Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why Does The Left Hate Western Civilization?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Why Does The Left Hate Western Civilization?

    "We've got to ask, why is this man (Osama bin Laden) so popular around the world?," said Murray, who faces re-election in 2004. "Why are people so supportive of him in many countries . . . that are riddled with poverty?

    "He's been out in these countries for decades, building schools, building roads, building infrastructure, building day care facilities, building health care facilities, and the people are extremely grateful. We haven't done that.

    "How would they look at us today if we had been there helping them with some of that rather than just being the people who are going to bomb in Iraq and go to Afghanistan?"

    Senator Patrick Murray (D-Wash)

    "With Trent Lott out of the GOP leadership, liberal blogger Joshua Micah Marshall turns his attention to the new majority leader, Bill Frist of Tennessee. In a Friday morning item, Marshall unearthed a Frist quote from his first Senate campaign, in 1994. Incumbent Democrat Jim Sasser, Frist said, was "sending Tennessee money to Washington, to Marion Barry. . . . While I've been transplanting lungs and hearts to heal Tennesseeans, Jim Sasser has been transplanting Tennesseeans' wallets to Washington, home of Marion Barry." Marion Barry was mayor of the capital from 1979 through 1990 and again from 1995 through 1999.

    In a follow-up item, Marshall explained the significance of the 1994 quote: It shows, Marshall says, that Frist seemed unable to resist "the temptation to dabble in racial code words and appeals on the stump."

    In reference to Lynn Stewart, the lawyer for one of the 1993 Twin Towers bombing co-defendants:

    "As Stewart got to know her new client, she came to see him as a fighter for national liberation on behalf of a people oppressed by dictatorship and American imperialism. She came to admire him personally too, for his honesty, his strength of character, his teasing humor.

    "I've made up my mind," the sheik would say. "I'm going to marry you, and that will solve everything."

    "And what do women get if they fight in jihad?" she would ask. . . ."

    "Anti-Jewish bloodlust is not the exclusive province of the Arabs. Britain's Guardian reports that Tom Paulin, an Oxford poet and "leading anti-Zionist," says Jewish settlers in the Middle East "should be shot dead." In an interview with an Egyptian weekly, he adds: "I can understand how suicide bombers feel. . . . I think attacks on civilians in fact boost morale."#

    So, breaking down the rhetoric, we have a. a US Senator who thinks that it's okay to kill 3000 people if you build a daycare center, b. thinks a political comment about funding a crack-head is a racist comment from a person who did, for many years, charity pediatric cardiac surgery, much of it on black children, c. a lawyer who thinks that bombing a building in New York will free people oppressed by dictatorships. And that, furthermore, it's just Jim-dandy to kill her fellow Americans. And finally, d. an Oxford poet that thinks that slaughtering innocent civilians deliberately is a good thing, as long as they're Jews, because it raises morale.

    So the question is: What is with the left?

    It can't be denied that many of them do drugs, but I don't think that's the crux of the reason. Smoking too much pot will make you stupid, but not this stupid. This is a special kind of stupidity that requires a real brain behind it. This is stupidity with suspenders.

    So let us follow the trail of their thoughts, delve into the inner recesses of this group that makes "Dumb and Dumber" look like "Einstein and Bohr", attempt to divine what is the key factor that binds wanting to go to bed with brutal dictators and hating decent hard working farmers who just want a little water for their crops.

    What is it that drives the liberal soul?

    The first part of the hypothesis is this: Much of the policy drive on the left comes from people with a great deal of money and their paid lackeys. They determine on a day to day basis what evil America is guilty of.

    The Republicans are supposed to be the "party of the fat-cats", but, in fact, if you look at donation patterns and projected wealth, by far and away more of the Democrat's money comes from "rich" people (top 5% of income) than Republican money does. Yes, the majority of their voters are not rich, their largest base voting group is underprivileged blacks, but that group, their voting base, does not contribute "theory" (or money) to the party, it just provides votes in exchange for government largesse of one form or
    another*.

    But the point is that the majority of the funding for the left comes from a relative handful of very rich people. That was painfully evident based on analysis of the legal battle over the 2000 election. A data base manager friend (who wasn't in agreement with my hypothesis) took my rough notes and showed that 80% of Gore's legal funding came from less than 10% of his supporters. In fact, 20% came from just two. Whereas Bush's support was so broadly spread that only one person stood out and his contribution was "double" the maxim Bush would accept from an individual. It looked as if the person had doubled up with someone and the second person was not recorded.

    Republican funding, therefore, is based upon the middle class, not the very rich. There are very rich Republicans and donators to the Republican party, without a doubt. But the basis of the party, both for funding and for voting, is middle class. And, furthermore, the same can be said for conservative institutions in general.

    On the contrary, a far higher percentage of Democratic funding comes from the very rich. And the same can be said of virtually any liberal institution.

    Now, the very rich are "different." But not in the way that most people think. The rich, especially but not entirely the "inheritance" rich, are often consumed by guilt. "Why me? Why am I so blessed that I have all this money?"

    I have recently run into this myself. My wife and I were "borderline" financial cases for years. Neither of us was exactly excelling in any career track. We were puttering along in low-gear. Oh, food was on the table but money was always extremely tight. And that described the vast majority of our friends.

    But through the success of my writing, in a relatively sudden fashion, that has changed. For years taking any sort of "real" vacation was out of the question for our family. As was large-scale discretionary spending. Now, I'm going diving next weekend and I just went out and did what I had dreamed about for...well years and years and years and years; I bought myself everything that I needed in SCUBA gear (like skiing gear but more expensive) in one solid, and solidly expensive, lump. And at Christmas I was finally able to get my wife the sort of jewelry I had wanted to get her since before we were married.

    Does this make me happy? Not as happy as I anticipated. Mostly, I'm feeling guilty. I think of many of my fans as friends, family. Fans just designed and constructed a role playing game for my main "universe." I go out to dinner with them. They promoted my books and turned up at Cons and signings when I was a virtual unknown so that strangers took notice and bought my books as well.

