Posted on 10/04/2002 8:37:02 PM PDT by Askel5
I cannot disagree more.
What WE'VE GOT, allegedly, are the moral principles which informed our Declaration and the foundations of individual liberty and justice which framed the Constitution we are now abandoning.
To blame this on "circumstances" is to negate entirely our appreciation of the Self Evident truths on which we must base our "moral" stands, in Word and Deed.
Anything less is to admit defeat at the hands of those who would bring us down to their level.
Uh ... okay. What does Moyer's framing of the question have to do with the substance of Paul's reply and how is it that the question somehow negates the prong of Just War that is defending against aggression?
Now you've gone and changed the subject, Askel.
The radical Islamists would be ROTFLTAO, if that was permitted, knowing that another Arab nation was ripe for the picking thanks to Uncle Sucker.
I'll modify my statement slightly.
For us, it's all about oil.
But he does ...
Well, I think that President Kennedy gave us a pretty good idea of what we should do. He had to deal with some tough times. As a matter of fact, there [is precedence – he] had to deal with the Soviets. They had 50,000 nuclear warhead and they had tremendous power and they brought them 90 miles off our shore. And not once did we think that confrontation was a good idea. Matter of fact, we always stood strong, had a strong national defense, we worked on containment and we even negotiated.So, I would say, if we were able to accomplish that with the Soviets, and we've been able to live with the Chinese and put up with so much danger in the world, we oughta be able to handle this guy that … there's no evidence that he has these weapons and that there's no evidence of that … and he hasn’t committed an act of aggression. I would think that if we really wanted to, we could handle him the same way we handled the Soviets.
We "won the cold war".
It was perhaps wrong of me to put "won the Cold War" in quotes but I find it ironic that -- where sponsorship of terrorism and the fomenting of WMD threats by rogue nations to the United States is concerned -- we appear to blythely be relying on the "former Soviets" who were responsible for both.
Clearly, we have not "won the Cold War" if it is we who have substantively changed our profile ... Russia's embrace of the "saving graces of Western Materialism" (particularly where our IMF payments, aid to clean-up their nuclear messes, etc. etc. are concerned ... based on the conceit that a nation still supplying arms to the Chicoms and 49 million dollar contracts to nations like IRAQ is somehow in need of our economic assistance and political appeasement).
This too is Mr. Story's point as regards the CONSISTENCY of the policy we are pursuing.
No one refutes the FACT that the Soviets increased by 1000% their support of the global network of terror in 1964.
No one refutes the FACT that the Soviets were primarily responsible for the organization, funding and sustaining of the terrorist training camps formed in Cuba in the wake of the 1966 Tri-Continental Conference.
It is passing strange that -- based solely on the "apartment bombings", the last of which were proven KGB "tests" -- we managed to BOTH excuse Russia's Mozdok war games in Chechnya as well as find legitimate their alliance with us as a partner in the War against the global terror network THEY conceived, sustained and glorified in up and until the eve of their "abolishing the IMAGE of the enemy" with perestroika's collapse of the evil empire like a cheap umbrella.
I would hate to think that the United States would be operating on Appearances instead of substance and disregard the very real possibility we're being played for fools. I am one who agreed absolutely with Reagan that indeed the Soviets were an Evil Empire. I find it hard to fathom that based on an economic collapse they STILL are milking to this day, that they actually experienced some perceptible metanoia. I don't see it.
Particularly given the neat way were were played to Russia's advantage in the Balkans, I think the question merits further investigation.
You bet.
The beauty of this argument being that energy is quite rightly a subject of national interest and national defense.
I don't think that should blind us to the fact it's possible our "national interests" are causing us not only to squander our moral capital but entangle us in alliances and obligations that will not bear the fruit for which we're hoping.
I think it strange that -- even as we throw all caution to the winds where ready access to and extraction of foreign oil is concerned -- at home we appear bent on destroying utterly our ability to make use of our own reserves through the gamut of environmentalist legislation and prohibitions to offshore drilling as exacerbated by crises like the Valdez.
