Subtlety is not one of my strengths

Welcome to Small.To v2.0
Thursday, July 19 2018

The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
Singin\' In the Rain
Authored by: soildork onMonday, March 31 2003
You know... I have to ask. What was all that nonsense about politics equaling faith? I am amused. You see, although the ACLU paints conservatives as not allowing the separation of church and state, I wasn\'t aware that politics is a religion. Hmmm. So is taxing equivalent to tithing?

Anyway. the line that stood out in my reading of your comments is that logic isn\'t needed. That evidence is not needed, b/c it is all about faith. I politely disagree, and will adress this later in this \"sermon.\"

Foreign policy, as referred to by Mr. S (I am so sick of typing the guys whole name, so S will do), is the culmination of years of \"containment and deterrence.\" During this period of time in the past, oh, 10 years or so, Anti-American sentiments have grown in the middle east. This is not debatable. I do not confuse the issues, as apparently my liberal compatriot has, that Iraq equals Al Queda. Iraq is an issue unto itself, and is being attacked for repeated violations of humankind, all lodged in many sundry laundry lists leading up to 1441. Al Queda is a threat to the civilized world. The fact that Al Queda is leaping to defend Saddam, a man OBL labels as an infidel, is attributed to his hatred of us. But, make no mistake, terror links are there. And, when terror cells continue to get taken down, it will be divulged. Unfortunately, telling the general public every excruciating detail is not the most prudent way to fight a war, on terrorism or Iraq.

So, When I refer to anti-Americanism as Mr. S. described, it was general hatred (and that is relevant). Leave it to a liberal to try and point the argument in a direction that favors their stance, instead of listening to the argument for the logic within...

And, begging your pardon, the hatred is the key to this whole thing. They hate our freedom. The mere fact you can\'t acknowledge how central that is I find hypocritical, as you type on these pages with that freedom. We have it, and want it to spread. The zealots and dictators don\'t. So, I include that logic, as it is pertinent.

On my compatriot\'s foreign policy remarks, again, an attempt is made to not listen to the logic, but to skew it. Mr. S. implied that foreign policy centered upon peaceful coercion is the most succesful. I was only trying to point out that violence was used where necessary. To try and skew these arguments as a distortion is just pretty sad. I don\'t think it is debatable that violence was part of deterrence. Or, have I \"distorted those facts\", and it was a bad American Gladiators episode? Our economy did outlast the Soviet economy, and that contributed. But, nuclear brinksmanship played a strong part as well. The almighty dollar doesn\'t win alone, as Paul Allen is showing us up here with the Blazers.

I actually am not a member of the Paul Revere Society, even though the sideswipe remark about Harvard folk may be attributed to that historical point. Michael Savage is entertaining, but too intense for me some times. So, I don\'t ascribe to his mantra or his methods.

Yup, Saddam generally is bad news. And, he has to go, for the good of the millions of people that he threatens every day.

Mr. S., in my humble opinion, was taking potshots at the current form of diplomacy. It was not a review of past failures, it was a spotlight on what he disagrees with. How did containment and deterrence do for the thousands dead in Rwanda? And North Korea? He doesn\'t, and can\'t offer a valid counterpoint to those historical events. Pure and simple. Read that article from the left, and it seems very even and representative. Read that article from the right, and it is evident that there is no criticism of 8 years of abject foreign policy failure (a Democrat trait since Eisenhower) is made. The article impresses the thought that it is all the Bush administration\'s fault. By this logic, Enron must have been pure until GW got to teh White House, and then somehow tanked the entire stock market and cheated like hell... (OUr past dictates our present, Clinton\'s poor performance compunds our current problems.)

I won\'t be naive enough to tell you financial opportunity does not enter into the long term outcome possibilities. But, it would be moronic, and criminal, to commit a country to war to make a buck. But, fighting to protect a people that have been cowed and brutalized for 20 years is noble, and worth the effort. Because, freedom is what it is all about.

Do you get that?


Not just for us, but for others in the middle east. Saudi princes, although autocratic, do not send Sarin gas into a village of dissenters. They don\'t rape wives in front of political prisoners. Their hands are dirty, make no mistake, but they do not brutalize their own people.

But, to a liberal, freedom is taken for granted, so it has to be about the $$$.

To close my \"sermon,\" repeated documentation of the human rights abuses and atrocities is not evidence in your opinion? And it certainly can\'t be logical to want to free people that are subjected to this. Or, do you just not want to hear it?