Posted on 10/08/2001 4:54:05 PM PDT by LadyJD
BLAME YOURSELVES AMERICANS, NOT OTHERS
by Winston McCuen, Phd, History
The Times Examiner Newspaper
October 3, 2001
Yes. The title got your attention, didn't it? And your angry curiosity and offended patriotism has compelled you to read on -at least this far.
You want to know how the author could dare say such a thing when so many innocent Americans have just lost their lives, during an attack on American soil. Well, I shall tell you exactly how I can say to Americans and to their leaders, "Blame yourselves," and do so out of both the highest sense of patriotism and a most profound regard for truth and justice.
In the wake of the recent attacks, the very first concerns of every truly patriotic and justice-loving American should be (1) to understand the real and deeper causes of these attacks; and (2) to refuse to accept uncritically the shallow opinions and pseudo-patriotic exhortations of both our government and of its pet media. In other words, it is the solemn duty of every salt-of-the-earth, conservative American to bow out of the current war hysteria and nationalistic blustering, and to leave that mindlessness and false patriotism to those who do it best -i.e., the liberals.
In fact, the truly patriotic American will, first of all, do his history homework, and reflect long and hard on the fact that, empirically, taking the twentieth century as a whole, the single most warlike, most interventionist, most imperialistic government in the world has been the United States. Indeed, during this crisis, we will know the true patriot by his ability to honestly and fully acknowledge that central and crucially important historical truth, in spite of the fact that, for decades, he has been subjected to intense propaganda by the Establishment on the invariable saintliness, peaceful intentions, and devotion to justice of the American government in foreign affairs. But for our own good, and for the sake of our own survival in a nuclear age, we Americans need desperately to understand that the main cause of the attacks was not the fanaticism of individual terrorists, Islamic fundamentalism, or any envy-driven desire on the part of foreigners to lash out at our "virtuous" and affluent "democracy."
Instead, the main cause of the attacks was America's own interventionist, imperialistic, inter-meddling foreign policy -the decades of slaughters, injuries, impositions, and other offenses that America's bipartisan foreign policy has inflicted upon our foreign neighbors.
The natural and inevitable consequence of being an empire is having a policy of interventionism. And a natural and inevitable consequence of globalistic meddling in the affairs of foreign peoples is an understandable and perfectly reasonable resentment and hatred on their part, culminating in a desire to retaliate against the American people, using whatever means are available.
This means that it is our own globalist foreign policy -and not any foreign people or organization- which constitutes the greatest threat in the world today to the lives and freedoms of the American people.
Now, having recognized this fact, what course should American patriots take, and what policy should they advocate?
Two very different courses of action seem to present themselves, and the ultimate aim of each course is honorable peace and security through non-interventionism.
The first course, a libertarian, "reformist" proposal, calls upon the United States government to abandon its policy of global interventionism: to withdraw immediately and completely, militarily and politically, from Asia, Europe, Latin America, the Middle East, from everywhere. Accordingly, the libertarian reformer argues that the United States should dismantle its foreign bases, withdraw its troops from foreign soil, stop its incessant and dangerous political meddling, and abolish the CIA. It should end all foreign aid. In short, the US government should withdraw totally to within its own borders and maintain a policy of strict political "isolation" or neutrality everywhere.
But the practical obstacles confronting our libertarian reformer appear quite massive, and are indeed, well nigh insurmountable. Such a radical change in foreign policy would necessarily require for its fulfillment a massive overhauling and downsizing of the entire American government itself -back to a truly federalistic constitutional regime with strictly limited powers.
But political experience tells us that even the best-intentioned attempts to radically reform and reduce large concentrations of governmental power tend to end up, paradoxically enough, making government even more massive and irresponsible than before. (Recent examples of this paradoxical tendency in operation include the ill-fated reform attempts, in the 1980s, of President Reagan and of British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.)
A second course of action, aimed at abandoning globalist interventionism and at embracing peaceful non-interventionism, would be for all true and informed American patriots to advocate the peaceful and lawful secession of states from the American Empire. This "secessionist" course of action seems far more practical and realizable than libertarian reformism, in at least one major respect, because with secession, there would be no need to even attempt to reform, reduce, and render responsible to citizens a massive, overwhelming, and ossified governmental structure that is, in all probability, beyond any realistic hope of reform.
This means that Southern, Western, and even Northern secessionists, could start all over from scratch, reconstructing their respective self-governments without hindrance from old and over-grown governments and their inter-meddling bureaucracies. As true American patriots, the seceding Southern states would be free to embrace genuine constitutionalism, strictly limited government, and the foreign policy of a truly free and secure people-which would include armed neutrality, no entangling alliances (including NATO and Israel), and a constitutional article prohibiting empire.
[END]
Does anyone here have an opinion on smoked gouda cheese with red wine?
Get off it.
Get off it.
Yep. But, not any farther.
Here's my guess.
You're a proctologist who enjoys getting his head into his work.
What should be done?
First of all, stop the hysteria. Stand back and ask how this could have happened. Ask how a poor country isolated by two oceans could have so embroiled itself in other people's business that someone would want to do us harm. Even sitting in the middle of Europe, Switzerland isn't beset by U.S. attacks, because the Swiss mind their own business.
Hmmm. I thought that the Afghani people were innocent in these attacks... now they're 'embroiled'? Well in that case, maybe we should stop being so careful about not hitting civilians.
Second, resolve that we won't let our leaders use this occasion to commit their own terrorist acts upon more innocent people, foreign and domestic, that will inspire more terrorist attacks in the future.
So we have to put up with bi-ennial terrorist attacks (WTC in '93, barracks in '96, embassies in '98, USS Cole in '00, WTC in '01), just to avoid inspiring MORE terrorist attacks? Yeah, THAT makes sense! No, I like this way better... WE commit the violent acts, and let THEM cower in fear for a few more decades. Deterrence worked decently from 1941-1979 (Iran hostages). Let's stick with what works.
Third, find a way, with enforceable constitutional limits, to prevent our leaders from ever again provoking this kind of anger against Afghanistan.
So our anger directed elsewhere is hunky-dory? Okay, then, how about Syria, Iraq, Iran, and Arafat's other camps? By the time we're done, Afghanistan might have another two targets worth bombing.
LOL... I just re-read that first line, "enforceable Constitutional limits"... we haven't had those for decades. Just ask the 2nd, 9th, and 10th Amendments and Al Gore's "no controlling legal authority".
Or both.
There is that term again. I wonder if anyone can read those three words and not burst out laughing. Then I wonder about some of the people here.
It is easy for a small country such as NZ to moan about how arrogant the US is (we get peeved because on holiday in the US we get asked what part of Europe NZ is in) but the simple fact is - we are jealous of your prosperity. Really we should be grateful that we do not have as much responsibility. If the US stepped out of world relations, the rest of the world would still moan.
lose - lose. Bummer.
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.