Posted on 09/11/2002 6:05:30 AM PDT by Clinton Is Scum
Societies that have constructed well ordered, compliant and non-controversial faculties no doubt enjoyed well trained, vis-a-vis well educated, youths in scientific and vocational arts. Doubtless too, those societies have developed innovative machines of war. But in their historic rush to organize and project a single-focused, dissent-free populace they have, without exception, become oppressive inwardly and sought to impose their will on neighboring countries. And, in their Orwellian type pursuit of societal uniformity, they have been successful beyond all measure in suppressing discussion that is deemed contrary to the public interest, dissent from public policies and the entire spectrum of what we value dearly as personal and political freedoms.
No, college professors who express radical, and frequently abjectly stupid views (eg: the fellow from U. of Texas is a classic example) are not the problem. While they are troublesome in the sense that it is patently obvious to everyone else that their bizarre views are just that, they are both harmless and, at the same time form a contrast agaisnt which more prevalent, rational and nationally appropriate views can be disseminated. I consider them and their willingness to speak out with unpopular dissenting views as the quintessential illustration of the value and power of our Bill of Rights.
As the age-old maxim says: (to paraphrase--)"I disagree with those dissenting idiots but spent 31 years of my life defending their right to express their views, and would happily do so again if given the opportunity."
Moreover, to label professors, or others for that matter, with whom we disagree as "wild-eyed liberals," "the biased main-stream media" (whatever the hell that is), or some equally conversation stopping, pejorative term is meaningless. It merely demonstrates that, like Herr Limbaugh and his clones, there is a decided paucity of educated understanding, tolerance for contrary views that may make us ponder, or the ability to articulate rational, meaningful and cogent thoughts.
As the U.S. Supreme Court has said many times when dealing with governmental acts intended to stifle wildly unpopular thought and expressions, the response to dissent is not suppression or enforced conformity rather, it is more expression and more thought.
It is not merely simplistic to observe that the favored political view today by which a majority is able to overcome a college professor's outlandish dissent by perhaps getting him fired or otherwised officially silenced may tomorrow become itself disfavored and be the subject of the next generation's transient majority's oppressive force to be silenced.
No effort is made to control our borders. Malkin reports that in the six months following the Sept. 11 attacks, the State Department issued almost 200,000 additional visas to Middle Easterners and Southern Asians, areas that are known havens for al Qaeda. People without visas enter unhindered from Canada and Mexico.
This doesn't even need a comment.....
Total insanity.....
The problem IS in Iraq...and Iran...and Saudia Arabia...and Indonesia...and New York...
The problem is Islam.
God will not be mocked.
Until the jihad spewing "Sharia or Death" imams are silenced by the Saudi's we'll be dealing with this POLITICAL MOVEMENT to replace Western civ with theocratic rule. Islam is EXPANSIONIST political ideology just as NAZIsm (which many mooslims were in collaboration with) is.
Further, for Roberts to suggest that the terrorist threat doesn't come, at least in part, from Saddam, is nonsense. Hussein was definitely behind the 1993 WTC bombing and has definitely been funding the families of "palestinian" homicide bombers. Then there are the links to OKC and Al Qaeda.
Well said, amigo.
The nations won't work with us to find the terrorist if we periodically drop precision guided weapons on homes around the world. Unfortunately, terrorists are still relatively safe in far too many places.
Does this fellow not understand that Saddam is every bit as evil and ambitious as Hitler was? Saddam is crazy, he is a meglomaniac. Even if he doesn't have ballistic missiles with the capability to reach us, he will eventually, and in the mean time so will Iran, Lybia, Syria, et al. What? Does he want to wait for a co-ordinated strike from them? What possible connection does their being a populace of poor, uneducated people have to do with anything? It is the government in all these countries that must be looked at, not the populace.
Even if they all only have medium range missiles, this puts not only Israel, but Europe at risk. And even though Europe is completely worthless and without any redeeming qualities, it is not in our best interest to see them leveled, and we sure won't hold still for Britian being in danger. These cowards, and liberals, need to take a sedative until this is all over, they don't have the nerve to even defend themselves, nor the survial instincts of a fruit fly. "Poor uneducated populace", good grief at the lame stupidity and flawed logic.
