[sonny]

This buisiness about us attacking Iraq because Sadam commits crimes against his people is just the tip of the iceburg in my opinion......Their is obviously more to it as we all know.....what exactly is the big picture ?......beats me.....I suspect in time we will know more.........I think our leaders should do a better job of communicating to the public our ultimate goals as far as our foriegn policies go......I know thats a tall order and the stakes are always changing, but I think it will become more neccesary in the future to define our goals more precisely.
That said .....call me crazy but I have faith in our leadership and KNOW.....that they know more than I do about this stuff and I support their decisions 100%

[JPM70535]

In spite of all the protestations to the contrary I firmly believe that the main reason for the invasion of Iraq is their clear cut ties to terrorism and their willingness to sponsor independant terrorists like Osama, and the need to remove the current regieme.

Somewhere, spoken about only in whispers, and vehemently denied when asked is what the war is also about. OIL!

IMO there is nothing wrong with this premise. Wars have been fought for far less. The stabilization of the Iraqi oil flow would have far reaching effects on the economies of not only the U.S. but the rest of theworld as well. We would be foolish not to take over control of the Oil and regulate its supply.

Personally, though I strongly suspect it will never happen, The Iraqis should be made to pay for the immense cost of the war, both the cost of the hardware and the pain and suffering of the relatives of the U.S. service personell KIA.


YEA THOUGH I WALK THROUGH THE VALLEY OF THE SHADOW OF DEATH, I WILL FEAR NO EVIL,

FOR I AM THE MEANEST *** IN THE VALLEY!!

[mercedesrules]

Dear sonny,

I wish I could share your optimism. I wish the U.S. government would adhere to a non-interventionist policy of free trade and goodwill with all nations. IMO, the "big picture" is U.S. aggression, imperialism and world domination.

My Daddy told me it is wrong to take what is not yours.

mercedesrules

[Sir Galahad]

What disturbs me is that it finally took 3,000+ dead Americans (plus a REAL President) to stop a decade of terrorism. Prom King President sat by and did nothing for a decade of terrorism (WTC 1, Khobar Towers, the embassies in Africa, USS Cole) as the blood of dead Americans cried out for justice.

[Bahadur]

Somewhere, spoken about only in whispers, and vehemently denied when asked is what the war is also about. OIL!

IMO there is nothing wrong with this premise. Wars have been fought for far less. The stabilization of the Iraqi oil flow would have far reaching effects on the economies of not only the U.S. but the rest of theworld as well. We would be foolish not to take over control of the Oil and regulate its supply.If the stable and regular flow of petroleum were the primary objective, the US government would have sought accomodation, rather than war, with the Saddam Hussein regime.

The latter was certainly willing to "deal."

The foreign policy of the US does not disturb me nearly as much as the complete, utter ignorance on the part of much of the American populace of the realpolitik nature of the world outside the US borders.

Apparently, many Americans have the impression that the rest of the world is mirrored by the polite debates on the United Nations. The world, much of which is lawless and brutal, is not a macrocosm of the United States or Europe, and is not easily subject to a neat court room drama that many Americans have grown to love.

[Sir Galahad]

I see the Socialist Labor Party must have fixed their printing press and gotten their rag back out on newsstands. I haven't seen the word "imperialism" mentioned here in a while.

[mercedesrules]

Sir Galahad said: I see the Socialist Labor Party must have fixed their printing press and gotten their rag back out on newsstands. I haven't seen the word "imperialism" mentioned here in a while. :rolleyes:
MR wrote:...free trade...
and,
...wrong to take what is not yours
MR

[Sir Galahad]

Mercedes, if you went around speaking German, some people might think you're German. Or have, at least, a great interest in things German since you speak the language. Now, here you use the word "imperialism". Until the American Left made the word hip in the 1960s, you only heard this word in communist countries or amongst ommunist party members. And, today, we hear the word come out of the mouths of every leftist in the country. Then you hold up the phrase "free trade" as your shield. Survey says most of the same people who oft use the word "imperialism" also think "free trade" as practiced by American corporations is just another form of "imperialism". They see imperialism as not just military domination, but, also, economic domination and exploitation of the working classes of Third World nations.

Try again, Mercedes. :rolleyes: Pluck the imperialist from thine own eye before trying to pluck that of your neighbor...

[trooper]

You're all right, this war is not about oil. At least not about Iraqi oil, specifically.

It's about establishing a secure, dependable base for US forces in the middle east. Something more dependable than Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar and the like, all of whom support more or less openly islamic fundamentalists and terrorists. And controlling the Middle East is controlling the world's most concentrated oil resources.

The liberation of the Iraqi people (of which I approve) is just a neat feature that goes with it.

My concern is, however, that some, if not most Iraqis will turn against you very soon. Mind you, they're not THAT different from their neighbours. Possibly they just happen to dislike Saddam Hussein even more than they dislike Western infidels.

