Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

U.S.-bashers just strut stupidity
New York Daily News ^ | 9/06/02 | DOUGLAS FEIDEN

Posted on 09/06/2002 2:29:10 AM PDT by kattracks

In one morally bankrupt sentence, low-wattage actor Woody Harrelson recently defined the self-hating American: "The war against terrorism is terrorism."

Unfortunately, the star is not alone in despising his country for defending itself. Or in seeing no moral distinction between provocateur and protector.

Prominent Columbia University historian Eric Foner spoke for self-loathers everywhere when he proclaimed himself unsure which is "more frightening, the horror that engulfed New York City or the apocalyptic rhetoric emanating daily from the White House."

Too many literati, glitterati and academicians share that view - that America the beautiful is really America the ugly. They reflexively oppose American use of power and cringe when their country exercises its military might. They believe we must study the frustrations of the Arabs, Al Qaeda's grievances, the root causes of their behavior and, hence, their victimhood at our hands.

And out of this comes the wrongheaded conclusion that the U.S. must act as punching bag for those who hate us because terrorism and defense against terrorism are morally equal acts. To buy into this fallacy is to equate victims with murderers and murderers with victims.

Charter members of the I-hate-America brigade include:



TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-116 next last
To: kattracks
Actor Richard Gere. He pleaded with his fellow citizens to "identify with everyone who's suffering." The poor terrorists are hurting because of the "negativity of the karma" and should be treated with "love and compassion." Try telling that to the victims' families.

...or to the victims themselves (the ones who survived, more or less).

Last night on ABC, they had a show on "The Survivors". They profiled two Pentagon workers who were severely burned by the attack, a young man and a young woman.

Both had third degree burns over much of their bodies. Both have spent every day of the last year in agony, enduring almost daily skin grafts, surgeries, and endless physical therapy.

The woman lost her fingers, they had been burned to the bone.

Both are disfigured, ears missing or reduced to small lumps, skin looking like partially melted wax or scorched steak. Both have breathing tubes still in their necks, although they can both breathe and speak well enough now. I don't think either one has even been released from the hospital yet.

What was really heartwrenching is that each is married to a spouse who has stayed by their side every moment since 9/11, helping them through all the hell they have endured.

Both couples are incredibly devoted to each other, with both the burn victim and their spouse exhibiting the kind of immense bravery, faith, love, and dedication that makes me hugely proud to be an American. Watching their strength, and comparing it to the animalistic nature of the terrorists, was almost more than I could bear, but also made clear to me that we will utterly prevail, in both this conflict and in whatever the future may bring for us to face.

For some reason seeing their ongling travails affected me even more deeply than the thousands of deaths did. Seeing the kind of admirable people whose lives have been senselessly forever mutilated by the actions of the terrorists leaves me feeling that the next moron who mumbles even a hint of "justification" for 9/11 within my hearing is going to end up in the hospital themselves.

At the very least, I want Baldwin, Cruise, Pollitt, Harrelson, and the rest of the band of moral degenerates to spend a week in the burn ward with those brave victims, helping her try to walk again, and him try to extend his elbows to some approximation of straightness as he grimaces in pain. Then we'll see if they're still so stupid and emotionally stunted as to blather to them about how the attack was "deserved" or "understandable".

41 posted on 09/06/2002 8:37:17 AM PDT by Dan Day
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sneakypete
Then you are no better or moral than the rest of them. WHY should America waste her wealth and her blood to attack one soveriegn foreign nation,purely because another sovereign nations wants us to do that? Let Israel attack Iraq themselves,if it is all that important to them.

Because Israel is an ally. I don't know, but am reasonably certain, that we have some sort of mutual agression pact between ourselves in Israel. Also, we had the largest role in the creation of Israel. We have a certain amount of responsibility towards it.

Since this is the case, I feel it is our responsibility to help Israel as much as possible, provided that said help does not compromise our own condition. If we are not prepared to do this, then we should stop pretending we are allies with Israel, and treat them in a neutral manner in word and deed.

Tuor

42 posted on 09/06/2002 8:43:25 AM PDT by Tuor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: sneakypete
Why aren't you calling for the USA to go to war against China?

First of all, don't put words in my mouth.

Second of all, I think we should break off all relations with China: political, economic, military, etc. Maybe keep some sort of diplomatic presense so we can keep an eye on them, but that's it.

I think China is the greatest threat to the US that there is, besides ourselves. It disgusts me how many people are ready to jump in bed with China because they make cheap junk that we can buy, and promise to buy lots of cheap junk from us in return, all the while they increase their military and scientific capabilities. What fools we've become.

Finally, I don't think Iraq is a threat to the US. Insomuch as they are a threat, they are one we created in the Cold War. If he becomes a true threat, then he and whomever supports him has to be made non-threatening by whatever means necessary.

