Essentially Sherman is suggesting that we punish regimes that present us with problems. Once done, that we leave with a warning that if their successor does us wrong again, we will be back. This would be done at a tenth of the cost of introducing democracy to these countries. Obama on the other hand is joining forces with those that do us harm. In this way they are no longer our enemy, or so he thinks. Ted Belman
Into the Fray: The GOP should focus on deterring – and if need be, deposing – dictators, rather than promoting democracy.
-
A period out of power has given conservatives and Republicans a golden opportunity to reassess their approach toward American foreign policy. Such periods in opposition are often fruitful for political parties, which can reformulate creative and winning ideas…. It is time to rethink the Republican Party’s foreign policy approach, keep that which was admirable about Bush, and reject that which was not.
– Prof. Colin Dueck “Regaining a Realistic Foreign Policy” – Policy Review, August 2010
The is the second of a two-part essay on foreign policy (PART I) for the US Republican Party, assessing its rationale and implementation, and exploring paradigms for the future.
A brief reminder
Over the better part of the past decade the intellectual underpinning of Republican foreign policy was one of the most widely accepted tenets of international relations – the Democratic Peace Theorem (DPT) which holds that genuine democracies do go to war against each other.
In Perpetual Peace (1795), Emmanuel Kant expounded a rationale for why states governed by representative constitutions “would be very cautious in commencing such a poor game [war],” while dictatorial regimes “may resolve on war… for the most trivial reasons.”
Since then, both political philosophers and practitioners have embraced the notion of democracy as a war-retardant form of governance.
Moreover, despite some unpersuasive attempts to challenge its validity, the DPT is generally acknowledged by scholars of international politics to have overwhelming support in the historical record.
Since World War I, leaders on both sides of the Atlantic – from Winston Churchill through Ronald Reagan to Bill Clinton – have alluded to democracies’ propensity for peace as a relevant element of foreign policy. However, it was with the Bush II administration that it was most explicitly formulated and attained pivotal doctrinal status in the formulation and implementation of US foreign policy.
Its declared centrality in the pursuit of US interests was enthusiastically endorsed by an impressive list of neo-con intellectuals, who saw in this development a new dawn for their influence on policy.
In the words of Charles Krauthammer: “The Bush Doctrine is, essentially, a synonym for neoconservative foreign policy [and] marks neoconservatism’s own transition from a position of dissidence… during the first Bush administration and the Clinton years, to governance.”
Realty and theory
The manifest peace-inducing nature of democracy led to the belief that international stability and security were best achieved by promoting it beyond US borders.
This belief gave rise to the “Forward Strategy for Freedom” and the “Broader Middle East Initiative” which, to a large degree, was the center piece of the Bush/neo-con foreign policy. The promotion of democracy became the proclaimed rational for titanic efforts and expenditure in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Over a trillion dollars were spent, and thousands of lives lost, in Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraq Freedom, names indicative of the objectives invoked for their being undertaken.
Less than 10 percent of these costs and casualties were incurred to achieve the initial punitive goals – dislodging the Taliban and apprehending Saddam Hussein. The rest of the blood and treasure was expended on an endeavor to effect regime-change (i.e. promoting democracy).
In this respect, US achievements have been depressingly meager, and even these may be ephemeral. Iraq appears to be descending into sectarian violence, reverting to coercive authoritarianism, while in Afghanistan there are growing fears that after US withdrawal, the country will again fall under the control of a Taliban theocracy.
A footprint in the sand?
It is becoming increasing likely that the legacy of this massive mobilization of money and military might may be no more permanent than a footprint in the sand, erased by the inclement winds of cultural mores, religious rivalries and societal practices that have blown through these regions for ages.
Why did a policy that had such a theoretically sound, empirically corroborated point of departure, and the sweeping endorsement of prominent intellectuals, culminate in what is emerging as a debacle? It was Kurt Lewin, considered by many as the father of social psychology, who coined the phrase: “There is nothing so practical as a good theory.” So perhaps the converse is true as well: “Nothing is so impractical as a bad theory.”
And indeed, faulty theory is the key to deciphering why things went awry.
Defective deduction
To understand this, one must first grasp what the DPT (as the doctrinal source for the Bush foreign policy) says, and what it doesn’t, but is wrongly attributed to it as an alleged corollary.
The DPT holds that genuine liberal democracies do not fight each other.
