Lemur866, accusations of anti-Semitism detract from my point, that has nothing at all to do with it. My point about WW2 was that there was no right side. Even had there been, it wasn’t our fight, and we should have stayed out, except for retaliation against Japan who had attacked us first.
Zev, how many bloody times do I have to say it in this thread?? I have admitted over and over and over that yes the leaders of these movements might still think to press the attack, but I see absolutely no reason that the average follower will be motivated to kill himself over a problem that is remote.
Chechnyens take over a theatre in Moscow, a local problem. Pakistanis cause trouble in Kashmir, a local problem. Phllipinos or Indonesians take out their rage against some local Christian missionaries, a local problem. These are local people dealing with their problems as they see them. You don’t see average Indonesian Musims flying halfway across the world to suicide bomb in Moscow, your average Indonesian has no personal grudge against people in Moscow. It is by virtue of our presence in those remote nations that the US becomes part of the local problem, in their minds.
Normally then, Palestine would deal with their local problem, Israel. Saudis would deal with their local problem, an oppressive monarchy. Pakistanis would deal with their local problem, India. But we’ve interjected ourselves into those situations, we’ve supported Israel, we’ve supported the monarchy in Saudi Arabia. So we become, through our actions, part of their local problems. And so we become a problem to them. And they deal with us. And we saw how they dealt with us. And we can guess how they’ll deal with us in the future if we continue to cause problems that hit them close to home.
Woops, I meant “distract” from my point, since I obviously don’t think a false allegation could “detract” from my point. Meanwhile, why don’t you start realizing that opposition to Israel, or to US involvement in WW2 doesn’t constitute the same thing as saying “boy, I sure hope we go out and kill all those damn Jews, let 'em burn.”
Though the two positions aren’t contradictory, either.
You still haven’t explained how you “see absolutely no reason that the average follower will be motivated to kill himself over a problem that is remote” in regard to 9-11. That’s exactly what happened there.
Here is where we have the problem. I think that matters abroad can and do concern our liberties here in the US. If we abandon our allies and allow the bullies to take over the world how are we going to fight then when they come after us?
A (slightly far-fetched) hypothetical situation, RexDart- lets say the Fundamentalist Society Against Posters Named RexDart says that they will launch terrorist attacks against the US unless we hand you over to them for execution. Why should we refuse?
Then you’re contradicting yourself; the terrorists, Al-Qaida, have struck at the United States, but you’re saying the United States should NOT strike back, but rather should roll over and do whatever they want. But you’re simultaneously saying you would have fought back against Japan. So why do you want to fight in one instance, and roll over and play coward in another?
You must have ESP or something. It is most certainly NOT assured that Germany “would have lost anyways.” American aid probably saved the Soviet Union - try looking up a list of the astounding volume of stuff that was sent over by Lend-Lease. And it sure as hell was not clear to anyone in December of 1941 - you know, when this decision was actually made - that Germany would “lose anyways.” In fact, at the time Germany had been kicking ass and taking names for two years, and any impartial observer would have said they had a damned good chance of winning the war without American intervention.
As for the general point, I believe the United States had a moral duty to intervene to stop the most evil tyranny in human history from destroying much of human civilization. But that’s just me.
Rex, what the hell are you talking about? This thread isn’t about World War II, although as to that, you’re wrong, too. This thread was about the UNITED STATES rolling over and playing coward to terrorists with respect to electing its own President! Do you not see you’re contradicting your own OP? You can puff your chest out and proclaim that if they attack us at home, why, it’s no holds barred, but just a few days ago you went so far as to say the United States should kowtow to terrorists AT home, should in fact go so far to appease terrorists that certain Americans should not even hold public office. So which is it? Should the U.S. defend its interests and values within the U.S. - a rather obvious value being the right to elect any American as President - or should the U.S. even concede domestic affairs to the terrorists, as you very clearly said in your OP?
Look, you aren’t even logically consistent with respect to military action. There are terrorists who have attacked the United States and announced, clearly, their intention to destroy it and replace it with a theocratic tyranny. You’re now apparently saying the U.S. should only defend itself if attacked. But the U.S. IS being attacked, so why are you saying two different things? You did notice that, right?
Well, no, Rex, I’m afraid that’s false. As has been patiently explained to you, Islamist terrorists are not interested in getting the U.S. out of a particular country. They are interested in wiping out all other religions. I don’t know how much more simply it can be put to you. Becoming isolationist WILL NOT STOP THEM. They can’t be appeased. Once you pull out of Saudi Arabia, they’ll want a pullout from Israel. Then they’ll want to turn European states into Islamic theocracies, as they have clearly and openly said they would. Then they’ll want Russia to be a theocratic ant-state. Then China. They’re fanatics, Rex. They will not be happy until YOU are forced to choose between their version of Islam or death.
