Posted on 09/26/2001 8:59:57 AM PDT by Radioheart
|
Since September 11, there’s been a common refrain among the Kumbaya Left: "We have to try to understand what made these people so angry." Um, no, actually we don’t. continue… |
Since so many wish to retaliate, which is a normal human reaction,I don't see the need why I should join the chorus. I do believe it necessary to point out, despite the unpopularity of such an opinion, that I believe it is our policies that have brought this problem home to America. Does that justify the actions of the terrorists? Of course not. However, because they attacked does that mean we shouldn't review or try to understand why because that might "vindicate" their actions? I am afraid that would be exercising a little too much false pride on our part.
I will give an example. The attack on the Marine Barracks in Lebanon where over 230 of my fellow Marines were murdered. Did we retaliate, yes, and we corrected the wrong policy of being in Lebanon and left. Was it a little shameful, yes, but sometimes we have to shallow our pride if our path has been wrong. Again, I say that doesn't justify the deaths of those or any innocent people.
The purpose of my lengthy history points was to show that we have intervened anywhere and everywhere for over 50 years. We have lost countless men and spent countless amounts of tax dollars to support the messianic vision of many in our government. Innocents have died here and innocents have died in other places due to this. We have to return to the wisdom of our forefathers. Yes, punish justly the perps but then rethink our policies even if it means shallowing some false pride.
If this "rethinking of our policies" means leaving Europe, Korea, Japan, the Middle East and Israel then so be it. Does it mean "abandoning" our "friends"? Yes, if "abandoning" means they have to stand up for themselves. We have been the milch sow of these leeches for too long and they are not worth the life of anymore Americans. This policy would require that we do not dictate to other nations how they should live their lives. However, an America First policy requires due and unceasing vigilence on the part of the American people.
Then if we are attacked we can follow the traditional just war doctrine so strongly enunciated by the Catholic Church. Which is: "-the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation must be lasting, grave and certain; -all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective. -there must be serious prospects of success; -the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition..." Additionally, "-non-combatants, wounded soldiers, and prisoners must be respected and treated humanely...Thus the extermination of a people, nation or ethnic minority must be condemned as a mortal sin..."
I do not direct that at you, Dr. Frank, but many of the mindless comments of others. Good night, Dr. Frank.
The glory of a nation is its virtue.
uh, I think they were spawned out of camel sh*t.
The left's arguments are shallow.
NYPost.com Andrea Peyser
IT'S time for the United Nations to get the hell out of town.
And take with it CNN war slut Christiane Amanpour.
Also, short ABC comedian Bill "those bombers were brave" Maher. More on that in a sec.
The U.N. building towers over the East River like a giant middle finger aimed at our shores. The once-shiny beacon of peace has devolved into a cancer, where all manner of anti-American lunacy is hatched.
Today, the U.N. functions as an international megaphone through which every Third World dictatorship vents its fury at our way of life.
Though technically not on American soil, the United Nations clogs our city like sewage. It lustily sucks up our police, our water, our sanitation services while its personnel jam city streets by parking illegally, and break all manner of traffic and criminal law with a get-out-of-jail-free card known as diplomatic immunity.
Now, the United Nations is serving yet another function: It has become the quietest place on earth.
Since two planes toppled the World Trade Center in a fiery blast of terror, the United Nations has been mute.
Where are the diplomats we housed and fed, whose transgressions we excused, whose libels we endured, now that the nearby turf is in ruins?
Oh, yes, Secretary General Kofi Annan has been on television in a hard hat, grabbing network face time by glancing, moist-eyed, at the ruins of the Twin Towers.
But where are the resolutions? The outrage? The deep, heartfelt expressions of regret? Not here. Not now. And certainly not for us.
So, the United Nations doesn't like this nation? Fine. Don't let the door hit you on the butt as you get the hell out.
Go home to your police states and smarmy European capitals.
"The U.N. provides cover almost the same way the Taliban does," observes Harvey Kushner, an author and terrorism expert. "It serves as the laboratory, the linchpin for legitimizing incendiary rhetoric," Kushner said.
Following the initial shock, America-bashing, I'm distressed to report, is going full throttle. And not just in the foreign media - though there's plenty of that - but right here, at home, in the guise of "analysis."
Explaining why the Arab world hates us, CNN's Amanpour spewed her bias in a live conversation with news blonde Paula Zahn:
"The issue of the United States' close alliance with Israel, the perception that the United States does not care as much about the suffering of Muslims in Palestine, in what they call Palestine, is a key reason for the anti-Americanism on the rise in the Middle East."