It does NOT say two things:
-
• That democracies do not fight at all – as they clearly do fight other regimes; and
• How – or even, if – nondemocratic regimes can be transformed into democratic ones.
The latter point comprises the intellectual trap into which the neo-cons (and the Bush Doctrine) fell.
They indulged in a seemingly plausible deduction, which expanded a valid observation regarding the conduct of one regimetype (democratic) into an actionable policy prescription for the transformation of other regime-types (autocracies).
This deceptive deduction can be condensed thusly: “There are no wars between democracies: ergo, democracy is good; ergo, democracy should be promoted.”
This error is aptly described by John M. Owen IV in his 2005 Foreign Affairs essay: “By itself, the argument that democracies do not fight one another does not have any practical implications for the foreign policy maker. It needs an additional or minor premise, such as “the United States can make Iraq into a democracy at an acceptable cost…. No scholarly consensus exists on how countries become democratic.”
That then is the fatal non sequitur in the neo-con/Bush doctrine, the assumption that the nonbelligerent nature of democracy can be propagated by transforming nondemocratic regimes into democratic ones, without any clear formula for how this is to be accomplished.
Although it is probably pushing the analogy too far (since several tyrannies have indeed become democracies), some might suggest that this is a bit like trying to make the jungle safer by converting carnivores to herbivores.
Policy implications
But Owen is wrong about one thing.
The “argument that democracies do not fight one another” DOES have practical implications for the foreign policy maker – it is just that these implications are not that the conversion of despotism to democracies should be the primary focus of endeavor.
Indeed, it has at least two policy implications – both of which diverge from the policy paradigms of Bush’s alleged “idealism” and Obama alleged “realism.”
The major policy implication of DPT is that democracies and dictatorships are distinctly different political entities (different political animals so to speak) with different codes of conduct in the international system. After all, democracies refrain from war against fellow democracies, while dictatorships do wage war against other dictatorships.
In this respect, the DPT differs sharply from the realist approach to international relations, endorsed by the likes of Walt and Mearsheimer, which essentially holds that a country’s foreign policy should not be influenced by other states’ regime-type.
Clearly, the DPT implies this is not so and that a “regime-sensitive” foreign policy is called for, at least with regard to democracies.
In broad brush strokes, this would involve greater emphasis on coercion (deterrence/intervention) in engagements with potentially belligerent dictatorships, and greater emphasis on constructive engagement with perennially peaceable democracies.
By embracing/sustaining/supporting democratic allies rather than cajoling dictatorial adversaries, the US will not only increase its credibility but put a premium on alliances with it and make the adoption of US values more advantageous.
Dislodging dictators
In the particularly crucial area for US military intervention, an accurate interpretation of the DTP would result in a policy significantly different from that of proactive promotion of democracy undertaken by the Bush administration, in many ways the defining feature of its foreign policy endeavors.
To a large extent, it was the looming specter of failure and futility, which, as Dueck observes, “undermined the credibility of his presidency and his party with a majority of Americans,” that even the achievements of the 2006-7 surge in Iraq could not erase. Dueck, a professor of international relations at George Mason University, expressed surprise at “what little emphasis most… Republicans place on the Iraq war for their party’s comprehensive loss of power.”
Suppose then that a situation arises which is judged to warrant US military intervention to safeguard American interests. (Note that I purposely skirt the question of what would comprise such a situation and whether the conditions in Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraqi in 2003 justified military intervention.)
Given that “no scholarly consensus exists on how countries become democratic,” and the largely fruitless endeavor to promote democracy through martial might, what should be the doable goals of such DPT-compliant intervention?
Over the last decade and half, the US (with some assistance from its Western allies) has proved its ability to depose recalcitrant dictatorial adversaries with relative ease, at minimal cost and with very low casualties, employing largely airpower (and other standoff weapons) and special forces.
The US did this in the Balkans in 1999 (a decision it may well yet regret); it dislodged the Taliban from power within weeks, for a minute fraction of the total outlay of the ensuing war, incurring about 50 fatalities. In Iraq (where admittedly ground forces were deployed on a larger scale), Saddam Hussein was apprehended within a few months of the start of the war – again for a small fraction of the subsequent expenditure and with fewer than 500 fatalities.
In Libya, too, NATO nations, with US assistance, precipitated the downfall of an entrenched dictator for bearable costs and almost no casualties.
