Why are we are so loved worldwide?
I suppose most still think that we are targets because we let women vote and wear bikinis whenever they want.

[url]http://www.enterprise-journal.com/NF/omf/ejournal/ssiuname=WebOSTTN/ssipwd=TTN5ECFE62B/news/news_story.html?rkey=0014531+sid=20020116113754.6ED09+cat=opinions[/url]

Charley Reese: Traditional values go only so far
Published Wednesday, January 16, 2002 11:37 AM CST

Sen. Jesse Helms, R-N.C., made a speech recently at Michigan’s Hillsdale College that illustrates a blind spot for most Americans in and out of government.

Helms’ speech was about traditional American values. They are best stated in our Declaration of Independence: “All men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” The mistake Helms made was that he doesn’t recognize that we apply those values only to ourselves, not to foreigners.

That’s why it’s erroneous to suppose that we were attacked on Sept. 11 because we are a “symbol of freedom.” We once were, back in the days of the republic, but since the Spanish- American War in 1898, we have acted the same as imperialists in Europe. We are, in the eyes of many people overseas today, not a symbol of freedom at all, but a symbol of oppression.

In the early 1950s, for example, the Iranian people overthrew a dictatorship and elected an Iranian nationalist government, which promptly threw the British out of their oil fields. The United States saw an opportunity — not to celebrate the Iranian people’s freedom, but to grab the oil.

Our government organized a coup, overthrew the elected leader of Iran and installed a new dictator, the Shah of Iran. The price, of course, was that Iranian oil was handed over to American oil companies.

For decades we helped the shah maintain his dictatorship in the most cruel and tyrannical manner, until finally the Iranian people overthrew him. So, do you honestly think that Iranians hate America because we are a “symbol of freedom”? We never have been, as far as they are concerned. We were, in effect, co-dictator of their country.

page 1

page 2

We have helped install and maintain some awful dictators all around the world. The lesson that foreigners learned is that we are in favor of democracy only if the outcome of the election suits us. If it doesn’t, we’re very likely to wreck the elected government and replace it with a dictator.

Islamists won an election in Algeria, fair and square. The Algerian army nullified the election. With whom did we side? The army, of course.

I need not point out that in the Middle East, we are not helping anyone realize his or her unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We actively assist the Israeli government in suppressing the rights of the Palestinian people. And who are our allies? Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait. Not a democracy among them.

It took only a brief fight to wrest the Philippines from Spanish rule, but a long and bloody war to suppress the Filipinos who wanted independence and had no desire to exchange one foreign ruler for another. Were we upholding the ideas of freedom? Of course not.

The American Establishment and the corporate media work hard to make sure Americans remain both ignorant and uninterested in foreign policy. Our job is to just gather in the nearest square and cheer whenever the president announces that, for the most righteous of reasons, we have decided to bomb and/or invade some small sovereign nation.

Charlie Reese has his anti-American, anti-Israeli blinders on.  More typical hate America crap.

Norm in NJ

If I were you, I'd choose a nomex-heavy ensemble for today...

Unless you're willing to look at the truth, no matter how uncomfortable it makes you, you can make no progress.  

Please, detail exactly what Mr. Reese got wrong?

Good article. Charley Reese is a good author

Now watch the interventionists come with their ad hominum attacks: anti-american, anti-semitic, naive, bs, etc, etc. Hardly ever do they actually argue their point.

Typical over simplified look at what makes the world go wrong.

We aren't privy to the world organizations meetings and back room secessions where world strategies are dreamed up.

Powerful world bankers and their lending organizations/institutions also have their dirty little hands involved in many of the ugly decisions he spews about.

Of course, looking at REALITY and not the libertarian world utopia that some naive children THINK we live in, it is not the job of our government to support the most democratic countries in the world, it is the job of our government to support those governments that best serve our national interests.
Our government is NOT elected to be the representatives of people of OTHER nations, it is elected to represent OUR interests.
If the Algerians elect a government that is opposed to those interests and the military junta that overthrows it is SUPPORTING our interests, it's the job of our elected officials to support that junta for as long as they do what we want them to do.
I know some people here will wail and gnash their teeth and dress in sackcloth and ashes over this comment, but that's the way it is, and that is the way it has always been.
And the FACT is, September 11th WAS INDEED about cultural influence.  Bin Laden used to admit this was the problem before he started trying to pimp the Palestinians.
You'd think some people here would have the brains to realize this, but perhaps that's asking too much...

What did I say about the ad hominum attacks? Did I call it or what?
We are looking at reality. You just dispute what we see reality as, as we dispute what you see reality as.

Our governments job is not to support ANY government, but only to defend our borders.

No, they shouldn't even care about Algeria unless they are getting ready to invade us.

I didn't mention ANY screen names...but if you feel the description fits you, feel free to be offended. I don't give a shit.



Yes, but only one of us has a firm grasp on reality and I have a sneaking suspicion it aint you.



No, to defend our INTERESTS.  If you don't defend the interests first, once it comes down to defending the borders it is just too damned late.  That would be one of those "reality" things with which you have so much trouble.



Short-sightedness like that is what would GET us invaded.  Here's a clue for you, junior...if the enemy is getting ready to invade, our elected officials have ALREADY failed at their jobs.  They should be curtailing threats BEFORE they get to the "we're going to invade the US" point.  And that requires taking an interest in god-forsaken places like Algeria, much as it offends your purist libertarian sensibilities.
So sorry the real world doesn't fit your desires.

