Subject:
|
Re: Not likely to be a popular citation but...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 7 Nov 2003 19:42:35 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
101 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
| |
He’s right, they are our enemies, but I’d rather not fight these enemies on
their turf, I’d rather we keep to ourselves and let them destroy their own
countries without our assistance.
|
I didn’t much agree with the article cited (a bunch of nonsense in my view), but
I think I agree with your conclusions.
So fine, we identify a host of countries as possible enemies, or as the possible
safe harbors of our enemies. So fine, let’s not give them any money. So fine,
maybe trade embargoes are in the offing.
How would any of this equate to a stated acceptance of Shrub’s foreign policy
debacles and multiple acts of aggression? Going further, the editorial
practically makes the point that everyone should just shut up and get with the
war agenda. Our schizophrenic foreign policy is precisely how we got into this
mess. We cannot help prop up these monsters and then pretend we didn’t have a
hand in their creation. And seeing as how the primary targets for these wars
have so far eluded us, what’s the point in continuing?
Let’s say that I am more than underwhelmed at our successes on the war front.
And I do not blame our fighting men and women, but rather their myopic and rabid
leaders.
What I’d like to ask you Larry is: how do you arrive at your conclusions given
the article cited? In a way, I might have preferred to simply read about your
take on the matter, why mess with NRO? Frankly, I saw almost no connection
between the article cited and what you were wanting to express yourself.
BTW, I read the Economist stuff from yesterday and I agreed with a lot of it,
but perhaps not some of the final conclusions. I don’t see the U.S. as some
big, dopey, religiously fanatical, but ultimately friendly place to put your
money. The various articles really soft-pedalled against the coming
“lootocracy.” And even previous material in the Economist has done better than
that. Ultimately, we have to accept that having a social contract means not the
legally engineered exploitation of the many for the benefit of the few, but a
true partnership of a kind amongst us all. We can all fail individually or move
forward together. Go back and check some of the charts there in those articles,
there’s some strange hypocrisy afoot in the U.S. -- Xtians that don’t care if
others starve. Like Cain said “Am I my brother’s keeper?” More proof that
religion is less about empathy and more about guilt and the need to be pardoned
-- act like Cain, get pardoned by Jesus.
There is very much something else going on in the U.S. than is encompassed by
the idea of a free market. The Economist has identified some of this as flat at
looting before, why quit now?
-- Hop-Frog
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Not likely to be a popular citation but...
|
| (URL) has been derided here in the past as has Mr. Hanson. But read it anyway and think about it. This paragraph, in particular, is likely not to be popular with the apologists: "In short, our enemies are ideological fanatics who benefit from (...) (21 years ago, 7-Nov-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
3 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