    But many of these same fans are out of work or perennially on the margin. At least half of the people that did the RPG fell into that category. These are my friends. Other friends, in one case closer than a sister, closer in many ways than my wife, are out of work. And does that make me happy? No, it makes me feel guilty.

    "Why me? Why are all my dreams coming true when friends are having a hard time?"

    This trip down guilt-lane had a point. My sister's girlfriend (yes, I said that correctly) is inheritance rich. She is also fiscally conservative and a Republican but she grew up with the "rich-rich", the oh so discrete and oh so old Southern money that dates back to cotton picked by slaves. And most of her generation, at least, is consumed by guilt. "Why me? Why am I so rich? Why can't everybody be this way?" And they are all on the hard end of the Left. They may live in Alabama, but Neil Young speaks for them, not Lynyrd Skynyrd.

    I now understand that at a level I didn't before. (Understand, not agree. To know all is not to forgive all.) I also understand, I think, people like Alec Baldwin and Barbara Streissand. They're not intelligent except from a "make change, come in out of the rain and check the balance sheet" point of view. They are not able to follow logic puzzles more complex then "where's my driver", nor are they the sort to spend much of their time researching or trying to see the true nature of things. And they are so constantly surrounded by people who say "Oh, yes, Alec, you're absolutely right!" that they think that they can never be wrong. See the movie "Get Shorty" and watch the omelet scene. Then think of that omelet scene in politics.

    And because all of this largesse came upon them suddenly, they're consumed by "why me" guilt. "Why me? Why can't that homeless guy on the corner be as well off as I???**"

    "Why me" guilt is a form of survivor's guilt, except in this case it's "succeedor's guilt." "I have succeeded and I don't always believe that I should have. Others have fallen by the roadside. I must feel guilty about this." Throw in the fact that artistes are supposed to suffer and you can get a real synergistic crying jag going.

    So the starting point and the basis of their liberal wails of anguish always and always is guilt. Guilt, guilt, guilt.

    Now, guilt is a normal human emotion. It probably has a strong genetic basis. Cooperation is the real way that humans beat out leopards. So when you break cooperation, there is a negative dissonance. At the level of five people in a small group of sub-humanoids, breaking cooperation is eating an extra toothsome grub. That means that somebody has done without the toothsome grub that you were supposed to offer to share.

    At the level of a technological, post-industrial, hyper-civilization, breaking cooperation is riding in your limo past a guy who is pushing a cart down the street and muttering to himself.

    Now, I mentioned that the basis of their voting, blacks (and to a lesser extent other minorities, teachers and labor), don't contribute much in the way of theory. If any of them do it is labor and labor's theory is essentially income distribution. This fits well with the rich-rich because they can afford lawyers to make sure they use every loophole, lobbyists to ensure there are more loopholes every year and when they do finally sign the check to the government it's not like it means the difference between eating out and not eating out. Even at Spazos.

    But they still feel the guilt. As they look out from their crystalline windows at Hollywood spread below them. As they stare down from their Park Avenue penthouses. As they shop on Rodeo Drive or in Palm Beach, the specter follows them everywhere. Guilt. Poor. Homeless. Pollution. Deforestation. Global Warming. Guilt, guilt, guilt.

    Now, if they were religious, there would be various outlets. One outlet is talking about it openly. And if someone can say "it's not your fault but since you feel that way, do this and it will make it very much not your fault" that really works. How that works in the Catholic Church is "you're right, the homeless is a terrible problem. Say five Hail Mary's and go work at the soup kitchen on Saturday and I'll give you absolution. Go forth and sin no more."

    But since they cannot find absolution, going to psychiatrists is pointless for that they just tell you you have to absolve yourself, the guilt cannot be their fault. Something has to break, either they are responsible for the problems of the whole world, clearly not the case, or someone else is responsible. It can't be something within themselves saying "I'm not worthy." And it's not as if they can assuage themselves through actual sacrifice. I don't see Barbara Streissand or Alec Baldwin selling all their worldly goods and giving all the money to the poor. And even if they did, they tell themselves, it wouldn't make a dent in the problem. It's not their fault! But something is wrong! So.

    So it has to be someone else's fault. People are poor, there is global warming, pollution is destroying the face of the earth, the world is becoming deforested. Someone must be in charge and whoever they are they are at fault!

    They could just seize on any available target; in a previous age it would have been the fault of the poor. I mean, they're poor because they're stupid or they're poor because they don't have "good" blood. They were born under an evil star, that's why they're poor. They're also responsible for the deforestation and the pollution (which is actually true, more on that later.)

    But this doesn't work in an age of egalitarianism. "All men are equal except women who are superior." This generation was raised in the era of Woodstock when the Great Society was all the rage. The poor are David faced with the Goliath of the world. Therefore they cannot be responsible, in any way, for their predicament. There has to be another reason. A reason that makes sense to their poor, tired, artistic souls.

    Thus, when some intellectual comes forward and gives them a reason that fits with their preconceptions, that intellectual is brilliant. And, remember, they have money to burn. So they give it to the intellectual.

    "Hello, my name is Noam and I have the answer to all your problems. It's all the fault of the evil Americans, the bad conservative ones that fill the airwaves with their lies and are in power and want to oppress the world. There. Now give me money so that I can soothsay again and assuage your guilt."

    Thus we have the intellectual left. In an age of reason or in an age of kings for that matter, some dweeb with a bad goatee and a beret spouting that the masses (virtually all of whom are reasonably over fed, have a color TV and a roof over their head, with heat or air conditioning as appropriate) are being oppressed by the capitalist society that creates those conditions would be laughed out of town. Especially if he held up Marxism, which universally has led to infinitely worse conditions for all but a favored few, as the ultimate answer. (Logic shows that while laissez faire capitalism and democracy are not perfect, they're so much better than the alternatives it's hilarious. The economic answer to the world's problems is John Adams, not Marx.)

    But, clearly, the poor are downtrodden. How else to explain the street people that they see as they ride past in their limousines and SUVs?

    The greatest test of a man's intelligence is said to be when he agrees with you. And the intellectual left agrees with these people that the poor are downtrodden and need help. Furthermore, they have an answer to the problem. The problem is the whole corrupt system. A system where people unfairly oppress the masses and gather riches to themselves without let or hindrance. It's the whole rotten capitalist system of which America is the most nefarious example.