Developing deterrence
Plausible questions can be raised as to whether military intervention in each of these cases was wise (in terms of furthering US interests) or appropriate (in terms of their moral imperative).
Equally one might suggest that, say, both in the Balkans and in Libya, those who succeed to power could be even more harmful to Western interests.
Both such claims miss the point. First, even with the huge democracy-promotion efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, the reins of power might soon be in the hands of elements just as inimical to the US as their predecessors.
Second, the proposed paradigm must be seen in a comprehensive policy-wide context and not in context of a single campaign.
Irrespective of who a deposed dictator’s successor might be, a credible caveat must be conveyed to him: The fate of your predecessor could well be yours.
The fact that the US has proved itself able to accomplish this at eminently bearable costs will make the threat both more effective and, if need be, executable.
Far-reaching implications
One cannot expound an exhaustive treatise on a topic so complex as US foreign policy in a framework such as this, and many important components have gone unaddressed. However, the far-reaching impact of the proposed paradigm shift set out in this essay should not be underestimated. Imagine how different – how much more powerful – the US position would be today if it had left Afghanistan and Iraq victorious after routing the Taliban and toppling Saddam in short order, issuing a stern warning that a similar fate awaits any regime that dare undermine its interests or challenge its resolve.
Imagine if the US was not burdened with the need to mollify Pakistan because of ongoing Afghan operations, how this might be accelerate the strengthening of its bonds with democratic India and what impact this might have for containing Chinese hegemonic aspirations in the Indian Ocean region. Imagine how more menacing the US would appear to Iran, which today, emboldened by the perception of American trauma and fatigue following a decade of military attrition, dares – almost incredibly – to defy a nation nearly six times its size, with quadruple its population, and 40 times its GDP.
IN CLOSING, we should bear in mind Dueck’s opening citation: “It is time to rethink the Republican Party’s foreign policy approach, keep that which was admirable about Bush, and reject that which was not.”
The Bush Doctrine was valid at the mega-philosophical level in embracing the DPT; it was faulty in its interpretation at the macro-strategic level and fatally flawed in its operational application at the micro-tactical level. Democracy must indeed be learned, but it is doubtful if it can be taught – especially the Islamic world.
The false parallels to post-World War II Japan and Germany must be resisted. These are some of the lessons Republicans must take with them in formulating US foreign policy.
www.martinsherman.net
Nonsense. I have great sympathy for homosexuals.
No sympathy whatsoever for their political pretensions (let alone, their sexual compulsions). But much sympathy indeed for them as persons.
Sympathy because I know — because I can see — that they are (among other things) truly victims.
Not victims of society, mind you.
Because they aren’t victims of society, not any longer — certainly not any longer so in most of the Western world, which virtually bends over backwards (no pun intended) to accommodate them.
Sympathy for them because I can see that they are — ALL of them, everywhere — victims, in a far more basic & consequential way than ANY of them ever were of societal condemnation.
They are victims — inadvertently, more often than not — of their own families.
Indeed that’s HOW their respective polarities came to be inverted in the first place.
But that’s a matter for another day.
I rather doubt you’d recognize a religious nut if one bit you; but then you wouldn’t know what to look for.
The religious sensibility is shared by all persons — without exception.
We’re all hard-wired for it; it’s a feature which is species-specific, courtesy of the Manufacturer.
So it is hardly limited to those affiliated with organized religion
— nor, even, limited to those who profess a belief in a Supreme Being independent of ecclesiastical structure.
And actually, in those instances when it does go awry, the very worst kind of “religious nut” — indeed the most bigoted of the bigots — is he who thinks he’s “above” religion altogether.
The verdict of history is clear & unambiguous: On the scale of pure, brittle intolerance, the “anti-religious” nut is, hands down, the very Emperor of Bigots.
KNOW anybody like that, do you?
Never said — or suggested — anything of the sort; quite the contrary, in fact:
I’ve always taken the view that what’s important is that I be “on HIS side.”
Yes, His indeed, quite so.
But where the Master of the Universe is concerned, there’s no need to limit oneself to the printed page; as I’ve said, myriad times on this blogsite, He also speaks directly to the individual consciousness
— not with ‘words’ as such, but thru the intuition in FORESIGHT
and the conscience in HINDSIGHT.
From your earlier post you presume to assign a value to “consciences” — but you have yet to say who you think the “THEY” are that do the “handing out” of consciences.
