Tuesday, May 24, 2005

Putting an end to ANOTHER kind of fillibuster ...

This post is a composite, derived from the following:

>A blogospheric trading-of-blows with fellow Indepundit cybersquatter Chris Alemany, that triggered an awesome response from the Indepundit himself.

>The posting of Bill Whittle's latest essay, "Sanctuary".

First, let me deal with the particular -- Iraq.

We did not invade Iraq to exercise totalitarian control over it -- in sharp contrast to Saddam & Sons, who invaded Kuwait precisely for that reason.

We entered Iraq to put an end to that totalitarian control ... both to make sure the peace was kept from being destroyed by a capricious meglomaniac, and to liberate the Iraqi people from same.

IF (and I do mean IF) the President, as some say, had to "find reasons" to justify the invasion, it was ONLY because the international community was so morally bankrupt, that it couldn't discern the obvious ... and reasons had to be ADDED to what was already there (like, say, reasons in those SEVENTEEN UN resolutions) in an attempt to compel responsible action from them!

The inability of the UN (and its Leftist support base) to differentiate between what we did in Iraq, and what Saddam did in Kuwait, is why I hope our Presidents continue to ignore their brand of "international law".


Unfortunately, the anti-war Left prides itself on its focus on every jot and tittle of international law ... as they simultaneously open their mouths to swallow whole the camel of totalitarianism and death.

That is what the anti-war Left has one, for decades. Like I have said before, and will continue to remind readers, only when you confront evil, do you defeat it ... sometimes, without firing a shot, but not always.

The Iraq of Saddam and Sons -- by its material and moral support for Islamofascist terrorism, by its continually callous disregard for human life, and by its pursuit of WMD without its leadership having the checks and balances needed to protect others from its use as a terror weapon -- did threaten your, and my, rights.

Iraq, as a nation, has the basic moral obligation to protect the rest of us from having its resources, infrastructure, and people hijacked and used against us to foment totalitarianism and terror.

In that regard, either the Iraq people were incapble of living up to that obligation by standing up and asserting their rights against the regime ... which in that case, they were innocent victims who needed our help to meet their obligation ... or they were unwilling to do so ... which means that they were complicit in the crimes of Saddam & Sons.

I thank God that the vast majority of the Iraqis fit the first case ... and they should thank Allah that they did not fit the second, for that might be enough justification for in situ sand-to-glass conversion on a national scale.

Yet, the anti-war Left still does not recognize the above obligation on the part of Iraq, or our need to help them -- and us -- out of an untenable situation that they were incapable of rectifying on their own.

The Left, instead, insists that the foundations for a long-term, stable peace that were the results of our action, are less important than the short-term appearances of chaos in Iraq ... and are less important than adherence to "international law". They see that "law" as their greatest protection against the "true" threats to peace in their eyes ... wealthy and powerful nations like, say, America ... yet are blind to the circumvention of that law, on a regular basis, for decades, via both misplaced idealism and corruption on the part of those charged with assuring compliance.

They just don't get what our predecessors already knew ...

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

The preservation of the law is not the ultimate objective, for laws are subject to error and corruption on the part of those who enforce them -- OTOH, the preservation of our inalienable rights IS the ultimate objective, for this will act to protect us from that very error and corruption.

Of course, the anti-warriors like Chris counter with, "You can't, however decide that the rules magically don't apply to you anymore."

We didn't -- we obeyed them until the corruption of those charged with compelling compliance to those rules shirked their duties, our enemies stopped obeying them ... and those rules were morphed into a suicide pact for free people.

Again, Chris counters, "And when you break them you must assume and expect to be reprimanded."

The reprimand of those so morally bankrupt, that they treat democracies and dictatorships with EXACTLY the same deference, has no power or authority over free people ...

... if they wish to remain free.


While we all know that the statement "might makes right" is simply not true, is the converse -- "right makes might" -- true?

In other words, is our power, prosperity and position in today's world derived from a legitimate base -- the wise decisions, derived from sound, absolute principles, made here over the years, from the very time of our founding -- that established and maintained a government and society that (imperfectly, but effectively):

>Protects our rights through the very characteristics of its structure?
>Limits, checks, and balances the power of that government over us?>Gives each of us a significant voice in that government?
>Keeps economic decisions in the hands of the individual
>Does not discourage individual initiative and innovation?

The loud voices on the Left seldom, if ever, consider this possiblity ... for it runs counter to several of their fundamental(ist) tenets, such as:

>In nearly all cases, wealth is ammassed through the exploitation of others ... and this can only be corrected by direct government intervention.

>Responsibility is only applicable for those who have already acuqired a large amount of power and/or wealth ... and that responsibility increases solely as a function of pocket depth.

>The acknowledgement of "black-and-white" truth is too simplistic for "thinking" people ... even if many such truths do exist.

Our adversaries -- both in the salons of diplomacy, and on the battlefields of the War on Terror -- have the capability of understanding all this ... but rather than emulate the sound principles we have, and make their people as prosperous and powerful as we are ...

... they instead attempt to leverage existing "international law", and the useful idiots of the loud Left, in order to "elevate" themselves (as opposed to their people) by dragging America down to their lowest-common-denominator.

We have let this happen, for far too long ... we have let the useful idiots and those who would exploit our own good will "fillibuster" the application of sound principles.

Now, finally, rational people ... from many of us on the comments threads in the links above, to SMASH, to Bill Whittle, to George W. Bush ... are acting to put an end to that fillibuster, and see sound principles applied worldwide --- the sound principles that was embodied by our Framers and quoted above.

We do so, for that is what will end suffering, make people prosperous ... and bring true peace.

Accept no substitutes.

Comments: Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?