The American Left is often heard to say something to this effect: If we leave them alone they won’t attack us any more. It is a charming sentiment that overlooks, either purposely or ignorantly, a very important feature of the complaints “they” have against us.In this case “they” want us to give up our values and adopt theirs. A very large part of “they” are willing to kill people in our civilization randomly until we give in to their values. So far we have no significant portion of “they” willing to stop this behavior.Maybe we do need to stop the drone attacks. But if we do we should replace them them with something even more violent and destructive, continuing to do so until “they” are willing to control the barbarians within their own civilization.I do not view this as a clash of religions or of philosophies. Our problem with this particular “they” is a clash of civilizations, a much larger and fundamental difference than mere religion. The typical historical result is either stalemate or the utter destruction of one of the civilizations. So far we are engaging in stalemate while they are attempting to destroy us.
We have the power to win this conflict in short order. If we are going to fight it then we should fight to win. It is after all a war of survival, unrecognized by our side because it has been several centuries since we’ve had to face the question of civilization’s existence. The real tragedy is that our people don’t know they are involved in a Life and Death struggle while “they” know it very well. We lost in ‘Nam because we wanted peace while “they” of that time wanted us either out or dead. We could lose this one the same way, only this one is a much bigger conflict because this “they” want us either like them or dead.
So to the American Left we should respond: Does that mean you are ready to convert to Islam, to study the Qur’an, and to live the rest of your life on the precepts contained therein?
Or maybe you are interested in bringing the conflict to an end according to precepts of Reason. Heaven help us if you still think we don’t really have to do either.
If neither, then American Left you are not helping at all so –
Shut the Hell up about it!
US foreign policy is in the toilet. On one side we have liberals telling us to treat other nations like equals. On the other we have conservatives telling us we need to be more consistent with our own standards. The resultant mish-mosh has the world hating us and our military involved in many places we should not. I’ll try to address the dilemma.
Fair warning: the answer is not ideology. The answer is Reason.
Properly handled I don’t really see a dilemma. Improperly handled we get the kind of cluster in our current foreign policy where relativism and self-condemnation destroys any chance to apply Reason to the international situation. The worst thing that could possibly happen to any nation is to be ruled by people who are ashamed of her, or worse, inimical to her values. In other words, the situation we have since the election of 1992.Reason would dictate that we, presumed the outsider trader, avoid dealing with their domestic affairs. At the point where a second domestic power group within their society begins to demand a seat at the trading table our limit has traditionally (based on English tradition, not French) been to recognize the internal group with actual control over and ability to deliver the resources under negotiation. When the “legitimate” power group complains then the reasonable response is “Can you deliver the goods? No? Well …”I mentioned earlier that we as the outside trader should not become involved in their internal affairs. The meaning here is that while we are perfectly willing to trade with the defacto power group we are not willing to allow any representative of either group access to our society without first verifying that person has a minimum understanding of our rules and traditions. In this context Diplomatic Immunity is not guaranteed for capital crimes. For lesser crimes deportation should be automatic for diplomats. Non-diplomats should face the full import of our laws without recourse to their own nation.This is a small example of reason applied to international trade. There is no religion, no philosophy other than that of honest trade. Reason severely limits immigration by persons unfamiliar with our culture and society. Just a little thought and we see approach requires closed borders and a firm commitment to our own system of values and traditions.
No relativism allowed.
As far as I can see there are at least three categories applying to this man that are pointedly ignored by our government and the media.1) He is an enemy combatant. The question of whether he placed or detonated a bomb is irrelevant because he actively participated in a military action directed against Americans.2) He is a terrorist. He actively participated in a mission designed to induce fear and to control the actions of American civilians with a weapon of mass destruction.3) He is guilty of High Treason. He took up arms against the US after becoming a citizen.#1 qualifies him for a life sentence in Gitmo. #2 qualifies him for a life sentence in Gitmo. #3 qualifies him for death by hanging.There just isn’t any other rational way to look at this event and the survivor(s). Whether tried in a federal court or in a military court, these three charges should be central to the case.One other point — he was not wearing a uniform. That makes him a spy eligible for summary execution without trial of any kind.
I’m not sure why Americans think the American Way is the only way in the world. Have we stopped educating our youth about how unique we are, both in human history and in the world today?Only when one understands how unique, fair, and just our system is (or can be) does it become possible to judge alternative systems such as Islam. In this case, failure to understand and to judge is our primary weakness in the current war.Only when we understand and judge alternative systems is it possible to identify the motivations of those acting on behalf of those systems. One thing is clear: to judge barbarians based on the American system is to grossly misjudge those same barbarians.The truth of terrorism is that it is the only effective weapon in the hands of our enemies, a significant proportion of Islam. The death toll may rise slowly, so slowly that we do not perceive that a state of war exists, but it will continue to rise so long as we fail to recognize, identify, and destroy our declared enemy.
Under president Bush there were no successful terrorist attacks after the towers went down.
Under president Obama there has been one successful attack in Boston and one incident of “workplace violence” in Fort Hood. We don’t know yet what to call the attack in Benghazi, do we? And there’s the dead State Department woman in Egypt.
