September
11th 2008
Posted under Interventionism & John McCain & Obama
An oldie but goodie, on the subject of Obama and McCain:
The fact is, both of these big-government, interventionist candidates have the “September 10th” mindset. Both want to expand the US military and attack Iran. Which means neither learned the real lesson of 9/11: that America cannot meddle in other nations’ affairs without getting its fingers burned.
RonL on 11 Sep 2008 at 9:03 pm #
Because allowing the people, who call for the Destruction of the Great Satan and the conquest of Dar Al-Harb, to get nuclear weapons is so much safer.
And havint he Nucelar Genie released in the Arab world, in response ot Iran, with now active programs in Egypt and Sadui Arabia will also ensure our safety.
Only those who would delight in the nuking of New York would believe this.
RonL on 11 Sep 2008 at 9:17 pm #
I was a little harsh. I don’t think that author actually wants NYC nuked. However, I don’t think he really sees us as his country either.
HarrisonBergeron2 on 11 Sep 2008 at 9:24 pm #
RonL,
But New York was attacked BECAUSE of DC’s interventions in the Middle East.
So who’s really advocating actions that will get more Americans killed?
Dave K on 11 Sep 2008 at 9:33 pm #
RonL
Maybe if we quit meddling in their affairs, quit supporting dictators in the region, quit arming their foes, quit starting unecessary wars, quit overthrowing their governments, etc. they wouldn’t consider us the Great Satan? Maybe if we gave up our nukes and threats of their use they wouldn’t see the need for them as a possible deterent. Have you ever had thoughts like these cross your mind?
RonL on 11 Sep 2008 at 9:52 pm #
The first Muslim attacks on American property started in the 18th century, before we had anything to do with them. We failed to pay the Jizyia so the Barbary Pirate had that razziahs on American shipping.
Until the 1950′s were were protected by European colonialism (actually the Germans had supported the Caliphate, but they lost).
Go pick up Milestones by Sayyid Qutb, who we allowed into the US. This leading light of the Egyptian Islamic Brotherhood was calling for our conquest in the 1950′s, back when Eisenhower was foolishly supporting the Arabs.
As they will always hate, our two options are surrender or ensuring that they are divided, weak and fearful.
I wish it weren’t so. But when you have over a billion people following an expansionist religion built by a brigand rapist, what is there to do?
HarrisonBergeron2 on 11 Sep 2008 at 9:57 pm #
RonL,
So — the crimes of 19th century pirates justify DC’s support of tyrannical puppet regimes in the Middle East?
Do go on.
RonL on 11 Sep 2008 at 10:06 pm #
I am not talking about justifying support for the tyrannical regimes. My point is that they would hate us either way. I suppose taht we might not be a tempting target so long as we walked away and paid “foreign aide” at least until Europe is conquered.
HarrisonBergeron2 on 11 Sep 2008 at 11:36 pm #
RonL,
But DC’s support for tyrannical regimes is one of the primary reasons for Muslims’ anger at America. That plus DC’s policy of intervening militarily whenever it feels like it will guarantee enough reprisals and resulting fear to keep the war machine in business. Add the Neocon policy of open borders, allowing even more Sayyid Qutbs and Attas into the US to retaliate, and you have the perfect mix to promote chaos and tyranny at home.
Bottom line: it’s the Neocons that are the real enemy, not Iraqi or Afghan goat-herders.
RonL on 12 Sep 2008 at 5:45 am #
“But DC’s support for tyrannical regimes is one of the primary reasons for Muslims’ anger at America. That plus DC’s policy of intervening militarily whenever it feels like it will guarantee enough reprisals and resulting fear to keep the war machine in business.”
Yes and no. It certainly makes us more of an immediate target, but the target is still there. It is just an issue of timing.
I would note the China and Russia play games with Islam, supporting some Islamist (Iran) and Sudan, while also supporting dictatorial nationalist regimes that suppress Islam (most the “stans” in Central Asia). Both Russian and China also oppress indigenous (or at least pre-Rus and Pre-Han invasion) Muslims. But the Islamists fear Russia and China.
I’m not suggesting that we be brutal domestically, but the problem with Islam is that they don’t fear us.
I would also remind you that any deportation of Muslims or even immigration restriction against Muslims would be just as much a casus belli as anything we do oversees. The solutions we both support will still make us a target, because unless they tremble at the site of Americans, anything we do short of surrender is a reason for Jihad.
“Add the Neocon policy of open borders, allowing even more Sayyid Qutbs and Attas into the US to retaliate, and you have the perfect mix to promote chaos and tyranny at home.”
I don’t recall there being neocons in 1948 when Qutb came to Colorado State College. But you are quite correct that our immigration policy is a threat.
“Bottom line: it’s the Neocons that are the real enemy, not Iraqi or Afghan goat-herders.”
