"Driven from every other corner of the earth, Freedom of Thought and The Right of Private Judgement in matters of conscience direct their course to this happy country as their last asylum." Samuel Adams - 1776
Published on April 26, 2010 By Korwyn In US Domestic

The Middle East is becoming more unstable by the hour. Two of the factors which have caused it to remain at a low to medium simmer over the last 40 years have been the strong backing of the United States for Israel, coupled with nominally pro-western (or at least heavily secularized) governments in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt. However the rapid weakening of our pro-Israel position by President Obama is causing the fanatical religious sects of Islam to gain increasing power in the formerly secular Islamic states.

A binding agreement between one or more Powers foreign to one another (i.e. States) is by definition, principle, and historical application a treaty - regardless of the name. So a question to be asked is this: if a sitting President takes it upon himself to engages us in a treaty and said treaty results in a weakening of our military position (specifically nuclear) in a time when the Middle East is becoming more unstable and more nuclear, and publicizing the fact that we will not engage in a nuclear response even under chemical or biological attack, is it not arguable that this in fact gives comfort and aid to the enemy? 

In the face of an ideology that has an avowed world-view which is antithetical to that of the United States of America and when the adherents of that ideology see themselves as being at war with us, is it not more than foolish to deny and ignore that fact? Regardless of whether we see ourselves as being in a war, the fanatical sects of Islam do in fact see themselves as being at war with us. With us being all non-Islamic states, but especially at this time the United States of America.

A traitor is one who essentially pledges themselves to a cause, by word and/or deed, then turns against that cause. Treason however takes that a step further and takes an active role against the State. In this case the State being the Federal Union or the United States of America. 

If a biological or chemical attack were to follow, would it be right to hold the Senators voting to ratify and the President accountable on charges of treason?


Comments (Page 2)
2 Pages1 2 
on Apr 27, 2010

Targetting and killing people who had nothing to do with the attack is nothing but spitefull.

Now that's something I would like people to be screaming and making large protest about against terrorist but instead we not only ignore their actions, we condone them by calling them something like freedom fighters. Did the 3000 plus people in the World Trade Center deserve to die because our Gov't may have done something to upset these radical terrorist? I heard a lot of condemning of these acts but I never felt a single ounce of honesty in many of those who did it and their actions afterwards left a lot to be desired.

I try my best to be the better person but I live in reality and sometimes you just need to send a msg 10 times bigger than the one you got because the reality of life is that as much as we wish peace talks and diplomacy should be the solution to our problems, some understand nothing but power, strength and fear. And that is reality, whether we like it or not (as Obama put it).

on Apr 28, 2010

Now that's something I would like people to be screaming and making large protest about against terrorists

That will never happen.

A street junction, four streets. In each street stands an individual. North stands the Easter Bunny, west stands Santa Claus, south stands a corrupt politician, and east stands a liberal peace activist who just came from a protect against Hizbullah. There is a one-hundred dollar bill in the middle of the junction. Who will get it?

 

on Apr 28, 2010

Did the 3000 plus people in the World Trade Center deserve to die because our Gov't may have done something to upset these radical terrorist?

Ward Churchill thought so.  Calling them Little Eichmanns.  I like your segue-way into that.  So by extension, Ward Churchill promotes nuclear war.  And people listen to him and look up to him?

There is a one-hundred dollar bill in the middle of the junction. Who will get it?

The only one that is real - the Corrupt Politicians.

2 Pages1 2