HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
May 25, 2005 I had a letter recently which undertook to lecture me about all the left's major talking points, and I replied. ((First off, though you assume I am Republican and far-right, perhaps you should know that my wife just told off some Republicans wanting donations. We're libertarian folk. We think the Republicans have wimped out and gone far astray. Second, I would like you to consider the following comments on your letter. Letter follows, with my comments in double parentheses:)) I'm not sure I take this guy at his word - it's well written, but it still sounds like propaganda to me, because the connections it makes are wrong. For example, Democrats opposed the Soviet Union! ((Well, they always said they did, but even after communists both overt and closet were pointed out, many were still selected to "advise" Democrats and otherwise influence our government's behavior toward communism. It's one thing to give lip service to anti-communism, but another to defend Alger Hiss and others. Heck, he was there "advising" FDR at Yalta.)) Come on, be real about this. ((I am real about it.)) What Democrats opposed was the non-democratic, non-human rights oriented deeds in third world countries in the name of opposing the Soviets. ((Really? How do you oppose bad people without actually opposing them and hurting their feelings? I think the sympathy for the poor 3rd-world folks is like the environmentalists' supposed concern for the environment: It just gives them cover for being anti-capitalist closet Marxists.))Now, do the ends justify the means? ((Sometimes!)) Who knows? Maybe they do - however, ignoring that we did dirty-deeds is foolish, and is the way against common sense. ((There are always going to be mistakes made by some people--pretending it is governmental approved policy is quite another thing.)) Conservatives look at America as a four year old child looks at her mother - she can do no wrong. ((That's blatantly ridiculous on its face. Conservatives quite well recognize when America is wrong, most of the time. They make occasional mistakes like everybody else. It was the Army itself who investigated, indicted, tried, convicted the Abu Ghraib miscreants, and reported it to the media. The majority of Army folk tend t be conservative and more likely to vote Republican. Your point is refuted.)) Nationalism is dangerous - if we were all raving cynics I'd feel much better, seriously. ((No indeed, nationalism and patriotism are not, per se, dangerous, especially when those outside the nation (and some inside) are bent on killing and destroying you. And you can go wrong as much from cynicism and pessimism as from optimism and patriotism. Why not just try REALISM?)) Ditto for Iraq - you won't hear lefty commentators complaining about the elections, ((Well, not after they were successfully held! But before, yes, they complained, they griped, they say that elections couldn't be held, if they were held they'd result in civil war and riots and a theocracy and...you get the point.)) nor will you hear democrats in the government. Al Franken doesn't advise that we leave, neither does the more militant Randi Rhodes. (Doggone if I know. But I suspect that they hae advocated this as have many other left wing folk. The ever-noisy old boss from Mary Tyler Moore and her husband, Michael Moore, for example. Just kidding; I know Michael Moore isn't married to Mary.)) This doesn't change the fact that we entered Iraq on false pretenses, ((No, not false pretenses, though one of the reasons may have ben erroneous. The other "pretenses," such as Saddam's violation of the prior ceawse-fire agreement, were all quite correct and real and not false nor even erroneous.)) and I don't just mean WMDs - we've talked about this before. We need to be able to keep two thoughts in our heads at the same time - this war was sold to the public knowing that the true reasons that the neocons want the Middle East would never work for them. ((First, the decision to invade Iraq was made correctly, I think all the reasons were spelled out clearly (getting a foothold in the Middle East, removing a genocidal dictator from power, his refusal to abide by prior agreements, and that he posed a danger to the USA--on many levels. He helped foment and sustain the Palestinian delusions and violence; he provided a training ground for terrorists; his secret agents helped suply intelligence and info to terrorists; and removing Saddam would pose a fine example for other dictators which might change their stubbornness. And it might set a fine example for Arab folks who want democracy--which it seems that a lot do. Since Saddam ws toppled, the Lebanese have risen up and Syria has left Lebanon, the Palestinians have been at lest 50% more reasonable and less violent, Libya has given up weapons production, etc., etc.; and the American people agreed and have re-elected the folks who made the decision. Case closed except for the eternal grudge-holders.)) You seem like a rather smart man ((Actually I am a genius and have a remarkable memory. Thanks fo rnoticing.))