As for things about US foreign policy that disturb me: I'm critical about the Bush administration giving different explanations why we should all go to war every week. But then again, I should have learned by now not to expect any sort of truth in political propaganda, no matter which nation it comes from, be it American, German, French, Russian or whatever.

Some very intelligent and unscrupulous German statesman called Otto von Bismarck once said while "individuals are bound by friendship, nations are only bound by interests." Hence I don't seriously look for morale in international politics (well, I try not to...)


Regards,

Trooper

[4v50 Gary]

Our foreign aid policy. Why we give food to people who hate us escapes me. Take North Korea for example. The sooner they starve, the faster they'll overthrow their government. Besides, if we don't have a hand in distributing the food, local politicos or warlords hoard it and folks still hate us.

[JohnBT]

Dead Iranians, dead Kuwaitis, dead Kurds.

Here are a few of the reasons President Clinton wanted an international court to try Saddam. CLINTON, not Bush.

___________________

"Detailing what he said the United States knows about Saddam’s record, Scheffer said approximately 5,000 Iranians were killed by chemical weapons between 1983 and 1988 during the Iran-Iraq war, an estimated 5,000 Kurdish civilians died from chemical weapons in the Iraqi town of Halabja in 1988, and poison gas killed an estimated 50,000 to 100,000 Kurds in Iraq in 1987-1988.
Also, Scheffer said, during Iraq’s occupation of Kuwait in 1990-91 more than 1,000 Kuwaitis and nationals from other countries were killed, and Iraq committed war crimes against American service members.
Many civilians were among 30,000 to 60,000 Iraqis killed by Iraqi forces in suppressing an uprising that began in the south of the country in 1991, after the end of the Persian Gulf War in February. In addition, the country’s southern marshes were drained, beginning in the early 1990s, to deprive thousands of Iraqi Shiites of their livelihoods, Scheffer said.
The use of poison gas and the draining of the marshes are crimes against humanity, he said.
In the meantime, Scheffer said, Saddam has used murder, torture and, lately, rape in a campaign against political opponents. And, he said, Saddam is carrying out a systematic campaign of murder and intimidation of clergy.
“Like Slobodan Milosevic, Saddam Hussein did not commit these crimes on his own,” Scheffer said. “He has built up one of the world’s most ruthless police states, using a very small number of associates who share with him responsibility for these criminal actions.” "

Copyright 2000 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

________________________

Who is the freaking imperialist? The U.S.? Oh, right, this war is about oil. Are you people crazy?

John

[mercedesrules]

Sir G said: Now, here you use the word "imperialism".
Sorry I used a "naughty word"; what does your lordship call american troop presence in roughly 100 foreign countries?
Then you hold up the phrase "free trade" as your shield. Survey says most of the same people who oft use the word "imperialism" also think "free trade" as practiced by American corporations is just another form of "imperialism". They see imperialism as not just military domination, but, also, economic domination and exploitation of the working classes of Third World nations.

For better understanding, m'lord, don't read survey results (prejudices) into my words; I'll give you the same respect.

I believe in liberty and private property.

MR

[Hkmp5sd]

My greatest dislike in US foreign policy is the giving of US Aid (ie money) to foreign nations. Somehow, we have managed to become the world's welfare provider and combined that with using that aid to bribe our supposed allies to support our actions. Something which they generally refuse to do.

I believe that only one nation needs and deserves our assistance and that is Israel. Without our aid, the extremists in the mid-East would finish what Hitler started, the destruction of the Jewish race.

They also give the US pretty much whatever we want in support in that area of the world. Unfortunately, by trusting Bill Clinton, that support has caused them a great deal of innocent lives. The only way to stop the PA/PLO, ACC, DFLP, FIALP, Force 17, HAMAS, HizbAllah, Islamic Jihad, Pasdaran, PFLP and Tanzim terrorist organizations currently fighting for the extermination of the state of Israel, is to destroy them (and you thought Arafat and bin Laden were the only terrorist groups fighting Israel!). They do not want peace. They do not want co-existence. They want the complete destruction of Israel.

[mercedesrules]

Who is the freaking imperialist? The U.S.? Oh, right, this war is about oil. Are you people crazy?
John
John, with a $6 trillion debt, a $500 billion yearly deficit and a three-year recession under weigh, I don't think the United States taxpayer can afford to correct every squabble in the world.

MR

[MeekandMild]

My greatest dislike in US foreign policy is the giving of US Aid (ie money) to foreign nations. Well, mine is not that the money is given, it is that it is taken from taxpayers to give. I think the politicians should be able to give away any of their private possessions they want.

[Sir Galahad]

Mercedes, name the "100 countries" U.S. troops are in currently.

[Art Eatman]

Sir Galahad, most of the (I think it is) 124 countries in which we have military have only embassy guards. (!) Sound-bite spin...

We are in no countries on an ongoing basis without the invitation of the government in power. The common situation is for training of indigenous forces.

