Respecthelect
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2013
- Messages
- 2,470
- Reaction score
- 969
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Putin's NYT Op-Ed came under fire by elected officials, including the White House as well as the media. However, few highlight the tremendous advance this document represents. In this document Putin endorses a Christian moral standard and rule of law. Never-mind Putin has never adhered to either. This public pronouncement may be used in the future to hold Putin to account.
The White House should draw Putin into backing up and expounding these western principles, not by criticizing, but rather by gently taunting and cajoling Putin to defend his Op-Ed. This incredible opportunity should not be wasted on petty bickering. The more Putin defends Christian values, democratic principles and the rule of law, the better for us and for the world.
Putin made only one substantive point, that there was no legal basis for attacking Syria. Judge Napolitano makes the same point, but both miss the fact that Syria's failure to sign the Chemical Weapons Ban Treaty places Syria outside the protection of law. When every civilized country in the world but a handful sign a (all signatories treated equally) non-aggression treaty like CWBT, non-signatories place themselves in a category of increased scrutiny and potential peril. Putin and Napolitano should be corrected on this point, it is a significant moral high-ground issue and needs to be addressed.
American exceptionalism is puffery and self-promotion and the government should stop using the term. Especially Democrats who continuously strive to convert America into a French-European style country. Adopt Teddy Roosevelt's "talk softly and carry a big stick." To the rest of the world "American exceptionalism" is nothing more than bragging and nobody likes a braggart. Used internally as reason America should show courage, independence or individual liberty, it might be fine. The term "American exceptionalism" should never be used to lecture the world, though.
.
The White House should draw Putin into backing up and expounding these western principles, not by criticizing, but rather by gently taunting and cajoling Putin to defend his Op-Ed. This incredible opportunity should not be wasted on petty bickering. The more Putin defends Christian values, democratic principles and the rule of law, the better for us and for the world.
Putin made only one substantive point, that there was no legal basis for attacking Syria. Judge Napolitano makes the same point, but both miss the fact that Syria's failure to sign the Chemical Weapons Ban Treaty places Syria outside the protection of law. When every civilized country in the world but a handful sign a (all signatories treated equally) non-aggression treaty like CWBT, non-signatories place themselves in a category of increased scrutiny and potential peril. Putin and Napolitano should be corrected on this point, it is a significant moral high-ground issue and needs to be addressed.
American exceptionalism is puffery and self-promotion and the government should stop using the term. Especially Democrats who continuously strive to convert America into a French-European style country. Adopt Teddy Roosevelt's "talk softly and carry a big stick." To the rest of the world "American exceptionalism" is nothing more than bragging and nobody likes a braggart. Used internally as reason America should show courage, independence or individual liberty, it might be fine. The term "American exceptionalism" should never be used to lecture the world, though.
.