And, not to point out the obvious, but why should human values and cooperation between civilized people stop at the American border? Are you a fascist or something? Why SHOULDN’T the world’s democratic nations band together? It seems no less logical to me that the states of the USA banding together.
Well, slap my ass and call me Spanky. Here I was under the impression that NEW YORK CITY is within the borders of the United States. Evidently I was wrong… geez, this world map must really suck. I’m gonna write a strongly worded letter to Rand-McNally. Would you mind telling me what country New York is really in? I’ll just mark the border on this map with a pencil.
Well, actually, in a democratic state, he very certainly does, within the limits of democracy and the rule of law. You cannot ask an entire nation to be cowards because one person is a coward. And the majority of citizens of most democratic states, as it happens, are not cowards. You’ll just have to deal with it until such time as the majority embraces cowardice.
But if you’re insistent on appeasing the terrorists, why don’t you move to Iran or Saudi Arabia and join their cult? That is, quite literally, the only way you can appease them. You can’t make them happy if you remain in a Western democracy and refusing to adopt their religious viewpoint. They’ve said so.
Christ. The AVERAGE person isn’t joining al-Qaida in the first place.
Rex keeps saying, over and over (as if it will make sense if he keeps repeating it), “Appeasing Osama bin LAden WILL work just fine. Oh sure, he and a small number of fanatics might want to keep attacking us if we pull out of the Middle East, but MOST Moslems will be satisfied with our withdrawal.”
Pssst… Rex? The majority of Moslems are irrelevgant to this discussion.
Suppose the U.S. DID pull out of the Middle East entirely, as you suggest, and cut off all aid to Israel. And suppose you’re right- at that point, Osama proclaimed, “We’re winning! The cowardly infidels are retreating before our might! Let’s attack them more and more, until they meet ALL our demands.” Perhaps Rex is right. Perhaps MOST Moslems would shrug and say, “Nah. No need for that. They’re out of our back yard, and that’s plenty for me.”
At THAT point, would the Islamic terror threat against the U.S. be over? OF COURSE NOT! Al Quaeda doesn’t NEED the support of the Arab man-in-the-street! As long as they have a few rich Moslems willing to finance him (they do and always will) and a few fanatics willing to kill and die for him (they do and always will), they will ALWAYS be a threat.
If Al Quaeda has the money to buy weapons and just a handful of nuts willing to use them, THEY DON’T NEED the help or even the moral support of ordinary, moderate Moslems. So, even if moderate Moslems were content with our withdrawal, and didn’t see a need to export Sharia, Al Quaeda would be just as dangerous as it is now.
And, RexDart unless they’re planning to send a massive army by boat, it’s not the average Muslim we need to worry about. It’s the few thousand who are the active follwers of OBL and his ilk and who would be so, regardless of U.S. foreign policy on Israel. I’m not worried about 300 million Muslims invading our shores. I’m worried about the thousand that it takes to plant and detonate a nuke.
And, in any event, RexDart, you failed to address my more important point, to wit:
Once OBL and his ilk see that they can heavily influence US policy by committing terrorist acts, or threatening to do so, and once by doing so, they get the US to abandon Israel; do you really think that having discovered this great new weapon, that having achieved one goal, they will simply put that weapon away and never use it again? If you beleive so, then (again, forgive me for being blunt), you’re being hopelessly naive. If we give in to one demand (regardless of how small, trivial or outrageous it is), then we’ve shown them that they can effectively use US muscle to accomplish anything. And that, my friend, would make this world an unlivable place.
I think the OP is just based on hopeless naivety as well as a poor stereotype. Hopeless naivety because he thinks that we are still living in the 1800s where it was quite possible to shut ourselves up into our own affairs. The problem now is that we will still have to buy oil, and as long as we buy oil, OPEC will still be a force, and as long is OPEC is still a force, oppressive regimes in the Middle East will still be around. Oil is a commodity, and the US buying oil can always be seen as US support for oppressive regimes. So basically we’re screwed in any way trying to extricate ourselves from the world.
Second, hints at the old stereotype that a Jew will necessarily have double allegiance and there is no way a Jew could be an American first. Any Jew would be invariably be hopelessly Zionist, and that of course is double allegiance and not America First, as a president should be. This echoes an ancient anti-semitic stereotype that the Jews are always a foreign people more concerned with the Jews than with their countrymen. I don’t think the OP intended his viewpoint to come out like this, but it is sure hinted. At least to me.
