"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"
Cicero Marcus Tullius
I am not a jingoist, no, but I might point out that neither am I a self-loathing reactionary.
If the forums I have visited are any indication, the "America, love it or leave it crowd", is matched pretty closely by the "America is the source of all the world's ills" set.
Neither get my respect.
"you're better off on Stormfront discussing how evil brown men are taking innocent white flowers." Infinite Chaos
Originally Posted by johnny_rebson:
These are the same liberals who forgot how Iraq attacked us on 9/11.
My most compact reasoning for the justification of Iraq is in post #17: http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/...post1058341854 (Are you a jingoist?). Note that according to my reasoning, Iraq was a candidate while Sudan is not. Which part(s) of that reasoning do you object to?
Let me add that there is a history of intervention by the US "in the national interest", without a threat, or the threat was a threat to economic interests abroad and not a security threat. Some of them are:
- Many countries in Latin America
- Long War in the west
Collectively known as the Small Wars.
Last edited by reefedjib; 11-03-09 at 10:55 AM.