That is a false dichotomy. Right-liberals may be part of a deadly threat at home, but the fact that they sort-of oppose Islamists abroad does not negate the foreign threat.
roho on 12 Sep 2008 at 12:01 pm #
America once had noble causes that the world admired. Our “Space Program” was such a venture, and even the military benefited by it’s technology. But, that wasn’t enough for the Military Industrial Complex. They needed to function like a “Shakedown Mafia Operation” that stirs up fear inorder to get you to pay for protection and purchase weapons. Ater that, it escalates to Regime Change if you don’t allow large U.S. International Companies to control all business.
The success of the “Chicoms” on a Global scale is their opposite approach. They make it clear up front(With references)that China is a trading nation, with no intrest in foreign air bases or naval ports, but simply a desire to trade, regardless of the trade partner’s political leadership. Inorder to improve the distribution process, they will actually put money into the 3rd world nations road system, infrastructure, and humanitarian needs, without challenging their culture, religion, or other positions. Almost always, they trade with money instead of tanks, airplanes, and small arms. (They understand that trying to manage the world’s business will be a costly waste of their profits.)………………..Using the Israeli business model, we now export weapons, and import everything else.
HarrisonBergeron2 on 12 Sep 2008 at 1:05 pm #
RonL said,
“I’m not suggesting that we be brutal domestically, but the problem with Islam is that they don’t fear us.”
Uh-huh. So all we need to do is lob a few more missiles on innocent Iraqi and Afghan civilians and they will fear us and leave us alone. Any thoughts of exacting revenge will magically vanish. Got it.
RonL said,
“I would also remind you that any deportation of Muslims or even immigration restriction against Muslims would be just as much a casus belli as anything we do oversees. The solutions we both support will still make us a target, because unless they tremble at the site of Americans, anything we do short of surrender is a reason for Jihad.”
That’s pure speculation. You’ve swallowing the Neocon propaganda that Muslims are born with an irrational hatred of America for being so doggone free, and therefore want to strap bombs to themeselves so they can blow a few of us up.
Would you be angry at a nation that overthrew your elected governments, bombed your home, killed your family members? Or would you stand over the mangled corpse of a loved one and console yourself by saying, “It was done to promote democracy.”
I say stop ALL immigration, give the US time to assimilate, then review immigration policy to see how it will benefit us, not them. There’s no reason Muslims would declare jihad for our immigration policy.
RonL said,
“But you are quite correct that our immigration policy is a threat.”
Good. Then let’s agree to stop it.
RonL on 15 Sep 2008 at 10:26 pm #
Roho,
You need to do a lot more research on China, because you are just embarrassing yourself. If you dind’t exist, I would invent you as a strawman.
It’s not like they have placed an airbase on the Spratley Islands to claim them. Oh, wait, they did. They have also built naval bases in Bangladesh. And Chinese companies taking over the Panama Canal or building bases in Venezuala is no big deal.
Likewise container ports on American soil, like Long Beach, or ion the Bahamas are a figment of my imagination.
And China respects traditional cultures, like when it is committing cultural genocide of non Han chinese in China or when it supports the jihad in Sudan.
—————————————–
“Uh-huh. So all we need to do is lob a few more missiles on innocent Iraqi and Afghan civilians and they will fear us and leave us alone. Any thoughts of exacting revenge will magically vanish. Got it.”
We go out of our way to reduce civilian deaths. this does not mean that smart bombs don’t miss or that intelligence is sometimes wrong. Mistakes happen in war. However, if we wanted to kill civilians, we would be carpet bombing.
“That’s pure speculation. You’ve swallowing the Neocon propaganda that Muslims are born with an irrational hatred of America for being so doggone free, and therefore want to strap bombs to themeselves so they can blow a few of us up.”
Actually, it is not speculation. In the past countries that refused Muslim missionaries were attacked. This is standard Muslims dogma based on Mohammed’s successor. It was the excuse for the conquest of Persia.
And Islamists are already justifying attacks based on our non-existent persecution of Muslims in America.
I’m not speculating, you refuse to look at either history or current event which would refute your speculation.
And Muslims hate us for both our policies and our refusal to convert. Neocons don’t hold this position. Tey want to believe that the problem is not Islam but a lack of democracy or other cultural issues. Hence their insane push for democracy, which has only helped the Muslim brotherhood get elected!
“Would you be angry at a nation that overthrew your elected governments, bombed your home, killed your family members? Or would you stand over the mangled corpse of a loved one and console yourself by saying, “It was done to promote democracy.—
What elected government did we overthrow? If you are talking about opposing the unconstitutional attempt of the minority Mossedegh government to seize total power, this never angered Islamists. They didn’t like the communists either.
“I say stop ALL immigration, give the US time to assimilate, then review immigration policy to see how it will benefit us, not them. There’s no reason Muslims would declare jihad for our immigration policy.”
There is no reason if Muslims acted according to you cultural norms. But they don’t and they haven’t.