    Now, given that America as currently run is, therefore, inherently evil, all that it does must be evil. They don't use the word, but that is what they clench to themselves in their heart of hearts. America is the Great Satan, Sauron, all the evil empires of history that have oppressed the masses and turned people into serfs and beggars. Laissez faire capitalism is nothing less than a fancy way of saying "let them eat cake***." Or, worse, "let them starve."

    Now, carrying the logic to its conclusion, that means that in a world of black and white, where America is, by definition, the bad guy, anybody who opposes America is the good guy.

    Let me lay that out again. America is evil because it has not fixed every single one of its social ills. Therefore, anything having to do with America is evil. And anything that opposes America is good.

    The same, to a lesser extent, can be said about all of Western Society.

    Thus we have the specter of people who challenge the US on its "human rights abuses" (such as condemning to death a "leftist intellectual" who shot a police officer or arresting another "revolutionary intellectual" for setting a bomb in the Capitol) supporting Saddam Hussein who rapes daughters while their fathers are forced to watch and then kills them by lowering them into vats of acid.

    The crux of the matter is guilty, "filthy rich bahstahds with too much f**king money" and the fact that they don't have a need to engage their own brains. They, by and large, have no need to actually figure the world out to make money. They just have to either clip coupons or sing another song with no lyrics but lots of production values. And feel guilty, loudly, in public.

    So they have funded two generations of leftist intellectuals to posture and pout and rant and come up with logic chains that go into some weird alternate reality black hole where vicious dictators that torture, maim and kill are good and a kindly, Christian, determined, righteous, common-sense man from Texas is a vicious, evil moron.

    There are those amongst this broad group that are both intelligent and wise. But you can distinguish them, usually, by the fact that they don't equate the West with evil. They recognize its faults (as do I) and think that it needs some tweaking. They generally don't act as if the world is going to come to an end if America spreads its society to countries that are trying to kill us. They generally think that the broad concepts of Western Civilization are good enough that they should be spread as wide as possible.

    In other cases, people can make the (understandable) statement that "I'm neither rich nor an intellectual and I believe those things!" These people are generally, but not always, young. Well, if you're just learning about the world and you are fed a steady diet of propaganda, or if you're just not much of a thinker and you're spread a steady diet of propaganda, then you tend to go with the Groupthink. And the majority of the media is driven by the same liberal groupthink until what you have is a resonance harmonic set up. Thus you have Peter Jennings unwilling to wear the American flag and journalists refusing to call terrorists terrorists but willing to call America "evil."

    "There are poor (environmental problems/homophobes/racists/whathaveyou) in America. America therefore does not care about the poor (insert other topics du jour). Therefore America is evil. Therefore anyone who opposes America is good. Therefore Saddam Hussein is good."

    The reality of the poor being better off in America (or other Western culture societies) than anywhere else in the world does not phase their arguments. It's a moot point to them. Ditto the others. The communist countries had the worst environmental record in the world; the only saving grace was that they were so inefficient they couldn't do more damage. Orphans in America get clothing stipends and Christmas gifts that when Karin and I were "just making it" often had us green with envy. In Romania they were chained to their beds and fed a bowl of gruel a day. The reason you don't see "homeless" in Iraq is that they are all in prison or murdered by the government.

    None of that matters. This is the evil that they see. The fact that you can't fix everything, that no society is God, that overall, by and large, society is better off if people have the freedom to fail as well as succeed, is moot. They see the evil and they must fight it. The evil is in America, therefore it is America that is evil.

    Rabid anti-Semitism, terrorism, acts of unspeakable brutality, none of it matters as long as the people committing the acts are anti-American. America and all it represents, capitalism, "opportunity" that permits the aggressive to get richer and richer, the raping of the environment by putting in tacky strip-malls and chock-a-block housing developments, all of it is evil and it must be destroyed.

    Even if, in something regarding functional reality, the desire stems from nothing but a sort of bastardized survivor's guilt.

    "Why me? Why am I not sleeping on a grate?"

    Because your mother and father didn't carry the wrong genes. Because you were raised in a decent environment, brought to you by your mother and father and this great country, this great civilization, that you despise. Because of all the generations of human beings, we few, we lucky lucky few, by the grace of our forefathers and the blood of our elders, and the sweat of our contemporaries who don't think this is an evil land and venture forth to do rough justice to the men who would do us harm, brought us forth this
    wonderful gift called freedom and all that it entails, including the freedom to fail.

    And the Left looks upon it in horror.

    Lord save us from the guilty that cannot find absolution. We now have an eighth deadly sin.



    # Examples culled from various Opinion Journal "Best of the Web Today."

    *Including clout that prevents governmental interference that would drop like a hammer on other groups. Eg, letting black churches be used for political purposes without losing tax funding.

    ** Answer: Because he's a treatable schizophrenic that nonetheless will not stay on his pills. So half the time he's in another world. His family has tried to help him, but the only reasonable answer is some sort of implanted device or incarceration. Neither sits well with "the powers that be."

    So he holds up a sign that says "Will work for food" meaning "give me money for beer" and mutters to himself all day long.

    ***By the way, like Wellington's comments about soldiers, Marie Antoinette has been unfairly maligned. She was that century's version of Barbara Streissand, a person of prominence who had gotten there not by intellectual or business work but through methods that required no degree of intelligence or perspicacity. The remark stemmed from a famine that was happening in and around Paris. As part of an early liberal attitude, the king had instituted price caps on foodstuffs. "Clearly the people are suffering because of the price-gouging bakers."

    Since there was a famine and the price of wheat was sky-high, the price caps meant that a baker paid more for materials than he could charge for the bread. So the bakers stopped baking even what flour they had and did not order more. However, the king, clever fellow that he was, had ordered that if bread was not available, bakers were required to substitute other, more expensive, foodstuffs that they had in stock. Such as cake. Thus she was making a reasonable statement. "If they have not bread, let them eat cake." Which, if the bakers were making that, should have been an alternate. Since there was a famine and ham-handed price controls, there was no such alternative. But within the information she had, "Darling, I have solved the problem by telling the bakers they must substitute cake at bread prices", it made tremendous sense. If you're a complete idiot.

