NY Times Op-Ed

Fox News Channel
So I'm watching Greta on the Fox News network last night and she casually mentions the op-ed by Putin that was just published in the New York Times. Being on the cusp of sleep, I wasn't sure if I heard what she said correctly and grabbed my tablet from the nightstand drawer, launched the NY Times app and headed for the op-ed section to discover that it wasn't part of some dream I was embarking on. The Russian president had indeed elected to address the American people through an op-ed in the NY Times.

I took the time to read the piece rather than simply criticize the paper for printing it--as I'm sure some will. I guess that, if I had a real criticism to level, it would be the timing: 9/11. Couldn't they have waited a few more hours to post it?  Aside from that, it actually wasn't badly written--especially if you wish to defend and protect the credentials of the United Nations. Personally, I'm not sure that I do. Moreover, I think he hides his real agenda in protecting Assad--as that protects his interests, as well. Anybody who loves politics will enjoy this all-you-can-eat buffet of rhetoric and blame-gaming.

I know that Putin offended many in this country with his caution against our thinking of ourselves as 'exceptional.' Already, the conservative talkers on the radio are buzzing about this. Who cares? Do you really expect the president of another country [that has often taken an adversarial position in regard to us] is going to agree with our self-view of exceptional-ism? Of course not. Would you in his position? Perhaps he is right, anyway. There was a time when I thought of our country as exceptional--when it was "one nation under God." That seems to have changed. God is not allowed in public schools anymore. Crosses are being ordered taken down. The pledge of allegiance is not recited in schools anymore for fear of offending anyone with mention of God. Abortion is rampant, as are children born out of wedlock. Throughout recorded history, and in Bible in particular, the downfall of many nations is preceded by a departure from reverence for almighty God.

Whatever Putin's real reasons for protecting the regime of Assad, the end goal seems to be the same as mine: let's keep the U.S. out of it. Enjoying history as I do, there's no way that we can commit a 'limited strike' without 'boots on the ground' and cause any real positive affect on the situation. Time and time again, our history shows us this. In addition to that, even if we were somehow able to cripple his military might and bring about his eventual downfall, what would the cost of our efforts actually yield us? Answer: likely nothing good. Probably something bad. Perhaps another radical Islamic faction bent on our destruction? Sound at all familiar?

Personally, I couldn't care less about the United Nations. I think it's a drain on our resources, corrupt and often ineffectual. The well-being and integrity of the U.N. does not for one minute enter into my thoughts when it comes to why I think we should not involve ourselves in this affair. The plain and simple fact of the matter is that we cannot afford it. We do not have the financial resources, military assets and will to invest in another country's affairs. Sorry. It is not in the best interest of the United States, nor does it threaten our national security at this time. Let those who cry out for war and more war go fight the battle themselves. The American people do not want this. Frankly, as I interpret the constitution, it does not permit this without congressional approval. That's my point of view.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Comments

Popular Posts