Flawed Thinking
In this era of destructively partisan politics, and divisive media coverage I would like to pose a question. With whom do we conduct diplomacy, with whom do we hold out the olive branch and reach a resolution drafted between reasonable mean and leaders of reasonable nations, when the people with whom we are at war have not reason?
You see the problem isn’t Democrats, or Republicans.... The problem is Liberals, and Liberal society. I say this because not all democrats are liberals, and not all republicans are conservative. Liberalism is everywhere, the media, the public education system, and even the military to a large extent. Our free society is ever increasingly less and less likely to hold individuals individually responsible for their actions, and to make them accountable for those actions.
We now use words like "re-habilitate" and "behavioral modification" rather then "punish" and "correct." The liberals would have us believe that there is a diplomatic solution for every problem. This would assume logic and reason, and that reasonable men can come together to discuss and resolve issues. How can you reason with unreasonable men? With whom exactly are we to have dialogue?
Nearly 12 years (and the 30 years prior to that) of diplomacy, both on behalf of individual nations, and the world body through the UN and 17 sanctions failed with respect to Iraq. The liberals insistently claim that if given more time, the sanctions and resolutions would have been, and were effective in controlling and modifying Iraq’s behavior. Would the very fact that the world body was forced into a position where they had to control or modify the behavior of a government not suggest a serious problem?
When exactly was accountability to be exacted? How was this so called diplomacy to stand a chance of being effective when many of the countries involved in enforcing these measures through the world body such as France, Germany, Russia, and China were violating these very measures for profit behind the backs and under the very noses of the world body?? When in fact the World Body itself was corrupt?
Diplomacy without force, or enforcement is impotent. The UN by its actions made itself a useless bureaucracy. The sad truth and facts in this modern world are these: There are people in the world who are stopped and controlled only when forcibly removed or dead. That being said someone must step up and pursue those people to that end, that others may be free and safe. People of all the worlds’ free nations can sleep soundly at night, peaceably and safely in their beds because there are rough men ready and willing to do violence on their behalf. This is because these men understand that this is a necessary price to freedom.
You see the problem isn’t Democrats, or Republicans.... The problem is Liberals, and Liberal society. I say this because not all democrats are liberals, and not all republicans are conservative. Liberalism is everywhere, the media, the public education system, and even the military to a large extent. Our free society is ever increasingly less and less likely to hold individuals individually responsible for their actions, and to make them accountable for those actions.
We now use words like "re-habilitate" and "behavioral modification" rather then "punish" and "correct." The liberals would have us believe that there is a diplomatic solution for every problem. This would assume logic and reason, and that reasonable men can come together to discuss and resolve issues. How can you reason with unreasonable men? With whom exactly are we to have dialogue?
Nearly 12 years (and the 30 years prior to that) of diplomacy, both on behalf of individual nations, and the world body through the UN and 17 sanctions failed with respect to Iraq. The liberals insistently claim that if given more time, the sanctions and resolutions would have been, and were effective in controlling and modifying Iraq’s behavior. Would the very fact that the world body was forced into a position where they had to control or modify the behavior of a government not suggest a serious problem?
When exactly was accountability to be exacted? How was this so called diplomacy to stand a chance of being effective when many of the countries involved in enforcing these measures through the world body such as France, Germany, Russia, and China were violating these very measures for profit behind the backs and under the very noses of the world body?? When in fact the World Body itself was corrupt?
Diplomacy without force, or enforcement is impotent. The UN by its actions made itself a useless bureaucracy. The sad truth and facts in this modern world are these: There are people in the world who are stopped and controlled only when forcibly removed or dead. That being said someone must step up and pursue those people to that end, that others may be free and safe. People of all the worlds’ free nations can sleep soundly at night, peaceably and safely in their beds because there are rough men ready and willing to do violence on their behalf. This is because these men understand that this is a necessary price to freedom.
posted by Josh at 12:58 AM
1 Comments:
First and foremost, I have always supported the war in Iraq. Call it what you will (I have read many, many, opinions against this war) but the simple fact of the matter remains that Saddam Hussein is Evil in carnate. The world needed to be rid of him. Period. An immediate threat to my country? A link to terrorism? Maybe. WMD? Maybe. (They haven't been found, but have they dug up every single sqaure inch of land that man had available to him? I doubt it.) He may or may not have been an immediate threat to the immediate saftey of me and my family, but I thank God that he is out of power. He is Evil. He is insane. It would not surprise me one bit to find out that he devised some ingenious scheme for hiding his WMD, terrorist connections, etc. You know what they say about the link between insanity and genius...
Damocles, I consider myself to be liberal in my values for society (as you know), so please be sure that you state 'left wing' or 'extremist' when making references to the liberals to whom you are referring. As a liberal I can say that there is a point when diploamcy has failed and action must be taken. And I think that there are a lot of liberals out there who share this belief. Too bad it is the extremists who are the most vocal.
The UN had its purpose once upon a time. However, now they seem to be more concerned with stepping on the toes of madmen like Hussein than they are concerned with the general well being of the world. Political correctness has its place, but I think that we have become much to concerned with offending others. This has led the UN to become a bit of a joke. Maybe it's time for a new world organization...
Hussein had to be stopped. The threat was there, be it today, be it tomorrow, it was there. No one but the US (again) had the balls to put a stop to this threat. No US President but W. Bush was man enough to actually take action. I don't care if he was looking for an excuse to go after Hussein. I don't care if he used the emotions of our nation pst 9/11 to get the people to back him (thought I really hope this isn't the case). I don't care if he had "good" intelligence or if he had none at all. It needed to be done and he did it. This is more than any previous president in my life time can say.
I don't know if the people of the world's 'free nations sleep well at night knowing that there are 'rough men out there willing to do violence on their behalf', but I know I do.
And thanks, for the part that you are playing in that.
Post a Comment
<< Home