The intuition/conscience is God’s foreign embassy in the world of men.
No other creature in His vast creation is so endowed, so blessed.
The intuition/conscience is the evidence of Him offering His protection & warning whenever, for example, the interior dread & discomfort arises within ALL persons (yes, even those with homosexual propensities) when confronted by the prospect of a first homosexual encounter. Ignore that warning, and you’ll find it progressively harder to “hear” it thereafter.
Another cheap shot — you DO seem somewhat prone to them when under the influence of blind, adrenaline-fed emotionalism.
In any event, the short answer — despite the question’s obviously rhetorical intent — is No, I ‘spout this nonsense’ with some regularity, over my own signature & opposite my own grisly mugshot wherever & whenever I find it necessary to do so.
And regrettably it’s necessary all-too-much these days.
Didn’t say they were ‘evil.’ Don’t put words in my mouth (others have tried, they didn’t get away with it either).
We already covered this [Feb 23, 8:24 am].
But then you do have a problem distinguishing what words actually say from the straw men your mind CREATES when you don’t stay calm. You’ve already demonstrated this profusely.
Just saw your latest post. Apparently I was not successful in steering you away from the homosexual issue on which you still seem fixated.
I’ve learned that it really is useless to argue with religious nuts like you who are so self-righteous and so convinced that god is on their side that their belief, no matter how warped or strange or bigoted, overrides all reason. “His words” indeed!!! Go believe in fairy tales if you want but using them to justify prejudice is abhorrent. So that’s what religion has taught you, to condemn people as evil because of their sexuality!!! And you think there is a difference between you and the jihadists, the Taliban? Given the opportunity you’d probably be right up front hurling stones at those evil homosexuals, wouldn’t you? Do you only spout this nonsense because of the anonymity the internet provides or do you say it when people can see your face? Anyway, please spare me your religiously based, hateful rants. They add nothing to reasonable conversation.
You seem so confused it’s hard to know where to begin. Ethnic cleansing is a vile concept, no matter who is doing it but, if it doesn’t involve US it doesn’t matter, right? We should have just stood by and let it happen, right? Just as the world has done in Darfur. As I said, the only lesson you and so many others have taken from the Holocaust is “What, me worry?”
We laid waste to Yugoslavia? The fighting between the Serbs, Bosnians, Croats, Albanians was our doing? We introduced a gangster republic? Tito wasn’t a gangster who ruled by strongarm tactics? Your selective memory is amazingly warped.
Then you mention Vietnam as though there is some kind of equivalence. You were protesting because we were involved in a war of ideologies, a civil war. There was no question of ethnic cleansing or persecution by those in power of powerless minorities. And though you may have been called a liberal or leftist, you were certainly not one of a small minority – there were millions of protestors, so many, in fact, that it led to the resignation of a president and the election of one who was elected only as a protest against the war in which the Democrats involved us.
And you don’t think that getting rid of monsters like Ghadaffi and Hussein and bin Laden was a good thing? I am by no means optimistic about who will rule in Libya, or Syria if Asad goes, or Iraq but offing those murderers is a small measure of justice.
Were you serious about Poland when you said it came out of the war in worse shape??? So you think it would have been better off under the Nazis? You know, I’ll bet you really do.
Difficult as it was I did try to pry you away from the homosexual issue, on which you seemed fixated – it was you who focused only on that group out of the ones I mentioned, remember?
and the introduction into the region of a g a n g s t e r republic, kept alive through d r u g and g u n s m u g g l i n g.
It’s curious, that when I opposed the V i e t n a m War 40 years ago, I was considered a “Leftist” and “Liberal”. Now, when I oppose the very same sort of military adventurism, I am labeled as “old fashioned” and, by implication, “conservative”. The only thing that seems to have changed, is that the “Leftists” and “Liberals” are now in power; so it is now apparently OK for them to go throwing their weight around the world and laying waste to countries like Y u g o s l a v i a and L i b y a in the name of…
…of what? “Helping”? God save me from such help!
In the second case, presumed or real “e t h n i c cleansing” of A l b a n i a n s in K o s o v o was exchanged for the very real ethnic cleansing of S e r b s in that country,
In the first case, P o l a n d came out of the war in worse shape than it was in at first; it became an occupied puppet state of the S o v i e t U n i o n for over 40 years.
