🚀 go-pugleaf

On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, Larry G wrote:

> "Slartibartfast" <noone@nonesuch.orgasm> wrote in message
> news:ucKL9.4822$KW2.212858@twister.austin.rr.com...
> > The USA is bound by treaty and tradition to defend not only Europe and
> North
> > America, but also the Balkans, the Middle East, the Persian Gulf, South
> > Korea, Japan, Taiwan, the Philippines, Thailand and Pakistan, Australia,
> and
> > Latin America.
> >
> > A few of us are simply asking, "why?"
> >
> > Its time for the USA to bring home its armed forces from all over the
> globe,
> > to abolish these entangling bilateral and multilateral treaties, to tell
> the
> > United Nations to take a 3rd World Hike, and to have a policy of "trade
> with
> > all, foreign entangling alliances with none."
> >
> > Being policemen of the world has resulted in us being hated by the world.
> > The world is full of ingrates on their part, and we are filled with
> > self-righteous moralists who send other people's sons and daughters to
> fight
> > and die on foreign land for ingrates.  Enough is enough.
> >
> > Isolationism?  No, trade and tourism and whatnot with all - but empire
> with
> > none.
> >
> > As for the weapons of mass destruction - well, if they use them, and if it
> > harms us, then we can and should act.  Finding the criminals who destroyed
> > the World Trade Center should be a priority.  Saving Turkey and rebuilding
> > Iraq so they can both oppress the Kurds should not.
> >
> > Alan
> 
> 
> Nice sentiments, Alan.  But you fail to address the consequences.
> 
> 1.  The neutral-isolationist movement in America allowed Hitler time to
> start rounding up the Jews in Europe and ship them off to the death
> camps.

  1. Rebuttal - had Wilson not gotten the U.S. involved in the first 
     conflict (after outright lying about never sending our boys over 
     there), then events leading to the rise of the Nazis may never have 
     even occurred.  Even at that, do you believe that the U.S. government
     has a mandate, either constitutionally (no) or ethically (no) to 
     correct all of the conflicts in the world?  If so, please explain 
     how FDR and Stalin were such bossom buddies..after all, Stalin had 
     many more people killed than did Hitler.
 > 
> 2.  Bringing our military home means that they will either be unemployed,
> or pressed into service guarding the national borders, if not actively
> suppressing critics of the administration.  You may wish to recall the
> Army was used to crush the WWI veterans' groups when they assembled
> to demand that Congress address their needs after the war.

  2. Rebuttal - the scope of the military is to defend the country, 
     period.  Bush's current strategies should have him impeached, tried 
     for treason and punished accordingly.  The current economic woes 
     amount to the logical conclusion of government manipulation of the
     economy, now with the underlying strength of the economy per se. Of
     course, millions of citizens wanting some sort of free ride or 
     another does not help.  

 > 
> 3.  Military and defense spending is about the only thing really sustaining
> our economy right now.  Cut it in half, and you wipe out a fair amount of
> the cashflow necessary to maintain even our modest levels of commerce.

  3. Rebuttal - military and defense spending is a net loss to the 
     economy.  If we had a free market, we would not have the problems
     we now see in the economy.  Military and other spending does not
     buy our economy anything.  It merely consumes a much higher 
     percentage of private sector capital that cannot then be reinvested
     to really improve the economy.  
> 
> I wish it were otherwise.  I too fear an overly powerful government.
> And, as you correctly point out, our military is controlled by ingrates
> sending others to fight for the prosperity of a privileged few.

   This is true, however....

>  But if you
> will recall the War of 1812, the best way to lose our remaining liberties
> is to demand a minimalist, ill prepared military.  And that is just what
> you are doing.

   This is not.  If anything, the War of 1812 proved how difficult it is 
for even a powerful nation to win a war overseas.  It ended up in 
stalemate, which was to the advantage of the U.S.  All in all, England 
never had a chance.

  Our military has the capability to defend the U.S. 
right now and is in no way ill-prepared or minimalist.  What the U.S. 
military is not prepared for, but which Bush favors anyway, is to go and 
occupy a significant part of the rest of the globe.  Every friggin' 
empire in history has learned that lesson and now Bush's will too.

> Try again when you have a better idea. 
> > Cheers,
> Larry G.

-- 
Joseph Crowe