I have two gripes with American foreign policy. One goes back long before I was born: Various corporations have persuaded our government to work with foreign regimes to maintain "stability", as business is best done in an atmosphere of social and political stability. The problem is that we wind up in bed with some real sleazoid creatures who maintain this stability by virtue of a repressive state police force. I think of examples such as Batista's Cuba, Trujillo's Dominican Republic, Somoza's Nicaragua, just to name a few. You can add Marcos in the P.I., if you wish...

The result is a populace who associate the U.S. with the repressive regime. During the Cold War, this made life rather easy for the various Communist insurrectionists...

The other is the failure of our State Dept. to realize that while there is a period of time in which "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" holds true, it is not at all a permanent condition. Witness, for instance, Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden...This sort of lack of understanding of history has recently led to such events as 9/11, in that various threats weren't taken seriously.

Insofar as "Imperialism", I imagine Colin Powell's recent comment on the subject is quite adequate to refute such accusations. I also fail to see how buying the products of a country is somehow imperialistic or exploitational.

Art

[mercedesrules]

Congressman Too Truthful
by RON PAUL

The other day, I made a huge "gaffe" on national TV: I told the truth about the crimes of the U.S. Government.

As you can imagine, the ceiling fell in, and a couple of walls too. Congressmen are supposed to support the government, I was told. Oh, it's okay to criticize around edges, but there are certain subjects a member of the House of Representatives is not supposed to bring up.

But I touched the real "third rail" of American politics, and the sparks sure flew.

I was interviewed on C-SPAN's morning "Washington Journal," and I used the opportunity, as I do all such media appearances, to point out how many of our liberties have been stolen by the federal government. We must take them back. The Constitution, after all, has a very limited role for Washington, D.C.

If we stuck to the Constitution as written, we would have: no federal meddling in our schools; no Federal Reserve; no U. S. membership in the U.N.; no gun control; and no foreign aid.

We would have no welfare for big corporations, or the "poor"; No American troops in 100 foreign countries; no Nafta, GATT, or "fast- track"; no arrogant federal judges usurping states rights; no attacks on private property; and no income tax.
(my bold)
http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?ChannelID=90

[ahadams]

Here are a few of the reasons President Clinton wanted an international court

an international court is a fiction and always will be. It must remain a fiction as long as we maintain national sovereignty - the two are mutually self-exclusive and no, there can be no compromise on this issue.

As far as noninterventionism goes - folks buy a clue! Better yet - buy a history of the Roman Empire and another of the British Empire. We are the last remaining empire in the west. Unless you want to see the Chinese and Arabs running the world in fairly short order we must continue to maintain our imperial presence and punish those who harm ourselves and our allies, regardless of the popularity. That's how being the Imperial power works. No it can't change, and as I've stated before both libertarianism (give that guy Ron Paul some oxygen, PLEASE!) and socialism (John Kerry is the only specops guy whose combat survival I am prepared to consider a net loss to the nation) are short paths to police states, despite the fantasies of their proponents.

I'm sorry if you don't like living in an imperial power - please move somewhere else - I intend to do everything required to preserve this empire just as long as we can - it's the only way our rights will be preserved as evidenced by both the Roman and British imperial histories.

hmm, can you think of anyone's toes I haven't stepped on at this point?

[Sir Galahad]

Mercedes, I asked YOU to name the 100 countries. Not Ron Paul. I see that you got the information from Ron Paul, but did you think of checking for yourself to verify that it was a FACT?:rolleyes: So how about YOU naming those 100 countries? I find it rather remarkable that here you are talking about U.S. "crimes", yet you take the word of a politician as gospel. I guess if Ron Paul "sez so", it MUST be true, right?:rolleyes: Yeah, just like Teddy told the truth about Chappaquiddick.

Mercedes, in the future, if you're going to make the very broad accusation that the U.S. is in 100 countries, I strongly suggest that you are able to back that up with facts, not demogoguery from some politician. As Art pointed out, yes, we do have Marines guarding our embassies. So what? The Israelis have security teams to guard theirs. And for very good reason. They, like the U.S., are targets for terrorists. (By the way, an EL Al security man saved a lot of lives at Los Angeles Int. Airport a while back. Does that make the Israelis "imperialists" now, too?) And again, I ask you to PROVE your statement without second hand input from Ron Paul. You said it, now you stand behind your remarks. Otherwise, I conclude everything you've said here is suspect as less than truthful or just personal opinion.

[mercedesrules]

Mercedes, I asked YOU to name the 100 countries.
The moderator corrected you to my satisfaction, but here is a link to a story about some of our "Joint Combined Exchange Training" missions showing that the United States military is, or has recently been, involved in at least +/- 86 countries. I'll cede that I don't know - and have no way of learning the secret facts about - the exact number.
I disagree with their presence no matter what their mission - including guarding the embassies or training foreign troops.(edit: or whether or not they were invited)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/overseas/overseas1a.htm
MR
P.S. If I don't use a word ("crimes"), please don't quote me as having done so.

[Art Eatman]

mercedesrules, I don't understand your antipathy against embassy guards or training cadre.

An embassy is a territorial extension of its nation; it thus has the right to have policing and guarding. This is true for all countries with embassies. Russia or China, here in the U.S., for instance.

