© 1762 Voltaire |
Posted on 03/19/2004 5:11:27 PM PST by swilhelm73
The first thing Saddam did when he took power 30 years ago was to murder the head of Iraq Coca-Cola, torturing his number two and then returning the broken man to his family pour encourager les autres. This was not because we did anything to Saddam, but because we are who we are and he is who he is. As the world #1 power we are fated to be the world's #1 target regardless of what we do, and the weaker we appear the more attactive we appear as a target. This is quite a different situation from Spain, which may well have made itself safer through its appeasement.
While I don't like proping up dictators, if we had a hand-off attitude towards the Middle East, the great majority of its oil would be in Saddam's gas-stained, America-hating hands. For better or worse, no electable president would allow this.
"What I am getting at here is that there is a malicious and sinister objective within the heart of the Left. It craves totalitarianism, because totalitarianism will suffocate freedom and, ultimately, human life itself – which the Left hates the most. "
Never have I seen the mindset of the Left put so succinctly. There is a murderous, monstrous evil that lies at the heart of even those on the Left with the best of intentions. Nothing short of a horrendous civil war will decide the 'questions' that the Left have for so many of us. The Nazis had their 'Jewish question.' Leftists have their 'conservative question.' Their 'white male question'. Their 'rich question'. Their 'religious question'. History speaks clearly as to the nature of the 'answers' to such questions.
Take a look around and tell me that I'm wrong. You won't.
Then tell me that we can reason with those with such murderous 'questions' in mind. You can't.
I read that.V.D.H is an Historian,a classical one,I believe.
There's nothing new under the sun,there have always been barbarian hordes,The Muslims are just the latest in a long line of primatives,they never win unless you let them
Spain was conquered before,it will be again,so will we if we allow the Self-Hating American left to stop us from doing what must be done.
Lenin,Stalin,Mao,Pol Pot,Castro.
All leftist with the best intentions.
Our Leftists would round us up in a second if they had the chance,anybody who doubts that is delusional.
Any sytem that values the state above the individual,will sacrifice the individual for the state.
The only thing slowing them down is that we're so heavily armed.
What will Zapatero do when they start demanding the release of any terrorist in Spanish custody?
Accordingly, loud one-sided demands for unconditional release of all terrorist prisoners would not work. But low-profile negotiations on prisoner exchanges for some of the less notorious terrorists could make Zapatero look like a great "humanitarian" without arousing much anxiety in a Spanish population that is, obviously, already quite willing to compromise with terrorists. There are many uses for a guy like Zapatero.
Deeply wrong in so many regards. The combination of Wahibbism and oil money was going to produce Madrassas in some form. The precise form it took was the price the house of Saud paid for political power. But if it had been a group of gansters with a name other than Saud, the result is the same.
The Madrassas radicalized Islamic youth all over the world. That radicalization produced OBL. But if not OBL, then someone else with the same twisted, dark-age perspective on things.
Posed as you state, who knows if 911 would have happened on that date or 311 on that. Do I have any doubt that radical islam would have decided to destroy the west at some point--maybe sooner, maybe later--once the vicious Wahabbi creed was merged will the oil trillions. None whatsoever. They tried, with partial success, to conquer Christendom for CENTURIES. Hundreds of years after being thrown out of Spain, they are still sulking about their loss (OBL isn't yanking you when he talks about the 'tragedy of andalusia.' Lepanto still grates on them as if it happened last week)
Can you really say with a straight face that this conflict was merely the product of a particular set of policies of the US that Pat Buchanan and Noam Chomsky don't like? This conflict has been coming our way ever since oil was discovered in Saudi Arabia. That, combined with Islam's belief that it should rule the world, is far more important than details of US policy.
The two world cultures that are based on evangelical religions are now nose-to-nose. Our advantage is wealth and technology. Theirs is a singular lack of post-modern silliness, giving them a confidence in their cause that is frightening, combined with scavanged Western technologies that they may apply assymetrically--and time.
Pat and Noam want us to give up our advantage and go home. Pat hopes that Islam will change its 1300 years of history of expansionism by violence whenever they had the means to do so. I don't. Noam, of course, hopes that the west is destroyed.
In that regard, Pat's desire is, I think, based on Neville Chamberlin style wishful thinking about our opponents--thus, well intentioned but naive--with a little anti-semitism thrown in. Noam's is based on vicious hatred of his own country, which he would like to destroy. So while Pat is less morally culpable for his position than Noam, they are both profoundly wrong.
© 1762 Voltaire |
It is one thing to criticize U.S. foreign policy. Yes, we have made blunders. Yes, we have turned a blind eye to some of the world's worst horrors and helped exacerbate a pre-existing problem. No, we did NOT create the problem.
The problem with this kind of Paleoconservative rhetoric, as I see it, is that it leans too far toward ideological isolationism. As a Conservative, I tend to oppose injecting strong ideological sentiment into politis. (And yes, this does include ideological interventionism; I disagree with Neoconservatives on some points.) The present Middle East was always a disaster waiting to happen, and now that it's there, we have to do everything we can to eradicate the threat.
We made blunders in Iran last century. We made blunders in Afghanistan last century. We continue to sleep blindly with the devil that is Saudi Arabia. We ought to learn from our mistakes and not repeat them. That said, militant Islam is here to stay, and retreating into a policy of isolationism will send the message that they can do whatever they want, whenever they want, wherever they want. And keep in mind that this is a religion that, historically, has used every means possible to convert the world. Radical strains of Islam are simply inherited from the old orthodoxy of the prophet Mohammad.
Guess what. China, when they REALLY get into automobiles, will be trying to prop up dictators all over the place there, too.
Friend, unless you can prove you are ONLY transported by bicycle - even buses make you a PETROphile antagonist - you are guilty of dictator-propping. Sorry.
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.
I am seated in the smallest room in the house. I have your post here in front of me. Soon it will be behind me.