Posted on 12/24/2001 3:56:12 AM PST by Ada Coddington
This on wants to hear, and thanks you for posting it!
It's more of a parasitic one, I'm afraid :).
No, using assertion to make little boys sit still in their chairs became politically incorrect some years ago. Today thay use ritalin.
Kinda funny timing, given that with the slow collapse of the Kibbutz system, the rise of the Likud over the labor party and the arrival of a number of more market-inclined immigrants from the former Soviet Union, Israel is less socialist than it ever has been and continues to move in a free market direction.
We at lewRockwell.com have never suggested that the perpetrators of nine one one should get anything but grief. Somehow though, I keep asking myself what bombing Kabul did to further that endeavor? We did after all know about the camps and caves where the Al Qaeda organization could be found. Isn’t the shortest distance between two points a straight line? Not here in never never land.
I'm sorry. Just where were the Taliban's government offices?
Seriously, I dislike the Marxist teachers unions, the IRS, and the rest of the statist bureaucratic religion, as much as Michael Peirce. But one of the legitimate roles of the federal government is national defense. The U.S. was attacked and the U.S. responded. Just because I think the U.S. government is doing a good job in its legitimate role doesn't mean I'm giving it "unequivocal support" in all areas.
If it weren't for the fact that "Celtjew Libertarian" matches my realworld initials, I'd be about ready to drop the "Libertarian," in favor of "Individualist."
It would be a shame to see FR become a "rah-rah" site for the GOP. Believe it or not, there are those who probably love this country as much as anyone who do have differing viewpoints. As much as Geo. W. Bush is an improvement over scumbag Xlinton (and he IS), it still should not be considered "unpatriotic" to criticize policies his administration is pursuing. After all, are we not still considered a "constitutional republic" and not a monarchy?
Some good points were made in the article, such as this one:
"Next stop Serbia where Christians were bombed to protect Islamic terrorists and drug dealers – people whom the government has characterized as our enemies and enemies of freedom it self. We still have soldiers in Yugoslavia protecting these bums as they purge Kosovo of Serbians – even though we supposedly went there originally because of the horrors of ethnic cleansing! All this murder and then it turns out there was no holocaust, no rape camps – it was all propaganda. I’m unpatriotic because I don’t fall for these shameful lies?"
Why are we in Sebia, anyway?
I see more encroachment on our freedoms all the time. This has been an incremental thing, similar to the advances made by socialism.
The thing that worries me most, though, is the self-inflicted censorship that a lot of people do in the form of criticism without questioning facts or arguments to support their criticism.
The chicken herd mentality that has given us hate crime legislation and regulations against profiling has had its effect on our entire population.
I commend you, Ada, for any article you wish to bring and support the concept of: You provide, I'll decide.
Thanks you and I think you're right about the self-imposed censorship.
I haven't seen any movement to free market since Bibi was kicked out. He tried not only to move away socialism but also away from being a US client state. We didn't like that and sent snakehead over to fix it.
I'm sorry. Just where were the Taliban's government offices?
What did the Taliban have to do with 911? I thought al Qaeda was the chief suspect and Usama was their prophet.
Seriously, I dislike the Marxist teachers unions, the IRS, and the rest of the statist bureaucratic religion, as much as Michael Peirce. But one of the legitimate roles of the federal government is national defense. The U.S. was attacked and the U.S. responded. Just because I think the U.S. government is doing a good job in its legitimate role doesn't mean I'm giving it "unequivocal support" in all areas.
Only problem is that the Afghans didn't attack us. Saudis did.
If it weren't for the fact that "Celtjew Libertarian" matches my realworld initials, I'd be about ready to drop the "Libertarian," in favor of "Individualist."
The Libbies seems to be in disarry. About the only thing they agree on is drugs, which is ungood.
When the pipleline from the Caspian Sea is built, it will have to be protected. Kossovo is on one of the proposed routes, and the Serbs, like the Taliban, were too dense to appreciate US interests.
The Taliban have been working with and protecting al Qaeda in Afghanistan.
Only problem is that the Afghans didn't attack us. Saudis did.
Only problem is the Saudis who attacked us were headquartered in Afghanistan with the Afghanistani government protecting them.
Well, lets make a deal. I won't tell you what to think if you won't tell me what to think :-)
I'm a libertarian (non-party: been there, done that, dressed the wounds and moved on), and I find that I'm much more conservative than most people, including most Freepers, who call themselves conservatives. Conservatism, of course, isn't a political posture but a high respect for that which has been proved to work, and a healthy skepticism toward panaceas presented in a flurry of hype. A panacea can be an idea, a process, a person or a party. Those who look to any of these for salvation from our political and social difficulties are accepting the short end of a big bet.
I'd thought I'd find some commonality of values here, including the traditional conservative emphasis on politeness, but much of what I see suggests that, as on the Left, a lot of folks on the Right aren't really interested in discussing anything with anyone. Either agree with them, or get out.
If I could wish for one thing for the coming year, it would be a nationwide restoration of civility: the determination to maintain high standards of courtesy even under conditions of disagreement, and to snub those who flout those standards. That wouldn't be a panacea either, but at least it would lower the volume enough that those of us who'd like to talk about our differences of opinion would have a chance to do so.
Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit the Palace Of Reason: http://palaceofreason.com
Here's a better deal: set up a lewrockwell.com forum and quit wasting JimRob's bandwidth.
The Taliban were funded by OBL and his supporters to the tune of at least $100 million, to impose their rigid interpretation of Islam upon the country, and to train a multinational core of al Qaeda members, some of which stayed in Afghanistan (the "Arab" Afghanis) and some of which went back to their countries of origin or other countries from which they could plan, and in some cases, unleash their terrorism across the world.
The relationship between OBL & al Qaeda and the Taliban was symbiotic.
It's not that Pierce is wrong about everything. It's that his rant throws together so many different things in such a cockamamie mess, that it's hard to know where to begin, or how to respond.
The Rockwellite is defined by being against a lot of things. Maybe he's right in being against some of them, most of them, or all of them. It's not clear that it adds up to a coherent philosophy, policy or approach. And throwing everything that one's against up on the page isn't any recipe for a coherent article, either. A crazy man can do some harm to good causes. As with so many Rockwell articles, this one has exactly the opposite effect to what the author probably intended.
Don't bother. It's an inchoate mess of unrelated screeds put together by someone who obviously thinks we give a damn.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.