My reply, in chronological order.
Klodomir:
Sorry to upset your sensibilities, but I'm an American first, moderator second. I believe it's accurate to say that Danospano called the majority of Americans hypocrits; he found himself unable to call those that attacked my country its legitimate enemies; he implied that the United States and Al Queda were morally equivalent; and he suggested that the United States' military actions were obviously and utterly contrary to Christianity.
Oh, and he called us "all a bunch of fucking I.D.I.O.T.S" (though Lord knows what that acronym "I.D.I.O.T." means).
Sorry, but when my country's so vehmently attacked verbally, I will respond in kind.
Anthony:
My point was that appeasement (which did stop with the invasion of Poland - sorry if I implied otherwise) went NOWHERE. It didn't work, thus, the Polish invasion and the blitz against France.
As minor points... I think U.S. probably should have entered the war sooner; I'm just glad Pearl Harbor woke us up.
By Pearl Harbor, France wasn't fighting - it was conquered, with the exception of the Free French resistance.
And by Pearl Harbor, Europe wasn't on the edge of victory. In December 1941, German forces were a mere FIVE MILES from the Kremlin. There was no western front, and North Africa was nearly overrun with the Axis powers. It took both the Allied campaign in the desert and Sicily AND the landing at Normandy to draw enough German troops from the eastern front to give the Russians the opportunity to so quickly advance.
Finally, Danospano:
I'm glad to see you don't take too seriously the "hostile remarks", but I hope you can appreciate how infuriating your original comments truly were:
"I for one am sick and tired of the hypocrisy of the majority of Americans. I'm glad to see there are other people in our country, who can think critically enough to see how awful our government and media portray their so-called "enemies", while justifying equivalent horrors on them.
"Fuckin' idiots...they're all a bunch of fucking I.D.I.O.T.S."
In response to your clarifications:
You're mad that we're so "cock-sure" about our actions? That we're sure we're in the right in retaliating? Sorry, but there's very little wrong in being supremely confident in your actions when you honestly believe they're right.
I think that we should re-evaluate our foreign policy, particularly when forced to choose between propping up a convenient dictatorship or working to help establish legitimate democracies worldwide.
(Funny how we're "isolationists" when we do nothing but "imperialists" when we act, even when we act in the best interest of the people.)
But it isn't an "either/or" situation; we can evaluate our actions while we respond militarily.
If it *is* the case that we must choose between "why we were attacked" or "how we respond", I say, we should focus on bombing these thugs - our enemies - off the face of the planet.
And, again, I'm sick of your comments that these thugs are our "so-called" enemies that we "think" attacked us. If we weren't sure we were attacking the right guys, I don't think we would attack with such force. Further, the entire free world (and a few Communist countries) are also inclined to believe that we're attacking the right guys. We must also remember that revealing all our evidence that implicate Al Queda may jeopardize our sources (and, hence, national security). And beyond all that, if we are committed to wiping out those groups that seek to destroy us, all we NEED to know is whether Al Queda is such a threat; whether they planned the specific attacks of 9/11 is really not that relevant.
So you didn't mean any of us when you referred to the majority of Americans as "sheep"? We forum members are somehow better than most Americans and immune from the affliction that affects "most Americans"?
Frankly, I still find that notion elitist and offensive. The Founding Fathers thought the American people were smart enough and independent enough to elect its own representatives, possess firearms, choose their own forms of worship, and engage in political speech. William F. Buckley has stated he would have more faith in a government run by the first 100 people in the phone book than 100 Ivy League scholars. And I believe that the American people are far smarter than you give us credit for.
Thinking critically about of the government doesn't mean you hate the country. But making the U.S. government and the Taliban morally equivalent makes me wonder.
And while we're on the subject of "most of the world", I'd like to remind you that many of the countries that hate us (look at the U.N. voting record) are run by dictators and criminals, and most people who hate Americans are misinformed through a press that is far more propagandistic and controlled than ours (with the notable exceptions of American and European scholars who are still under the delusion that Karl Marx had a good idea).
Ever notice that nations that are the most free and democratic (the U.K., Canada, Australia, even Israel) hate us the least? If the free flow of ideas is what leads to a general hatred of this country, the ones with the most free press should hate us the most. And yet, it's countries like Cuba and Iraq that really hate us.
But, as in all schools, someone occasionally stood up to the bully and gave him a black eye. Sort of like what the terrorits did on 9/11. They gave the big bully a black-eye, for the simple fact that he had given out more than his share of black eyes throughout his school days. ----Do you understand what I'm trying to say?
Um... you're saying that the U.S. is the Big Bad Guy that got what it deserved.
But, oh yeah, you "love your country."
I'm sure.
Actually, it's not suprising that a country with pockets of self-loathing (certain areas of academia, for instance) would create people like Michael Moore, like you, and even like the dumb fuck that went to Afghanistan. What suprises is me is how some people are so fervently defending him.
Seriously, you suggest in the same paragraph that a) our country is so bad (Vietnam, our dealings with Native Americans) that he was almost justified in deserting us and b) he was somehow brainwashed when it clearly appears that he hated this country long before he left it.
As per your final comments...
We're not "killing more innocents" for the sake of peace; we are killing murderous thugs for the sake of peace. There has never been a war where there were no civilian casualties, and you're insane or niave to demand that even a just cause must require us to kill with impossible precision. I suppose we must also rebuild whatever structures we demolish, repave the roads our tanks damage, put a fresh coat of paint on the local houses, and sing the local kids a lullaby to help them sleep.
(And we're still sending aid, in case you forgot.)
We're not abolishing freedoms; we're more strictly enforcing laws already on the books and doing such reasonable acts as adjusting the wire-tapping laws in an age of cellular phones in cases of possible terrorism. I mean, hell, if the government is abolishing freedoms now, shouldn't you be crying at the top of your lungs against the exoribitant tax system? Or are you merely rehashing the liberal mantra against Bush and Ashcroft in an attempt to appear thoughtful?
We are indeed in a war, despite our low number of casualties. We should consider ourselves blessed with such a proficient military, and we shouldn't judge a war by our losses alone, but also by the losses we are inflicting.
To paraphrase Patton, we shouldn't die for our country; we should let those other sons of bitches die for theirs - especially if they're so willing to die for the cause and meet the awaiting virgins.
(They wanna die. We wanna kill them. When is the last time the desires of two separate groups have been so well matched?)
Finally, we are NOT "are a country of lost, unintentionally ignorant lemmings, who are too arrogant and too blind to see our faults."
Our innovations in technology, in the arts, and in thought demonstrate that we are among the most thoughtful people on Earth. Our unmatched giving, to each other and to other nations, show that we are among the most humane on Earth. And if the American people are "blind", the rest of the world is blind, deaf, and locked in a box.
And all this is not because we're Americans, because - ultimately - all Americans are descendents of immigrants. It's because of our unparalleled political, economic, and religious freedom.
(We don't have to knock ourselves down a few notches to even the playing field. All must do is spread democracy, capitalism, and religious pluralism to all those who thirst for freedom.)
No, we're not ignorant, arrogant lemmings. We're just a people who adamantly and nearly unanimously disagree with you and your kind, and do so because we have EVERY REASON to. Sorry if that upsets you so much.
