 |
| Kane says actions have consequences |
(CNN) - Presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul reiterated his controversial stance Sunday that some policies of the United States contributed to the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. Speaking on the CBS program “Face the Nation,” Paul said his views were consistent with analysis from various groups...Why is this claim somehow surprising? To deny that our policies might have something to do with how the rest of the world treats us leaves only two alternatives.
The first is to deny that we have any effect whatsoever in the world. Our actions never bring about reactions. America is proof that Newton's Third Law of Motion does not apply to cool people.
The second possibility is that our actions do bring about reactions, but only predictable reactions that work in our favor. No matter what we do to or for people, they will always react with gratitude, and the people who are harmed by our actions** see the wisdom of our policy and change their wicked ways.
If neither of those possibilities makes sense, then we ought to be open to the possibility that our actions in the world do bring about consequences, and some of them we don't like very much. That is not necessarily an argument against doing any specific action, but it is an argument that we ought to take our actions seriously and count the cost of them, including the not wholly unpredictable costs that someone might visit on us if we pursue them.
There never was a stupider, more self-serving explanation for 9/11 than "They hate our freedoms." But what is amazing to me is not that Americans will grab onto any slogan that absolves them of responsibility for their own almost-rape, but that they are taken wholly by surprise when a politician tells them the startling truth that what they do actually makes a difference.
* The headline is not actually from the article, but is the text of the link on the front page.
** We don't even have to direct harm at them - we just need to help their enemies. For example, helping to create a stable and prosperous Iraq hurts those who gain by an unstable, unprosperous Iraq. These people are called 'Iranians.'
Posts
3 comments:
Like Bin Laden (BIH) said, "If we hate freedom why didn't we attack Switzerland?"*
Conservatives have unwittingly picked up the liberal aversion to "blaming the victim."
*Or was it Sweden? I always forget.
We have so much freedom it just oozes from the sewers of bureaucracy.
http://www.strike-the-root.com/4/hambidge/hambidge2.html
CJ,
They are attacking both Sweden and Switzerland using immigration. But AQ didn't need to attack them because they served no strategic advantage. Striking at America made AQ look strong and increased their recruiting, morale, ego, and fund raising. In the end, it has less to do with our foreign policy and more to do with OBL's messiah complex needing feeding.
All,
The simple fact is that our existance alone is sufficient cause for Islam to hate us. That hate will take different forms to different people. Most of Islamis satisfied to overcharge us for cheap electronics in major US cities. What we call "trade", others will call economic imperialism. What we call "tourism" others will call infiltration and desecration of holy soil. What we call "paying fair market price for resources" others call exploitation.
America is a big, important part of the modern world. We cannot crawl back inside a shell and be fed through a slot in the door. Every attempt to extend beyond that door is seen by some as an invasion. But all it really is, is cooperative interaction with the rest of the world.
OBL hated us because we had bases in Saudi Arabia. Bases that the Saudi government invited us to occupy to help protect them from Saddam Hussein. But OBL doesn't speak for the Saudi government. Nor does he speak for the Saudi people, nor for Islam. He was just another malcontent from a land that abounds in them. For such people, any excuse will do.
In the end, he got his wish. All American forces were withdrawn from Saudi Soil... and sent to Iraq.
Post a Comment