That’s at least 0-4 in a game where a high score means dead Americans.
It is becoming plain enough for all to see: OBAMA SUCKS.
It looks like the Senate Republicans are ready to cave on gun control. Here are a few things to think about and if you agree with me, call your Senator. Be polite. Be courteous. But tell him or her, “Hell no!” on this gun fiasco the Democrats are pushing through the Senate.
We need to think about the problem rationally. For example, I can get an AK47 not far from here, no background checks, no names, cash only. The seller doesn’t keep up with the news so it is unlikely that would change if this law goes into effect. I’ve lived in enough big cities to know that such transactions are even easier when there are a lot of people living together in an urban environment.
Pot and cocaine are both illegal, but billions of dollars of both products cross our borders every year. Obviously then, the mere existence of a law is ineffective.I don’t like the carnage at all. But I like even less these clowns in Washington pushing a set of ideas that anybody with the sense God gave a hound dog can see for the horse pucky they are. Mr. Lanza could have been stopped with more liberal involuntary commitment rules, as would that orange-haired freak in CO. From what I hear even that turd-ball who shot Congresswoman Giffords could have been stopped this way.A story with a moral — The psychiatrist asked the vet if the glass was half full or half empty. He looked at it a minute and drank the water. He said, “I’m not thirsty anymore.”
Moral — The wrong paradigm never yields acceptable results.
Guns are NOT the problem. CRAZY people are the problem and that’s what needs to be addressed. Two things are necessary to make a good law: first it must address the actual problem; and second it must be enforceable. This bill in the Senate is neither.
“Our Founding Fathers would have never tolerated this crap. For God’s sake, they wer blowing people’s heads off because they put a tax on their breakfast beverage. And it wasn’t even coffee!” — Dennis Miller.
Mr. Miller has a point. We have endured, are daily enduring violations of our individual freedoms the ancestors would not, did not tolerate. At the first sign of the Crown’s encroachment upon their Rights those people became restive. As the encroachments continued they became rebellious. Long before King George imposed state run health care or universal firearms registration, our ancestors were in the streets, the woods, and the countryside taking target practice on Redcoats.
We have come so far I despair of returning to a state of Freedom.
R.I.P. the American Republic, 1789-2008.
Okay. We have different ideas on what the Constitution says and does. Apparently we have different ideas on how it can be modified as well. I believe the amendment process and the Constitutional Convention are the only legitimate ways to change the Constitution. Apparently you believe that careful study and word parsing can lead to the discovery of a multitude of new and heretofore unknown powers for the federal government.
This is similar to our disagreement over the supremacy of man-made law. Apparently you believe making new laws is the same thing as fixing any problem. I see man-made law as extremely fallible and subject to rejection by the people.As I understand it, you Liberals see a Constitutional mandate to discover and protect new human rights while I see a Constitutional mandate to stay out of people’s business unless absolutely necessary. The one approach leads to an ever increasing role for government in the lives of its citizens. My approach leads to a static, or slowly growing government whose main goal is to live and let live. It doesn’t matter either way because the liberal interpretation is currently in ascendancy. This popular interpretation of the Constitution runs contrary to the original intent of the document and guarantees the nation becomes a Democratic Republic as opposed to a Republic with democratic features. It is a matter of historical record that the Founders both opposed democracy and feared the effect it would have on government.So long as the “living document” interpretation remains dominant the Republic no longer exists. Perhaps in 10 to 20 years we will all be able to see what system is replacing it.
Some of us can already see it quite clearly, but then Conservatives generally pay attention to context and effect, not just the intent of governmental actions.
The good news is that Socialism is failing once again. The bad news is that once again the socialists themselves are in power and in denial.
Marriage as an institution can be considered outside the religious issue. Every society has endorsed the institution since the earliest Egyptians, Babylonians, and Chinese. Marriage has always been 1 man, 1 woman except in warlike societies where polygamy was legitimized like the early Hebrews and the present day Muslims. To the best of my knowledge there is only one documented culture that practiced polyandry and that was an aboriginal tribe in central Africa. (The research was conducted by Margaret Mead and has been seriously questioned as to its scientific validity.)Marriage exists as it does for good and valid reasons, most of them rooted in the survival of a culture or society. The religious argument is valid, but from the Social Sciences viewpoint marriage is essential to the legitimacy and survival of a society.You speculate that this may be the beginning of the end. I submit that the beginning was several decades ago when the Free Love generation began to change the way Americans view personal relationships. As these people have achieved positions of power in our society our moral fiber has already degenerated.The libertarian (some would say would say “libertine”) approach to sexual behavior and the false legal assumption of absolute equality of the sexes have seriously endangered the female half of our society by depriving them of certain rights of redress in the marriage/divorce relationship. The trend toward such things as No Fault Divorce and Single Parent Households deprives women of major economic resources and endangers the mental health of our children.Today marriage is a religious matter. Civil law on marriage is justified only to protect the rights of the weaker members of the relationship, the women and children. Since there is no weaker member in a gay relationship by definition there can be no rationale for government to intervene or to even recognize gay marriage. “Gay Marriage” does not exist because from a Civil standpoint it cannot exist.
It is a perfect oxymoron.