http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/bstephens/?id=110010827
From the Wall Street Journal. What do you guys think?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
My Blog List
Blog Archive
-
►
2009
(5)
- ► 08/30 - 09/06 (1)
- ► 08/16 - 08/23 (1)
- ► 07/05 - 07/12 (2)
- ► 03/08 - 03/15 (1)
-
►
2008
(4)
- ► 10/26 - 11/02 (1)
- ► 09/28 - 10/05 (1)
- ► 04/27 - 05/04 (1)
- ► 03/23 - 03/30 (1)
-
▼
2007
(33)
- ► 11/25 - 12/02 (1)
- ► 11/11 - 11/18 (2)
- ▼ 11/04 - 11/11 (7)
- ► 10/28 - 11/04 (8)
- ► 10/21 - 10/28 (7)
- ► 10/14 - 10/21 (8)
Recent Comments
Subscribe Now: standard
Subscribe Now: google
4 comments:
Explain to me how the threat of Al Qaeda and their ilk is comparable to that of the Axis powers?
Do you really fear that a few thousand fundamentalists sprinkled around the world have the potential to dominate the planet or destroy our way of life?
Are we actually locked in the midst of a war of attrition, a complete and total war between global powers?
Because, it rather seems to me to be far more a conflict about ideology. So, it would seem that subverting our values would only work against us in such a struggle.
As far as the article –
I think he was referring to making hard decisions. Like Roosevelt and Churchill making the decision to bomb civilians in Germany, or Truman to use the a-bomb on the Japanese.
This compared to tough decisions that current and future leaders will have to make in regards to the intelligence gathering, and war fighting/nation-building. And also that those former leaders (FDR and Churchill) made tough decisions that caused the pain and suffering of countless people for the greater good and are still revered. Whereas today our leaders make tough decisions that haven’t even come close to causing the type of pain and suffering as before and yet are vilified.
---
Yes I do think that Islamic fundamentalism is very dangerous, but in a practical sense. Just as fascism was dangerous not because it was a caustic ideology, but because of who used it, how they used, and what were the repercussions of its usage.
An Islamic fundamentalist with a nuclear devise would have not problem launching it at Israel or India (or us), all countries with nukes. As dangerous as the situation is with Pakistan and India, or Israel and Arab states (plus Iran), at least we can talk to those countries. As you know we can’t talk to the Salafists because they want us dead even more so.
I think the world we live in today is far more dangerous that it was during WWII, with the threat of nukes and other nasty weapons at the hands of non-state actors.
And lastly, I don’t think that we have subverted our values, at least no more than FDR did in the 1940s.
I understood the author's point. I don't think it is anything but obvious to say that many difficult decisions were made, many soldiers and civilians sacrificed, in the preservation of Western democracy.
My point was that has nothing to do with our present situation. What we did to preserve our country was deplorable but necessary. As was what Lincoln had to do.
That is entirely different than an administration inflating a threat to expand his own powers in order to try and manifest a fringe ideology and maintain economic status quo.
You obviously disagree since you think that the threat posed by Islamic fundamentalists terror groups exceeds that of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan.
Which is the most ridiculous thing I've heard in a while. Not since the last neo-con I saw on TV espousing the same historical lunacy.
This is an absurd argument Tybz, and you should know it.
The entire Western world was united in a vicious and perilous struggle with the Axis forces that could have easily gone either way. As a student of history you should know how precarious our position was.
We were at war with two of the most powerful militaries that the world has ever seen, militaries that had conquered almost all of Europe, the Pacific and much of Africa. Nearly every nation that could mobilized against them, the global economy was dedicated to combating them and tens of millions of people died to stop their advances.
And a few thousand religious nuts with AK-47s and IEDs are more of a threat? Because they might get access to some kind of WMD?
Shame on you.
To trivialize that situation with the threat of fundamental terrorist groups is an insult to every person that sacrificed to make that victory possible. To claim our threat is greater is entirely something else altogether.
There have been groups like AQ working against the US for decades. Blowing up our embassies, hijacking planes, attacking our citizens and other western citizens both at home and abroad. There have been WMDs for this entire time (in the middle East and Muslim countries elsewhere no less), yet they have never acquired them. Suddenly now they have positioned themselves to threaten our very existence?
You need to rein in your imagination.
Also, I ask that if we face a greater threat than we faced during WWII, then I certainly will call you derelict in your duties for doing nothing to assist in this life and death struggle.
I will also call this administration derelict as they only ask the American people to shop and go about their daily lives in response to this threat.
--
More people die annually in the US simply because they don't have health insurance than have been killed by Islamic terrorist groups since the phrase was coined.
A lot more.
Post a Comment