« You May Be Missing Something | Main | (Politically) Dead President »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

How can you possibly believe that actions taken 50 years ago, by people who in all likelihood, are probably dead, can have any bearing on what happens in today's world. Under your worldview the only reasonable foreign policy moves the US has made since the Korean War would be the Peace Corps and the liberation of Kuwait (okay, even I admit there a few more in there somewhere)It would mean that our engagement in South and Latin America has only served to turn the citizens of those countries against us. It would mean that both our previous support of Saddam Hussein and our ouster of him were terrible mistakes.
Our Government always has "insider knowledge" that for security reasons can't be shared with "We the People" and is fully capable of making the call about when the US should act in ways that no one of us would ever act as an individual.
Get with it, Tom. Your outdated concepts of cause and effect have no place in the modern world of instantaneous and infallible information.

This is a great post, Tom.

Of course your Iranian friends wanted to come here. This is the land of opportunity! Everyone and his brother wants to come here! Who wouldn't? This is a first-world country with unparalleled freedoms and facilities. However, shouldn't a nation exist, first and foremost, for the sake of its own citizens?

A lot of people on the left just don't get this. This country was founded for sake of its founders and their posterity--their descendants. Contrary to one of the great myths of our day, America is not a nation of immigrants. It is a nation of Americans. All our laws and policies should benefit us. If they are also of benefit to others, that's even better--but it should never be the primary consideration.

This is not an argument against international aid or other such programs. It is an argument against allowing just anyone who wants to come here into the country. It is an argument against allowing unassimilable aliens in. It is an argument against allowing those who are hostile to our culture and laws in.

Right now, we're letting every Third World loser who can't make it in Mexico (or elsewhere south of the border) in. They're turning our country into a two-tiered society, in no small part because they are both unwilling to assimilate and incapable of assimilation. Tom, do you think that a two-tiered society is what America is all about?

Tom, I have no doubt that your personal experience with Moslems has been wonderful. As a matter of fact, my personal experience with Moslems has been wonderful. Our country's experience with Moslems is, well, not so great. "From the Hall of Montezuma/to the shores of Tripoli," is how the Marine Hymn starts. The more things change, the more they stay the same: those lines are about fighting Mexicans and Moslems. Moslems are responsible for the greatest atrocity ever committed on American soil: 9/11. Moslems razzias continue against American targets, both inside and outside the country. Moslems in the West--including America--openly express their hostility to our ways and their desire to destroy our system and replace it with theirs.

Do you really think that these people belong here, just because they want to come?

Look at it this way. 9/11 occurred because there were Moslems here. If we had retained our historical knowledge that Moslems are hostile to us, we would not have let them in in the first place. They could not have learned to fly in our schools; they could not have gotten onto our domestic flights. They could not have flown those planes and killed those people. They would not have made orphans, widows, and widowers out of so many innocents. We would not have invaded Afghanistan. We would not have invaded Iraq. We would not have lost 3,000+ of our fine Soldiers, Marines, Sailors, and Airmen to this stupid, pointless military intervention which is anything but a war.

Yes, it's true: the policy that let your Moslems friends into the country is the same policy that let the mass murdering-terrorists of 9/11 in. Was it worth it? Does the benefits your friends provide outweigh the harm that other Moslems have caused?

this place seems to be a magnet for trolls off their meds and it's a shame because the blog's author is generally articulate and insightful. i don't get it, unless tom himself is channeling nine-yr old zombies for the sake of devil's advocacy.

Incidentally, the worst thing about W's misadventure in Iraq is that it has made it well-nigh impossible for us to take on the next real, live, honest-to-God actual military threat to us, our security, and the global economy: Iran.

We can act now, to prevent Iran from going nuclear, or we can wait, and deal with the fallout (no pun intended) after they acquire The Bomb. Once they flex their nuclear muscles on The Little Satan (i.e., Israel), how long until they pick a fight with The Big Satan (i.e., us)? Even if "saner" heads prevail and they don't attack, do we want Iranian hegemony in the Middle East? Do we want them cutting off oil tankers' access to the Straits of Hormuz? Do we want Shiite fanatics to have absolute military superiority over the Sunnis?

Kim Jong-Il already shredded the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and threw the pieces in our faces. We're rewarding India for going nuclear--even though doing so violates our membership in that pact. With the head-in-the-sand appeasers in Europe so afraid of war they'll do anything but fight, we are the only ones who have the ability, and possibly the will, to stop the Iranians (plus, destabilizing Iran through destroying their nuclear ambitions could lead to regime change; I understand most Iranians don't care for their fundamentalist overlords). However, W, in the same profligate manner he has lived his entire adult life, has squandered the reserves that others have built before him. He has made it virtually impossible for us to prevent one of the most virulently anti-Western and anti-Israeli countries from going nuclear.

When it comes to war, it seems there are two schools of thought. On the left, we have those who want to avoid it at any cost. Neville Chamberlain showed us how effective that approach is. On the right, we have those who realize that sometimes, the only question about a war is not whether, but when. The skilled, like St. Ronald, fight it on their terms, and, when fortunate, can even do it without formal hostilities (like Reagan winning the Cold War).

I hate to have to tell you this, but war with Iran is not whether. It's when. Would you prefer to fight it on our terms, or theirs?

The comments to this entry are closed.