I wonder what her Jewish in-laws think.
Short comedian Bill Maher was even more rabid. On "Politically Incorrect," Maher declared the United States cowardly for "lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away" at Iraq. In the next breath, he praised the bravery of the trade center bombers.
"Staying in the airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, it's not cowardly," gushed Maher. He later insisted our government is cowardly, not our soldiers. Thanks.
The truth is the monsters who attacked us hate not just the United States and Israel. They hate wealthy Saudi Arabia. They hate non-fundamentalist Muslims. They treat women like slaves, children like property, and dream of romping with virgins in paradise.
Everyone with a gripe against Israel or America has joined the orgy in the guise of "analysis." Analyze this, you bastards.
(1) Racist white man kills black man for dating white woman. (2) Would your first reaction be to tell other black men to "try to understand" the white murderer? (3) Upon doing so, should they conclude that they should never date white women after "understanding" the "reasons" the white murderer had for doing what he did? (4) If this happens, and black men stop dating white women because of the actions of the white murderer - then hasn't the racist succeeded, and the murder achieved its purpose to a far greater extent than the murderer could ever have hoped? (5) If black men were to react in this way, and stop dating white women because of this white murderer, do you think this would encourage or discourage future murders of black people for insane stupid reasons?
I guess I will have to only wonder at what your responses to these questions would have been. At least in the case of my hypothetical. I already know what your answers are, of course, when "black men" are replaced by "Americans", "racist white murderer" is replaced by "terrorists", and "dating a white woman" is replaced by, say, "giving money to Israel" or "embargoing the brutal dictatorial WMD-producing government of Iraq". I would just like to see if you would remain consistent in your application of the principles you have put forth here. But like I said, I suppose I can now only guess. Oh well. Best,
It appears that you wish to continue following the same policies, no matter the cost, because to change them would be to 'vindicate' the actions of the terrorists. It is prideful and foolish to continue to follow a path in life that is harmful just because someone you don't like tells you what you are doing is wrong.
You say that you agree with General Washington's farewell address, but your responses do not appear to support that. I agree let us quickly and selectively punish the terrorists with or without a "coalition" then let us return to the Constitution and correct the policies that brought us to this point. General Washington called for economic relations with all that would conduct trade on a fair basis and he called for no entangling alliances with anyone and an armed and vigilent neutrality.
Our affection for certain foreign countries must not blind us to their defects or to the fact that their interests are not our interests and America's interests must be paramount in the mind of all Americans. General Washington warned us of the pernacious effects of foreign influence upon our government and our people. It is time to listen to General Washington.
Our country's strength must come from its moral might and not its military might as a survivor of WTC wrote. The glory of a nation is its virtue.
So would you tell black men to swallow their "pride", and cease dating white women, because of the "cost" - i.e. the threat/reality that there exist a handful of racists who would murder them for it?
YES or NO?
It's a very simple question. Why are you unable or unwilling to answer?
You say that you agree with General Washington's farewell address, but your responses do not appear to support that.
I agree with the general principle of "free trade w/all, entangling alliances w/none". I just don't see how it applies to a situation where we have already been attacked by a foreign power.
I agree let us quickly and selectively punish the terrorists with or without a "coalition" then let us return to the Constitution and correct the policies that brought us to this point.
Yes! In which post did I say something which caused you to think that I disagree with this one bit? You would really be doing me a favor if you would point this out because apparently I am easily misunderstood.
You seem to forget that motive is always investigated. The motive doesn't justify the deed but it is still investigated in a criminal case. Motive is a way to identify the culprit and the reason for the crime. As you stated in an earlier post it is a waste of time and energy to try to understand why. If your thinking is like that then I am not sure where we can agree. Additionally, you seem to think by asking the question why it is for reasons of sympathy for the terrorists and not to try to solve the problem.
I noticed you didn't respond to the mention of the Marine Barracks in Lebanon as an example of changing our policies despite a terrorist attack. You also say that you do not see how the matter of entangling alliaces are relevent now since we were attacked by a foreign power. This is another point that we are not on the same wavelength. I see this as a vitally relevent point because it is our constant involvement in places around the world that has brought this attack home.
If you do agree with what General Washington said then I am sure you would agree that that would mean bringing our troops back home from around the world, stop foreign aid and military weapon sales to any country, and the main and only priority of the US military would be the defense of America.
We can continue this thread for however long you want, but I doubt we will come to a meeting of the minds. I see you as wanting to blindly lash out without thought or concern to the future. You see me as being callous to the dead and, somehow, of being a racist.
The glory of a Nation is its virtue.
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.