A "gleeful, suicidal impulse" does permeate the American intelligentsia and fires the knee-jerk anti-American cynicism of American journalists.
Tear down thew wall of Postmodern Liberalism:
Posted on 05/04/2004 3:05:50 PM PDT by Eurotwit
"If this is the end of old Europe, what is now beginning," asks Tony Judt, director of the Remarque Institute at New York University. As he and many others see it, Europe's future will be managing its growing diversity. Mounting immigration, especially Muslim, will increasingly alter Europe's ethnic and cultural landscape. Changing demographics will undermine Europe's traditional social-welfare states. If old Europe faced the challenge of integrating like with like, the new Europe must reconcile unlike with unlike, grappling with prickly issues of minorities, wealth versus poverty and national identity. "It will be an era of discord and civilizational clashes within states and communities," says Judt, "no longer mainly among them." Europe's disparate citizenry will argue for their very different interests and priorities with increasing vehemence, all the more so if Europe's economy does not keep pace with the region's expectations. The cozy days of a close and like-minded European club are gone. Back to the future? It looks very much that way.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
Apparently, they never considered Islamo-fascist triumphalism as a possible scenario for a post-Christian future. Now they have to deal with it. Let's see how long it takes American liberals and the population controllers to figure this one out. Should prove interesting. And quite a riot.
I also can't guarantee that they're conservative, but I have been present at a lot of their moaning and bitching about how it was back home and how they prefer it here. I have also heard a lot of bitching about the INS too, by the way.
It's amusing to see these Euros that have only been here for a few years act towards government. They're in favor of public services and have an exasperated 'what's the use in questioning authority?' mindset. Perhaps my view of them is the same as how the average Nevadan sees the typical Californian. If you've lived your whole life under heavy taxation, fear of law enforcement, and having to get a fee-based permit for everything that you do -- well, you can expect to be anything but 'conservative' in mindset.
For instance: In just about all of Europe, you must get a permit after attending some rudimentary schooling just to play golf on a public course. Now, I don't play golf, but I know that in American I can lay down some cash and get to breaking people's windows in the houses that line the golf courses if I want to. The contrasts go on and on. Swimming permits, fishing permits, bicycle permits, etc. etc. etc.
The only fellows I have that still seem to have a 'I'm going back someday' attitude are the Aussies.
A "gleeful, suicidal impulse" does permeate the American intelligentsia and fires the knee-jerk anti-American cynicism of American journalists.
Tear down thew wall of Postmodern Liberalism:
First Osama blows up American Embassies in Africa. We stay neutral.
Then Osama blows up the USS Cole in the Mideast. We stay neutral.
Then Osama brings down the World Trade Center. You want to remain neutral? What does it take to get you to act?
Naturally you can't be neutral when you are attacked. You have an enemy to defeat. It would be helpful to know what caused an ally to become this hateful and viscious. Did our involvement in the Soviet war trigger it? Did we double cross him in some way? Neutrality might have been the way to go if this was the cause.
I'm just suggesting that sticking our nose and influence into a lot of unnecessary affairs can cause enemity. Good relations with others requires, if there is a misunderstanding, to try to analyze the cause of the problem. Is it due to interference or some other reason? Can the United States continue to be the world's policeman without making more enemies? If so, that is a factor to consider.
Did we make enemies in the Balkans due to our interference? Bombing the Serbs for 70 days after all our airmen they saved in WW II looked to me as though we were treating them pretty shabbily and making enemies of them. Actions have consequences and if not considered carefully can lead to rather serious problems with other people. I question whether we can continue to force feed democracy to people of the world without running into some serious repercussions against us. We are antagonizing a lot of people and they aren't all Muslims or terrorists.
Silly you. Osama is not bitter at America. He is merely using America to further his acquisition of power. The more he prods America into action the more he can stir the mob minded Arab Muslim. He knows that, so he is going to continue his tactics of terror killing whether or not we claim neutrality. He wants to be the new Saladin leading the Muslim masses into creating a new Caliphate. Let him be and he may succeed. Only dopes think Osama is a creation of American policy. As practitioners of gangster ism, Mullahs, Ayatollahs, Imams, and Osama feel threatened by free market commercialism and American individualism. It's freedom of the masses they fear because they will lose control and be out of power.
Did we make enemies in the Balkans due to our interference?
We sure did, the Serbs and the Russians. This is Clinton's policy, not Bush's. The Republicans argued against this policy. They preferred supplying arms to unarmed warring parties and letting the distribution of power work its course, you know mutually assured destruction. The Democrats along with the Europeans abhorred any kind of Second Amendment philosophy of distributing power. They only want state control of weapons.
Silly you. Osama is not bitter at America. He is merely using America to further his acquisition of power. The more he prods America into action the more he can stir the mob minded Arab Muslim. He knows that, so he is going to continue his tactics of terror killing whether or not we claim neutrality. He wants to be the new Saladin leading the Muslim masses into creating a new Caliphate. Let him be and he may succeed. Only dopes think Osama is a creation of American policy. As practitioners of gangster ism, Mullahs, Ayatollahs, Imams, and Osama feel threatened by free market commercialism and American individualism. It's freedom of the masses they fear because they will lose control and be out of power.
Did we make enemies in the Balkans due to our interference?
We sure did, the Serbs and the Russians. This is Clinton's policy, not Bush's. The Republicans argued against this policy. They preferred supplying arms to unarmed warring parties and letting the distribution of power work its course, you know mutually assured destruction. The Democrats along with the Europeans abhorred any kind of Second Amendment philosophy of distributing power. They only want state control of weapons.
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.