Actually, no.....you didn't. Had that one sentence been the only response, then it would have constitutem and ad hominem....however by attempting to refute listed arguments, he dismisses them not by the virtue of the person presenting them, but by his rebuttals.





Question: If that is the case, then why is it that more is provided in the Constitution of the United States? Article I Section 8 specifically provides Congress the power to '...regulate Commerce with foreign Nations'. Article II Section 2 provides that the President has the power to enter into treaies (provided Senate consent) and appoint Ambassadors. Article II Section 2 allows him to receive Ambassadors. If the only job is to defend borders, why give Congress and the President these powers?

Does this also go both ways? If our government is not to have any entanglements, then logic dictates you would also be utterly against such callous violations as accepting foreign assistance during the Revolutionary War.



Yet since the government is...what was it...'only to defend our borders', then by your logic the only way one would know about Algeria planning to invade is when the bombardments begin and troops have landed upon our soil. Military tactics far older than our nation show the wisdom of fighting the enemy on his own soil and NOT yours.

And no, no wailing and gnashing of teeth...merely thankfulness that those in command have a far greater understanding of dealing with foreign nations and threats than the mindset presented above.

Actually, if that is the way it is, and the way it has been, then this conversation would not exist.



Hrm.....were I to share your understanding of the term, I would declare this an ad hominem attack. Rather, I would only say I address valid points, and not vehicles used to deliver half-clever insults. I would almost go so far as to say that one should first show intelligence before they attack the intelligence of others....but that would be lowering myself.

I didn't mention any screen names either, but you certain fit the description.


It seems you suspicion is wrong. We can go around and around on who has a better grasp on reality, but we should let the facts speak for themselves.


Another ad hominum attack I see. We should have advance notice, through intelligence agencies, about any impending attack, and we can cut it off at the pass. We should NOT be interfering in other people's affairs, because that is not defending our interests. We do not need interventionism.


More ad hominum attacks. You do love them don't you! No, they have not failed at their jobs. Enemies will be getting ready to attack us regardless of any action we might take. Sept 11th clearly demonstrates that.

Ad hominum attacks are separate from other points made by a person. They are defined at attacking the person instead of attacking the argument. Calling me utopian is an ad hominum attack.


Well, maybe I was overly restrictive in my statement. Our interests should be protected. But our interests consist of protecting liberty and American. Our interests to do not mandate that we interfere in other peoples affairs. Kosovo is an example


The Founders did not want us to follow the French's example. While the French did help us out, they did not do it out of some humanitarian beliefs. They wanted to get back at Britain plane and simple. We accepted there help because we needed it, but we used them to get what we wanted.


That's a strawman argument. I did not say that we should wait until Algeria is actually invading us, but when they show signs and are getting ready to invade us. We should be active in intelligence to keep an eye on our enemies, so we can be ready to defeat them


Actually I did not say that. If you look above, I left out a quote bracket, and if you look at RikWriter's post, you will see he said it. So you are in fact admitting I was right on the ad hominum attacks, since you yourself said that the post was one, and that post one by Rik himself.

We intervene internationally because our interest are international.  Reality, sorry!

Think, Standard Oil or United Fruit and you'll get a real good idea of what that has looked like from a corporate/business perspective.  We entered Vietnam to prevent the spread of communism, which we beleived was in our national interests.  We joined the second world war for other, more complicated reasons, but again for our interests.

The good news is anti-inteventionists are a very small minority.  And yes, I would also say that anyone who believes we can sit behind our borders and not bother with the rest of the world IS out of touch with reality.

BTW, "ad hominem" means "Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason."  It's not just a personal attack, it's an arguement based on the supposed personal feelings or motives of your opponent.  

Mr. Reese is not very accurate in his account of the Iranian situation. First, the Shah was not a dictator. He was the King, just as his father had been. This gives him some legitimacy. Secondly, there was no direct military involvement by the US. The CIA was there, backing the pro-Shah faction if the Iranian military, but in the end it was the pro-Shah faction of the Iranian military who overthrew Muhammad Mussadegh, not US firepower. Is that imperialism? Perhaps. The Shah did some good things for his people. With the help of the US, he launched a reform program called the "White Revolution," which included land redistribution among citizens, large-scale construction projects, the promotion of literacy, and the emancipation of women. It wasn't until the 1970's that he became "oppressive", and that was against the fundamentalist Islamic clergy who were stirring things up. The Shah wanted to bring Iran into the modern era, the clergy wanted the nation run by Islamic law. Looking back, it's clear that anyone with half a brain would support the Shah. Khomeini and his ilk were the Taliban of the 70's and 80's. Should we support that group? I think not.

Same old "I hate my country" crap from the same old people.

No, it's really the same old "I love my country so much that I hate my country" crap along with the same old "I'm the only one that recognizes what's really wrong here and the rest of you are sheep and too stupid to know what's REALLY going on" crap.

Either way, lots of crap!

Actually it is none of that "crap". Its "I love my COUNTRY and LIBERTY, but hate my GOVERNMENT" belief.

Hi, you didn't think I'd sit this one out did you?  

Just for the record, it's not just our government that I distrust and dislike.  Basically, it's all of them.  Whether my worldview is oversimplified or not doesn't matter, I'm not the one who is going to be suffering and dying for other people's dumb ideas and outright lies.  I see no future for this country as a land of freedom and self-determination--you can't be both ignorant and free, it just doesn't work that way.