“The image of America… has changed. Instead of isolating Saddam Hussein, we seem to have isolated ourselves.” –Sen. Robert Byrd, D-WV
“I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on.” –John Wayne, The Shootist
With all due respects to Sen. Byrd—an 85-year-old U.S. Senator and former KKK member—I’ll side with the Duke. Despite assembling a coalition of 45+ nations in our war against Iraq, certain leftwing holdouts seem intent on convincing themselves that the United States is all alone, the victims of self-inflicted wounds of arrogance. It’s not true, of course, but it satisfies the desire of some to find affirmation for their beliefs. You see, Senator Byrd and his likeminded compatriots recognize that public opinion in the United States has instead left them isolated; support for war was about 65% to 70% before the invasion even began… and that number appears destined to rise even further. So, the Senator hopes to rely upon world opinion for support, having lost his support at home.
A coalition of 45+ nations certainly doesn’t qualify as isolation… but for the sake of debate, what if Senator Byrd was right? What if the United States really was isolated? Would you care?
Most would prefer global adulation to condemnation, but the truth of the matter is that it doesn’t matter one iota what the rest of the world thinks—and isolation from petty dictators might not be a terrible thing. So China, Iran, Cuba, Libya, and North Korea believe our nation’s policies are misguided. Who gives a sh*t? Since when should a totalitarian leader hold veto power over American action? So France and Germany—the historic battered wife and foul-tempered husband of Europe—don’t feel that Saddam’s weaponry and ties to terrorism constitute a tangible threat. Since when did Germany and France, of all nations, become expert prognosticators about the intent of a warmongering tyrant? Of course, neither France nor Germany offered to fund the American military buildup that reintroduced U.N. inspectors to Baghdad, nor did they announce any sort of assistance to American victims of terrorism should their prognostications prove woefully inaccurate. Instead, they issue proclamations from afar without the complications of responsibility.
People use the term “world class” to denote a high level of quality… but if you think about it, you realize that most of the world is socially backwards, educationally deprived, and ethically bankrupt. A man living in a nice house with a fully-stocked refrigerator, running water, and basic human rights is “American class.” A man living in a dirt shack under the rule of a corrupt, immoral regime is “world class.” Hey, most of the people in the world are starving, denied basic human rights by their government, or illiterate. Yet the United States of America should give a rat’s ass that their citizens might not agree with the conclusions of our populous? This is self-loathing to an absurd degree.
You go to any sports bar on Sunday and you’ll witness one football genius after another pin-pointing the miscalculations of NFL head coaches. It’s easy to make inflammatory conclusions when it’s not your head on the line. But the United States is a true superpower and as such, lacks the freedom of theoretical musings. Instead of admonishing Bush for using force against Iraq—a country that’s hardly the poster-country for benevolence—the citizens of the world should stand in awe of America’s restraint. Never before in world history has one country possessed the ability to so utterly dominate the world with its military… yet chosen not to, because of its moral conscious. France, England, Rome, Germany, Japan, the Soviet Union, Babylonia, Rome, Greece, China, and every other great world power used its prowess to conquer. We use ours to build McDonald’s and donate aid packages. Stop for a moment and contemplate the great distance between these two philosophies.
The leftwingers who so passionately whine about world opinion never cared when doing so came in conflict with their own beliefs. The radical left, which cared deeply when the Pope condemned a possible war against Iraq, failed to recognize the Pope as a moral leader when it came to abortion. The radical left, sounding so remorseful because many African and Middle Eastern nations disagree with American foreign policy, somehow neglects to note that these African and Middle Eastern nations disagree with them about women deserving liberty and freedom.
The not-so-secret truth is that the left only cares about world opinion when it coincides with their own political agenda. When it doesn’t, men like Robert Byrd do what they want anyway, relying on “principles.” That’s certainly their prerogative, but we’d be folly not to note their jarring hypocrisy. Using world opinion to justify or criticize American policy is a red herring, a tool of misdirection. It serves as a political commercial for a different agenda entirely.
When John Wayne said, “I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on,” I’m sure he sincerely meant it—even if the government of France disagreed with him over what constituted a threat.
In the end, if America wins the war ok I think in the long term there won't be much isolation because of two words, CAPITALIST MONEY. Countries grabbing capitalist money by the handfuls while saying they don't want it.
"I am many things Kal-El, but here I am god." -Darkseid
Originally posted by The Vile1In the end, if America wins the war ok I think in the long term there won't be much isolation because of two words, CAPITALIST MONEY. Countries grabbing capitalist money by the handfuls while saying they don't want it.
Hell, what do you think paid for this "coalition" in the first place?
That's one of the most disturbing things I've read since this whole thing started. That sort of isolationist crap kept us out of WW2 until after millions had already died. We don't need to turn the clock back seventy years, dammit.
Kansas-born and deeply ashamed The last living La Parka Marka: HE raised the briefcase!
The NAB opposed the merger because it would create a monopoly. Why was the NAB's opinion considered relevant or even listened to? Because the NAB is SatRad's competition. *head hurts* It's not a monopoly just because the delivery method is different....