Matt Gaetz: ‘America First’ Means Protecting U.S. Border Before Avenging Japanese Vessels

breitbart ^ | 6/17/19 | Sean Moran

[montag813]

We have our own oil. Japan and Norway should pay for the locals to escort them out to sea.

Amen, brother. Oddly, so does Norway, and lots of it.

[Magnum44]

You clearly have no respect for those who serve.

Your beef is with the politicians. Complain to them.

[G Larry]

Ya, the U.S. should wait until Iran nukes somebody and then debate whether we care.....

[thoughtomator]

It is because I respect those who serve that I am calling out this farce.

You apparently think it’s A-OK to send our boys to conflicts they didn’t sign up for (they signed up to protect the US, not to protect foreign lands of dubious allegiance to us) and have them come home in bags or mentally shattered.

That’s not what they are there for. They are not toys for you to play with, to be discarded when broken.

[nathanbedford]

In the age of satellites, ICBMs, anthrax, cyber attacks, how do you defend America at the borders?

This is not to say that I advocate going to war with Iran, nor is it to say that I oppose it, it depends on how the facts in this matter play out. My objection is to reflexively resorting to a shibboleth that simply has ever diminishing relevance in the 21st century. Here is part of a reply from the other day:

Historically, we have not gone to war according to this formula. Indeed, the border-formula is not so clear as a matter of definition. Pearl Harbor at the time was not part of the United States but some sort of territory, that required defense, was that defense of a border or was it a response to an attack that would have required the same declaration of war if it had been made on the open seas? We went to war with Great Britain in 1812 but their subsequent invasion was not the cause of that war, rather, we fought in defense of our shipping. We were invaded by Pancho Villa but we did not declare war although we conducted a "punitive" expedition, a bootless mini-invasion of Mexico.

We nearly went to war over the Lusitania, a merchant ship but we did go to war, properly or not, over the Maine, a warship, in 1898. We went to war over the Tonkin Gulf incident, in reaction to a bogus attack on a warship, but we did not declare war.

Concerning ICBMs, we came as close to nuclear annihilation in an incident that I can vividly recall from my young adulthood during the Cuban missile crisis. Iran might be able to get a bomb into a merchant ship and sail it into an American harbor where it could be detonated. Could it be that the border is the wrong and of the threat in which to mount the defense? Iran might be able to smuggle anthrax across our southern border. The point? They don't need ICBMs. The deeper point, it is not the border so much but the terrorist act that must be defended.

So it is not that I "want to go to war so bad" but that I want to know what the rules of the game are.

I do believe that it may be in America's national interest to make war over oil, just as it is in America's interest to make war over water or air-or borders or merchant ships or ICBMs. But it might be utter folly to go to war right now against Iran, it all depends on context.

These questions are not easy and every formulaic approach carries its own anomalies with it. I get that you are turned off by Middle East wars, so am I. But I am equally concerned that we do not chase the pendulum in reaction to Iraqi or Vietnam. I do not forget that we fought in Vietnam because we learned the wrong lesson from appeasing Hitler. We occupied Iraq because we learned the wrong lesson from the first Gulf War.

There is no one formula that answers these life-and-death questions for every generation or for every technological innovation that alters the nature of war. That is what we must do for ourselves but we must get it right. I do not know how to do that without trying to understand the context, the history, and the risks and, if we are smart, we will do so with a great dose of humility.

[AAABEST]

As I stated and its so often ignored here, its in the interest of the US that economic routes stay open and safe to navigate.

Not sure what planet you're living on these days, but here on earth, the USA can navigate the straights all we like without any incident whatsoever. Whatever manufactured problem you're trying to solve does not exist.

As has been the case for several days now, there are an awful lot of folks here agreeing with Russia and China in support of Iran. Strange.

Do you a-holes all read from the same script? Whenever you're losing an argument, just accuse others of being with Russians/Chinese/Iranians/Syrians.

Idiot.

[JonPreston]

It appears the very same fools who cheered Bush & Cheney into the Iraqi disaster are agitating for war with Iran. Lucky their numbers are minuscule compared to what they were in 2001. A disastrous, globalist foreign policy will wake most up, but not the insane remnant.

