Friday, February 11, 2005
(sigh) El-Kikhia's Hysteria
The second event is the inability of the most powerful nation in the world to fill the moral power vacuum resulting from the new global order. America won the Cold War because it was viewed as morally right and as representing the values and interest of much of the world.
Today, many view it as morally wrong and representing only its interests. The world is leaderless, yet no other nation possesses the necessary components of power to replace the United States as hegemon.
The world is leaderless and America is morally wrong? Please, only a left-wing elitist really thinks that. Every time there is a disaster who does the world turn to for help? The UN, don't be silly, the U.S. because they know we will help and have the resources to do so. America is still the greatest country on the planet and that is why so many people try to come here each year. Moreover, whose interest should we be protecting exactly? El-Kikhia goes through a whole laundry list of things that Russia is doing in her own interest, but he does not seem to have a problem with this. El-Kikhia goes on to say:
These are not the acts of a waning power but of one on the rise. It took two wars to defeat Carthage, two to defeat Napoleonic France and two to defeat Germany. Will Russia also require two wars? No, unless the current administration insists on keeping its immorally jingoistic center of gravity.
I just love "...immorally jingoistic center of gravity." So what El-Kikhia is saying here is that if President Bush doesn't stop protecting America we could end up in a war with Russia. That is so absurd that it needs no explanation from me. El-Kikhia could have written an informative article about Russia that would have educated his readers, but he chose to throw in statements so absurd that the reader forgets about what he says that is correct, and only focuses on the absurd stuff. Just where exactly does the SAEN dig up these guys?