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.
I don't like that either but we also support many other countries like Mexico with taxes and jobs. Maybe we support Israel so we have a strong ally near all that oil. If we didn't pay Arabs trillions of dollars in oil money, the playing field in the Mideast would be much more level. In fact Israel would have a strong advantage economically because it doesn't have Islam keeping it primitive.
To: exodus
"I do have a problem with an Israel supported by American taxes. "
"I don't like that either but we also support
many other countries like Mexico with taxes and jobs.
Maybe we support Israel so we have a strong ally near all that oil.
If we didn't pay Arabs trillions of dollars in oil money,
the playing field in the Mideast would be much more level.
In fact Israel would have a strong advantage economically
because it doesn't have Islam keeping it primitive.
# 701 by FITZ
************************
Israel did just fine in 1948
against 5 separate Arab armies,
without any American tax money.
Israel wasn't a charity case then.
American taxes are funding both sides of the conflict.
We give money to Israel to fight for their survival,
and we give money to the surrounding Arabs
to help them in their fight against Israel.
Wars shouldn't be fought with the goal of a stalemate between the parties.
If we really supported Israel, we would sign a treaty saying
that we would declare war against any nation that attacked Israel.
With every hand out comes strings. Israel has to temper its reactions and cowtow to US foreign policy wonks.
Much of the strife between those watching Israel's actions and those who support everything they do without question has to do with this implicit control.
Those who want us to jsut hand out the money and walk away (irregardless of the wishes of those who don't support Israel's every move) get upset when people want the U.S. to pressure Israel into backing off. The problem is of course that this is what is going to happen. The U.S. *needs* to *control* Israel. That is what the foreign policy wonks believe is in *our* interest.
The best for all concerned is to cut off all aid that is government directed, and allow the American people who do support Israel to support them however they see fit.
The reason I ask about dumbness is how your comprehensive skills work in making a leap from someone making a comment about government thievery = hating America in your brain. If you honestly make these leaps of interpretation, you should be suing the schools you were educated in--they failed you miserably--but then, those who are opposed to fed funding and involvement in education already figured out how badly they'd fail the citizenry.
To: exodus
The whole problem is oil.
We get into the stalemates because we want that oil.
Too bad we can't find an alternate source of energy.
Israel would do fine because it has a modern culture,
but the Arabs without oil money will either be forced
to change or will fall into dire poverty.
# 704 by FITZ
************************
The "we need the oil" argument just isn't true.
The United States has some of the largest oil reserves in the world,
and we have the largest coal reserves in the world,
and we have natural gas, hydroelectric, nuclear, biological, and other options.
We don't need the Arab oil.
We don't need to buy energy from any outside source.
If our government would allow us
to use the fuel we have on hand,
we could easily provide all of our own energy,
without going outside of our country.
Well, of course, we shouldn't expect banks to make those wise decisions on not backing a bad business....its so much better for a government to just stick the dumb stupid ass taxpayers for it (after all, the sheeple fall for anything and everything).....this must be the 'economy plan' of the Mexican bailout--the one that saved Wall Street's financial movers and shakers--only this time we'll save some airline executive officers arses and some stockholders--perhaps.
Well, if we accept the argument you've advanced, the government must hold all such properties for eternity, because you contend that the Constitution doesn't give them them an express power to ever sell what it has acquired.
The Founding Fathers weren't Libertarians, exodus. They were sane.
Article 1, Clause 8Clause 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
Clause 18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Let's hope that the airlines can recover and that the LP continues to decline.
It would be a good thing if all foreign aid ---to all countries be voluntary and from the citizens directly. The government shouldn't be in on it.
The Founding Fathers held then
the same views that I hold today.
The selling of obsolete government property
is done through government auctions.
That is not a "for profit" business,
as you would know if you saw
some of the ridiculously low prices things go for.
I see no problem with the Constitutionality
of disposal of government properties
through auction.
I do see a problem with a government
that owns commercial businesses,
selling goods and services for profit,
in direct competition with the private sector.
The Constitution doesn't say anything about auctions. You just refuted yourself.
To: Roscoe
The Constitution doesn't provide for
the protection of interstate commerce?
# 649 by Roscoe
"No it doesn't.
Cite if if you can.
(You cannot).
# 699 by Demidog
************************
To: Demidog
You realy should read it someday, Demidog. Article 1, Clause 8 Clause 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; Clause 18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
# 711 by Roscoe
************************
"Regulate" does not mean "protect," Roscoe.
You're wrong.
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.