Any country, seems to me, would seek to have proper training for whatever military structure it may have. If a country feels a need for foreign assistance in this, what difference does it make what country provides it? Personally, I'd rather we provided the cadre than some country which is hostile to us, as attitudes can be imbued as well as tactics.

Art

[Ian]

I don't like the number of American troops stationed in other countries. I really don't like that vast amounts of money (taken from productive Americans) that are piped into other countries. And we're fighting way too many wars. The military exists to DEFEND this country, not to oust Nasty Despots in other countries (besides Iraq, think Somalia, Serbia, etc).

FWIW, Art, MR, Galahad, and company - the US has (as of September 30, 2002 and thus excluding our current war) 500+ troops in:
Bahrain
Belgium
Bosnia-Herzegovina
Cuba
Diego Garcia
Germany
Greece
Iceland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Kuwait
the Netherlands
Panama
Portugal
Serbia
Spain
Turkey
the United Kingdom

Total, we have 112,584 troops in Europe, 96,385 troops in East Asia and the Pacific, 4,820 troops in North Africa, South Asia, and the Near East, and 14,426 more in miscellaneous locations. By "troops," I mean active-duty military personnel.

Source: http://web1.whs.osd.mil/mmid/m05/hst0902.pdf

[mercedesrules]

Hi Art! thanks for taking an interest in this thread. You said:
mercedesrules, I don't understand your antipathy against embassy guards or training cadre.

An embassy is a territorial extension of its nation; it thus has the right to have policing and guarding. This is true for all countries with embassies. Russia or China, here in the U.S., for instance.

If an embassy needs simple security, I guess I wouldn't mind a few police guards. Police are trained differently than soldiers. If an embassy needs military defense, we should withdraw from such an unfriendly country.

Any country, seems to me, would seek to have proper training for whatever military structure it may have. If a country feels a need for foreign assistance in this, what difference does it make what country provides it? Personally, I'd rather we provided the cadre than some country which is hostile to us, as attitudes can be imbued as well as tactics.

Here, my objections are twofold. First, I am forced to pay for this training through taxes. It would be fine by me if a private company, individual or even you, for instance, hired yourself out to train Hutus, Tutsis, or whatever. It's another thing entirely if I have to foot the bill. I don't want to pay to train any stranger to do anything.

Secondly, this exporting of military prowess and ideals makes us as many enemies as friends. Often, the people we train become a later foe. Siding with one country alienates others. This makes me less safe than if we pursued a non-interventionist policy like Switzerland or New Zealand.

I value liberty over safety. The recent military escapades and new laws such as the Patriot Act have made me less safe...and less free, to boot. Also, we were supposed to be a republic, not a social democracy. I deplore democracy (majority rules in all things), so I sure don't want to be forced to pay for its spread to all countries.

MR

[Art Eatman]

Ian, thanks.

Overall in this notion of foreign policy and troops in other countries, it seems to me that we really need to re-think our notions of "national interest".

My personal opinion is that we have a national interest in the Mid East, as our entire society, way of life and standard of living depends on oil. I do not see a national interest in the Balkans. I do not see the need for NATO, or for our having troops in Europe. I'm ambivalent about Asia, and don't really want to "go there" in argument. :)

[mercedesrules]

(Art) it seems to me that we really need to re-think our notions of "national interest".

Me, too. I don't think that there is any such thing. Sounds kind of collectivist. I have an interest in gas for my truck. Some countries have oil. I buy it from them and put it in the truck.

My personal opinion is that we have a national interest in the Mid East, as our entire society, way of life and standard of living depends on oil.

In the above sentence, isn't "national interest" just a convenient phrase used to justify occupation? My way of life and standard of living depends on food, but that doesn't justify me in entering any particular farm.

Today, there was mention on TV of the old, WWI song, "Over There". To me, this is not a patriotic song. It is a reminder that we always seem to be fighting on foreign soil, not against an invasion of the republic.
MR

[Sir Galahad]

Ian, that's stil not 100 countries. Mercedes, I am still awaiting YOUR list of 100 countries. You said it, now support it. Since you're such an expert on embassy security, why don't you offer your services to the State Dept.?:rolleyes: The list, please.

[Ian]

Ah, Galahad...if you look at my source document and count the total number of coutries we have troops in (I only listed those with 500+ troops) you'll find that they total 142 (+/- one or two if I miscounted).

[Sir Galahad]

Ah, Ian, how many of them are occupational forces and not advisors, engineers, and other support personnel? Or there by request? Hmmmm? The reason this came up was as a discussion of "imperialism". Prove those forces are there to unseat a government and institute a U.S. puppet state.

[Ian]

All you were asking for was a listing of those countries which have American troops in them (quote: "name the '100 countries' U.S. troops are in currently."). As Art pointed out, most of them are simply embassy guards and the like. I'm not trying to prove that we have troops in any given coutry against their will, or to overthrow their government.

