Hi Bob,
> ! maybe you could ask a question about what
> ! motivated the attack on this country, the event that
> started it all and ! has ! snowballed since, creating
> divisions among people that this thread ! complains ! about.
> I don't know if I've heard you ask the right questions in that ! dept.
>
> Let me guess: Because we support the "evil Zionist entity" in
> its conspiracy to dominate the world, and the poor oppressed
> Muslims decided they weren't going to take it anymore.
Why, I wonder, must you characterize this connection with inflammatory
language? Would you be using one of the standard-issue pre-emptive attacks
designed to end discussion?
Actually, I can think of an even more interesting question: "why isn't the
American media exploring and debating the Israel connection?". How can such
a relevant angle be so hushed-hushed? I see an MSNBC story today entitled
"terror Watch: Who's Really Behind Iraqi Insurgency?", but I can't find it's
obvious counterpart: "Terror Watch: Who's Really Behind the American
invasion?".
In fact, there is material out there, just none of it reaching the American
mainstream. To see for yourself, try a google on 'israel connection iraq'.
You'll see some very interesting arguments, but not a word from the WSJ, the
NYT, Wash Post, CNN, Fox, ABC, NBC, or any of the other major media sources.
That's more than just odd, considering that the media jumps on anything
controversial, and Israel does figure into both the reason for the attack on
America and the follow-up invasion of the ME. It seems to me that a whole
bunch of questions need answering.
No, I don't see a conspiracy to dominate the world, because I think that's
irrational, the kind of talk that deliberately confuses people, otherwise
known as "smoke". But, yes, it is very clear that the Muslims have decided
they weren't going to take it anymore. So, one part of your three part
answer to the unstated question is correct.
America is in dire need of recognition and discussion on the pros/cons of
the role Israel is playing in American policy. There is no doubt in my mind
that Israel has exercised considerable influence, yet it all manages to stay
completely off the radar within the so-called 'news' organizations most
American's get their 'truth' from.
Since this ME mess started, we've been told time and time again that we were
attacked because they hate us for our freedom, and I wouldn't even repeat
again the reasons given for the invasion of Iraq. Over time, it's become
clear that we've been spoon-fed lies and half-truths, which I call
deceitful. Seems to me that the American people, who are paying very dearly
for this giant and deepening mess have a right to at least know the truth.
When we go to the polls, we don't pull a lever saying we want to support
Israel, and there is scant discussion on the topic in campaigns (wasn't
mentioned once in the Presidential debates), but if we take a look at
Washington, one would think the whole bunch of them are on Israel's payroll.
Where did all this allegiance come from? Do they know something we (or at
least I) don't?
In case you might wonder what I'm personally after, it's simply not to be
subject to the power of any group. That includes the Catholic Church, the
IRA, Israel or anyone else that wants to do that. Live and let live is how I
see things. To the extent that there needs to be authority, let it be that
which the gov't holds by virtue of it's people explicitly granting it,
period. When I see the degree of influence Israel exercises over American
policy, I see something really wrong. How it got this way is one for the
history books, but we should be seeing it happening, and we're not.
> Is that what you want me to say, instead of pointing out how
> lunatic both the Left and the Islamofascists have gone in
> their irrational hatred of Bush and America, respectively?
It seems to me that you're just as irrational in your support for Bush.
Don't you think America has people a whole lot more qualified for the job
than either of these so-called choices? There is absolutely no doubt in my
mind that America has many people that are truly qualified. To see that
Kerry got this far tells me that our election process has been sold out.
> In reality, our entangled alliances have caused most of our
> foreign policy problems throughout our history. This was
> predicted. It is also the way of all flesh, apparently. None
> of this is justification for the behavior of the
> Islamofascists; nor is it an excuse---least of all---for the
> Democrats to hate Bush. They've had their grande Wilsonian
> visions and delusions in spades. Moreover each and every one
> of them were selling the Iraq WMD and need for regime change
> arguments before Bush even decided to run for President.
Agreed. We live in a transitional time, where the military approach is a bad
idea. In this new age, either we lead by example or we don't lead at all.
> The Islamofascists wouldn't feel the way they do about our
> foreign policy---indeed they wouldn't have the "issues" they
> do with Israel---if hate and years of cultural indoctrination
> in the methods and politics of hate had not darkened their hearts.
Don't totally relate to what you're saying, but okay ...
> Long term the answer is freedom and republican government. In
> the near term we have no choice that makes sense but to
> engage the radicals whose hearts cannot be changed and whose
> minds cannot be changed in mortal battle, wherever they are
> and whoever harbors or assists them.
People who think like this are putting our country and the world in a state
of paranoia and unnecessary risk. Can't you see that a "war on terror" makes
no sense at all? It's impossible to conduct a war when you can't even
identify the enemy and where people slip in and out of roles like ghosts.
History will no doubt record the "war on terror" as one of the most
nonsensical expressions of this century.
> Everybody points out how some of our "allies" opposed us. This fact alone
is the not
> end of the story. They were in many cases bought off, or had
> other political reasons for opposing us---and these are not
> irrelevant facts. Bush is the one who isn't stubbornly
> adhering to the fiction that our allies are allies, no matter
> what they do. If they actively work against us, and it is
> later learned their motives were pedestrian and indeed based
> purely on vouchers for oil---why are we obligated to pretend
> they are allies and let their greed affect our decision to
> act in our interests?
America's position with other countries depends upon how America treats
those countries. The degree of leadership provided is very important in this
equation.
> I believe they hate us for what we stand for, not just our
> policy. If you believe Bin Laden's attempt to make it about
> policy all of a sudden, then you're the one who needs the help.
Guess you haven't read what I've written before. I've believed it was our
policies all along.
> And because Bush unflappably stands for it, and because he
> openly expresses his honest faith in God (as opposed to
> faking it in the campaign season to court the Catholic vote),
> the Left despises him.
That's silly. I don't imagine for a moment that the "right" loves God and
the "left" hates God.
Oh, and which God would that be? The one Bush prays to, the one the Muslims
pray to, or ...
> They want more than anything for us to
> become yet another secular humanist and socialist third world
> hellhole, like everybody else. After all it just isn't fair
> that we have it so good. And there's a certain power in being
> a legislator in a command economy that you just don't have as
> a citizen legislator in a free republic.
I have no idea who "they" are that you refer to.
> Is George Bush the perfect president? Hell no. He's, as I've
> often conceded, a terrible speaker, especially off-the-cuff
> in front of a camera. But everyone who ever thought he was
> stupid has gotten their asses out-chessed by him time and
> again. He's checkmated himself into some bad policy
> decisions---the growth in entitlement programs is a really
> bad idea at a time when you need to cut taxes to stimulate
> the economy. I am not a fan of his social spending, all to
> protect what is essentially an insulting slogan
> ("compassionate conservative"---as of any other kind of
> conservative is by definition "uncompassionate").
Might want to give just a tad of consideration to our having gone from a
multi-trillion dollar budget surplus to a multi-trillion deficit, which is
where the real rubber is going to meet the road. There are incredible
consequences coming out of that mountain when it blows.
> Is he a saint? Hell no. But he's not the caricature of
> half-demon, half-idiot that the Left has painted and come to despise.
He may be the nicest guy in the world, but as President he has led this
country in very bad ways because he allowed special interests to get ahead
of the interests of the American people and the world at large.
Bill
> - Bob
>
©2004 Bill Arnold |
|
