade agreement with the UK."
"... It is not being discussed because Americans don't know that this is an issue here. But they will."
And my favorite passage
...But don't be confused: we are English.
Read the speech. Then come back to this thread and explain how that was the speech of an American leader. A man who is supposed to be standing up for us, a man who the people put their trust in to protect and preserve all that we cherish and hold dear.
OK, so we don't think about it 24/7. That's their job. The best most of us can expect to do is to put on a uniform and provide the muscle to back up the will of the people that our leadership defines. Not the BS that has been streaming out of Washington for decades and certainly not this that Phil Gramm is spewing to a house full of foriegners. Here, read it yourself.
http://www.cps.org.uk/gramm.htm
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.