Fact is, we have 225,000+ troops overseas, not including our invasion of Iraq. And that's 225,000+ too many. There was a reason why the Framers of the Constitution prohibited Congress from budgeting an army for more than 2 years at a time.

[Sir Galahad]

And the fact is, Ian, if there was no standing army, the East Coast would be speaking German and the West Coast speaking Japanese and nary a Jew left alive between. Sorry, but it's a different world since 1776 and those without strong standing armies usually do not survive. What were we supposed to do in WW2? Stand by and watch as the Third Reich turned the world into a graveyard? Or await the tender mercies of Jospeh Stalin had they wo the war and we didn't get involved? Come on, Ian, let's be realistic. The Constitution is not a suicide pact.

[Bahadur]

If an embassy needs simple security, I guess I wouldn't mind a few police guards. Police are trained differently than soldiers. If an embassy needs military defense, we should withdraw from such an unfriendly country.Police does not guard diplomatic missions. Soldiers do.

That has been the international norm since the birth of diplomatic missions.

[Waitone]

I get the willies because the current Commander and Chief appears to be the type that can deal with only one issue at a time. While he does a great job on his current focus, I get a little edgy when he appears to ignore everything else until he gets The Main Thing off his plate. And I anin't complaining just about foreign policy.

[mercedesrules]

Here's an interesting article concerning the goals and aspirations of the Bush administration;
http://www.jsonline.com/news/gen/apr03/131523.asp
(from article)...neoconservatives have offered a sweeping new vision for U.S. foreign policy: to restructure the Middle East and supplant dictators around the world,
(neoconservatives)...see a unipolar world, with America as the Rome of the 21st century, a colossus that can dictate its will to the world,
(Heritage Foundation fellow)...Hulsman summarizes the neoconservative view this way: "We should acknowledge we have an empire. We have power and we should do good with it."
...the neoconservatives argue that national sovereignty is an outdated concept, given the overwhelming power of America, and the U.S. should do all it can to impose democracy on countries. Some have called this approach democratic imperialism

MR

[Sir Galahad]

So you found some articles in an online journal, Mercedes. Big deal! The only thing you proved is that you know how to surf the net. I can find online journals that claim to have "proof" of the existance of UFOs and that aliens from Planet X control the government. Doesn't make it true. Nice try, but save your matches. No cigar.

[Hkmp5sd]

I get the willies because the current Commander and Chief appears to be the type that can deal with only one issue at a time.

You can't really say whether or not Bush is focused only on the war. All you can say is that the news media is focused only on the war and isn't reporting anything else that may be happening. I don't really see Bush being locked on the war. For once, even more than his father did in the first Gulf War, the President is allowing the military to run their own show. He makes the major decisions but otherwise leaves the war to the DoD and the forces in the field. Somewhat refreshing after the micro-management of the military by Johnson, Nixon and Clinton.

[bad_dad_brad]

The United States is the most powerful nation, force, political entity, country, people, etc., etc. on earth, ever. Period. I don't think anyone would argue with that. When a nation has that kind of hegemony, it will use it. That is just human nature.

I don't always agree with getting involved in other nations affairs unless our national interest is affected. In the case of Iraq, for sure, our national interest is involved. Oil is a heavy economic factor, but if Iraq were a benevolent country, of course, we would not be invading. But, after the smoke clears I suspect we will find just how involved Iraq was in 9/11. Clearly Saddam wanted his own kind of hegemony over mid-eastern oil, and this involved reducing and eliminating American hegemony through the only means he has - terrorism.

We make mistakes. We are not perfect. Sure we might blow the crap out of the Iraqi military, and I am really concerned at the high number of casualties, but after the war is over, our hand will be extended, we will help, and the Iraqis, like the Germans and Japanese after WWII, will recover and hopefully will prosper.

America, no matter what the rest of the world thinks, is not an evil country. I guess, if a nation has the sort of hegemony that America does, I am glad it is America that has that power, and not the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, or a radical Pan-Arab consortium.

[Chris Rhines]

And the fact is, Ian, if there was no standing army, the East Coast would be speaking German and the West Coast speaking Japanese and nary a Jew left alive between. Do you seriously believe this? Do you have any historical evidence to substantiate it?

Sorry, but it's a different world since 1776 and those without strong standing armies usually do not survive. Sounds strangely like, "The Constitution is a living document..."

Or await the tender mercies of Jospeh Stalin had they wo the war and we didn't get involved? You mean, to the extent that Roosevelt didn't already? He and Uncle Joe were good buddies, by all accounts.

The Constitution is not a suicide pact. Interesting aside, the originator of that quote, Justice Arthur Goldberg, was the founder of the AFL-CFO and an extreme hard-leftist.

The Constitution is either an absolute, without-exception limit on the power of the federal government, or it is a scrap of paper with no legal, moral, or ethical authority at all. Which do you prefer?

- Chris

[Boats]

You guys left off Scotland and The Phillipines.