    Like I said, much like Barbara Streissand. Detached doesn't begin to explain it. But guilty? Yes.



    John Ringo is a science fiction author and Fox News Military Color Commentator. His newest novel, March to the Stars, is available in hardcover wherever fine books are sold. Contact: [email protected]
    "Lord... forgive me my actions, speech and thoughts. Because, Lord, I am seriously going to kick some unrighteous ass in Your Name, Amen."
    Princess of Wands by John Ringo (Jan 2006)

    http://www.baen.com/chapters/W200601...9232.htm?blurb

  • #2
    This is long enough that I normally've just posted a link, but the forum that it was orginally submitted to has a rapid turnover of messages and would be unavailable after a few days.

    http://bar.baen.com/read?73760,22
    "Lord... forgive me my actions, speech and thoughts. Because, Lord, I am seriously going to kick some unrighteous ass in Your Name, Amen."
    Princess of Wands by John Ringo (Jan 2006)

    http://www.baen.com/chapters/W200601...9232.htm?blurb

    Comment


    • #3
      Great article.
      Editor-in-Chief
      GameSquad.com

      Comment


      • #4
        I hope Mr. Ringo's science fiction is better than his political commentary. I feel guilty because I could hardly get through the whole thing

        There seems to be divergence in opinion on the Right as to whether the great flaw of the Left is guilt or envy. I've seen both put forth as the fatal flaw, but these flaws are mutually exclusive. We must either divide the Left into camps, or come up with different theories about their hatefulness. Call these camps the guilt faction and the envy faction. In this theory the Left is a coalition of the guilty haters and the envious haters, formed to hate western Civilization.

        This unified theory allows both factions of haters into the Left. Plus it leaves room to add other haters as we can identify them. We may even want to move some of the haters in the Right over into the Left as they may feel more at home in the hate coalition. I am sure the Left would welcome them, as hate seems to be the only link between the factions in the coalition of haters known as the Left.

        I don't know about you guys, but I'm really beginning to hate the dribble that is passing as politcal debate these days.
        And we are here as on a darkling plain
        Swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight,
        Where ignorant armies clash by night.


        Matthew Arnold

        Comment


        • #5
          I don't know,hasn't it been a cornerstone of "leftist" policy that the west in general and America in particular has been the source of all the worlds problems,for at least 30(?)years now.

          Once upon a time there was peace and happiness all across the globe...until the evil and barbaric Europeans ,who according to leftist thinking never had a truely great culture or any advancements that they didn't steal off of other peoples,came rampaging forth from their backwards and filth encrusted continent to spread war,discord,and disease(which once again no other people had experienced before they came into contact with these beasts)to all the world.many years later the troll of Europeanism was vanquished and all the peoples of the world went back to living together peacefully and working to build a better world until alas the ogre that is America came and made them live in a poverty stricken and war torn world. now it is only Americas fault that these people live the way they do and if only they would be left alone they could go back to living in the utopia that was created before the west destroyed the world.

          Idiotic wasn't that?So's the view from the left

          Comment


          • #6
            So the point is what? John Ringo hates the left as much as he complains about the left hating the right. This solves what? The left always hates the right, and the right always hates the left. The left misunderstands the right, and the right misunderstands the left. What else is new? Political systems in any extreme fail, whether they're left or right. The real evil is fundamentalism, whether left or right.

            An interesting article. I only wish he had something constructive to say. What are some of the solutions to his 'problem', other than poking fun?

            Comment


            • #7
              Wait a minute...

              Hello,

              The real evil is fundamentalism, whether left or right.

              Excuse me? I do believe in some fundamental rights, and I think some of the fundamentalist beliefs are actually good for us in general.

              Are you going to call me evil because I support such beliefs?

              Look, I know, at times in my posts all over this forum, I have displayed a lack of empathy or understanding for some leftists, especially those who oppose the impending war with Iraq. But never, have I called those people evil, though at times, I must admit they do irritate me quite a bit.

              I don't believe in taking very extreme measures, for example, supporting an antiabortionist murdering a doctor who performed abortions, I don't condone such behaviors at all. However, what I feel is that both Left and Right are struggling to come terms together.

              For example, from my viewpoint, the Left is attempting to force the policy of tolerance on us, and trying to open up our minds to so-called "diversity" in hopes of gaining new respect for peace. This is extremely dangerous, because the Left refuses to take in the reality of this world. In short, the Left is trying to tell us the sky is red when it's actually blue, this is absurd.

              On the other hand, the Right wants to hold onto the conservative values, and doesn't react to the changes very well. Both the Right and Left have some valid points.

              We need to find some kind of peace so that both powerful forces can co-exist easily.

              The Left is asking us to make some outrageous compromises, demanding us to do this or that. I only wish that the Left would face the reality of this world. Saddam is not complying with the UN resolutions, nor he has ever displayed a real genuine desire for peace. If it were so, then we would not have this problem today, with the American troops moving in rapidly and ready for the invasion of Iraq. Saddam is responsible for all of this. Moreover, let us not forget that the inspectors discovered 11 unaccounted empty chemical weapons (the rockets). Where are the other remaining ones that were supposedly destroyed years ago?

              The Left doesn't want us to face the reality that the peace itself is not always the answer. If it were so, then we would never have the wars we have today. The appeasement of Hitler proved the theory of peace being the answer wrong. The diplomacy can only work if the force is used properly, not ignoring it completely. I believe the Left has lost the sight of this important fact.

              I don't really want to wait around to find out whatever Saddam has dropped his ambitions in craving up the pieces of Middle East for himself. I don't want to wait around to find out whether Saddam will launch chemica, biological, or nuclear weapons on his neighbors, Israel, or on us. I don't want this, this is simply a case of preventive medicine. I want America to launch pre-emptive strike aimed in dislodging Saddam. If you or the Left don't like this, then too bad. The last 12 years only proved that Saddam is not willing to cooperate with us fully as long it's not in his interest to do so.

