Naked Imperialist aggression? Check!
Indiscriminate bombing and killing of civilians? Check!Designs on another nation's energy resources? Check!Remember all those breathless, and wholly incorrect, charges leveled at he U.S. at numerous "peace" protests concerning the war in Iraq? Well now all those charges are *actually* happening in South Ossetia.....so where are the calls for vast marches on the National Mall, or in Paris or Berlin, to protest this *actual* imperialist aggression??
That's one view, one I support.
Also consider this, outlining the differences between McCain's and Obama's responses.
4 comments:
I honestly wish the situation was as simple as you suggest. Sadly, it does not seem to be. There are reports of serious abuses of human rights in South Ossetia by Georgian forces, there are also credible reports that it was Georgian forces who began the encounter. Frankly, I dont think that it is easy to paint this as a good guys vs bad guys confrontation.
Of course you don't. Europeans have lost the ability to look evil in the eye, point a finger, place blame, and take corrective action. It's much easier to take potshots at the United States and, as Eric Hoffer said, "People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them."
That's why Europe on the whole is on a downhill slide. I have hopes for Britain, but hope is all you have left when you're tired of being afraid.
Europe can afford to become this way only because the United States, the one free country left with the ability to identify and face evil, spoiled Europe for 60+ years by paying for Europe's defense. Europe has become fat, complacent, and weak.
The prognosis is not good, but miracles have happened before.
And having gotten that off my chest, Donalbain, you imply that I'm attacking the Russians in this post. I'm not. I'm attacking the so-called "anti-war" left here in the US, which is strangely quiet.
But go ahead, create a straw man argument about what you think I was talking about, and then attack that straw man. Because that's certainly easier than attacking what I wrote.
And just a short while after reading the above, I find this:
=====
The greatest terror of postmodern Westerners is "confrontation": to be compelled into situations in which they must actually face down a bully. And, of course, taking a moral stand may sometimes lead to such "confrontations."
So, in anticipation of any course of action that could possibly lead to a "confrontation," postmoderns never take a moral stand. They look into the future, at where such a stand might lead them -- and, terrified by the prospect, they back down pre-emptively. Often, they seek some sort of "compromise" with thugs that takes the "confrontation" option off the table. "Compromise" here means: anticipatory capitulation...
This is the policy that has, in fact, lay beneath much of Western foreign policy -- as in endless, toothless UN resolutions (when they can even agree on one), and in our State Department's anemic practice of tepidly voicing "concern" about this or that international bully's actions, while evading any "provocative" language of condemnation that might "escalate" to a direct confrontation.
=====
He's right. Thankfully I'm not a postmodernist.
Post a Comment