Tuor

43 posted on 09/06/2002 8:48:41 AM PDT by Tuor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Tuor
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38183-2002Sep4.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A43713-2002Sep5.html

These two give a practical and a logical reason for the coming actions.
44 posted on 09/06/2002 8:51:34 AM PDT by doubled
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Issaquahking
If you can't see and identify the reasons why we should hit this region, it's too late to try and explain it to you.

You're right. It's too late to try to explain it to me, because I certainly don't see it. My critical reasoning says that there is no threat without intent and ability. I have no doubt that Saddam is frantically trying to produce weapons of mass destruction: it is the only way he might be able to keep the US out of his country and, presumably, from making him into a bloody stain on the desert.

Tuor

45 posted on 09/06/2002 8:54:41 AM PDT by Tuor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator
You know, you're right, we should have waited until the Panzers were descending on Washington to get into WWII.

Yes, instead we waited until Japan blew up most of the Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor.

If you believe that the terrorists who attacked us were directly supported by Saddam Hussain, then please by all means present your evidence and, if it is convincing, I'll be completely behind obliterating Iraq or any other nation that directly supported the terrorists.

Tuor

46 posted on 09/06/2002 8:57:22 AM PDT by Tuor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: YankeeReb
Did you see Serbian tanks in Washington DC when the old stain-maker was making war on the Serbs? I imagine not.

Our actions against the Serbs are some of the most deplorable in the history of the US, IMO. I'm still ashamed of what we did there and probably always will be. Doesn't matter if Clinton ordered it: the people are the country, and thus I share in the responsibility for what we did there.

Tuor

47 posted on 09/06/2002 8:59:17 AM PDT by Tuor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Anamensis
Would it be enough for you to know *for certain* that Hussein is preparing nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and intends to use them on Israel or U.S. interests?

Yes. That would be enough, particularly since bio and chem weapons don't really require a delivery system. If he is *shown* to have both intent and capability, then we will need to act and act immediately.

When I see the evidence, I'm not going to say we need to go to the UN or to our allies. If the country is in jeapordy, declare war on the nation harboring the threat and eliminate it. Period. Then we should get back out and go about our business again. I'm pretty sure there is some good reason for us to have a standing military...

Tuor

48 posted on 09/06/2002 9:02:45 AM PDT by Tuor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Wow..those jack-ass#s need to meet a cueball in a bar towell in a dark alley..wonder what tune they will whistle when they no longer posses their front teeth..
49 posted on 09/06/2002 9:22:08 AM PDT by MD_Willington_1976
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: allend
Sigh! Well can't we just imagine some, then? We're looking for a pretext to attack.

Well,I've heard it said that not only is Saddam a smoker,but he doesn't even have smoke-free sections in his bunkers or palaces for the non-smokers! That oughta do it!

KILL SADDAM!
KILL SADDAM!

50 posted on 09/06/2002 9:55:33 AM PDT by sneakypete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: CheezyD
Oh please enlighten us all as to how you know this to be a fact.

I'm clarivoyant. Didn't you know? Beside that,there are two leading indicators this is true.

Number 1: Israel isn't glowing in the dark.
Number 2: Iraq isn't glowing in the dark.

51 posted on 09/06/2002 10:02:14 AM PDT by sneakypete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Tuor
Because Israel is an ally.

Not really. They've even been selling classified military hardware we GIVE them to the Chinese. It is a more accurate statement to say "Israel isn't our enemy".

I don't know, but am reasonably certain, that we have some sort of mutual agression pact between ourselves in Israel.

I seriously doubt this.

Also, we had the largest role in the creation of Israel.

I thought that was more of a UN thing that a US thing. None the less,we also created the Panama Canal. Are we still responsible for it? Should we maintain it for the Chinese?

We have a certain amount of responsibility towards it.

No we don't. Israel is a sovereign nation,and capable of taking care of herself.

52 posted on 09/06/2002 10:08:33 AM PDT by sneakypete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

Comment #53 Removed by Moderator

To: Tuor
First of all, don't put words in my mouth.

I thought you were calling for war on Iraq,and using Israel as a reason. If I am wrong,I apologize.

Second of all, I think we should break off all relations withChina: political, economic, military, etc. Maybe keep some sort of diplomatic presense so we can keep an eye on them, but that's it.

I surely can't argue with any of that.

I think China is the greatest threat to the US that there is, besides ourselves.

I have reluctantly came to the conclusion that our own politicians are now a bigger threat to us than the Chinese,and part of the danger the Chinese represent is because our own politicans are in bed with them. Bubba-1 gives/sells them military secrets and technology,and Bubba-2 has a uncle named Prescott who is in business with the fascist that now run China,and Bubba-2 granted China permanent most favored nation trade status. This is something even Bubba-1 wouldn't do.

