Posted on 04/10/2002 12:04:31 PM PDT by Recovering_Democrat
Edited on 04/22/2004 12:33:10 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
The former clearly has the US best interest at the core of his/her being and the values upon which those best interest have historically been based ... and then articulates those directly, diplomatically and without equivocation. You don't need to be a 300-pound gorilla to do that. But there are certain things you have to be "hardline" about, lest you communicate unclear intentions.
The latter has no such devotion, but instead puts the creation of, the cow-towing to, and the interests of a "global community" and a world-wide "market" before the interests of the United States. While there are some occassions when perhaps such an agenda can overlap the former, in most cases this latter blatantly disregards the former and walks all over it.
I do not believe that the socio-marxist vision of "globalism" is compatible with the principles of liberty, faith, soveriegnty, independence, self-reliance and responsibility/accountability upon which this nation rests.
Again, in my own opinion (and that is all it is), Powell fits the description of the latter much more than the former.
Shall we kill the innocent along with the guilty?
I understand that Bush Jr. chose Powell. That does not mean he was necessarily his first choice, or the choice he desired most ... I hope it means it was a political expedient as I still hold out some hope of Bush not being an abject globalist (again according to my definition above).
Reagan chose Bush as VP ... a political expedient at the time because of the landscape ... but not what Reagen probably desired because Bush Sr. had indicated his true feelings for Reagen during the primaries and they were not flattering.
Anyhow, I understand the need for political expediency, even though distasteful. I believe we need to move in a direction as a nation and as a people where the need for such expediencies is minimized. And I believe it is very possible to do ... but right now, we seem to be continuing to move the other way.
Regards.
Were the people in Heroshima and Nagasaki innocent or guilty?
We killed those people ... was that wrong?
We ended a horrific war in so doing that was killing many times that number in aggrogate and threatening to do the same to us ... was that right?
War is hell ... but unfortunately ... terribly ... sometimes the best thing you can do is end it as quickly and as violently as possible.
I pray another way can be found here ... but as Sharon says, for Israel, the cost of waiting, the cost of trying to appease and work with the devil, is being measured in Israeli coffins.
They have reached a point where it is clear that the Palestinians are not going to end that cycle of terror agaiunst Israeli civilians, so they are going about it themselves ... and they are doing it in a very restrained manner, risking their own soldiers lives to try and protect any innocent Palestinains.
They actually warned the Palestinian citizens to leave their homes before shelling hostile areas of the operation. That's a luxury we did not afford German or Japanese citizens.
Like I said ... war is hell. I pray for its early end, but an end that is apt to last longer rather than shorter. History teaches well ... and harshly ... how that is best apt to be achieved. Destroy the enemy and break their will, and the will of their support base. I pray that can be done to the terrorists and their support base with as minimal loss of life as possible ... but not at the cost of not doing it.
What I still question is HOW WOULD YOU END IT ?
Do you think if we nuke IRAN,IRAQ,kill all Palestinians, that it will end ?
How would your viewpoint change if you were living somewhere like Lebanon, or Turkey, or Iran? Or would it?
I am not justifying the Pali's, but Israel signed an agreement to let the Pali's live in that section of real estate, promised not to let Israeli's move into that section, and then turned around and did just that. The Israeli's opinion is that the land was given to them by God, and they don't care about any damn peace treaty. Did they bring this upon themselves ?
The Israelis signed a document that the Pali's signed too ... the Pali's have not kept their end of the agreement either. No official recognition of Israel's right to exist, no destruction of the ongoing terror ... instead signed checks paying for it!
At this point, I believe that Israel must root out the terror network amongst the Palistinians ... thoroughly. It's too bad the Pali's didn't do it themselves ... but they didn't. That's a good second step as we complete the 1st step which is the same type operation in Afghanistan.
We go from there.
I believe Netanyahu's speech to the US Senate is about as clear cut and best an answer as could be provided. I'll let that be my overall answer because I agree with it 100% and it is the essence (much more eloquently phrased than I copuld) of what I have been saying to others for years.
Here's a link if you haven't already seen it.
It seems to me that giving your 'enemy' a small patch of land in the middle of your country, which your citizens then have to travel through, was a bad plan to begin with.
The Israeli's will not leave. This has gone on for longer than we have been a country, am I correct ?
I see no easy solution either, but I don't think more violence is always the correct answer.
It is not the Pali's per say that are the problem, it is the terrorists making use of the situation between Israel/Palestine.
It seems like our best move is to stay out of Israel's way and let them root out the terrorists. It is precisely that task that Bush asked all the other countries to either do, or suffer the consequences.
Here's a thought: Powell is campaigning for President, at the expense of Israel and U.S. best interests.
I agree.
By eliminating (killing) all those who desire to blow their children up, to instigate terror. Eradicate terrorist from the face of the earth. Treat them like any other virulent disease. Kill them. Now.
Shall we kill the innocent along with the guilty?
Define "innocent." I define it to mean people who go to a supermarket, to buy a loaf of bread, and get blown up.
You?
My question was leaned towards the idea that we should Nuke certain countries in the middle east. I thought that was what you were suggesting as a solution.
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.