While it might be a case of exhausting others' oil before our own, it's possible that in the process of asserting our rights to others' resources, we may not end up preserving our own nation long enough to enjoy our long-range planning in this regard.
I think you misunderstand my comment--I was referring to our accurracy in our military as meeting the "Just War" requirement that the war solution isn't worse than leaving the status quo. And, of course, success against a 3rd world country applies well to Iraq.
Regarding giving aid and comfort to our enemies, to my knowledge, the IRA is not currently allied with the al Qaeda. If it is, we'll get them, either with the help of Ireland or without.
Cuba has been opposed by the US for almost 50 years, through a blockade and sanctions, and has not conducted a successful terrorist action. If they were to harbor al Qaeda anywhere other than Guantanemo Bay, I expect we'd come after them.
The UK, under the surprising Tony Blair, has supported us via intelligence and military forces. Although they have had tolerance toward Islamic centers, it is unlikely these centers are not being monitored by MI.
This is a war. We must fight the enemy wherever he is found. We need consistency in our goal, although the method can and should vary depending upon the circumstances.
The rational Soviets of whom you speak asserted absolutely that "the revolution makes no sense without terror".
I spent yesterday reading Claire Sterling's "THE TERROR NETWORK" from 1980. Sterling appears to have been somewhat the liberal and obviously would have liked to restrict her treatment of terrorism to the old guard far right terrorists (like those who, along with the Soviets, helped terrorize the state of Israel into being). Instead, she focuses plainly on the real scourge: Soviet-sponsored terrorists.
Which groups included ABSOLUTELY the Arabs ... from well into the first half of the 20th century.
Judging by the flyleaf, this book was roundly applauded by the right when it came out. The research is impeccable. The conclusions are sound and the facts are plain: Soviets sponsored the bulk of global terror and the purpose of terror was to terrorize ... causing government to end up draconian entities actually ripe for being overthrown.
Makes sense. This was precisely the intent of the terror instigated by the Narodnaya Volya or "People's Will" who birthed the Bolsheviks:
It should be noted that not only did the terror campaign demystify Russian rulers in the eyes of the people but it also caused the Government to overreact.From 1879 onwards, the Imperial Government introduced a stream of extremely harsh counter measures meant to prevent terror, but which had the effect of alienating moderate groups in Russia.
In the long run this made it impossible for the regime to ever secure the support of moderately conservative and liberal elements in Russian society; so it was left to fall, isolated and alone, in 1917.
--- Richard Pipes
[Disclaimer: I'm no more a Pipes fan than a Moyer's fan but his facts as contained in this piece are incontrovertible.]
This has been the model of leftist terror for nearly four decades now ... "liberation" on a scale and with such bloodshed that governments overreacted and the desired revolution and toppling of legitimate governments was effected.
If we know this to be true, I think it behooves us to proceed with absolute caution and in perfect comport with those founding principles which distinguish our nation from all others.
Summary execution -- at home and abroad -- of anyone the Administration deems a terrorist does not appear to fit that bill.
Another quote from the current issue of Arab-Asian Affairs:
Shortly after 9/11, George Bush Sr. was reported to have ruminated in public that a "prohibition" on CIA assassinations should be removed since it tied the United States' hand in the face of its enemies. In August 2002, ABC News briefly posted a news report, attributed to Reuters, that the White House had announced with zero fanfare that, with immediate effect, certain individual whom President Bush or other high-level members of his Administration have designed as terrorists, are subject to summary execution by Homeland Security operatives, US Intelligence officers, or in some cases, by US military personnel.The Presidential Directive applied to both US and foreign citizens, both within and outside the United States.
The announcement was made as silently as possible -- late one Sunday evening, from the President's Texas home, in Crawford. Citing security considerations, top Bush Administration officials afterwards declined to comment on the new Directive. No subsequent references to this contneitous decision have been made or are likely.