It disgusts me how many people are ready to jump in bed with China because they make cheap junk that we can buy,

Hillary Clinton was on the board of directors of Wal-Mart,and Prescott Bush is the president of the Chinese/American Chamber of Commerce.

and promise to buy lots of cheap junk from us in return, M

I'm not aware they even made that promise.

all the while they increase their military and scientific capabilities.

Yup,hi-tech is what dey be buyin'. Things they can't produce for themselves.

What fools we've become.

But isn't Bubba-2 just DREAMY in his new sombrero? I bet he'd look good in a Mao jacket,too. Maybe his uncle will send him one?

Finally, I don't think Iraq is a threat to the US.

We agree on this. They MIGHT become a threat at some time in the future,but so could Canada.

If he becomes a true threat, then he and whomever supports him has to be made non-threatening by whatever means necessary.

Yup,but he's not there yet.

54 posted on 09/06/2002 10:36:16 AM PDT by sneakypete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: allend
You seem to be assuming that if Saddam had nukes, he would attack with them.

I said that in a joking manner,but I understand how it may not have come across that way.

That sounds questionable. Saddam is no Palestinian suicide bomber. Indeed, throughout his career he has demonstrated intense interest his personal survival.

I agree,and this is one of the reasons there is no need for the US to attack him. He's gonna huff and puff,but he ain't gonna blow anybody's house down. Not because he wouldn't WANT to,but because of selfish self-interest.

If he hadnukes, he probably would use them as a deterrent,

They are ONLY good as a deterent if people know you have them,and a way to deliver them. This is the real reason why I'm so sure he doesn't have them. If he ever does get them,you can be sure he will brag to the whole world about it.

Do you think we would have attacked Serbia if Serbia had had nukes?

I'm probably the wrong person to ask that,becuase I STILL have trouble believing we did,as well as believing we still have troops there,and so-called "conservatives" aren't demanding Bubba-2 bring them home.

55 posted on 09/06/2002 10:45:13 AM PDT by sneakypete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: sneakypete
I thought you were calling for war on Iraq,and using Israel as a reason. If I am wrong,I apologize.

I'm not calling for war at all. I was describing scenarios I might be inclined to support a war against Iraq.

Israel has long been a thorn in the side of my thought process. Most nations fit neatly into the various slots I have for how we do/should relate to them.

The reason Israel is such a problem has to do with the complex relationship we have with her, and it *is* complex. We have religious, military, political, economic, social, and God knows what other ties. The overriding consideration, of course, should be ensuring the protection and direct interests of our own country, but there can be some arguments that Israel qualifies, in at least some instances, as a direct interest of the US. I would call them 'important,' but not, of course, essential (except maybe if God takes offense to us not helping Israel, in which case we would be in Big Trouble.)

Realisticaly, there is just no way the US will ever let anything bad happen to Israel without going a long way to try to prevent it. On both political and social levels, any other approach is not tolerable: politically, it would be suicidal to stand by and let Israel come to harm. Socially it would create an enormous fervor. It's just not going to happen, and Israel will always be considered a vital interest of ours regardless of whether it actually is or not.

Tuor

56 posted on 09/06/2002 10:51:23 AM PDT by Tuor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Tuor
I agree that charging blindly and on assumptions, risking thousands, if not millions of innocent lives would be foolhardy and not in mankinds interest. I have a gut feeling, however, that something terribly sinister is going on behind Saddams veil and people in the know are quite aware of this. This could turn out to be a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. Let's hope we make the right decisions. Regards.
57 posted on 09/06/2002 8:02:27 PM PDT by germanicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
In one morally bankrupt sentence, low-wattage actor Woody Harrelson recently defined the self-hating American: "The war against terrorism is terrorism."

"We have met the enemy... and he is us!"

Woody Harrelson does Pogo...

58 posted on 09/06/2002 8:18:09 PM PDT by Terriergal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tuor
A few pictures, a few statements from Hussain, maybe a video of something Not Nice being aimed at Israel, just *something* convincing.

Hard to publish that stuff without Hussein knowing what we know. there was a thread about this the other day...or at least an article, not sure if anyone posted this, I'll look. In the meantime go here to read what Iraq does have:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38183-2002Sep4.html

59 posted on 09/06/2002 8:21:15 PM PDT by Terriergal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Tuor; germanicus
Try this one too:

Iraq - Scotsman says Saddam has weapons to wipe out world's population, nuclear bomb within 3 years http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/746066/posts

60 posted on 09/06/2002 8:25:00 PM PDT by Terriergal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-116 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson