Are We Really Fighting the War on Terror? Or Are We Carefully Capitulating to the Perfect Political Paradox?

Imagine there really was terror, but that the warriors against that terror were nowhere to be found. Well...you don't have to imagine.

Is there a terror in the world today? Yes, there is. But not the kind the Establishment would have you believe by getting you hooked by their deadly hypnotic spell.

It's critical to discover--if someone hates you--what motivates that hatred. If you come up with the wrong answer (or if someone conditions your mind perpetually with the wrong answer), chances are you're fighting the wrong war.

I was reminded in the comments to my previous article here on SUMP why I really was mad at Mitt Romney for quitting. It was partially that he quit at the most inopportune time, but that was not so much it as the crap that came out of his mouth when he announced his personal surrender.

Here's what frosted my cookie:
I simply cannot let my campaign be a part of aiding a surrender to terror.
We all know what terror he is referring to, and what that means. It means, in Mittwellian doublespeak, that we must stay the course in Iraq. Not just until Iraq can take care of itself. You scarcely hear that even talked about anymore. Not that he would have been much better, but Mitt Romney just handed the Republican presidential nomination over to a bloke who said that we should stay in Iraq for 100 years or more if 'necessary'.

It also means that it must be okay for America to do anything to any other country, because whatever we do is noble, and after all, we are the world's policeman, trying to make the world safer for everyone.

Mitt Romney, you make me sick.

Mitt Romney's careful capitulation has left with a perfect political paradox.



Folks, there is a war on terror. But Iraq was never part of it. Yet there we stay, while the real war goes on all around us--the war to take away the freedom of anyone lazy enough or afraid enough to give it up. Mitt Romney wouldn't have done much better than John McCain as Risk-Piece-Mover-in-Chief, but nonetheless, it will be a travesty if we hand the reins of the Executive Branch over to a person who still thinks--even more fervently than George W. Bush--that Iraq was ever a part of the war on terror.

James Dobson said recently on the radio that if you took even 4% of all the Muslims in the world as terrorists, that means there are about 48 million Muslims that want to kill Americans. And that there is probably a higher percentage than that!! If he thinks that's true, he ought to be John McCain's biggest cheerleader.

The only problem with what Mitt Romney said, and what James Dobson said, is that neither statement is remotely true. They are crap statements. And the people who made them are brazenly condescending to people of different races and religions. Mr. Romney, and Mr. Dobson, I have met them, and they are NOT "little brown people". They are children of God just like you. There, but for God's grace, could you have gone.

There are definitely a lot of people that hate us. But not many of them want to kill us. The ones that want to kill us are the ones on whose land we squat with our military. You can tell how many people hate us by watching how many countries are with us in Iraq.

You can tell how many people look at us askance by how many countries we occupy with our military. It may not be that we've "taken" their land outright, but tell that to the hundreds of Japanese on Okinawa who feel like strangers in their own land. Occupation is still empire. Occupation is still imperialism.

Yes, there is a war on terror. But we've pissed the world off so bad, that when it really counts, there's going to be no one there to help us.

In reality, there are
probably far more than 48 million people who hate us, Mr. Dobson. But they're not all Muslims by any stretch of the imagination. We give them a plethora of reasons to hate our guts. American domination in fast food, video games, and entertainment. American cramming of cesspools of Hollywood filth down the throats of their children. But worst of all, American occupation. Because, of course, we know what's best for them.

Real terror struck us once--on 9/11. Luckily, it hasn't struck us again. Because our borders are as wide open as a Oklahoma dirt field. We've left the yard, and the gate is wide open.

The real war on terror would be to show the rest of the world how great freedom really can be. In infinitesimally small percentage of the world has ever known true freedom. A huge portion of those are Americans. Yet, not only are we willing to mock when America dominates and dictates to nations and peoples around the globe, we are also willing to give away something we don't even realize anymore that we have.

That is the essence of the real war on terror. But almost no one is fighting it.

Mitt Romney's careful capitulation has left Americans with nearly a perfect political paradox. Do we vote for someone who would take away the freedoms of Americans? Or do we vote for someone who scares the crap out of Americans every chance they get so that they can continue to take away the freedoms of just about everyone else on earth?

Two choices--loss of freedom, or loss of freedom.

How is that a choice?

How do we let ourselves get shanghaied--every time?




Comments

  1. This is quite possibly one of the most clearly written descriptions of what really challenges our national security and the next administration that I have ever come across on the Bloghive.

    Well said, to say the least.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Nice paradox. I wish you were wrong about it, but you're not.

    ReplyDelete
  3. So how would you characterize the threat of religiously-motivated jihad by Muslim groups? You seem to suggest that this threat is negligible, and terrorists are solely motivated by opposition to US policies.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The threat is negligible compared to other threats, such as China and the "Russviet Union".

    Most (but not all) terrorists are motivated by US occupation of their land. Al Qaeda in Iraq is very small compared to the everyday Iraqi who just doesn't want American troops to be there. I met a man from Tikrit who told me that he would be my friend if I hadn't come their in an Army uniform. I told him someday I would like to come back as a civilian. He said, "Then I would invite you into my home and you would be a guest of honor."

    Al Qaeda has no tanks, no airplanes, and (hopefully) as of yet no access to nuclear weapons. If we take care of our borders, the threat is miniscule compared to what Hu Jintao or Vladimir Putin could do to us in our weakest moment.

    But the problem is that we don't protect our borders, apparently almost hoping that someone will take our legs out from under us, perhaps so that the American people will ask for membership in the North American Union??? I'm not sure.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Thank you for commenting. If you have a Google/Blogger account, to be apprised of ongoing comment activity on this article, please click the "Subscribe" link below.

Popular posts from this blog

How LDS Censorship May Have Led to Less LDS Faithfulness: The Ronald E Poelman Conference Talk of 1984

Changing the Narrative of the LDS Church: 35 Years Later

"Mormon Leaks": What They Really Said-Senator Gordon Smith Discusses Politcs