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.
Thanks. But it does get tiresome at times.
Is it too much to ask that Debaters of a given issue would stake a claim?? Assume advocacy for their positions??
Sheesh.
Incidentally, concerning ourselves with Debate opponents who are willing to stake an intellectual position and defend it, I think that the "nut" of your ongoing disagreement with "annalex" over the matter of existential Property Rights is found in the (arguably Objectivist, among others) notion of "Prior Claim"... that is, the recognition of Rights creates the moral basis for the assumption of Rights.
My recognition of the Right to Life entitles me to Life, given that I extend that respect to others.
My recognition of the Right to Liberty entitles me to Liberty, given that I extend that respect to others.
My recognition of the Right to Property entitles me to....??
His counter will run something like, "But why can you 'recognize' the Right to Property, in the first place?" I expect that the trump runs something like, "I am here; I require farmland for my family." His counter-counter will claim that since Land is Finite, Prior Claim should not enjoy Absolute Right. The response thereto is Julian Simon's stuff demonstrating that "resources" are, in fact, infinite -- being a creation of human ingenuity -- which makes the "finite" argument against Prior Claim a moot point.
Tried this angle with him?
Of course. ;-)
I don't remember much about Wilson Coon (my great Uncle) but I do remember my father railing against Calvanism. I was convinced that it was most certainly bad but like alot of things my Dad would rail against, I was too young to comprehend. When I was 12 he and my mother divorced and so, dogmatically speaking, I didn't get many more sermons until I was 15 and had moved in with him.
I remember reading Uncle Wilson's sermons after he had died and it was a bit like going back in time and it was also enough to make one cringe due to the utter lack of positive message. I remember seeing in his things flyers advertising debates against other denominational preachers. That was a big thing when I was a kid. Two preachers going at it toe to toe for some unfathomable reason. Basically just to see who could make the other guy burn in hell I guess.
Your posts have completely changed my mind (not that it was set because of any real knowledge mind you) about Calvinism.
I must learn more now. Thanks for your insights.
I have been pushing my own made-up theory of rights for a while ie; rights are really just what we describe as choices that already existed. All rights come from the superset (all choices) and in fact can be observed in nature. Thus they really are inalianable. They are like matter.
The "infinite resources" angle is a bit unique to humans I suppose because only a human can turn a cold-war era missile silo into a sheep farm. But my theory would mean that animals have some rights too.
Certainly the right to life.
Would this mean that I can't kill an animal? I've mulled that one over and over. The only thing I can come up with is based on my experiences hunting and from what every single hunter has ever told me: The animal is actually chosing to let you kill it. I can't tell you how many stories I've heard (and experienced for myself) where the animal "offered" itself to the hunter. It has happened to me more than once and that is the only way I can describe it.
But that's just not somewhere you can take the argument because it's not really based on "reason." Which is another one of those things about objectivism that I can't quite get my arms around. Perhaps I am mentally lazy or perhaps I am right to believe that rights are as much (or more) faith-based as they are reason based. Simply because somebody can with "objective" reason describe them, doesn't mean that they really exist. They have no shape or form. Yet we KNOW they exist. We feel them in our bones and if you tried to snuff out the life from our bodies we would struggle without even switching on our reason. In fact reason would be abandoned and often is when the situation calls for action.
Annalex and I have our divide because he believes that national sovereignty is a form of collectivism and that the arm of justice can knock over nations like bowling pins if the perpetrator is hiding behind their claim of Soverignty.
Then what exactly is PNTR with China?
This is a pro-American, Conservative website. Maybe you should check out DU, or The Nation forum. They bash America and Americans over there.
It is acknowledging your unalienable right to trade your property and labor with that of Chinese peasants. Whether you realize it or not, every time you buy a Chinese trinket at Toys 'R Us, that is exactly what you do.
A three year old understands that voluntary exchanges with your neighbors reduces tensions, not exacerbates them. It takes many years of 'education' to beat in the basic statist fallacy - that different standards of behaviour apply to government than to individuals.
BTW, excellent post demi-dog. Sorry I arrived late.
The only reported channeling is from you Reaganites who still long for some communication with your god.
BTW, how do you ridicule a Christian Libertarian?? Call him a Jesus Freak??
Liberty is NOT a dirty word,
(and your insistence on smoking those American cigarettes
despite all evidence that they are Not good for you proves it)
CATO
It is time to let other countries fight their own wars. Rather than sinking millions (even billions) of dollars into despotic reigemes. I don't think we should acknowledge the new Afghani government until it proves it can stand on its own two legs.
Speaking of that, quit sending me malodorous Freepmail.
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.