|
SwiftVets.com Service to Country
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
fortdixlover Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy
Joined: 12 May 2004 Posts: 1476
|
Posted: Mon Jun 07, 2004 3:53 pm Post subject: Kerry and 'World Opinion' |
|
|
John Kerry is an internationalist schmoozer more than anything else, concerned about "world opinion" more than about reality.
The piece below superbly dissects the true nature of "world opinion." It accurately describes world opinion as this:
So-called "world opinion" is not the unanimous and just consensus that its seekers pretend. (Observe that the phrase never includes the many pro-American foreigners, such as freedom-fighters in Iran.) It is the irrational and unjust opinion of the world's worst people: the Islamists who seek to subjugate the world to Islamic rule, the socialists and pacifists who seek to subjugate U.S. sovereignty to UN rule, and the legions of "moderate" followers who support or sympathize with these goals.
The piece is worth reading in its entirely. It is not forgiving of Bush, either.
FDL
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13656
Forget About World Opinion
By Alex Epstein
June 7, 2004
It is a testament to the perverse priorities of our politicians and journalists that the biggest American outcry over Abu Ghraib has been not about the gruesome decapitation of American Nicholas Berg by terrorists, but about the fact that many Arabs and Europeans are mad at us.
"We are the most hated nation in the world," laments Ted Kennedy, "as a result of this disastrous policy in the prisons."
The alleged solution to this alleged crisis of "world opinion" is to show more deference toward the rest of the world. Otherwise, we are told, the world's anger will bring more terrorist attacks and less "international cooperation" against terrorism.
All of this evades one blatant truth: the hatred being heaped on America over Abu Ghraib is undeserved. Throughout the Middle East, torture--real torture, with electric drills and vats of acid--is official policy and daily practice. Yet there are no worldwide condemnations of the dictatorships that practice such atrocities--let alone the Arab-Islamic culture that produces so many torturers. But when, during a war, a handful of American prison guards subject a handful of Iraqi POWs to comparatively mild humiliation--which the U.S. government denounces and promptly investigates--"world opinion" proclaims itself offended and condemns America.
Abu Ghraib is just the latest example of the injustice of "world opinion." Since September 11, the United States--the freest nation on Earth--has been ceaselessly denounced for any step in the direction of self-defense against terrorism, while terrorist regimes Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and the Palestinian Authority get a moral free pass.
So-called "world opinion" is not the unanimous and just consensus that its seekers pretend. (Observe that the phrase never includes the many pro-American foreigners, such as freedom-fighters in Iran.) It is the irrational and unjust opinion of the world's worst people: the Islamists who seek to subjugate the world to Islamic rule, the socialists and pacifists who seek to subjugate U.S. sovereignty to UN rule, and the legions of "moderate" followers who support or sympathize with these goals. These people oppose us not because of any legitimate grievances against America, but because they are steeped in irrational doctrines like Islamic fundamentalism, collectivism, and pacifism--which lead them to oppose and resent American freedom and individualism, and our resulting wealth and power.
The proper response to the anti-American voicers of "world opinion" is to identify them as our ideological and political enemies and dispense justice accordingly. In the case of our militant enemies, we must kill and demoralize them, especially the Arab and Islamic regimes that support terrorism and fuel the Islamist movement; as for the rest, we must politically ignore them and intellectually discredit them, while proudly arguing for the superiority of Americanism. Such a policy would make us safe, expose anti-Americanism as irrational and immoral, and embolden the world's best elements to support our ideals and emulate our ways.
President Bush, like most politicians and intellectuals, has taken the opposite approach to "world opinion": he has tried to appease it. Instead of identifying anti-American Muslims as ideological enemies to be discredited, he has appealed to their sensibilities and met their demands (e.g., sacrificing American soldiers to save Iraqi civilians and mosques, and striving to make the Iraqi occupation not look "too American"). Instead of seeking to crush the Islamists by defeating the causes they fight for--such as Islamic world domination and the destruction of Israel--he has appeased those causes, declaring Islam a "great religion" and rewarding the Palestinian terrorist jihad with a promised Palestinian state. Instead of destroying the terrorist regimes that wage war against the West--including Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and the Palestinian Authority--he has sought their "cooperation" and even cast some as "coalition partners."
Such measures have taught the enemies they appease a deadly lesson: anti-Americanism pays. "Denounce and oppose America," they have learned, "no matter how irrationally and hypocritically, and American leaders will praise your ideals and meet your demands." "Attack America via terrorist proxy," terrorist states and movements have been taught, "and America will neither blame you nor destroy you, but redouble its efforts to buy your love." Is it any wonder that anti-Americanism is gaining prominence, and that the "War on Terrorism" has no end in sight?
