"One of the supreme ironies of recent history is that the policies and attitudes which declared all borders open, passports unnecessary, wars obsolete, all cultures equivalent and 'soft power' the only kind that could be countenanced may have led directly to rise of fearful police states."Why call it an irony when the police state is the consequence of all that openness?
For that matter, why does the Left side with the 'insurgents,' the Greens insist that fighting GW is more important than fighting terrorism, and our WOT's odd Rules of Engagement is the policy of the man who calls Islam the ROP?
After all, what do Leftists and Statists and Islamists all have in common?
View My Stats
Nicely put.
ReplyDeleteDuring the Cold War, the Soviets defined peace as when the world accepted their dominion.
ReplyDeleteAre you implying that GW accepts that this "religion of peace" has an identical view?
Then why doesn't he say so?
He doesn't, and that's a big part of the problem.
ReplyDeleteWhy doesn't he? Why make the problem any bigger than it is?
ReplyDeleteBurr,
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure that Og meant that W not saying it is the problem. I think he meant that our problem lies with W not accepting the premise, one that most of the sane world concedes to sadly.
As to why, well, all anyone can really do there is speculate.
However, truly thanks very much for your question.
It got me to thinking further: "what could be done to reach Bush even with the correct answer?"
Let's say one of us troubled conservatives actually had the answer to your "why" question.
Would W even entertain counter-arguments? I wrote on that dilemma a few days ago here.
The only possible answer seems to be that if you see what you consider possible counter arguments then
-- work on improving them;
-- publish the improvements;
-- encourage others to improve on you.
Maybe that way we'll wind up with the best consensus candidate to run for the GOP in 2008.