In the first case, P o l a n d came out of the war in worse shape than it was in at first; it became an occupied puppet state of the S o v i e t U n i o n for over 40 years. In the second case, presumed or real “e t h n i c cleansing” of A l b a n i a n s in K o s o v o was exchanged for the very real ethnic cleansing of S e r b s in that country, and the introduction into the region of a gangster republic, kept alive through drug and gun smuggling.
Whenever countries have overstepped these guidelines — When H i t l e r, for instance, took it upon himself to extend G e r m a n values and practices to P o l a n d; or when we colluded with B r i t a i n and G e r m a n y to attack Y u g o s l a v i a over their treatment of A l b a n i a n s in their country — the result has been war; and the outcome of the war had consequenses very different from the nature of the problem being dealt with.
Whenever countries have overstepped these guidelines — When H i t l e r, for instance, took it upon himself to extend G e r m a n values and practices to P o l a n d; or when we colluded with B r i t a i n and G e r m a n y to attack Y u g o s l a v i a over their treatment of A l b a n i a n s in their country — the result has been war; and the outcome of the war had consequenses very different from the nature of the problem being dealt with. In the first case, P o l a n d came out of the war in worse shape than it was in at first; it became an occupied puppet state of the S o v i e t U n i o n for over 40 years. In the second case, presumed or real “ethnic cleansing” of A l b a n i a n s in K o s o v o was exchanged for the very real ethnic cleansing of S e r b s in that country, and the introduction into the region of a gangster republic, kept alive through drug and gun smuggling.
It’s curious, that when I opposed the V i e t n a m War 40 years ago, I was considered a “Leftist” and “Liberal”. Now, when I oppose the very same sort of military adventurism, I am labeled as “old fashioned” and, by implication, “conservative”. The only thing that seems to have changed, is that the “Leftists” and “Liberals” are now in power; so it is now apparently OK for them to go throwing their weight around the world and laying waste to countries like Y u g o s l a v i a and L i b y a in the name of…
…of what? “Helping”? God save me from such help!
Zahav,
Forgive my apparent inattention. Actually, I am being censored by the powers that be. I will try to re-post my answer to you in fragments:
Zahav,
I am glad you are steering the conversation away from discussion of homosexuality and back towards the matter that I actually brought up, namely, that we do not have an obligation, as a country, to go after dictators. You said,
As I said before, it is none of our business. To be more specific, the United States government is obligated to protect American citizens around the world, as well as guests on American soil. What other countries do in their own countries, which does not affect our citizens, is their responsibility and not ours. These are time-honored and sensible guidelines.
Zahav,
I am glad you are steering the conversation away from discussion of homosexuality and back towards the matter that I actually brought up, namely, that we do not have an obligation, as a country, to go after dictators. You said,
As I said before, it is none of our business. To be more specific, the United States government is obligated to protect American citizens around the world, as well as guests on American soil. What other countries do in their own countries, which does not affect our citizens, is their responsibility and not ours. These are time-honored and sensible guidelines. Whenever countries have overstepped these guidelines — When Hitler, for instance, took it upon himself to extend German values and practices to Poland; or when we colluded with Britain and Germany to attack Yugoslavia over their treatment of Albanians in their country — the result has been war; and the outcome of the war had consequenses very different from the nature of the problem being dealt with. In the first case, Poland came out of the war in worse shape than it was in at first; it became an occupied puppet state of the Soviet Union for over 40 years. In the second case, presumed or real “ethnic cleansing” of Albanians in Kosovo was exchanged for the very real ethnic cleansing of Serbs in that country, and the introduction into the region of a gangster republic, kept alive through drug and gun smuggling.
It’s curious, that when I opposed the Vietnam War 40 years ago, I was considered a “Leftist” and “Liberal”. Now, when I oppose the very same sort of military adventurism, I am labeled as “old fashioned” and, by implication, “conservative”. The only thing that seems to have changed, is that the “Leftists” and “Liberals” are now in power; so it is now apparently OK for them to go throwing their weight around the world and laying waste to countries like Yugoslavia and Libya in the name of…
…of what? “Helping”? God save me from such help!
I think you read me pretty well, Dweller. My wife is an RN, who regularly receives reports from the CDC. Sexually transmitted diseases are the unspoken plague in America, far more dangerous than swine flu, bird flu, tuberculosis and all the rest. The fact that our government has glossed over these matters in order to pander to political interest groups such as the homosexual community, is truly evil.