What bugs me about US foreign policy? After the Cold War, it wasn't aggressive enough. We had slain the Red Dragon of Europe and were left only with the Red Dragon of Asia and a bunch of snakes. We should have beheaded some snakes to keep that other dragon on its leash.

Spare me the imperialism rhetoric. We are the most benign hegemonic power the world has ever seen. Are we perfect? No. But we could have been the colonial masters of Japan, half of Germany, most of the Pacific, and a good slice of the oil producing Middle East, were we a classical imperial power. Afghanistan would be a radioactive parking lot for Iran and Pakistan and North Korea would be told to shut up or else.

We are imperialists only insofar that we insist on open markets and a system of trading rules. We have seriously kicked the crap out of some nations over the past hundred years, but here we are, rebuilding them and then going away. As technology has made the world smaller, we have no choice but to remain engaged. I believe this country has learned that the price of peace is eternal vigilance, a truism that seemingly only parts of Europe still remember. What do Britain and Spain have in common with the United States? An historical memory of projecting world power and the necessity of using it in the hardest sense once in awhile to preserve some semblance of world order.

What I relish the most is that we are involved in an "illegal" war. Nothing could be more laughable than law applied to war. Law without an enforcement mechanism is nothing but a flowery languaged farce. We generally observe the Geneva Convention and the Hague Convention. Do our enemies? If so, name one that has and when they did it. The international system of nation states is governed only by the law of the jungle. Now the mush-heads at home and abroad see their folly. Might does make right, it is only a matter of how judiciously that might is applied. There was once a time when we were seriously close to war with Canada over the Northwestern border. There was a time where Mexico and America were at war. Once can scarcely imagine such a thing today. Is that because Canada and Mexico have "evolved" beyond war? No, it is because their menu of policy options is so limited due to lack of military and economic power that they have no choice but to cave push come to shove when the US is on the other side of the issue, unless of course we bind ourselves by the conventions we participate in. The same phenomenon of ineffectualness is what haunts France. They cannot project power, so they project words and cling desperately to their last vestiges of international relevance, their UN security council veto and attempting to make the Euro into something against the dollar while they fail to rein in their domestic spending and indulge in socialism.

I also believe that Mr. Clinton's inaction, or lack of ability to credibly act, (Lewinsky) led to us getting into the war on terrorism about a decade too late. President Bush bore witness to the most bloody attack ever leveled on American soil by foreigners armed with nothing more than boxcutters--a signature example of asymmetrical warfare.

There were only two courses of action available: 1) Cringe in terror like France and hope that Islamofascists don't attack us again. 2) Smoke 'em and anyone who supports them, making anyone who thinks about attacking us in that fashion know that they will live a shorter lifetime of being pursued and killed as the opportunity presents.

Then there is the supposed Third Way, advocated by people who had dreams of President Gore; "Let's talk to 'em until we understand why they're angry.":banghead: Can anyone besides President Appeasement himself, Jimmy Carter, say this with a straight face? Vive la differance!

Thank God Gore is irrelevant right now instead of in charge.

[edited for two misspellings]

[Sir Galahad]

Chris, perhaps you and people like you would have been content to stand back and watch as the Third Reich turned the world into a charnel house (so long, of course, as it didn't impact your precious pocketbook), but, thankfully, people like you didn't get your way then and won't get your way now. Get over it. :rolleyes:

[Chris Rhines]

Galahad -

Was there a response in there to any of my questions? I'd really like your take on the questions that I raised.

- Chris

[TallPine]

To answer the ORIGINAL question, IMO our biggest failure since WW2 has been to not finish whatever we have started: Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War 1, etc...

Picking fights is in general not a very good idea for an individual or a nation, but once you commit to action you dang well better make sure you can and do finish it to your satisafaction and future well being.

Ever notice that we haven't fought any more wars with Japan or Germany since 1945?

Who shares the most blame for our current situation: Clinton for ignoring repeated and escalating terrorist attacks, or George Bush the First for not finishing off Saddam the first time around?

Kind of like if we had left Hitler in power after liberating France and Poland ... :rolleyes:

[Sir Galahad]

Well, Chris since the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor FIRST, followed by Hitler's declaration of war against the U.S. (as he was bound to do as an Axis power), I fail to see how it woudn't have happened if we just took our marbles and went home. The idea behind the Final Solution was to rid THE WORLD of Jews. (See the various discourses of Himmler and Heydrich on this.) Unless the United States existed on some alternate planet during the 1940s, I think the evidence is quite clear as to the intentions of the Third Reich. Regardless, my observation remains: Do you, Chris, think it would have been morally appropriate to stand by and watch an entire series of races be expunged from the Earth and do nothing?

Regarding the Constitution, many have their own views on it. I can also state that certain right wing extremists have used what they believed to be literal interpretations of it to further their ideals. Did the Constitution give Timothy McVeigh the right to blow up a building with people in it? He might have thought so, or thought he was defending it. As far as "a living document", you said that, not me. If not for a standing army, the Constitution would be a pile of ash or Hitler's toilet paper and you'd be in a concentration camp or fighting for the Reich somewhere. As much as you cherish the Constitution, if you're not willing to defend the nation it's housed in, to include having a standing army for that purpose, you might as well tear it up now because an invading amy will. Like it or not, a standing army is a necessity whether you think so or not. The Constitution says nothing about fire departments, either, but would you hold to a strict dogma regarding Constitutionality of funding fire departments and demand they cease as well?

