Mass-murderer-worshipers, tax-cheats, ethically-challenged, "world-gummint"-admirers, bozo-science idolaters, and anti-child/anti-life bigots.
Those are just Obama's nominees and appointments--not to mention the A.G. who would destroy the Federal criminal justice system. Or his nonchalant attitude about 40,000 US troops he's left twisting in the Afghan wind.
Every day, a new and sometimes un-imaginable offsense to American sensibilities.
Waterboarding is a picnic in comparison.
More than 50 years of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East have done the opposite of reinforcing nonviolent methods. American presidents have consistently supported despotisms (e.g. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iran up until 1979, and even Saddam Hussein’s Iraq) and “democratic” oppression (e.g Israeli rule over the Palestinians). Even moderate opponents of U.S. policy were consistently ignored — or worse — by American policy-makers (e.g. a 1953 CIA led coup of the Iranian Prime Minister).
ReplyDeleteSo, as long as the U.S. government pursues its neo-imperialist policy in the Middle East, the advocates of violence will hold sway and will become increasingly popular. Most Iraqis think it is good to attack U.S. forces. No surprise there. The United States is an occupying power. Our history of bullying is in part responsible for the rise of Jihad by those Muslims who believe in that cause.
Oh, bullshit.
ReplyDeleteFirst off, you're not even close to being on point.
As to foreign policy: the US' policies are created for the National Interest of the USA. While such policies may have been flawed, they were not created and sustained explicitly to the detriment of other peoples.
And your short-take on the Israel/Palestine situation is laughably incomplete. Exactly where did "the Palestinians" come from, anony?
More than 50 years of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East have done the opposite of reinforcing nonviolent methods. American presidents have consistently supported despotisms (e.g. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iran up until 1979, and even Saddam Hussein’s Iraq) and “democratic” oppression (e.g Israeli rule over the Palestinians). Even moderate opponents of U.S. policy were consistently ignored — or worse — by American policy-makers (e.g. a 1953 CIA led coup of the Iranian Prime Minister).
ReplyDeleteSo, as long as the U.S. government pursues its neo-imperialist policy in the Middle East, the advocates of violence will hold sway and will become increasingly popular. Most Iraqis think it is good to attack U.S. forces. No surprise there. The United States is an occupying power. Our history of bullying is in part responsible for the rise of Jihad by those Muslims who believe in that cause.
Translation: wonk wonk wonk. I've been hearing that horseshit for thirty years. The problem is both islam and zionism not us. Like Dad29 said, where the hell did "Palestinians" come from anyway? Probably from the same place where the Narcissist in Chief keeps his birth certificate.
"The problem is both islam and zionism not us."
ReplyDeleteSpoken like a typical self-righteous fool. No wonder "our way" of life is "threatened". The real threats are neo-cons and theocrats. Wake up!
"While such policies may have been flawed, they were not created and sustained explicitly to the detriment of other peoples."
ReplyDeleteSo it's just "collateral damage", that's all.
I think the United States should then come up with a plan similar to "Operation Northwoods"
(1962). Why not? Might means right.
'Exactly where did "the Palestinians" come from, anony?'
Seriously, do some research and learn from history. Palestine is a geographic region between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordon River. It has also been refered to as the Land of Israel, Canaan, and the Holy Land. There are approximately 10 million Palestinians, with about half living in historic Palestine (Israel proper, West Bank, Gaza Strip). Palestine has been under the control of several groups--Assyrians, Byzantines, Romans, English. For centuries, there have been disputes between Christians, Jews, and Muslims over this area. A series of complicated deals, arrangements, and agreements prior and after World War I (McMahon-Hussein Correspondence, Damascas Protocol, Hogarth Message) supposedly would have established an Arab state in Palestine never materialized, and Palestinians have been working towards self-determination ever since. Violence has been the preferred method employed to secure their independence since the 1960's, with this strategy replacing pan-Arabism.
Whether or not Palestinians have a "legitmate" right to a homeland is another matter.
So it's just "collateral damage", that's all.
ReplyDeleteYes. Shit happens.
I'm not an advocate of "democracy for all" b/c I don't believe it is possible to establish democracy without the Judeao-Christian moral underpinnings.
So I'm not always in favor of US involvement. But when it's OUR national interests or someone ELSE'S, then there's no choice except in means/methods.
As to the Palestinians--perhaps they could be living happily in Jordan, where most of them came from, eh?
I, I forgot. The King of Jordan won't have them. They're just "collateral damage."
As to the Palestinians--perhaps they could be living happily in Jordan, where most of them came from, eh? I, I forgot. The King of Jordan won't have them. They're just "collateral damage."
ReplyDeleteA flippant remark, rather than a cogent response. Tighten up your prose. A Jordanian-West Bank union has been proposed, and King Abdullah has expressed an interest in this possibility in order to prevent a major Mideast war. Furthermore, Jordan has over 1.6 million Palestinian refugees and even allowed a significant number of non-refugee Palestinians to become Jordanian citizens. Hardly a sign of "not wanting them".
"I'm not an advocate of "democracy for all" b/c I don't believe it is possible to establish democracy without the Judeao-Christian moral underpinnings."
The ancient city-states of Greece, most notably Athens, created a democracy in which religion played a mimimal role in how it was structured and carried out.
So what is the relationship between religion and democracy? To what extent should religion impact the decisions made by citizens in a democracy? In our society, religion and politics hold, or should hold, two separate spheres. Religion may promote moral goodness, and moral goodness is certainly desirable in a community, but giving preference to the divine will (however determined) over the will of the people (through majority vote) is viewed as fundamentally undemocratic.
"To suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous fallacy which at once destroys all religious liberty, because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own." --Thomas Jefferson: Statute for Religious Freedom, 1779. ME 2:302, Papers 2: 546
I'll pass on a theocracy, thank you very little. Statism is much more in vogue!
Jordanian-West Bank union has been proposed, and King Abdullah has expressed an interest in this possibility in order to prevent a major Mideast war
ReplyDeleteMaintaining Israeli-territory integrity? And what of the "division" of Jerusalem? You don't think that's provocative?
...moral goodness is certainly desirable in a community, but giving preference to the divine will (however determined) over the will of the people (through majority vote) is viewed as fundamentally undemocratic.
I think that the 10 Commandments work very well as 'preferences' which should be generally enforceable for right order in society. No surprise that they were foreshadowed, more or less, by Aristotle & Co.; that's why Greek demos worked, for a time. We might argue that statutes against homosexual acts (adults only, please) or fornication (same restriction) can be foregone without damage to the State, and same for the command to 'worship the Lord.' But these are fine-tune quibbles.
Morality--specifically, an order to "do good"--cannot be imposed, nor enforced; it must be accepted. In fact, morality must be commonly-held and embraced. It should be visibly present in 'leaders'--bully pulpit and all that--b/c it is ideal, not necessarily 'commonly practiced.'
There must be an 'ideal,' which may as well be the 10 C's--nothing better has been devised except the Beatitudes, which are really 'ideals.'
That is, that the 10C's are the 'negatives' and the Beatitudes are the 'positives;' but only the 10C's are enforceable in civil law.
Statism is, of course, an imposition of the State's morals. Whatever regime is in place determines said 'morals.' That inevitably leads to repression and rebellion. It certainly is the objective of the Progressives who think they can replace morality with PC and other perverse variants. Insofar as 'regime-morals' will vary from regime to regime, an 'ideal' will no longer exist.
THAT is what leads to trouble.