Concerning Zahav’s protestations, that the homo community has been in the forefront of combatting these issues, this is nonesense. Merely condoning sex outside of marriage (be it homosexual or otherwise), and much more describing it as an acceptable “lifestyle”, promotes promiscuity; and “education” programs which suggest that the use of condoms and such “makes safe” this very dangerous practice, is education that PROMOTES rather than hinders the spread of disease. What good is it to use a 90% effective “safety” device, while at the same time promoting a multi-partner lifestyle with hundreds of partners? “Multi-partner” relationships automatically involve hundreds of partners, because you are not having sex with a handful of partners; you are having sex with a handful of such who have had sex with a handful, and on down the line. In reality, when you are engaging in sex, homosexual or otherwise, with a “sexually liberated” partner, you are in effect having sex with hundreds of people. Homosexuality is especially dangerous in this respect, because of the nature of contact that promotes tears and blood-blood interchange.
Yes; as I said before, and as you have well understood, the promotion of such a “lifestyle” is evil.
I didn’t notice that Bland had characterized homosexuals as “evil”; perhaps my eyes skipped over that line.
He did seem, rather, to suggest that there IS something evil in the policy of Western society’s administrators to TREAT the obviously compulsive behavior of practicing homosexuals as normal & nonpathological — purely a matter of style — when any honest assessment will readily acknowledge that there’s far more than style involved.
And, if I understand him correctly in this regard, I’m inclined to agree with him. It is INDEED a dreadfully pernicious — and yes, evil — indulgence on society’s part, and by-no-means a reasonable alternative to the blind persecution linked to eras past.
Moreover, while the question of whether even that particular outlook is “old-fashioned” is neither here nor there, I hardly think the view necessarily reflective of ‘bigotry’ (of ANY sort, let alone the ‘most benighted’).
Indeed a case could be made, if one found it worth the effort, for the proposition that flatly calling such a perspective ‘old-fashioned’ & ‘bigoted’
— is itself not only trendy & superficial but also truly bigoted in the most thoughtless, judgmental and conformitarian way.
So you think He leaves the matter in doubt?
You do seem to be able to read.
Where do His words appear ambiguous?
Or have you not yet gotten round to reading them?
How do the two parts of that statement necessarily relate to each other?
— or was that simply your way of getting in a cheap shot?
Then again, perhaps you have a handle on understanding where ‘consciences’ are “handed out”? — and what the source of same might be?
You figured all that out about him after reading a couple of posts, eh?
No man — person — can know the traumata that shaped another’s life.
He can know ABOUT those traumata
— but cannot know them directly
cannot be intimate with them.
YOU can’t be directly acquainted with the traumata that shaped BLAND’s perspective
— nor can HE know intimately those that shaped YOURS.
You’d be well-advised to tread lightly
— IMABHO.
And once again, need I remind you, you focused only on homosexuals in your statement that you are opposed to going to war for them. What about the other persecuted groups I mentioned which, by the way, are much larger: religious minorities and women. Are you also opposed to going to war to “champion their cause” or are you willing to stand by like those illustrious Americans I mentioned previously and tacitly (or perhaps vocally) approve their slaughter? Surely you must be aware of the suffering of the millions of black people in Sudan at the hands of the Arabs while the world has stood and watched. Guess you must think this is part of your god’s plan, eh? You, like far too many others are just too self-involved to care about the suffering of others or, perhaps, see it as some sort of divine plan. It seems like the only lesson you and your ilk learned from the Holocaust is “What, me worry?”
I am certainly not advocating for homosexuality. In fact there are certain elements of their lifestyle that bother me, but they don’t have to please me or you either. I just don’t think they should be persecuted for their sexuality. Equating them with thieves and murderers and calling them evil because of their sexual orientation is not simply old fashioned, it is bigotry of the most benighted sort. What is laughable, however, is your presumption to know how god views homosexuals. Well I guess it makes sense that your personal god has the same prejudices as you and approves of your views to justify your bigotry.
As far as the public health issue is concerned, the homosexual community (of necessity) has been in the forefront of the efforts to practice safe sex and now have lower transmission rates of STD’s including HIV than most other groups, particularly teenagers. But I guess you were too blinded by your god aided prejudice to see that.
Thank you for your answer. It is quite revealing, as were your previous comments, about your personality and how a seemingly intelligent person can have such warped misanthropic views (and believes that their god is just as warped and misanthropic).