              You have to thank the Right for making this to happen. Had the Bush administration not pushed hard for the return of inspectors, it is likely that Saddam would have gone on pursuing the developments of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons without any real fear of the world's wrath. Now, are you saying that the Israel was wrong to order a pre-emptive strike on the Iraqi nuclear reactor? Had Israel not done that, then Saddam would have a couple of real nuclear bombs ready to use on his Iranian enemies. Had Israel not done that, and allowed the diplomacy to act out, then Saddam would have just laughed at us, ignoring us completely.

              The Left wants us to give the peace a try, that's fine with me, but just be sure to understand that the peace doesn't always work very well. I only ask the Left stop being self-righteous, feeling that it has to gone on some moral high ground, and thinking superior to us.

              It's not just about Saddam, but many other issues. The Left has been very vocal in its beliefs, and trying to force its beliefs on us, the supporters of Right. The Left is asking us to give up our beliefs because we're not necessarily tolerant of its beliefs.

              I remember a time when I had a stange conservation with a liberal, a moderate one, mind you, discussing about homosexaulity. I told him, it's wrong and perverted to me, and it's not about sexual orientation but preference. Now, this liberal, told me, "You're real sicko, some being a fundamentalist, you have to be open to homosexuality, etc." In back of my mind, I say to myself, "What is this? He is asking me to be tolerant of his beliefs, but what about me? Don't I have a right to ask somebody to be tolerant of my conservative values?"

              The fact is that the Left is ignoring the Right's right to ask somebody be tolerant of the Right's conservative beliefs. Where do the Right have a real voice in this world? Sadly, as 21st century continues on, the force of liberalism is taking the world by horns, completely routing the conservatives, and demanding us to accept such liberal beliefs. Today, the conservatives are being looked down, and considered dangerous to everybody.

              Since when being a conservative fundamentalist whose life has been following the law to best of his or her ability dangerous and a real threat to the world?

              Sorry for this long post, but it's IMHO.

              Thanks,
              Dan
              Major James Holden, Georgia Badgers Militia of Rainbow Regiment, American Civil War

              "Aim small, miss small."

              Comment


              • #8
                I think it's time we cut the political correctness and get real. Everybody, whether it's Europe or the United States, are selfish. Europe doesn't care about Saddam because they have little to fear from him. The US didn't care about Rwanda because we knew the conflict wouldn't spread to any level concerning us.

                If we drop the Patroitism and look at the simple facts, you'll see I'm correct. The only reason you had a Coalition in 1990 was because the world, particularly Europe were committed to shaping "the New Order." Events in Europe has changed their status. Now they are just as selfish as we are.

                My problem with Europe is that it wants to be relevant, yet not do it's part to influence policy. I don't recall Bush Sr, or Bush Jr putting a gun to the UN Security Council and forcing them to sign the RESO's. If they don't want to honor their agreements, it's their right. However, in an effort to save face, many governments seem to have developed sudden amnesia, or just senselessly screamed it's wrong, yet ignoring the facts. Everyone is throwing stones, but not looking at the pitcher nearest them.

                How soon have we fogotten Kosovo. The last time I checked, we didn't have UN approval, but NATO went ahead anyway. So the ideal that the US can't act without UN approval is pure politically motivated BS.

                It's time the politicians drop the ethical notion that a world body is needed to get anything done. The UN will never amount to anything as long as everyone has a "me first and screw the rest" policy. Alliances should not by the best argument or the side with the most money. Each nation should look at the situation from an individual basis and join others who share their views or sit back and urge calm.

                Almost every European nation has elected to render the UN irrelevant at somepoint or another in the past sixty years or so. And you know what? They had a right to. No one said anything because they either supported the action or didn't care.

                If Europe has turned into an anti-American society, that's their right. However, when throwing stones, many of these people should ask what have they done to further peace other than hold up a sign. Vanity is a horrible sin, but it is forever linked to foriegn policy.

                I think it's time Europe and the world looked at themselves and where they're are, and not where they want to be. The US doesn't need ten more Resolutions that are repeats of the first dozen or so. We don't need to wait another twelve years to validate the conclusions drawn from the first. And we don't need Germany, France, and several other nations whining on the battlefield because they found out their troops will be cover the right flank instead of protecting the rear.

                If anything, the one thing I've learned is that we are all very selfish. We could care less about our allies. There's nothing wrong with that as long as you admit it. Bush should, and so should the rest. Let's form alliances based on each other's vital interest, and not a false sense of morality that only results in young men dying for causes their people didn't support.
                "As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy."-Christopher Dawson - The Judgement of Nations, 1942

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Wait a minute...

                  Originally posted by Cheetah772

                  Excuse me? I do believe in some fundamental rights, and I think some of the fundamentalist beliefs are actually good for us in general.

                  Are you going to call me evil because I support such beliefs?


                  I guess I wasn't clear enough. What I meant was fundamentalism in terms of an un-compromising belief in a single ideal. For instance, there are some Arab Fundamentalists who will accept nothing less than the destruction of the Israeli state. On the other hand, there are Israeli Fundamentalists, who will do everything they can to prevent a fully independant Palestinian state. These forms of fundmentalism are largely the cause of Mid-East unrest.

                  While some beliefs, such as democracy are generally good, a fundamentalist approach to democracy is not good. You can't force people to be democratic, because that's not democracy. What if people choose to have less democracy?


                  For example, from my viewpoint, the Left is attempting to force the policy of tolerance on us, and trying to open up our minds to so-called "diversity" in hopes of gaining new respect for peace. This is extremely dangerous, because the Left refuses to take in the reality of this world. In short, the Left is trying to tell us the sky is red when it's actually blue, this is absurd.


                  I agree, one cannot force tolerance. I do believe though, that generally in life, an open mind is something positive, at least that has been my experience. And I think our society in general advocates having a relatively open mind, but you're right, tolerance should not be forced.