[thoughtomator]

Nice little virtue signaling sleight of hand, by the way - neat trick to substitute valid complaints against the political bureaucracy and redirect them unfairly against our service members.

That is stone-cold proof that you are acting in bad faith. You will be treated as a bad faith actor moving forward without a mea culpa and apology to our troops.

[Magnum44]

You either mistyped or you don’t know history well. We have been since WWII the dominate nation in the arts and mechanics of power projection. Yet we enslave nobody. Unique in all of history.

Where the nation has failed on several occasions since Vietnam, is the will to accept that our freedoms and way of life have a cost. We have also become vulnerable to our own civility in that we don’t want to hurt anyone whilst addressing real threats. Many in our own ranks undermine the good things we do putting restrictive rules of engagement on our troops, blaming them for casualties of war, and basically helping the enemy defeat us at home.

A word about nation building is in order. We don’t have the stomach or treasury for it, but that is exactly how we reconstructed Europe post WWII. Even I don’t want to waste time trying to democratize the middle east, but historically, you either babysit the defeated nation for decades, or you wipe them out completely. Anything in between is probably going to fail, especially if its not a Judeo-Christian culture.

[JonPreston]

it depends on how the facts in this matter play out

No flame intended, and thanks for your thoughtful posts, but given the countless failures of our intelligence services, and their predilection toward war, who do you trust?

[null and void]

The whole thing reeks to high Heaven of a “let’s you and him fight” false flag.

And keep in mind pencil neck SCHIFF is all for Trump getting into another war in the Middle East, what does that tell you?

[bk1000]

“The Iranians should not be allowed to control or shut down the Straits of Hormuz.”

It’s still not our job. We have been mired in endless BS over there for decades. We obviously don’t have the political nerve to crack down and finish the job, so why spend another dime fiddle-farting around over there? We’re good on oil now. Let Saudi police them for a change.

[JonPreston]

We have been since WWII the dominate nation in the arts and mechanics of power projection. Yet we enslave nobody.

We are steadily losing our culture, our individual freedom and our national identity thanks to the unmasked socialists parading around as Democrats and GOPe'ers. Unless we alter our domestic trajectory, our nation will fall. Yet you pimp for war. Aren't you ashamed of yourself after the Iraqi mess, a war you cheered for?

[SauronOfMordor]

If a company wants the US Navy to protect its vessel, then it should register as a US vessel. Otherwise, it should seek protection from the Navy of the country of registry. I’m sure the Liberian or Panamanian Navy will get right on it.

Carnival Cruise could then be required to say, as part of their ticketing process, whose navy’s protection they sail under. See how many tickets they sell.

[stanne]

I wonder when they will start preventing illegals from crossing the border

The high numbers aren’t a turning point

Exotic diseases among these Non vaccinated people are not stopping it

Ebola is not impressing them

[Altura Ct.]

I agree

[Magnum44]

Those serviceman and women signed up to protect and defend the constitution and our way of life. They accept the risk and responsibility that that oath entails. You have clearly never served by the shear ignorance of your posts. You do not respect the serviceman any more than the hippies in the streets protesting wars they don’t understand while claiming to support the troops.

Because some administrations (dems - Kosavo, Libya, Syria) have misused the executive power of the military, you have taken the position that all use of military power is wrong.

After watching this president in action for 2+ years now, your whining and mooning about things you have no dog in the fight with is annoying.

[null and void]

We are a net oil exporter. Shutting down the Strait means we can sell our oil for more.

The only downside is if Iran does cut off the Persian Gulf supply lines Russia, Russia, Russia also benefits from higher oil prices, oil being just about the only thing they have that anyone wants.

Russia, Russia, Russia benefits even more if a war shuts down the supply and kills a bunch of Americans, destabilizes Trump, and demoralizes Americans as an extra special bonus.

[DungeonMaster]

America First equals selling weapons to Japan and giving them moral support and prayer.

[9YearLurker]

And all the more when the Japanese say it wasn’t done by how our creepy CIA/Sec of State insist it was done or by whom our creepy CIA/Sec of State it was done!