[Chris Rhines]

Galahad -

WWII: You misunderstood my question. I'm not interested so much in whether Japan or Germany would have invaded the United States as much as if they could. Hitler overextended his supply lines badly in invading Russia; I suspect that the US invasion of Europe only shortened the war by a few years. Russia really won WWII in a military sense.

So, I ask that you reexamine the question in those terms.

The Constitution: I should state right up fron that I hold that the Constitution is just a piece of paper with no legal authority. It may as well have never existed.

That said, if the Constitution were a real contract then I would hold to a strict interpretation of it, just like any other contract. Yes, that means that if the Constituiton does not provide for federal funding of fire departments, then I'm against federal funding for fire departments. And if it doesn't provide for a fed-level standing army, then no federal standing army, no matter how useful it may be.

It seems, from your prior post, that you disagree, that you feel that the Constitution can be changed or ignored if necessary (who decides when it is necessary?) As such, then you really cannot complain when anti-gun politicians enact anti-gun legislation that is directly contrary to the Constitution.

It's either a contract or it isn't. The Constitution isn't Old Country Buffet; you can't pick and choose from it.

- Chris

[Justin Moore]

I value liberty over safety. The recent military escapades and new laws such as the Patriot Act have made me less safe...and less free, to boot. Also, we were supposed to be a republic, not a social democracy. I deplore democracy (majority rules in all things), so I sure don't want to be forced to pay for its spread to all countries.

What are you, some kind of 'right wing extremist?' ;) At any rate, I agree totally.

The Constitution is not a suicide pact.

I allways love it when someone throws out that red herring. Actually you're right, its NOT a suicide pact. NOT following it IS a suicide pact.

[Sean Smith]

What bugs me about American policy? Mainly the fact that we give huge amounts of aid to countries that hate our guts. The entire aid budget for the Middle East, for instance, should be reset to zero (0).

[faustulus]

Look at it this way.
The attack on Iraq will be viewed by a good number of people in the Middle East in a simliar manner as we viewed Pearl Harbor. Now you can debate whether that is a right or wrong assumption on their part till the cows come home, in the end it is what they are going to do. They are going to react the same way, they will want revenge. Not having a military they will be moved by radicals, simliar to the russians at the turn of the 20th century. We may have very well laid the foundation of our own downfall with the invasion of Iraq.
How many more Sept. 11ths will it take until people demand safety, safety that cannot be given with the constraints of the constitution? We view this as a war, but we view it as war as seen on TV. We still cling to the idea that the winners of the war is who holds the territory. Shouldn't we have learned our lesson in Vietnam?
Terrorist don't have to kill us to win. The only have to kill our will to be free. The very idea of terrorism is based on fear. Scaring someone into doing something.
We are powerful, and I fear that is our problem, our power is corrupting. We have invaded a soverign nation without provocation.
I think part of the problem is Americans are used to a "us vs. them" mentatlity breed from the cold war. We are looking for an enemy. We have a war machine which syphons billions from American citizens each year and the government needs desperatly to justify it.

[Art Eatman]

mercedesrules asked, "In the above sentence, isn't "national interest" just a convenient phrase used to justify occupation?"

No. National interest means affairs which directly affect the nation as a whole, affect us as a society and not just various small sectors.

Establishing a political structure in a country in order that there be a smooth flow in the supply of hula hoops or pet rocks is not a national-interest matter. A smoothly-operating pricing structure in the world price of oil is indeed of national interest, as this affects all of us.

In the specific case of Irag, the removal of its despotic regime should reduce the potential for future interruptions of the supplies of oil from the world's major region of supply. And I'll bet cash money that any U.S. occupation of Iraq will be much, much shorter than was the reign of S. Hussein.

That the use of the term "National Interest" has been abused does not mean it is not a valid concept. Closer to home, consider that guns can be and have been misused. Similarly, real-world political concepts can be and have been misused.

Art

[TallPine]

We may have very well laid the foundation of our own downfall with the invasion of Iraq.

We may have just as well laid the foundation for our long term security.

Teach those people respect (ie FEAR) for the United States.

Okay, guys ... who wants to be next ??????

[jimpeel]

Simple. "The friend of our enemy is our friend" policy.

[Frohickey]

Hmm...

For starters, that we give food, money, equipment and financial aid to foreign countries that hate us in order for them to like us more.

I THINK THAT US FOREIGN AID PACKAGES SHOULD BE GIVEN IN EXCHANGE FOR 99-YEAR LEASES ON TERRITORY, OR OUTRIGHT SALE OF TERRITORY.

After that, we could care less if they like us or not.

