Stop and ask yourself a question? WHY?
Why does an armed, fanatical group exist to do grevious harm to the United States?
It seems that we are arguing over two theories as to why.
Theory One espoused by the neocons and assorted other bomb them all types is that Osama bin Laden and other Islamic Fundamentalists hate Americian culture in general. In fact, they hate it so much they are willing to die to eradicate it from the face of the earth.
Theory Two espoused here by Pat Buchanan and elsewhere by libertarians and paleos is that Islamic Fundamentalism's hatred for the U.S. is linked to American intervention in Islamic homelands. Specific incidents of military aggression by the U.S. against Islamic peoples and by a decidedly pro-Israel tilt in our foreign policy are the cause and the goal is to get the U.S. out of Islamic territory.
So, where do you stand? And be careful when you answer.
If you back theory one, think about what the war aims of the U.S. would be. They could be nothing short of the complete detruction of anyone and anything which holds the anti-American viewpoint among Islamicists.
Let's use some rough arithmatic for illustrative purposes. Say 800 milliom Moslems in the world and 1% of them hold Theory One views. That's 8 million people. Congratulations, you are now number two on the all-time genocidal list just ahead of Hitler but still way behind Uncle Joe.
If you back theory two, you can still exact retribution for the crime against humanity commited last Tuesday (eye for and eye and all) but refrain from a clash of civilization slaughter on a scale unsen in human history.
I admire that it took you that long to say Israel in your Theory Two. You must admit it took some work, but well done.
False. There is a difference between holding an anti-American viewpoint and flying planes into buildings full of innocent civilians. I'm sure that you can see that.
Theory One is a canard at worst, a distorted view at best. Thoughtful people realize that bombing them all is not the right way to go about this. It would cause more problems than it would solve. The people in charge - the people Buchanan hates because they are where he wants to be - know this.
Theory Two espoused here by Pat Buchanan and elsewhere by libertarians and paleos is that Islamic Fundamentalism's hatred for the U.S. is linked to American intervention in Islamic homelands. Specific incidents of military aggression by the U.S. against Islamic peoples and by a decidedly pro-Israel tilt in our foreign policy are the cause and the goal is to get the U.S. out of Islamic territory.
Has the US been aggressive against all Islamic peoples? How would Kuwait answer this question? What about our support of the mujahadeen? We haven't exactly bombed the hell out of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, have we? Haven't we also been accused of arming some of those same Islamic countries?
My point is not to defend all of US foreign policy in the region. It is to show that our policies have not been focused on "aggression" against "Islamic peoples"....
....unless you include US support of Israel, and assume that support of Israel equals an attack on Islam. What a nice sentiment for Buchanan to align himself with. I'm not surprised, unfortunately.
To address the rest of your post, traderkirk, the goal should not be to kill every person who is anti-American, which is your deduction from your flawed Theory One. People, all over the world, should be able to think what they want to think. That is part of our freedom here - unfortunately beginning to be limited via political correctness and hate crimes laws - and it is something that billions of people have not really had the luxury to do.
Acting on those thoughts, however, especially violently, is another matter. If anti-American people of any religion want to take up arms, become suicide bombers, etc., then we will have to deal with them, no matter how many of them there are. But doing so will be their choice, not ours. And do you think they would stop if we were to pull out of Israel today? I don't.
And as far as the implications of Theory Two goes, you just might as well have put it in these terms: radical Islam dictates to America - stop support of Israel, and everything will be fine.
So how come Buchanan supports being dictated to by some foreign countries and peoples (radical Islam), but not others (Israel)?
If you back theory two, you can still exact retribution for the crime against humanity commited last Tuesday (eye for and eye and all) but refrain from a clash of civilization slaughter on a scale unsen in human history.
Well said. Everyone is so worked up in war frenzy, fanned by a media that drowns in pathos ("how do you FEEL about your family being killed?" zoom in for close-up); and the media screams with "patriotism" where not long ago it scorned any kind of national feeling among Americans. No one is stopping to reflect before running headlong into possible destruction. Just calls for someone else (of course) to GO TO WAR!
Yes, they hate us for our values. How infantile and provincial.
That's the leftist communist view.
What is most pathetic about Buchanan is he isn't even original.
Theory Two espoused here by Pat Buchanan and elsewhere by libertarians and paleos is that Islamic Fundamentalism's hatred for the U.S. is linked to American intervention in Islamic homelands. Specific incidents of military aggression by the U.S. against Islamic peoples and by a decidedly pro-Israel tilt in our foreign policy are the cause and the goal is to get the U.S. out of Islamic territory.
That's it exactly. Too bad few people get it.