Frankly, I was surprised to read this when my issue arrived last week. I had missed this somehow. Searching on the internet, I found a copy of the original Reuters story but very little in the way of discussion.
It's possible I missed the discussion somehow on FR but searches of "execution", "Bush / execution | summary | terror" brought up nothing on the story.Bush OK's Summary Executions Of Some Designated As Terrorists 8-12-2002 WASHINGTON (Reuters) - In a surprise move sure to raise outcries from foreign governments, civil liberties groups and others, The White House today announced with little fanfare that effective immediately, certain individuals whom President Bush or other high-level Administration members have designated as terrorists are subject to summary execution by either Homeland Security operatives, U.S. intelligence operatives, and in some cases by U.S. military personnel. The presidential directive applies to both U.S. and foreign citizens, both within and outside the United States territory. The White House gave notice of the new policy in as quiet a way as possible, making the announcement late Sunday evening from Crawford, Texas. The unprecedented move is thought certain to generate a firestorm of protest from numerous quarters.
Having subscribed to a couple of Story's publications for several years now, I know for a fact he edits meticulously and will even reissued an entire mailing for a minor mis-cite in one issue. A most trustworthy source.
So ... if anyone can dispute Story's account or the Reuters story as posted here (taken from a chat room dated that day with a comment "Does anyone have a problem with this?"), I would sure like to see it.
I know there was lots of talk about and support for taking a page from Israel where the ready assassination of terrorists was concerned but I hadn't realized there had been a presidential directive in this regard.
As much as I too would sorta like the freedom to act thus, I'd always been somewhat proud that it was not our national policy to do ... regardless that it's probably true it was a "hypocrisy is the compliment paid to virtue" sort of thing.
I am not a moral relativist.
Nor am I a Calvinist (or one of their pragmatic progeny) who believe that the ends justify the means.
I believe actions have consequences and the unleashing of evil actions will have consequences that cannot be accounted for in advance by Good Intentions or the Best-Laid Plans.
I believe I'm mistaken here ... I think it's Daniel Pipes I have a problem with.
(Better to err on the side of the disclaimer, however, as bad at names as I am ... )
I am not a moral relativist.
Nor am I.
Nor am I a Calvinist (or one of their pragmatic progeny) who believe that the ends justify the means.
Nor am I, nor do I.
I believe actions have consequences and the unleashing of evil actions will have consequences that cannot be accounted for in advance by Good Intentions or the Best-Laid Plans.
I agree. I'm not quite seeing how your points above relate to my comments or the war on terrorism. Do you NOT want to defeat those who attacked our nation on 9/11? Do you think some of the means President Bush has selected to fight the war on terror are wrong? Please be clearer.
I had to cancel my subscription because the paperboy kept throwing it in the bushes.
Kidding aside. You rock.
Of course you do - he has eloquently pointed out how the worship of Satan Allah will destroy the West. First on their list? Catholics.
It's gonna be fun watching you wimps get exterminated. My kind fights back.
Drunks? If you're not with us your [hic] agin us. Would you like to be on our mailing list?
You bastard. I love you man...
Where's my keys?
You're damn right I do.
I prefer to do it on our terms, not theirs.
I refuse to "stoop to conquer" by adopting the immoral means and premises of our enemies. If we ourselves abandon the self-evident truths of our Declaration, the clear framework of our Constitution (by which our Constitutional Republic was intended to operate) or the Judeo-Christian heritage from which we derive our concept of a Just War, we have no business seeking to "nation-build" in our image for the just and moral nation for which so many Americans have died to preserve for our progeny will no longer exist.
This is precisely the predicament Ron Paul is addressing with our newly-minted "preemptive strike" policy. If the United States is staking that as a "moral" policy, on what grounds will we protest another sovereign nation's invoking it?
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.