In the piece he quotes former CIA counter-terrorism expert Michael Scheuer:
If America were blessed with a non-interventionist foreign policy, we could all thank Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert for giving President-elect Barack Obama a thoroughgoing lesson in the absolute irrelevancy of Israel and Palestine to the national interests of the United States. More than a week into Israel's invasion of Gaza, America is still alive and kicking and none of our citizens are dead, which is the way it should be, as this is their religious war and not ours. If stubborn non-interventionism were our creed — as the Founders intended — the Gaza war could continue for two more days or two more months and we could simply shrug and mutter 'Who cares?' America could simply go on its way, rebuilding its economy and marveling over the madness of two religions fighting to the death over a barren sandpit at the eastern end of the Mediterranean.
16 comments:
What a stupid quote. It is not "two religions fighting in the sand", or whatever. It is two communities fighting for the same land as a direct result of Western racism.
So you're blaming Israeli's taking land from Palestine and murdering thousands of their people on Hitler?
No, the Western racism in Europe that culminated in Hitler, Mussolini, and to a lesser extent, the Soviet leaders.
Right. So Hitler, Mussolini, and the Soviet leaders are murdering the Palestinians.
No, but they, and the economic conclusions that allowed them to exist, are the primary cause of the current mess.
Well, I like to lay the blame on the individuals that commit the crime on the crime.
"Well, I like to lay the blame on the individuals that commit the crime on the crime."
I know. Pseudo-christian ideologies reject cause and effect in relation to people. Science is valid only for non-people phenomena.
``I know. Pseudo-christian ideologies reject cause and effect in relation to people. Science is valid only for non-people phenomena.``
I may have a bad day and take it out on a friend. However, those that caused my bad day are not at fault for my bad behavior. I`m not denying cause and effect, I simply recognize free will.
"I may have a bad day and take it out on a friend. However, those that caused my bad day are not at fault for my bad behavior. I`m not denying cause and effect, I simply recognize free will."
At fault? Well, fault is a complex result of complex social relations. They are, however, the causes of your bad day and subsequent bad behavior. You can not choose to ignore your emotions. In many cases you can't even control them.
"You can not choose to ignore your emotions. In many cases you can't even control them."
You deny free will?
Indeed. I don't, however, deny action.
So every action you take is the result of a culmination of actions which preceded, meaning your action was predetermined and you have no ability to changed this...is this what you're saying?
"So every action you take is the result of a culmination of actions which preceded, meaning your action was predetermined and you have no ability to changed this...is this what you're saying?"
Yes, that and the fact that will is not omniscient, and can not be regulated 24-7. The law makes it clear to all causal outcomes, i.e. individuals, that certain actions will be punished with well-known consequences. This, of course, is cause in-itself. The law causes people, those who are obviously the result of cause-and-effect, to take into account the possible punishment that could be leveled against them if they act.
I guess there is a simply a fundamental disagreement on this one.
"I guess there is a simply a fundamental disagreement on this one."
Actually, no. Cause-and-effect is well-proven. That children come from genetics and from parental rearing is also well-proven. What is not well-proven is the assertion that we are radically free and responsible for our actions on some fundamental level.
So basically, your position comes down to Faith.
Post a Comment