Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Posted by:
Kevin McCullough
at
12:20 PM
I dare you to read this, if you can stomach it that is. I have never subscribed to the Los Angeles Times' but I will make this guarantee - I never will!
Lowlights:
"The United States is a paranoid aggressor that always overreacts to provocation."
"Yet as the comparison with the Soviet experience should remind us, the war against terrorism has not yet been much of a war at all, let alone a war to end all wars. It is a messy, difficult, long-term struggle against exceptionally dangerous criminals who actually like nothing better than being put on the same level of historical importance as Hitler — can you imagine a better recruiting tool? To fight them effectively, we need coolness, resolve and stamina. But we also need to overcome long habit and remind ourselves that not every enemy is in fact a threat to our existence."
If you feel so inclined, join me in placing a call to inform the LATimes that they will never have my business ever again: (213) 237-5000 and ask for the "Readers' Representative Office".
The guy is NOT saying that the US is a paranoid aggressor. Check the entire quote: "Unfortunately, the commentators who detect one have generally explained it in a tired, predictably ideological way: calling the United States a uniquely paranoid aggressor that always overreacts to provocation."
Therefore, the "paranoid aggressor" quote is not his opinion, but of far-left ideologues who UNFORTUNATELY feel that way.
There are points that are legitimately wrong (which I will address later), but you should get your quotes straight before you comment. |
|
Even though he does not believe that we are a paranoid aggressor (as I showed in my last comment), he is wrong in saying that we are overreacting! I do not know if Pearl Harbor took as many lives as 9/11, but it was also not as many lives as the Soviet Union lost in WWII. Are we supposed to keep count of how many lives we lost before we react?! It is WITHIN our rights to act upon the slightest attack, so that we do NOT end up losing 20 million lives, like the Soviets in WWII.
Contrary to his assertion in the op-ed, to call the war on terror an overreaction is disrespectful to the legacy of those lost on 9/11. What should we have done? Should we have said, "Oh, we did not lose that many people. We shouldn't try to defend ourselves too vigorously"?!
This IS a fight for our very existence, and if we Americans are not united in the effort, we will lose not only the war in Iraq, but the very freedoms that the Left exploits to bash those who do stand for Biblical common sense! |
|
As someone who is frequently amazed, infuriated, and frustrated by the writings on the lefthand side of the wall, I checked this column with some trepidation. I was actually surprised to find it wasn't particularly offensive to my sensibilities.
The author makes some interesting points (his analysis of the evolution of war through the enlightenment period, though I'm sure not original, was, err, enlightening?) He shot down the silliness of the 'we shouldn't have fought Japan' suggestion (Pearl Harbor was around 2400 dead I believe, btw) as well.
I don't agree with all of his contentions, obviously. For example, though he does mention the nightmare scenario's that are possible, he seems to ignore the fact that these no longer need involve an army or even the backing of a real government. A single person, with some financial backing and a few connections can now take out a city, or at least a large portion thereof.
I believe the fatal flaw here (imho) is ironically linked to the author's own justification. He uses history to back his argument, yet history has shown repeatedly that ignoring or underreacting to threats has led us into the most devastating conflicts. The 'they can't really hurt us' position is what unfortunately spawned the famous Churchill quote about dealing with the enemy. I would prefer to see us deal with the situation while (as he mentioned himself in the column) the price is RELATIVELY low. |
|
|