The Fate of Nations and People - Comment inspired by NNcon

Here's some perspective. It is not just hobby like psychology for people to believe that the Left informs, supports, and provides comfort for dictatorial and tyrannical regimes and empires when it suits their purposes of weakening America.

You see it here now. Instead of supporting the power of the people in Iran, they make the decision that because they don't want the US invading Iran, this means that the Iranian people have no right to make their own decisions for their own interests. After all, what do the Left care for the interests of the downtrodden, fake liberal propaganda lies aside that is.

As I mentioned before, the Catch 22 they put America in is a rather vicious cycle of violence and abuse of innocent people in this world. If America helps people in Iraq and Afghanistan, they see this as an illegal and wrong action and make up rationales about how it would have been better for the Iraqis had America done something more peaceful, which is simply another description of "something that benefits the Left but not anyone else". That is what peace, means to the Left. And it is very important for people to understand how their enemies in the Left think, for you cannot accrue liberty for the downtrodden people of the world without realizing who and what the enemies of liberty are. The other side of the Catch 22 is that even if America does nothing, then we are blamed as ignoring and facilitating the violence for the "interests of America" which is taken to mean literally, by the Left, as the evil capitalistic and imperialistic policies of America. Some, like BMC, may not harbor exact enmity towards America, but they don't need to. They simply have to facilitate the purposes of those who do, Confud and conned and Iranian mullahs, for example. You need not do your own dirty work when you can push a few buttons on a computer, and have someone else do it for you. Is this not the contempt they hold for Zionist and American puppetmasters that pull the strings of the world? People at the keyboards pushing buttons that blow people up? Yet in the end, it is not as if they truly avoid this kind of strategy, because all of their propaganda operates on the principle of pulling strings behind the scenes. Do they really care about the Iraqis fighting for their freedom and a better life, so long as their propaganda hurts American efforts there? Do they really care about the workers in India working at the factories, when they refuse to support free trade because the outsourcing is an example of big business corruption rather than the cowardice politicians show when they fear being unelected by their manufacturing constituency?

Read the first posts in this thread, again. Notice how the first instinct, the first reaction, is to look at things to make America and our allies feel guilty. Is this a way to actually get us to help those other unfortunates that people feel we are ignoring? Not really. It's just a propaganda prop to misdirect our attention and use guilty to shackle our freedom of action. A pretext. Why shouldn't it be, obviously people believe neo-cons are using riots in Iran as a pretext for invasion, so why should the Left refuse to do what they obviously think the enemy is already doing (the enemy being neo-cons and not the mullahs). It's a bunch of mind games fit to demoralize Americans, and to prevent us from liberating people because the Left does not wish to see people feeling any loyalty or compassion towards America. For the oppressors truly cannot withstand it, if the people of this world look towards America as the model for the future, and not the socialistic ideology of the Left. There's all kinds of people in an ideology, if you recall. They need not be made solely out of one kind of anti-American, hate Bush, mold. But there are some common traits you can see. As you can see it here in this thread, in the behavior of chief representatives. A movement is only as good as the people in them, so I only ask that you judge the behavior of the people representing such ideologies, and not blindly decry socialism or Leftist philosophy. It is after all, the principle reason why people refuse to support communism, because the communists attract very bad people like Mao. And you should not give up this principle solely because the enemy sees neo-conservatism as a hated ideology that should be destroyed at whatever cost to the innocent children of this world. There need be no enmity between two nations just because they are competitors or even mortal enemies. There was no none after MacArthur occupied Japan, for example. And there were no more fanatic and crazy enemies than the Japanese in America's Second World War. It is people that matter, not ideology. Which I think, is important to remember.

In conclusion, people will defend Iran, mullahs and hanging rape victims aside, just to spite America because they want to stop us from invading Iran. Is this a moral and conscientious decision? One befitting a human being? Is this what the Left calls tough love? Destroying the village to save it? You tell me.

It is tough to remain on the path of righteousness and liberty, when you have people trying to pull you off and throw you under a train. They did this to George Washington, you know. They tried to make him take Philly because it was the capital of the US at the time. Washington refused. As refuse to invade Darfur. The interests of the capital and the politicians, the Left in other words, are not the same as the interests of world freedom or human rights. Let alone AMerican interests.

I just finished watching Washington the Warrior on the History Channel. Memorial day release, of course. It's a good synopsis of a rare individual, who fought for a set of ideals and never got corrupted by the power he required to secure those ideals. Which is very rare, even if you just notice current events and not historical ones.

The Left considers the insurgents freedom fighters not because they chop off people's heads, intimidate shop keepers, or declare Arabic independence but simply because they fight against America. Washington defined what a freedom fighter was. It is the choice of everyone else in the world, not to model themselves after American history and individuals. We can't make them, just as we can't fight their wars for them. They succede or they fail, based upon their own merits. So why are we in Iraq and Afghanistan helping them to succede? I guess it was a quirk of history. Just as it was a quirk of destiny and luck that Washington kept leading from the front and never got wounded at all.

Some people are just more lucky than others. Unfair, but that is how it is. Darfur would be in a much better situation had they switched places with Iraq, but nations and people can't just switch places in the path of history. And that is sad, but the Left isn't the one you should count upon to solve the problem however.