                  The Left doesn't want us to face the reality that the peace itself is not always the answer. If it were so, then we would never have the wars we have today. The appeasement of Hitler proved the theory of peace being the answer wrong. The diplomacy can only work if the force is used properly, not ignoring it completely. I believe the Left has lost the sight of this important fact.


                  I believe in the old saying: "Walk softly, and carry a big stick". I do not suggest appeasing our enemies. Appeasing Hitler failed miserably. On the other hand, how would you back up a pre-emptive attack on Nazi Germany? In the mid 1930s, no one could even imagine the atrocities and bloodshed that would arrive within a decade. It was not obvious Hitler was going to assasinate 6 million Jews. Yes he was anti-semetic, and yes he made vague mentions of 'Lebensraum', but I don't think anybody could have known the true implications.

                  Conditions such as the Treaty of Versailles, forcing Germany to change through shame, poverty, and defenslessness, only served to enrage the German people, allowing a character such as Hitler to rise to power. In this case, perhaps a more constructive approach by the victorious Allies could have prevented the rise of Nazism in Germany.


                  I want America to launch pre-emptive strike aimed in dislodging Saddam.


                  If Saddam is dislodged, what then? Saddam was pro-West when he can to power, and look what happened. I would actually support a pre-emptive strike, if we were fully determined to do it for the benefit of the Iraqi people. I don't think it should be about WMDs, oil, dictatorship, etc. It should be about allowing the Iraqi people greater self-determination. My biggest fear, is that after Saddam is toppled, a new 'pro-West' dictator gains power, and nothing is really solved.


                  You have to thank the Right for making this to happen. Had the Bush administration not pushed hard for the return of inspectors, it is likely that Saddam would have gone on pursuing the developments of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons without any real fear of the world's wrath.


                  True, we should thank Bush for pushing to send back the inspectors. I only hope this was not done simply to buy time for the US military to build-up and prepare for an attack. Sometimes I think Bush wants to go to war no matter what happens. If Bush truely wanted the inspectors to find nothing, good for him then.


                  Sadly, as 21st century continues on, the force of liberalism is taking the world by horns, completely routing the conservatives, and demanding us to accept such liberal beliefs. Today, the conservatives are being looked down, and considered dangerous to everybody.


                  Funny, because it seems to me the left feels itself declining, its beliefs joked at, and being overun by the powers of unbridled capitalism. So there are obviously popular misconsecptions on both sides about the other.


                  Since when being a conservative fundamentalist whose life has been following the law to best of his or her ability dangerous and a real threat to the world?


                  I hope I clarified my definition of Fundamentalism earlier. Strong beliefs are essential, but IMHO, compromise is also essential in any human relationship. You don't ignore your family's or your friends beliefs (nor does one ignore the beliefs of other nations and societies), but you also don't need to give up your own beliefs.

                  I get frustrated when people in the left ignore what the right has to offer, and when people on the right refuse to belive the left has anything to offer. No single way is the best way. There has to be some form of compromise, to a greater or lesser extent. After all, human civilization is constantly evolving and expanding knowledge, so if there was only a single way of doing things, wouldn't that mean the psychological end of human civilization?

                  That's just how I see things.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Re: Wait a minute...

                    Some very interesting points Martin, but I have to take a stab at a couple of them.

                    Originally posted by Martin Schenkel
                    I believe in the old saying: "Walk softly, and carry a big stick". I do not suggest appeasing our enemies. Appeasing Hitler failed miserably. On the other hand, how would you back up a pre-emptive attack on Nazi Germany? In the mid 1930s, no one could even imagine the atrocities and bloodshed that would arrive within a decade. It was not obvious Hitler was going to assassinate 6 million Jews. Yes he was anti-Semitic, and yes he made vague mentions of 'Lebensraum', but I don't think anybody could have known the true implications.


                    Except, of course, the part where he wrote a book explaining in gruesome detail exactly how he intended to annihilate whole sections of Europe's population? And that his speeches over and over again told the world what his intentions were? I wish it was as you say Martin, but the cold hard truth of the matter is that Hitler told us exactly what he was going to do and how is was going to do it. We listened, but we refused to hear what we didn't want to hear. We can be forgiven to an extent. After all, we look at the world through the eyes of rational human beings, not through the eyes of a murderous tyrant.

                    Yes, there really are bad people in the world who will do great evil if left unchecked. Analogy: if a man enters my house and is about to kill my children, I don't need to let him kill at least one before I act. I don't know what the laws are in Europe, but in the US I would shoot that man as dead as hell. France should have defended herself when she had the chance. Now perhaps it was more "legally" correct to wait until after she had been invaded to fight back, but the price of such proof was very rich. Some still might argue that a pre-emptive policy is wrong based on pure theology or moral grounds. But let me ask you this: are you willing to wait for such proof if the price is your own son? Your daughter? Your wife?

                    Having said that, the only conditions that justify the consideration of a pre-emptive military action are the most dire of threats.

                    Conditions such as the Treaty of Versailles, forcing Germany to change through shame, poverty, and defenselessness, only served to enrage the German people, allowing a character such as Hitler to rise to power. In this case, perhaps a more constructive approach by the victorious Allies could have prevented the rise of Nazism in Germany.


                    I don't think many people would argue that the Allies could have done some things differently. But let's keep one thing in mind: the Allies didn't create that whole situation, so whatever happened there was mostly the fault of one nation.

                    Although the conditions imposed on Germany were harsh, that isn't an excuse for what happened later. Exterminating millions of people had nothing to do with a bad economy or lack of jobs. Hitler exploited that situation and twisted it to his own advantage. A jury might take pity on a man who grew up in a poor abusive house, but that doesn't give him the right to murder or rob his neighbors when he grows up.

                    If Saddam is dislodged, what then? Saddam was pro-West when he can to power, and look what happened.
                    Let's put this bit into proper context shall we. Saddam was never an "ally" of Britain or America. Iran overthrew the Shah in a violent coup and established a fundamentalist Muslim state. The new leadership immediately set about rounding up dissidents and kidnapping British and American citizens and holding them for ransom. Most of the West had been on reasonably decent terms with the Shah of Iran and feared that violent Islamic forces would take over much of the middle east and destabilize it. The whole industrialized world depended on the resources it provided.