Every attempt to appease "world opinion" preserves, promotes, and emboldens our enemies. Every concession to angry Muslim mobs, every denunciation of Israel, every consultation with Prince Bandar or dictator Assad gives hope to the Islamist cause. Every day we allow terrorist regimes to exist gives their minions time to execute the next September 11. America needs honest leadership with the courage to identify and defeat our enemies--world opinion be damned. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
War Dog Captain
Joined: 10 May 2004 Posts: 517 Location: Below Birmingham Alabama
|
Posted: Mon Jun 07, 2004 6:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
fortdixlover, great post. Hopefully, we'll get some good debate and discussion out of this.
Woof! _________________ "When people are in trouble, they call the cops.
When cops need help, they call the K-9 unit." |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ASPB Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy
Joined: 01 Jun 2004 Posts: 1680
|
Posted: Mon Jun 07, 2004 10:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The analysis of the "Hate America" crowd by Epstein is IMHO right on point. However, I feel the ultra-hawk, piss in their faces, policy suggestions he concludes with would work in dealing with Middle Eastern totalitarian regimes and even with the collectivist appeasers in "old" Europe. Where it won't work is here in America. Why? I'll repost his conclusions and then opine.
Quote: | The proper response to the anti-American voicers of "world opinion" is to identify them as our ideological and political enemies and dispense justice accordingly. In the case of our militant enemies, we must kill and demoralize them, especially the Arab and Islamic regimes that support terrorism and fuel the Islamist movement; as for the rest, we must politically ignore them and intellectually discredit them, while proudly arguing for the superiority of Americanism. Such a policy would make us safe, expose anti-Americanism as irrational and immoral, and embolden the world's best elements to support our ideals and emulate our ways.
President Bush, like most politicians and intellectuals, has taken the opposite approach to "world opinion": he has tried to appease it. Instead of identifying anti-American Muslims as ideological enemies to be discredited, he has appealed to their sensibilities and met their demands (e.g., sacrificing American soldiers to save Iraqi civilians and mosques, and striving to make the Iraqi occupation not look "too American"). Instead of seeking to crush the Islamists by defeating the causes they fight for--such as Islamic world domination and the destruction of Israel--he has appeased those causes, declaring Islam a "great religion" and rewarding the Palestinian terrorist jihad with a promised Palestinian state. Instead of destroying the terrorist regimes that wage war against the West--including Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and the Palestinian Authority--he has sought their "cooperation" and even cast some as "coalition partners."
Such measures have taught the enemies they appease a deadly lesson: anti-Americanism pays. "Denounce and oppose America," they have learned, "no matter how irrationally and hypocritically, and American leaders will praise your ideals and meet your demands." "Attack America via terrorist proxy," terrorist states and movements have been taught, "and America will neither blame you nor destroy you, but redouble its efforts to buy your love." Is it any wonder that anti-Americanism is gaining prominence, and that the "War on Terrorism" has no end in sight? |
The battle of liberation and the ongoing battle for pluralism and democracy in Iraq is, at its heart, not a battle about MWD, terrorism, or even about human rights abuses. It's the first front, the beachhead, in a war to modernize and democratize Arab and Islamic culture; the single greatest remaining stain on world culture. Even China, driven by its innate propensity for capitalism, is modernizing and will eventually democratize itself. I think the same can be said of Iran. Africa you ask? It’s the subject of another thread.
The war to modernize Arab and Islamic culture will span generations and will cost more treasure than even America has to spend. It’s a war than could cost, if poorly managed, a great deal of American blood as well.
Such a high cost in American blood is not something that the American people will tolerate. It’s just not in our nature as a people to pursue multi-generational theoretical goals when the blood cost is perceived excessive. As a people we are selfish, egocentric, and extremely insular.
Epstein’s policy suggestions appeal to me and about 35% of the American electorate. Epstein’s suggestions do not appeal to about 30% who are collectivists and appeasers philosophically. The collectivists still believe in a global socialistic culture, egalitarianism, and similar deranged utopian fantasies. In the middle are 35% who are nothing more than self-serving and centered weathervanes.
John Kerry? I think of him as a weathervane with a collectivist bias. His collectivist bias is only for his subjects in the masses. He is a member of the elite oligarchy; deluding himself that he can govern best as the beneficent monarch of the masses; the lesser beings of the underclass.
End of part 1. I need a drink! More later! _________________ On Sale! Order in lots of 100 now at velero@rcn.com Free for the cost of shipping All profits (if any, especially now) go to Swiftvets. The author of "Sink Kerry Swiftly" ---ASPB |
|
Back to top |
|
|
nakona Lieutenant
Joined: 04 Jun 2004 Posts: 242
|
Posted: Tue Jun 08, 2004 12:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
ASPB -
You make a good point. _________________ 13F20P |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|