[Sir Galahad]

Chris, you have no way of knowing that the Germans WOULD NOT invade. The German V2 program could have given them the ability to launch warheads at us from their territory soon enough. It was also known that they were pursuing a nuclear weapons program. Or was it ok so long as they were just practicing genocide in Europe?

Your argument on the Constitution is circular. The Supreme Court has ruled on this point already. The country is what it is regardless of what you or I think about it. Again, I remind you, if we did not have a standing army, we would not be having this conversation because we would both be dead, in concentration camps, or fighting for whatever nation conquered us. And where would your Constitution be then? If you can't defend it, you can't keep it. THAT is what I mean when I say the Constitution is not a suicide pact. You can hold tight to dogma, as Islamic radicals do, but you can see where it's getting them. Kind of like the guy who drowns waiting for God to save him even though two boats tried to rescue him but because it wasn't the in-person hand of God, he didn't go with the boats. If you don't believe a standing army is necessary, Chris, then find a country that doesn't have one.

[Butch]

Back to foreign policy,
This war should serve as a warning to all nations that support terrorists, and we should tell the world that.:cuss:

[Chris Rhines]

Chris, you have no way of knowing that the Germans WOULD NOT invade. Hey, bro, I don't need to prove a negative here. You're the one who made the (so far unsubstantiated) claim that Germany would have invaded and conquered the United States if not for the US military. I'm still waiting to hear some supporting evidence.

Your argument on the Constitution is circular. No, Galahad, it isn't. You just don't like the question because it's forcing you towards an uncomfortable conclusion. So instead, you talk about how vital a standing army is to the survival of freedom, which is a point that I would contest and irrelevant to the question at hand anyhow.

So, again, the question is: The Constitution is either an unbreakable contract between the individual and the USG (which means that both standing armies and gun control are illegal) or it is a living document that can be ignored in whole or part (in which case we can have a standing army, but no guns.) Either-or choice. Which do you prefer?

;)

- Chris

[Sir Galahad]

I'm not going to play your "either-or" game, Chris. Nothing is ALL one way or ALL the other in this case, regardless of how hard you're trying to put words in my mouth. I explained my position quite clearly. If you don't understand it, well, tough. :rolleyes: I'm done with this thread.

[Chris Rhines]

So my question doesn't get answered? Darn.

Back to the original topic. The biggest problems with USG foreign policy are 1.) the continual intervention in situations that are no concern of the USG, and 2.) foreign aid.

Globalist intervention is the big one. If the USG would refrain from sending troops in on 'peacekeeping' missions that the drop of a hat, the world would be quite a bit safer, maybe with fewer ex-USG-backed psychotic dicators and terrorists around.

Foreign aid provides a convienient method for idiots in the State Department to hand over boatloads of our tax money to the afore-mentioned dictators and terrorists, along with plenty of contributions to fourth-would socialist pestholes that exist solely as IMF welfare queens. The US should spend not a single dollar on tax-funded foreign aid.

- Chris

[Glock Glockler]

Chris,

What if one were to ratify the Constitution to allow for a standing army? Comparing it to gun control is not very accurate , as gun control is a very specific violation of one's rights as well as the 2nd Amendment.

[bad_dad_brad]

The Congress decides to wage war, the President executes that decision as Commander in Chief. It's pretty clear that the authors of the Constitution did not want a standing army, but rather a combination of able bodied militia, coupled with the ability to raise an army when necessary, and keep and promote a standing navy.

That was then. This is now.

The Constitution is a lovely document, for a small agrarian country, that was the United States over 200 years ago. Athenian Greeks would have approved. Thomas Jefferson, bless him, the intellectual farmer scientist he was, helped to craft a document (along with the Declaration of Independence) that described an effective, working, somewhat radical government of the early 18th century. The Civil War changed all that as Federalism finally won out over Jeffersonian Libertarianism.

If you read our "Law of the Land" one could interpret that standing armies, and Presidential orders to go to war are clearly un-constitutional. Make your own judgement.

From Article I Section 8 of the Constitution:

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

From Article II Section 2:

Section 2. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

[mercedesrules]

Chris said: So, again, the question is: The Constitution is either an unbreakable contract between the individual and the USG (which means that both standing armies and gun control are illegal) or it is a living document that can be ignored in whole or part (in which case we can have a standing army, but no guns.) Either-or choice. Which do you prefer?

The question that makes grown men cry! ;)

I prefer "A" - contract. But lately, it has, unfortunately, become "B" - living document :( We gun owners had better find something else to hide behind. Good posts, Chris!

MR

[Justin Moore]

Foreign aid provides a convienient method for idiots in the State Department to hand over boatloads of our tax money to the afore-mentioned dictators and terrorists, along with plenty of contributions to fourth-would socialist pestholes that exist solely as IMF welfare queens.

All very true, except for the 'idiots' component. Its all being done by design. I frankly don't believe the old 'incompetence' dodge ;)

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0912986328/qid=1049791897/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/002-0291881-7988879?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

There is tons of good info about the IMF over at www.gregpalast.com