Thread: The "Consipracy Theorist" Version

Ptooey...claptrap written by "a writer living off the coast of Florida". Either a guy with no real job, or an agent of Castro's intelligence service spreading dissension among the capitalists....

Ha ha ha ha!!!! As quoted from the GOP playbook, read by Rush "Zippidy Boom" Limbaugh, Article 12, Section 2, Clause 1.

TPFKA (Al Franken)

Forget Al Franken and Ann Coulter-speak. Let's go to the horse's mouth!

But the safety of the people of America against dangers from foreign
force depends not only on their forbearing to give just causes of war to
other nations, but also on their placing and continuing themselves in such a
situation as not to invite hostility or insult; for it need not be observed that
there are pretended as well as just causes of war.
John Jay, Federalist No. 4

The public cannot be too curious concerning the characters of public men.
Samuel Adams, letter to James Warren, November 4, 1775

There is one choice we cannot make, we are incapable of making: we will not choose the path of submission and suffer the most sacred rights of our Nation and our people to be ignored or violated. The wrongs against which we now array ourselves are no common wrongs; they cut to the very roots of human life.

- Woodrow Wilson, April 1917, asking Congress to declare war on Germany

What I am about to say is very rude; but it is what I think nonetheless. I think anybody looking under every rock for Vietnam 2.0 is reading the situation through the most shortsighted lens possible. Those lusting after the halcyon days of the anarchic sixties had best look again. The noise heard on 9-11-01 is the same noise heard at the gates of Vienna in 1689, and the same heard by Charles Martel at Tours in 711. It is pretty obvious to me that we face a threat no amount of tolerance, peace, love, or understanding will overcome, and that following such a path is only walking into destruction. Can a group of madmen destroy the United States? Anything left undefended can be destroyed, of course. And nothing can be defended while its defenders argue over whether there is a threat or not.

It is too true, however disgraceful it may be to human nature, that nations in general will make war whenever they have a prospect of getting anything by it; nay, absolute monarchs will often make war when their nations are to get nothing by it, but for the purposes and objects merely personal, such as thirst for military glory, revenge for personal affronts, ambition, or private compacts to aggrandize or support their particular families or partisans. These and a variety of other motives, which affect only the mind of the sovereign, often lead him to engage in wars not sanctified by justice or the voice and interests of his people. But, independent of these inducements to war, which are more prevalent in absolute monarchies, but which well deserve our attention, there are others which affect nations as often as kings; and some of them will on examination be found to grow out of our relative situation and circumstances.

In the paragraph below the one you cited, Jay makes the point that we will not always be able to get out of fighting wars. The Founders put many safeguards into our system; but they created a government with the intention that the government be able to act. Taking a page from the playbook of Neville Chamberlain and Jimmy Carter is a decision to put our neck on the train tracks of history. I am quite aware this is optimistic as the prophet Jeremiah, but then again, are we to view everything that happens from the Watergate hotel and every year as 1974? I think that quite unwise.

And yes, I know all this sounds intensely nationalistic, and probably grates harshly on the ears of many who find the soft mushy tones of political correctness more to their liking. But on that, I will quote another man who held the Executive Office once:

The man who loves other countries as much as his own stands on a level with the man who loves other women as much as he loves his own wife.
Theodore Roosevelt

You'll find no love for political correctness or a return to the "hippie daze" from this corner!

It is pretty fashionable these days to beat up on Jimmy Carter, however. He twarted some hostile situations despite his faults.

Not much time to reply right now. The only point I'm trying to highlight is that it's a sad thing when people act like sheep in accordance to a political party's playbook (any party) and march in lockstep, right or wrong, just because of "loyality." Loyality to country should come first (aside from ones religion). To me, that's more scarry than apathy.

TPFKACSW