Wars have unintended consequences. Would an American invasion of an Arab country further radicalize the Islamic world, leading to the rise of unfriendly governments in Pakistan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia? Would the United States then have to invade a hostile Pakistan because of its nuclear weapons?
Pakistan? Didn't people claim Us action in Afghanistan woukld cause an Islamist revolt in Pakistan? Instead, teh ISI is being cleaned up and Musharaf is more in control.
Egypt is not all that friendly. For the past 20 years it has been one bullet away from an Islamist Republic. In otherwords, no change.
Teh Saudis are not our allies. They are a Whahabist regime and are exporting terrorism. At worst we would get a new regime that openly does this. On teh other hand, we could create a democratic Iraq and help clean up the whole region.
The terrorist threat comes from radical Islam. Saddam Hussein runs a secular state. Would overthrowing a secular ruler help or harm radical Islam?
Assertion not based on evidence. Syria is a secular state run by a Ba'athist party. It harbors terrorist and allows Hizbullah to exist.
Iraq is a Ba'athist (Arab National Socialist) regime which has worked with and continues to work with terrorists. There is evidence linking them to the 1993 WTC attack, if not the one last September.
An American attack on Iraq would cause a loss of sympathy among our European allies. Would a more isolated America receive the same cooperation in the battle against terror?
Our allies already don't sympathise with us. They are doing a poor job of cleaning up Islamism in their countries. Even the UK is allowing an Islamist celebration of September 11th.
At any rate, the EU and socialist governments are teh problems, not opposition to Us action in Iraq. PCR is grasping at straws.
War hawks believe that a demonstration of U.S. military clout would improve the Middle Eastern situation. But Israel has been demonstrating clout for decades and is still engulfed by terrorism.
1. If we install a new government in Iraq and help overthrow Iran, you better believe we will have clout.
2. Israel is in the middle east surrounded by states trying to destroy it. Teh analogy doesn't work. Besides, Israel is doing quite nicely, with Hamas all but suing for peace.
No doubt Saddam Hussein bears the United States ill will, and he may be acquiring weapons of mass destruction. Nevertheless, is the level of threat to the United States from a country of 23 million relatively poor and uneducated people blown out of proportion?
1. Iraq is actually fairly well educated adn cosmopoliotan.
2. How much of a threat was Germany in 1934?
If the United States is to adopt the Roman approach of overthrowing enemies before they arise, the it should focus on China, a much greater potential threat. Ambitious China has the world's largest population and weapons of mass destruction. The Clinton administration gave China the missile technology required to reach American cities. U.S. firms, seeking lower costs, are building up China's high-tech industrial capacity.
China is a long term propblem. WE cannot invade and take them out. Iraq and the Islamists are an ACUTE problem, which we can and must deal with now.
Sound arguments can be made that the focus on Iraq is preventing more serious vulnerabilities from being addressed. Terrorists abroad do us less damage than the terrorists allowed into our country by our open-borders policy.
Bush has no desire to fight this battle. It isn't that he is wasting energy, it is that he would overwise be spending it on trying to get amnesties for illegals.
Can a country conduct a war on terror when it cannot control its own borders? Does it make sense for a country that refuses to defend its own borders to invade another country?
If we refuse to prevent terrorism at home, shouldn't we at least stop it at its source?
The United States may be in more danger from the extraordinary imbalance in the political and ideological commitments of its university faculties than it is from Saddam Hussein. Time and age will destroy Hussein. But university faculties are self-selecting and self-perpetuating, and these faculties are overwhelmingly hostile to traditional American values and any political party that stands for these values.
True but irellevent.
This has to be the stupidest thing PCR has ever written. He fails to make a case and contradicts point he admitted in previous article. He is letting ideology blind him to reality. AS Russel Kirk would say, this is not a conservative thing to do.
Don't worry, #97 ($1,000 into $100,000) and Terry McAuliffe ($100,000 into $18,000,000) can show us how to turn a mil into 18 gadzillion dollars. More than enough to buy all the tea in China ;o)
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.