Zahav,
Thank you for your postings. You asked me for a response about whether I hated homosexuals. I do not; I simply don’t feel obligated, as a Jew, a Christian or whatever you want to call me, to support my country’s going to war to champion the homosexual cause. As for my doctrinal view on the issue of men having sex with men and women having sex with women, I will make two points:
1. Advocating homosexuality as some sort of “Biblical responsibility”, as you seem to be doing, is like calling the story of the Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah a treatise on Gay Liberation. It is so diametrically opposed to the direction of scripture, it would be laughable if some did not take it so seriously. There are homosexuals in the world today, and adulterers, and thieves and murderers; and there have been throughout history. It doesn’t require a theological degree, either Jewish or Christian, to understand how God looks upon such practices.
2. Homosexuality is a serious public health issue, that is ignored today because of its “political incorrectness”. Engaging in these practices has been likened by one health practitioner to “playing from the potty”. The practice has unleashed not only AIDS on America, but a whole host of hitherto-unknown diseases such as “gay bowel syndrome”. Sexually transmitted diseases in general are spread because of multiple sex partners; and homosexuals are notoriously promiscuous — besides opening otherwise closed avenues of entry such as direct blood-to-blood contact. If so many higly-placed people in our government were not homosexuals, a plague such as this would never have been allowed. Instead, it is promoted as an “alternative lifestyle”. This isn’t simply misinformed or wrong; it’s what I would, at the risk of sounding “old-fashioned”, call “evil”.
You asked; I answered.
I mentioned religious minorities and women also but you only picked up on the homosexuals. Is is because you hate them or are threatened by them or that they are the easiest/safest group to scapegoat, much as the Jews were the easiest group for Hitler to scapegoat? Judging from your point of view, it’s a safe bet you have other things in common with Hitler also, as well as with Henry Ford, Charles Lindbergh and Father Coughlin.
Oh, so you’re a Christian. Now I understand the significance of the handle “BlandOatmeal,” though, based on your attitude “ColdBlandOatmeal” would clearly be more appropriate. Apathetic ones, such as you, who care only for your own pitiable skin, are the reason fascist regimes can exist. Your willingness to stand aside and cooly observe the suffering of your fellow man (even if he is a homosexual) without feeling any responsibility to try to ameliorate that suffering detracts from the humanity of the world. Unfortunately, there are too many selfish, self-centered creatures like you which allows the proliferation of hate groups and regimes who want nothing more than to increase their own power and influence by victimizing, subjugating and/or eliminating others not of their group. Guess you were in the bathroom pleasuring yourself when they were handing out the consciences.
Did you actually want an answer, Zahav? NO! What will you tell me next? That it’s my “Christian duty” to make the world safe for homosexuals?
As part of the world community which, as we all know, has become more inextricably inter-related over time, what goes on in other countries is our business; it can have profound effects on many areas of our lives including our economy and personal freedom. While we may not be obligated to overthrow every dictator, should we or other nations continue to “mind our own business” in the face of genocide or even murderous suppression of dissidents or brutal treatment of certain populations including religious minorities, women and homosexuals? I hope not. At the very least, we should support the democratic, humanistic and freedom aspiring groups in those countries ruled by brutal, fascist dictators such as Assad, Ghadafi, Hussein, Kim, Ahmedinejad, et al, and certainly not conspiring with terrorist organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood, the Taliban, Hamas, Hizbollah (which there seem to indications this administration may be doing).
I don’t know what planet this gobbledegook came from. If a country is justified in attacking a country for the purpose of “deposing a dictator”, then just about any attack against any country by anyone throughout history is justified. Since when, was it the responsibility of the US or any other country, to depose dictators? This “mandate” certainly didn’t come from the Bible, since the rulers of nearly all countries mentioned in that book, INCLUDING ISRAEL DURING ITS GOLDEN AGE, were ruled by absolute monarchs.
The author quotes Emanuel Kant, writing in 1795. The only “democracies” in the world at that time were the brand-spanking-new US, and the anarchy that was France. Not even Kant’s Prussia had one scintilla of democracy at that time. How, then, are his writings cited by Sherman as supporting evidence for his diplomatic primer?
Neither the US, nor any other country, is obligated to overthrow any dictator, nor anyone else. Our most sensible foreign policy is, and always has been, to by and large mind our own business.