Why Liberals Oppose Unilateralism

FrontPageMagazine.com ^ | September 17, 2002 | Lawrence Auster

[fly_so_free]

"The rights that liberals seek to expand are the "rights" of human beings to have all their needs provided by society."

"The attempt to eliminate all power must lead to the concentration of all power in a global totalitarian state."

I could probally quote each line from this, each one makes an important point.

This is a MUST READ for any Rebublican or any one who is concerned about keeping this country as the founding fathers wanted it. The author explains in clear & precise terms that demacrats have no regard for our Constitution or way of life. The trick is to make this CRYSTAL CLEAR to the voters. The liberals are running the demacratic party. The Republican goal in this election or any election should be that no vote for a dem be an uninformed vote. If you vote for them, you are voting for the desruction of our way of life as we have known it. You are voting for the dismantling of our Constituion, Bill of Rights, life liberty and the pursuit of happiness exc..weakening our military, placing our generation and the next generations in danger. Vote for dems ,and you vote for tearing down everything that made our nation great and replacing our system with socialism and under the control of Koffi Anan and the UN. This will be a HUGE step down for our people(regarding standards of living & health care exc..) and it will come as quite a shock to many. Hopefully people will wise up.

On that note, I'm sick of conservative hosts talking about so called moderate dems, like Zell Miller of Georgia. He has no say so in his party. Exactly how many moderate dems are there? (about 2.) I wish they'd (conservatives on radio, exc..)) stop helping dems to cover up what they really stand for.

I don't want to hear the word liberal either. A liberal IS A DEMACRAAAT! Knowing how stupid we can be, I'm positive there are many, many, people who think liberal and demacrat are 2 different political parties.

And finally, I have to keep a bucket next to the TV when President Bush is speaking, for when he says "Republicans & demacrats working toghether..." arghhh!! gag!! barf!! What exactly does he mean by "new tone" any way? Does that mean you cover up for people whose behavior has been an abomination in a time of war and after our nation has been attacked? How about when the Clintons & their low lifes trashed the White House? Don't we have a right to know how these people really are? But, then again he (Bush) does have a giant problem with the press twisting everything against him, so maybe its better the way he does it. Ok done ranting for the night . Excellent article.

[goldstategop]

Liberals are enemies of human freedom. That's why they're against unilateralism of any kind, since inequality is by definition the basis of any free society that has ever existed. Efforts to eliminate it simply produce uniformity of immiseration and the imposition of totalitarian rule upon society to make sure inequality does not resurface. One has the clear impression liberals' model of the ideal society is the Taliban in Afghanistan minus their sexism.

[The Raven]

Liberals want to control my life. Which suggests inequality and oppression.

[chasio649]

Are you opposed to the war on terrorism?

[goldstategop]

ROFL! Yeah this country is politically correct in deciding fully what's in its interests and we take orders from no one. And if others think its the unilateralism of imperialism, two words spring to mind in response why we can and must act preemptively from now on to avert even the slightest sign of danger to our shores: 9-11. Let Koffi Annan and the Russkies choke on it.

[johniegrad]

Unilateralism, by shunning any external criterion, presupposes that America is angelic, incapable of wrongdoing

Nonsense. Unilateralism presupposes that we will act to protect our interests. Sometimes they will coincide with the interests of other nations, sometimes they will not. The President has a constitutional responsibility to provide for the protection of the country. This constitutional responsibility does not presume adherence to a higher authority. Besides, what would that higher authority be? In case you haven't noticed there is no world government, yet.

[fly_so_free]

"I presume the guidelines (for our higher calling) came from Nuremburg and the UN charter"

....One Nation under God with justice and liberty for all. .. The Constitution, Declaration of Independence wich came looooooong befor the UN. But anyway commrade , I can tell your having trouble understanding why we can't trust a murderous dictator who killed 1 million of his own people. Don't know what else to say to you. Try reading about a guy named Hitler, you might learn something.

[goldstategop]

Hardly. The U.N is biased against the U.S and Israel. Its completely given Iraq a pass. Talk about maddening hypocrisy!

[chasio649]

So you are saying the US should do nothing about terrorism?

[Madame Dufarge]

In the months to come, all manner of pompous, benighted gibberish will be inflicted on us

And here's a perfect example, comrade.

Drivel

[johnb838]

We owe the UN nothing. Getting down to brass tacks, we owe the rest of the world nothing either. "You want something from me? What you got for me?" That is the way world politics has always been played. Don't kid yourself. They will guilt trip us into all sorts of actions if we let them get away with it but we owe them nothing.

Personally I think it is about time for a rotating UN headquarters. Time for it to rotate OUT of the US. Or should I say for the US to rotate OUT of the UN. That's ok, I think the coming conflagration will do the moribund UN in much like WWII killed the impotent League of Nations.

So what's a liberal like you doing spouting off in a place like this?

[metesky]

You never did the Kenosha Kid.

You never did the Kenosha, kid.

You never did; the Kenosha Kid.

Wow, somebody who read Gravity's Rainbow and thought it was true...

[LRS]

Why Liberals Oppose Unilateralism?
In keeping with their usual hypocritical, "black and white" approach to the issues, liberals have been trained to see the United States as evil, and therefore, any action of self interest the U.S. takes, is an evil act that must be opposed. This is why so many liberals have such a time understanding the "good verses evil" aspects of the War on Terrorism: Islamic extremism may be evil, but then again, so is the U.S. in the liberal eye. So much so, that some liberals are even willing to side with the Islamic extremists, despite the fact that those Islamic extremists stand for every concept that the liberals say they abhor, save one: the destruction of capitalism and its flagship, the U.S. This is why, for example, people who supposedly hold environmental protection as such an important concern, are willing to side with Saddam Hussein, a man who ordered the releasing of millions of barrels of oil, and who set the torch to the Kuwaiti oil wells, when it comes to a contest between evil Saddam and the "evil" U.S. These people are so locked in their dogma, that they can only see the world in THEIR black and white terms...

btw- nice piece!

[johnb838]

What is wrong with knee-jerk patriotism? If you hate this country and it sounds like you do, don't let the door hitcha in the ass on the way out, boy. Why don't you try France, I think a lot of people think like you there.

[johnb838]

HA! And it's the liberal BS the islamists hate the most. Let's look at ourselves. Why do they hate us so? What would make them hate us less? Well a good start would be if the American whores would develop some shame and start covering. How bout that, libs? Why aren't you pushing that? I know you want American service women to cover in Saudi, why not here? Maybe they would hate us less.