- do you really buy into that "we liberated them - rah rah America the great" false nationalism BS? ((Indeed, I believe it, and with great reason. First, all the people who said it couldn't be done are now claiming they knew it could be all along. Just like after Reagan toppled the Soviets, after the left-wing intelligentsia such as Schlesinger said it couldn't be done, the lefties suddenly claimed it would have happened anyway!)) That we liberated them is a good thing, but it was coincidental. ((No, it was the plan all along! How can you state such a blantant falsehood and appear to believe it?)) The neo-cons want promised access to that black gold as the world starts to run out. ((No, basically we want the breeding ground of the terrorists to stop breeding terrorists.)) 9/11 had nothing to do with it. ((Oh yes it did!)) If the Middle East goes democratic, hey, I'm all for it! ((Gee, that's mighty white of you!)) I dislike fundamentalist religion - the only thing worse than a fundamentalist Christian is a fundamentalist Muslim! ((As a member of the Church of Non-Militant Agnosticism myself, I tend to agree.)) But I won't ignore the real motives of those that put us on this path either. (Well, you might not be ignoring them, but you may be delusional.)) As for "personal responsibility" - Germans aren't lazy, and they are required to work to be able to tap into that countries vast social safety net system. We need a new New Deal. We need massive worker-retraining, and we need to change education from the bottom up. ((Well, the entrenched NEA bureaucracy won't let you revise education in a useful way--and you oppose useful reform too, I bet. How about vouchers? You support them? Bet not! The folks who want to revise education, the voucher-supporting parents, are opposed by you folk and your ilk. And people need an incentive to retrain--that is, they need to be out of work and going into debt before they will get off their duffs and retrain, and paying unemployment only encourages them to sit on their duffs and wait longer. We saw it when the unemployment benefits were extended in 2001--people stayed otu of work! When the benefits ran out, they went back to work! The government's usurpation of individual responsibility is part of the problem, not the solution. We need a return to an old deal where people take some responsibility for their own behaviors. And as for Germans and laziness, I would say that Germans can certainly be paid to be lazy by unemployment benefits, and they can be discouraged from hard work by high taxes.)) We need to let women and gays fight if they want, and we need national healthcare. ((Well, heck no! Of women, perhaps one in a hundred thousand might be able to, with the devotion of a year or two of intensive training, carry a 100 pound pack plus a rifle and perform in an infantry unit. That is, without the use of steroids. You don't advise putting women on steroids so they can be in a combat unit, do you? As for gays, they can and are fighting, as long as they keep their overt sexuality out of it. As for natinal health care, it is part of the reason that Western European countries and Canada are having a very tough time, why tax rates are so high, and why those economies will FAIL. We don't need it, for sure, even if we want it.)) All of the above work well in most countries. ((If you define "working" as double-digit unemployment, an economy growing minimally, extremely high taxes. That's "working" in your mind?)) That's common sense. ((It isn't common sense, it is soft-hearted, soft-headed liberal delusion.)) And your party ((Libertarians? Don't thnk so!)) needs to put a stop to the advance of the Christian Right. ((The Christian right has no major influence. The media oppose them and the media pushes the left wing agenda. It is the left wing which needs to be reined in!)) Did you know that most American Christian groups opposed the Iraq war? Why should a choice few sects get the ear of the King? Most Christian theologians world-wide do not differ between abortion and capital punishment, but we seem to have a few, Americanized, Bible-claiming, theocracy seeking, nuts who have lots of cash and like politics running around... ((Well, there is a difference between killing an innocent life and executing a despicable murderer/rapist. Don't you agree? If "worldwide Christian theologians" can't see this difference, they are mighty blind or warped.)) ------------ About the author Brooks A. Mick: 63-yr-old physician, still practicing medicine but retired from the US Army. Write just for the fun of it, but working on novel in the vein of Tom Clancy's politico-military genre. Email: brooks15@cox.net ------------ All articles are EXCLUSIVE to Useless-Knowledge.com and are not allowed to be posted on other websites. ARTICLE THIEVES WILL BE PROSECUTED! |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
