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.
Of course I have. Do I believe everything he has written? I don't know. I happen to work in a secure vault on a military base. I know how hard it is to access classified information. I only have a secret level clearance. Do you mean to tell me that someone outside the CIA actually knows what the CIA plans and does? That would mean the security at the CIA has been compromised and I find that impossible to believe. One can make claims about what the CIA has done. But the CIA cannot even deny those claims for security reasons, so it implies (at least to the person making the claims and those wanting to believe the claims) that what this outsider says is correct. Do you really believe it is easy to access CIA info?
Well some of the stuff posted has been long since de-classified. For instance the CIA operation that ousted the Shah's political rival in 1953.
As far as classified stuff, there is plenty of information that is leaked and Gertz seems to get a goodly amount of it. True, he could be an asset to the CIA and practicing disinformation. Or there could be some folks in the CIA who have a conscience and are deliberately leaking info.
Seems that as compartmentalized as the CIA is, they would be burning themselves by doing so but I don't understand why you are focused on this aspect rather than the information itself. Your biggest complaint was about information published regarding the U.S.'s involvement in installing the Shah and keeping him in power. Is there any real question as to the veracity of that information? As I said it's over 40 years old information and long since declassified.
Because when I believe someone has posted one falsehood, then all the rest he posts are suspect. What Black Jade posted about Jimmy Carter being a "victum" was almsot hilarious. Then I looked to see when he registered and nothing he posts has any credibility for me at all.
libertarian1 : an advocate of the doctrine of free will
2 a : a person who upholds the principles of absolute and unrestricted liberty especially of thought and action b capitalized : a member of a political party advocating libertarian principles
Merriam-Webster, http://www.m-w.com
Jefferson and the other members of the committee that wrote the Declaration of Independence weren't Libertarians, or even libertarians, your nameless "dictionary" notwithstanding.
You are one hundred per cent correct. When a nation makes warring acts towards another. It should be dealt with and made to suffer the full consequences of it's actions.
I agree compeletly, as far as I see it, allow the Afghani's to allow another despot regieme to come to power. It is their country and their choice. However, they will face the exact same results. Soon enough they will tire of pissing poeple off that are much stronger than they are and finally do something about it on the home front.
The problem with the mid east is that Islam is the dominate religion and according to some articles I have read, Islam calls for submission to leaders. A viscious cycle...
Jefferson, Franklin, Paine, Washington and Henry. All libertarians and you hate them.
The big lie.
Of Robert Lefevre and Bradley Smith?
LAMB: Is Thomas Jefferson a Democrat as we know the Democratic Party today?FRIEDMAN: No, he would not.
LAMB: What would he be today?
FRIEDMAN: He would be a libertarian.
LAMB: A member of the Libertarian Party?
FRIEDMAN: Not necessarily. See, I'm a libertarian in philosophy, but, as I say, I'm a libertarian with a small "l" and a Republican with a capital "r."
http://www.c-span.org/mmedia/booknote/lambbook/transcripts/50060.htm
Sounds like the libertarian paradise in Somalia.
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.