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.
How do you think America's railroads got built?
Didn't know that. Seems like world class hypocrisy on his part.
To: exodus
Aside from the fact that this really is the Nationalization of an Airline,
(and we'll ignore for the moment that Bush's intent to put massive amounts
of federal cash into the stock market via SSI "private accounts"
was called Fascism when Clinton tried it),
Where does the government get off loaning our money to a company
that has shown it can barely stay afloat even before the attacks?
What is most certainly true is that the govenrment has no business whatseover
making business decisions when it's own agency for collecting the tax revenue
cannot account for 9 BILLION dollars it supposedly received.
Ross Perot used to say that if he were to run his business like the government,
he'd be bankrupt in a week. I am not a Perot supporter but he was right.
#
# 642 by Demidog
************************
I can't see how anyone would think that our government
has the authority to finance private industry.
They sure don't have the authority to own a commercial property.
Yes, Perot was right.
I did support him,
up until he dropped out of the race.
To: Roscoe
"Not to mention most of his entire fortune invested in Treasury Bonds."
# 656 by Texasforever
************************
To: Texasforever
Didn't know that. Seems like world class hypocrisy on his part.
# 663 by Roscoe
************************
Okay, you two are starting to worry me.
Roscoe, how does accepting government contracts
show that Perot was wrong about governmental incompetence?
Texasforever, basicly the same question.
How does owning government Treasury bonds
show that Perot was wrong about governmental incompetence?
Someone should tell the oil and timber companies right away.
No, Roscoe.
He was running a business, and he was running it well.
He's not a communist, he's a capitalist.
Are you upset that he wasn't working for free?
I know that you are stubborn but I also know that you are bright. Think about it, Ross Perot put the bulk of 8 billion bucks into the bonds of the same government he railed against as incompetent. Now, either Perot is stupid OR he was lying like a rug and did not believe his own demagoguery.
"(The government) sure don't have the authority to own a commercial property. "
- exodus
************************
To: exodus
"Someone should tell the oil and timber companies right away."
# 668 by Roscoe
************************
I know, Roscoe.
That was my point.
Our government is operating outside it's authority.
By the way, past wrongdoing does not excuse evil actions taken today.
The federal government was ceded large amounts of land by various states. Should the oil and timber remain untapped?
"How does owning government Treasury bonds
show that Perot was wrong about governmental incompetence?"
- exodus
************************
To: exodus
I know that you are stubborn but I also know that you are bright.
Think about it, Ross Perot put the bulk of 8 billion bucks into the bonds
of the same government he railed against as incompetent.
Now, either Perot is stupid OR he was lying like a rug
and did not believe his own demagoguery.
# 673 by Texasforever
************************
I see your point, Texasforever.
I don't have any reason for his ownership of low-payoff Treasury bonds.
I can't see any good businessman having any use for them,
when he could make so much more investing the money in money markets,
or better yet, back into his own companies.
However, they are seen as the "safest" investment in the world.
Maybe, like the government's confiscation of 33 percent of an airline,
he was required to buy the bonds to keep getting his government contracts.
Other than that, I have no idea.
I do know that Perot was right about government incompetence.
I read enought, and have seen enough, to know that without Perot's help.
No, Roscoe.
The government should not make a profit on the land, however.
Government was not given the power to profit by commercial contracts.
I warn you now, Roscoe.
I know nothing about government deals and profits on oil and timber.
I'm just going with the context of your posts.
Nothing wrong with making a profit.
Government was not given the power to profit by commercial contracts.
Says who? Read Article 1, Section 8.
************************
To: exodus
"Why didn't Perot contract with private concerns?
Did he profit from "governmental incompetence" rather than exposing it?
# 671 by Roscoe
************************
If he saw an opportunity to profit
from the incompetence of a private competitor,
would you expect him to let the other company know
how they could lower his profits?
I'm not a socialist, Roscoe.
As long as Perot wasn't participating
in governmental corruption,
rather than governmental incompetence,
he has the right to make the largest profit
he can squeeze out of his contracts.
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.