                    When Iraq invaded Iran Saddam was condemned by much of the world, but when it looked like Iran might actually overrun Iraq and establish a huge oil-rich state that would easily be the dominant power in the region - it was time to act. Many nations gave Saddam a small bit of help. America's main contribution was to share satellite data of Iranian troop dispositions so that Saddam could stave off another human wave invasion. It worked and the war ended about where it had begun. It's a distortion of the truth to say that Saddam was ever an ally or had a close relationship with the major Western powers (other than buying his oil).

                    I would actually support a pre-emptive strike, if we were fully determined to do it for the benefit of the Iraqi people. I don't think it should be about WMDs, oil, dictatorship, etc. It should be about allowing the Iraqi people greater self-determination.


                    So you're saying if it's in our own best interests we can't attack Saddam? Only if there is no direct threat to ourselves or our vital interests will you approve of military action? That's 100% backwards in my view. I'm a soldier and if I'm going to lose my life in this whole thing it has to be because my family or my country are threatened. I feel the Iraqi peoples' pain and I truly hope they establish a decent form of government where they can live in peace and prosperity, however, I'm not willing to risk my life for them. American and British boys shouldn't be dying to do a job that Iraqi boys should be doing for themselves...

                    My biggest fear, is that after Saddam is toppled, a new 'pro-West' dictator gains power, and nothing is really solved.


                    Agreed. That's why I remain skeptical of this whole mission.

                    [b]I get frustrated when people in the left ignore what the right has to offer, and when people on the right refuse to believe the left has anything to offer. No single way is the best way. There has to be some form of compromise, to a greater or lesser extent. After all, human civilization is constantly evolving and expanding knowledge, so if there was only a single way of doing things, wouldn't that mean the psychological end of human civilization?
                    [b]

                    I agree 99% with that. However, there is always the 1% of issues that can be worth fighting for. On some issues there can be no compromise. Abortion for example. You're either for it or against. You can't have "half an abortion."

                    I heard an interesting comment from Secretary Rumsfeld today. A reporter stated that a whole lot of people simply don't believe that there is a strong enough case against Iraq to go to war. Rumsfeld replied that this is probably a fair comment because the president has not decided that war is necessary and therefore has not made a case for it yet. He further stated that if the president were to come to that conclusion he would certainly bring his case before the world.

                    As of right now there are a lot of people that need to relax. President Bush has done every single thing the Europeans have asked him to do. He has stated repeatedly that no decision has been made and that there is no timetable for making a decision on war. He has informed Saddam that "time is running out," but so far there has been no other action. Troops have been repositioned in case they are needed, but that also shows Saddam that this isn't a bluff. The anti-war crowd doesn't has much to complain about right now except that they don't like the tone of President Bush's voice.
                    Editor-in-Chief
                    GameSquad.com

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Re: Re: Wait a minute...

                      Originally posted by Don Maddox
                      Except, of course, the part where he wrote a book explaining in gruesome detail exactly how he intended to annihilate whole sections of Europe's population? And that his speeches over and over again told the world what his intentions were? I wish it was as you say Martin, but the cold hard truth of the matter is that Hitler told us exactly what he was going to do and how is was going to do it. We listened, but we refused to hear what we didn't want to hear. We can be forgiven to an extent. After all, we look at the world through the eyes of rational human beings, not through the eyes of a murderous tyrant.
                      It's true that Hitler wrote 'Mein Kampf' but nobody believed that he could really mean this serious. Up until 1944 shortly before the first KZs were liberated nobody believed that Hitler germany could really have done these horribleness, including the USA, Russia and probably large parts of the german citizens.
                      Saddam is not telling the world that he's about to unleash another war, he's only saying that the USA will suffer terrible if they'll attack him. Oh, and before he attacked Kuwait he even asked the US diplomat in Baghdad and she told him that the USA couldn't care less about how the gulf states resolve their problems.

                      Yes, there really are bad people in the world who will do great evil if left unchecked. Analogy: if a man enters my house and is about to kill my children, I don't need to let him kill at least one before I act. I don't know what the laws are in Europe, but in the US I would shoot that man as dead as hell. France should have defended herself when she had the chance. Now perhaps it was more "legally" correct to wait until after she had been invaded to fight back, but the price of such proof was very rich. Some still might argue that a pre-emptive policy is wrong based on pure theology or moral grounds. But let me ask you this: are you willing to wait for such proof if the price is your own son? Your daughter? Your wife?
                      I guess the correct analogy would be that a convicted burglar is walking in front of your house and you shoot him dead without proof because you suspect him that he's planing to break into your house or somebodies else house or that he might tell other ppl how they can break into houses.


                      But let's keep one thing in mind: the Allies didn't create that whole situation, so whatever happened there was mostly the fault of one nation.
                      I guess that most historican would disagree here, Hitler used the 'Shame of Versailles' as a reason for his policy to rearm and rebuild the army. And the Marshall plan proves that it can be done differently.

                      Although the conditions imposed on Germany were harsh, that isn't an excuse for what happened later. Exterminating millions of people had nothing to do with a bad economy or lack of jobs. Hitler exploited that situation and twisted it to his own advantage. A jury might take pity on a man who grew up in a poor abusive house, but that doesn't give him the right to murder or rob his neighbors when he grows up.
                      Agreed, the Versailles conditions were no reason for Hitlers acting but they helped Hitler to gain power. Of course all WhatIfs are highly speculative but what if the allied had helped germany to rebuild and re-integrate them into europe as a friend instead of seeing them as a potential enemy ? The golden twenties showed that indeed most germans were pro-west / pro-USA by that time.

                      Let's put this bit into proper context shall we. Saddam was never an "ally" of Britain or America. Iran overthrew the Shah in a violent coup and established a fundamentalist Muslim state. The new leadership immediately set about rounding up dissidents and kidnapping British and American citizens and holding them for ransom. Most of the West had been on reasonably decent terms with the Shah of Iran and feared that violent Islamic forces would take over much of the middle east and destabilize it. The whole industrialized world depended on the resources it provided.

