Quote from Burtakus:
Maybe if more people actually served their country in some capacity they would have a better appreciation for what it offers.
Many men and women have died or sacrificed more than most could possibly understand so that people can express themselves on forums such as this. It is a shame that rumors, speculation, and deliberate misinformation by both sides has turned this great country onto itself. Furthermore the complete pacification of the left has weakened this country immeasurably. People laud the Europeans for their restraint. They just didn;t want to lse their oil from Iraq along with the millions of dollars skimmed from the UN food for oil program. so you see that the very people the left looks up too have the same motivations as our government. When will the people of the nation wake up and realize that the world is not a perfect place and in order to ensure our status in the world we sometimes have to act in our cest interests. Tansforming Iraq into a democracy has greater long term benefits for our shildren and grandchildren than can be measured.
People may not like Bush but at least he does what he thinks is right and sticks to his guns. He is not afraid to make the tough decisions that need to be made and is willing to do what it takes to enusre the future prosperity of our nation.
As far as sending our sons and daughters to the service. I think it would be an excellent idea. It would give them a different perspective than the sheltered, idealist, self centered outlook provided by the left.
While the argument set out here has many valid historical points, and I myself shake my head in dismay (sometimes in disgust) when I consider how some take our freedoms for granted, sadly the inherent premise is that the only solution is to force others to do what some want for "their own good" because it has judged them to be "selfish" by its own standards.
The
hidden premise is that selfishness on principle is immoral.
But in doing so, it evades the obvious contradiction that its proponents
want what they want when they want it and thus, despite all the high-minded rhetoric about service and community values and giving back, it's really driven by their psychological impatience to get things done in
their timeframe, in
their way, by
their methods.
If selfishness is so bad in theory (according to these proponents), then what the heck is worse in practice?
(a) Deciding for oneself to study the classics, study computers (or trading), play baseball, learn plumbing,
join the military,
volunteer at a hospital, or otherwise contribute to society by paying taxes, where enriching the community is a secondary consequence of insuring that you be the best you want to be at what interests you? And then by voluntary trade, providing value to others for what they are willing to provide you for your ability?
(b) Or, through dint of 51% of the people joining hands in their vision of what
they want, condemn the other 49% to do something abhorent to their own lives, but that the 51% see as good in
their obvious, dare I say it, self-interest? After all, these 51% who would vote to enslave the other 49% are doing so because they think they are correct in what they want. So "correct" that they dismiss as unimportant in their values hierarchy the very principles and foundations of that which they allegedly state they are protecting: Freedom.
The hypocrisy is staggering. The consequences are generationally cyclical and negative. And the results to real people's lives are vicious. Absolutely vicious.
Why is that people in one camp are willing to leave each other alone? And people in the other camp are so sure that they know what's good for everybody else to do?
