should we rush about "building nations" or should we straighten ourselves out first?

[RealGun]

Please explain to me how #1 Iraq was a jihadist country before we invaded,

Are they a jihadist country now or just infested with foreign fighters?

Iraq was a secular country until we invaded then we set them up and they start voting for Islamic theocracy.

I don't think so. The problems I see have to do with which regional chief is going to be the biggest kahuna. There may be religious factions but they have their own regions. Is it religious or is it regional interests? The problem is that if you form one government, you only have one chief. Tribal leaders are not going to favor that particularly, unless of course they get to be the chief of chiefs or a peer on a council.

 

[Khornet]

And....it's RWC

winner of the most succinct and correct post. Bravo!

 

[rwc]

Thanks Khornet.

Realgun - No offense intended. We may be trying to say the same thing in different ways.

IMHO - I think it is important to stay engaged internationally while we continue to improve the lot of our most vulnerable Americans here at home. While we as Americans often debate about how we pursue those two goals (or even debate, as here, whether they should be goals) the unifying theme for me is the idea that we are aspiring to improve the lot of all humanity. Is it a futile quest? No one knows. Some ask, will "the poor always be with us?" Maybe, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to change what it means to be poor.

 

[LAK]

While we as Americans often debate about how we pursue those two goals (or even debate, as here, whether they should be goals) the unifying theme for me is the idea that we are aspiring to improve the lot of all humanity. Is it a futile quest? No one knows

Global socialism. Yes, it is futile. Ultimately despotic - and destructive.

-------------------------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

 

[ravinraven]

In the old days...

...we just kicked out the crowd we didn't like and went home. Not WWII, but after that. Some country got to messing with us, so the CIA staged a "regime change" and another dictator arose. I think that's how we got Saddam.

Would we have been better off to leave Saddam in Qwait back in 1991 and said, "Keep the oil flowing at a good price and we don't care what you do."

There is something to be said for the local people throwing off their own oppressive gov'ts and setting up some form of gov't based on individual liberty such as we supposedly have. They will appreciate what they build more, methinks, than what we install. I think that the Iraqis will quite soon after we leave, revert to the old system.

The problem as we see it, I think, is that this throwing off tyrants thing will take another few centuries for them to do. We don't want to wait that long.

Would "liberty" have lasted as long in this country if someone had tossed the English out for us and handed us the bill of rights?

rr

 

[fantacmet]

Well the poltically correct civil rights left wing bleeding heart types say screw your own kind worry about others. While I'm completely for helping others, we have to realize, not every society has the same core values we do. Aside from that, I can't start getting all bleary eyed and heartbroken over the starving children of some third world country because the inhabitants are incapable of taking care of themseves(don't tell me it's the land b/c it's been proven that is crap, far worse land has been turned productive by those who the mental capacity to self govern and advance), when we have millions of starving children here? We need to look into our own first. We are not going to assure our future by helping a feew extra children live in other countries, and letting our own children suffer. We have to take care of our own before we can do any real good for others. Missionaries do GREAT work, and shold keep at it. Although I don't particularly care for the attitude and belief system of most missionaries, I do think the work they do is important, far more then going in and trying to advance a culture ahead thousands of years in just a fraction of that time. We can see the results of that everywhere and the disasterous effects of it. Missionaries do it one small group at a time. They don't try and make them an advanced society when they are not ready or capable of it. They teach them how to take care of themselves, how to study medicine, and environmental control sometimes. They teach them how to self govern, and let them advance on their own. Give a man a fish feed him for a day, teach him how to fish he's fed forever. We need to not be so concerned with giving advanced societies away. Teach them the basics and let them advance on their own, that way when they become an advanced society they will have worked for it, and their primitive minds will no longer be there. They will have something to be proud of and not so willing to destroy it over some stupid little squabble. When we give a society to a culture that is not ready for it, they will readily destroy it and risk death because they know we will come to stop and rebuild it for them at no cost to them. This breeds laziness. Would you go back in time and give a group of cavement a bunch of guns and show them how to use them, and then keep supplying them with ammo, and spare parts? No way.

Rev. Michael

One must be enlightened before they can handle an advanced society.

 

[telomerase]

Why the old days worked

In the old days, when the US occupied Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea they titled and registered the poor landowners. The American military government even created organizations like the Joint Commission on Rural Reconstruction in Taiwan. The Americans contacted the informal sector directly. They didn't ask the official registrar services who owned what but instead asked the "land councils," which were the informal entrepreneurial associations. The Americans were right in supporting the informal property owners. Private property constitutes a formidable bastion against socialism.

Unfortunately, the Americans forgot all about that in Vietnam. Instead, they proceeded to implement "agrarian reform." They granted authority to the South Vietnamese government to parcel out the land according to a system of central planning and clarification of property ownership. Ho Chi Minh actually got more legitimacy out of bringing property rights to Southern peasants than we did (of course he sold them out, but their other choice was being forced into "strategic hamlets" aka US-built collective farms).

And today, we institute openly socialist regimes, complete with price controls (which is why Iraq is always out of gasoline). This is one reason that Iraq has already cost over $200 billion and getting worse every month.

We're taxing ourselves to make the world safe for socialist oligarchies.

 

[Khornet]

Interesting point, Telomerase

...and I fear you are all too right.

 

[rwc]

Global socialism. Yes, it is futile. Ultimately despotic - and destructive.

LAK - Your comment says far more about your view of what it means to help your fellow man than it is reflective of what I said. Assisting others, whether they be your immediate neighbors, or not, need take no particular form, nor need it be a matter for governments - socialist or otherwise.

For example, it seems quite likely that Bill & Melinda Gates will do more to help their fellow human beings by the time they die than virtually any other two people who exist on earth at the same time. If you want to call Bill a socialist, I think you are going to have to craft a much better argument.

http://www.gatesfoundation.org/default.htm

 

[LAK]

LAK - Your comment says far more about your view of what it means to help your fellow man than it is reflective of what I said. Assisting others, whether they be your immediate neighbors, or not, need take no particular form, nor need it be a matter for governments - socialist or otherwise.

For example, it seems quite likely that Bill & Melinda Gates will do more to help their fellow human beings by the time they die than virtually any other two people who exist on earth at the same time. If you want to call Bill a socialist, I think you are going to have to craft a much better argument.

http://www.gatesfoundation.org/default.htm

Bill Gates has become just another self-serving corporate plantation owner like the others, sowing his global empire.

Write and ask Bill Gates two questions:

a) What is your current net worth.

b) What is the sum total of all the money you given to "people in need". Whether it be currency, funding a hospital or anything else.

Then get back to me and tell me what a wonderful guy he is. There are comparatively poor people in this country who give and do more.

Charity is a private affair, not the realm of government. And certainly not in the government for of stealing from it's citizens and giving to others - in this country or any other.
--------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org