HELLOOOOO??? LISTEN TO WHAT THE SALAMANDER JUST SAID, IT’S IMPOOOOORRRTANT…
There are only two possible explanations for this ridiculous statement. The first is that you’re only five years old, and a year ago you were only four, so the news about the 9/11 bombings went right over your little head.
The second possible explanation is that you’ve just arrived from another planet and are not conversant with our recent history. Allow me to enlighten you–on September 11, 2001, a group of rank-and-file holy warriors used suicide bombings as a blow against U.S. degeneracy that was half a world away from their homes–and in doing so took 3,000 other people with them.
Sorry your alien High Command didn’t brief you about this.
I care about Lieberman’s bad habit of trying to drum up issues that didn’t exist so he can crusade on them. Anyone remember him yowling about how violent video games caused Columbine?
I do remember that. I don’t completely disagree with him on that, either.
But is he a democrat who is to the center?
I have heard this. Can’t say i know Too much about him.
What’s really funny about Lieberman is that he’s far more of a religious Jew than either of the candidates for the Israeli election next month - Sharon refuses to discuss his personal beliefs, and Mitzna is a self-declared agnostic.
I have a hard time coming up with an appropriate response to that expresses how I feel without getting me banned from the board. I’m way past merely accusing you of being a coward. I’ll ask if your statement means what I think it does, that taking sides with Nazi Germany and Japan would have been the same as joining the allies. Please correct me if I’m wrong that joining with England and France was just as terrible as if we had assisted Hitler in the genocide of millions. How about the Pacific and Asia? Help the Chinese or the Japanese? Toss a coin since we’re already joining the fray?
Of course that’s a moot point since we should have minded out own business in the first place. Not our problem if Hitler is able to overrun all the other European countriees, invade England then have his undivided resources to devote to Russia. The death camps would be able to operate without being shut down by allied troops. Given enough time I’m sure they could have managed to wipe out all the Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, communists, intellectuals and any other undesirable on the continent. And it would not be our problem. Japan’s conquest of Asia would again be not our problem. Once all that is done there would have been no risk of the Axis aiming at America because we were passive and minded our own business.
They came and took the Jews but I said nothing because I wasn’t a Jew… I think everyone knows how that bit ends.
I have a small amount of respect for the strength of your convictions but that’s it.
So having cast Rex into the heap (whose views can, at best, be described as an extremely cowardly version of “Fortress America”, and less generously with words that only belong in the Pit), how about seriously taking on the issue?
Would America be ready to vote for a Jewish president, or will many vote against Lieberman exclusively because he is Jewish?
Which is not to say that there are not plenty of other reasons to vote elsewise. His lack of charisma. His views on the role of religion in governmental affairs. So on. But if he was as charismatic as Uncle Bill was, and had “the right” POV on issues of interest, would the rank and file be ready to vote for him, or does Rex’s antiquated thinking represent a sizable portion of Americana?
I’ll vote for the person who I think can do the best job as President.
Now for some comments…
This whole thread is surreal. I cannot for one minute understand RexDart’s stand. I live in The United States of America. I do not always agree with what the country does or who the President is, but I am an American. I have freedoms, I have rights. I have a good life. I will give up none of that willingly. Not even under the threat of a terrorist blowing me up. I believe in peace. I also believe in defending myself from oppression, be it forced by a tyrannical government or by outside threats to the safety of me and mine. I will not capitulate. I will fight, and if need be, die to defend the ideal of what The United States is.
I have no problem with a Jewish President–just not Lieberman.
all of the good reasons Gore bowed out (mostly having to do with the 2004 election being all about the 2000 election) apply
Lieberman is the most religious Jewish figure I know of in public life, making him unable to make the argument (which worked for Kennedy in 1960) that he would have no trouble distinguishing his feelings as a Jew or as an American. As a religious Jew, Lieberman would naturally be guided by the Torah and the Talmud, which may not sit so well with the average American voter.
Lieberman’s public image sort of supports the Jewish stereotype: a brainy, whiny, undersized Momma’s boy. The first time around, a Jewish candidate would best deal with stereotypes by proving them comically wrong on their face. Running, say, Steven Seagall (assuming a brain implant could be arranged) would be the way I’d go.
I’ve been watching this zeppelin-wreck (it went beyond trainwreck a long time ago) with the feeling that I really needed to say something. That was intensified by seeing the most recent series of posts.
But Padeye summarized what I think and feel quite adequately.
Rex, I can only pity you. I’m sorry if that sounds supercilious or a personal attack in GD; it isn’t intended to be one. But I’d hate to try to live in the sort of world your mind appears to present to you.