Replies

And if it is about maintaining the freedom and democracy of the citizens of the US, then why are other nations being invaded, without provocation?

The quote is worth remembering, but it doesn't apply to our current situation. The Muslim terrorists have been provoking us for twenty years or more. September 11, 2001 was the biggest and most recent act, but they've been provoking us at least since the bombing of the Marines in Lebanon in the early 80's. Many refuse to remember this fact, but we were there in an effort to protect Muslims. Maybe we should have just allowed Israel to eliminate more of them at the time.

The quote is also less applicable in a world where we need resources that are not available in our own country. When John Adams wrote those words, America had everything it could need in its own borders or in the oceans off its coast. Trade was nice, but it wasn't a necessity. Today, there are things that we need and can only get in other areas. To maintain our security, we must maintain access to these resources.

I think there are situations where this sentiment is applicable. I think we were foolish to become involved in the situation in the Balkans. I think much of Africa should be left to its own devices.

I Resolve for a Free New Year
Bill

Hi WFTR:
I guess I am confused about your reply. Perhaps you can clear it up for me. Terrorists based in Afghanistan attacked the US. The US invaded Afghanistan and have installed a new government. Now the US is about to invade Iraq. Has Iraq attacked the US? Are there terrorists in Iraq who are attacking the US? It is interesting that you raise the topic of terrorism, and then in the next paragraph, explain how the US must secure natural resources. So-- these terrorists(the same who attacked the US in 2001), are now in charge of the oilfields (?!). How did they do that?
Keeping fanatic religious people from killing American citizens is a common sense duty, however--do you really believe that the US must invade foreign countries to take their natural resources? Isn't that one of the definitions of 'empire' itself? (I believe it is). Is US/Canada/Mexico really that low on resources? Why (that we are very low on natural resources is true)haven't our leaders told us this? Are they lying to us?

If the invasion of Iraq is about oil (which seems to be the main reason) more than freedom or democracy (remember the Kurds will not be freed, nor the Shiite minorities in south Iraq), then the US should develop it's own natural resources(which as far as I understand are still mammoth), or create new ones to run our vehicles and buildings on. The universe is teeming with energies and possiblity, so murdering each other and hoarding things over each other like spoiled children seems to be a very moronic way for a nation to live its collective life. In the regards to what Adams said, I don't believe that that philosophy has changed-- the US needs to be the shining 'city on the hill'(which was one of the ideas it was founded about being) and be more towards a higher civilization, then being more like a 'new Rome'. So to me, the argument over the invasion of Iraq has not been very honest or forthright in the reasons the US is justifying in attacking a sovereign country (without provocation).
Thanks WFTR for your civil response to my question.