                      When Iraq invaded Iran Saddam was condemned by much of the world, but when it looked like Iran might actually overrun Iraq and establish a huge oil-rich state that would easily be the dominant power in the region - it was time to act. Many nations gave Saddam a small bit of help. America's main contribution was to share satellite data of Iranian troop dispositions so that Saddam could stave off another human wave invasion. It worked and the war ended about where it had begun. It's a distortion of the truth to say that Saddam was ever an ally or had a close relationship with the major Western powers (other than buying his oil).
                      So the west used Saddam to do the dirty work and supplied him with the necessary goods to do so (and I'm pretty sure that the help was not just some sattelite pictures but also large quantities of weapons.)
                      Even if the Iraq was no official allied the West and Iraq cooperated and back than Saddam was seen as the good guy. And I'm convinced that the CIA bak than urged Saddam to attack Iran to help stop the spread of the fanatic Islam in the region and thereby secure the oil rich region.

                      So you're saying if it's in our own best interests we can't attack Saddam? Only if there is no direct threat to ourselves or our vital interests will you approve of military action? That's 100% backwards in my view. I'm a soldier and if I'm going to lose my life in this whole thing it has to be because my family or my country are threatened. I feel the Iraqi peoples' pain and I truly hope they establish a decent form of government where they can live in peace and prosperity, however, I'm not willing to risk my life for them. American and British boys shouldn't be dying to do a job that Iraqi boys should be doing for themselves...
                      There was a time when nations were doing only things that were in their best interest, we call this time the colonial age. Going back there is 100% backwards, IMHO.
                      "The conventional army loses if it does not win. The guerrilla wins if he does not lose."

                      Henry Alfred Kissinger

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Wait a minute...

                        Originally posted by Kraut
                        So the west used Saddam to do the dirty work and supplied him with the necessary goods to do so (and I'm pretty sure that the help was not just some satellite pictures but also large quantities of weapons.)


                        Used him to do the dirty work? What dirty work? Neither America, Britain, or any other major Western power wanted a war between Iran and Iraq. Like it or not the Middle East is a critical region that effects every nation and every economy on Earth. Have you taken a look at Iraq's (or Iran's) order of battle recently? I don't see too many Apache helicopters, F15s or M1 main battle tanks in there. What I do see is loads and loads and loads of military equipment from the former USSR. If 1% of it happened to have come from Western sources I wouldn't be surprised.

                        Even if the Iraq was no official allied the West and Iraq cooperated and back than Saddam was seen as the good guy. And I'm convinced that the CIA back than urged Saddam to attack Iran to help stop the spread of the fanatic Islam in the region and thereby secure the oil rich region.


                        That's truly ridiculous. The only thing the US has ever wanted from the Middle East is for the nations in the region to start handling their own problems and stop making war on each other. The idea that the US wants to somehow control or manipulate the region to save a dollar on a barrel of oil is just BS. How much money did the US spend on the Gulf War? Yes it's true that nations like Japan did make large contributions to the effort, but the US has spent billions in the last ten years. In fact, I am told that the US has spent more enforcing the victory over Iraq than most of the governments in Europe spend on defense combined. There is an obsession in Europe with somehow coming up with all types of nefarious plots and schemes to get "the real story" of why Bush has taken such a strong stand against Iraq. Most Europeans - and some Americans - just can't believe it's because of the reasons that everyone knows about.

                        The facts are these: America is the richest nation in the world. America has it's own large oil reserves that it chooses not to use. America's economy, even while in recession, is far larger than the combined wealth of many "wealthy" nations. The bottom line is that if Saddam (or Iran) was to seize most of the world's oil supply and hold the world's economies hostage, the US could weather this storm better than most other nations. It's the struggling economies and developing nations in eastern Europe, Asia, and Africa that would be bankrupted and fleeced to the bone. We have our own oil and choose not to exploit it for environmental reasons.

                        The world should thank the US that it has been the stabilizing force in the Middle East that it has been. Otherwise you might be paying 30 euro/liter...

                        There was a time when nations were doing only things that were in their best interest, we call this time the colonial age. Going back there is 100% backwards, IMHO.
                        You're correct, politics has changed since the colonial age. Let me tell you what hasn't changed: soldiers don't want to get killed for some politician's BS dream of utopia and world wide happiness. If you can find such soldiers and train them into an effective fighting force, be sure to let me know. The only time soldiers fight worth a damn is when they are fighting for something truly important, which usually entails some direct interest of their own. If someone was to threaten Britain, France, Australia, Canada or a few other nations that we consider dear friends, we would not hesitate to give aid. But I'm not going to get killed enforcing some meaningless UN mandate that doesn't mean anything even to the people who signed it.
                        Editor-in-Chief
                        GameSquad.com

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          The United States was neither for Iran or Iraq in the war. We gave both sides intel during the war. Our goal was a stalemate and that's what happened. This idea that the US was some great ally of Iraq is revisionist history.
                          "There is no great genius without some touch of madness."

                          Seneca (5 BC - 65 AD)

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Blaming the lack of expansion of the US/candian oil companies solely on environmental concerns is simplistic. We could increase our output signifigantly (IIRC ~50%) without touching hotbutton areas like the ANWR, but the investments needed to do so would leave the firms facing bankrupcy if opec decided to slash thier prices again.
                            "Lord... forgive me my actions, speech and thoughts. Because, Lord, I am seriously going to kick some unrighteous ass in Your Name, Amen."
                            Princess of Wands by John Ringo (Jan 2006)

                            http://www.baen.com/chapters/W200601...9232.htm?blurb

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Dan Neely
                              Blaming the lack of expansion of the US/candian oil companies solely on environmental concerns is simplistic. We could increase our output signifigantly (IIRC ~50%) without touching hotbutton areas like the ANWR, but the investments needed to do so would leave the firms facing bankrupcy if opec decided to slash thier prices again.
                              That's true but the point is the United States could produce most of their oil and get the rest they need from the Western Hemisphere. It is cheaper to get OPEC oil but not 100% necessary.
                              "There is no great genius without some touch of madness."

                              Seneca (5 BC - 65 AD)

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X