Posted on 01/14/2017 7:51:27 AM PST by pinochet
During the time of the founding fathers, America did not have a foreign policy that included having enemies. George Washington warned Americans against too much attachment to foreign nations and causes. Even when Jefferson waged war on North African Arab Muslim nations that kidnapped American sailors, he did not have a foreign enemies list.
A foreign policy based on always having enemies is the product of the Cold War. Always having enemies is profitable for defense corporations.
Drivel is a good term for it.
I think it relates, also, to how much ‘leadership’ (or ‘dominance’, or ‘imperialistic) we want to have in the world.
Mind our own borders, make no treaties that require us to use force on the behalf of other nations, have a sane policy regarding trade and recognition of other nations and we would (outside of Islam and the Chinese who will always consider themselves to the the rightful number one superpower, but who can nearly always act rationally since doing so is in their lang term self interest) and we would have very few, and easily identifiable and defeat able enemies.
If we want to be the world’s main superpower, then we will always have enemies.
Anyone who still wants more war at this point qualifies as criminally insane, and should be treated as such.
Military men are almost always the most reluctant to go to war.
It is insane to think that war is not always a threat. Those that think armed force is not necessary to survive are insane.
“If you want peace, prepare for war.”
That has become a truism for good reasons.
it also sounds like Eisenhowers warning to the nation at his farewell address
But - I gotta hand it to the anarchists - there really are neocons and they really are a breed apart from both parties and they really may be a bigger threat to us than any individual polity or bloc
You’re worried about conservatives?
If we want to be the world’s main superpower, then we will always have enemies.
Do you think the Russians would be better? The Chinese? Either there will be a dominant power or their will not.
A world without a dominant power is unstable, as we learned from WWI and WWII. The British had been dominant. Then they succumbed to the siren call of disarmament.
The U.S. grew and succeeded under the wings of British enforcement of freedom of the seas, and a world order of sorts.
Just as South Korea, Europe, and China have flourished under a pax Americana.
We have cyber enemies now. There are at least two bad consequences. First when some idiot like Podesta clicks on a phishing email it is an attack by a cyber enemy so we are in a permanent state of war. Second, the money spent fighting cyber enemies including “cyber weapons’ would be better spent on actual weapons because our actual enemies that exist or arise will have those.
But no, some genius decided to exert control by franchising and dividing up the market for fast cheap burgers and fries under his brand
Spread the product, maintain the brand, divide the turf/ market, share the wealth with those willing to buy in and live by the rules
What if world relations are reset in a business model. Not the political models
Define the product as stability ( if not peace) and the factors that secure stability ... ( tyranny and oppression and exploitation not being those factors)
Maybe not one brand anymore - US democracy term has been so abused as to lose credibility with a lot of the world so stop thinking about imposing it by force and treachery ( which is the abuse part) - maybe be different brands for Middle East Russia and Asia but not necessarily bad brands if they meet the product specs - stop think of alt brands as enemies
Now divide the turf and agree on the rules - again must not go against the principles of the product
Now define common goals where the franchises work together and otherwise, let them manage their own turf
While assuring no treachery of course
Or your turf gets new management that supports the product
Let MBA’s loose on the world, not politicians!
Just being a bit ridiculously out of the box here!
Define “ conservatives’ and also tell me if that is one homogeneous group with common values and goals
Especially after what was revealed during this election
John McCain and Hillary Clinton- common foreign policy goals
Conservative?
JEB Bush and Hillary Clinton - common immigration goals
Conservative?
This is especially true, when we are undisputedly the strongest, in military terms.
Wed don’t need to always be picking allies, and enemies.
As it currently is, we have “allies” like Germany, and their plan to have Europe overrun by violent muslims that never work.
Nations never have permanent friends or enemies, only permanent interests
Well that is an interesting thought experiment. The main problem that comes to my mind when using the product model is that it is based on the assumption of actors motivated by mutual self interest and based on rationality of action. Which is theoretically possible if men (nations) are left alone to conduct transactions without coercion. But as we know, the globalists/leftists/corporate-governmental power structure won’t leave us or any nation alone. They know what’s best for us...they want to tell us what to think, what to eat, how to use transportation, how to run our borders, how to educate our children, etc. It’s going to be a long process, but a successful Trump administration will be a positive first step.
Granting everything you say, the statement is still true.
As to whether the country should commit the blood and treasure to be the dominant superpower is a decision we the people make by choosing our leaders. It is an interesting speculation as to how the Founding Fathers would have viewed things if why knew that eventually our power would be nearly enough to defeat the rest of the world put together.
In a way, that’s what lead to the fall of the Roman Republic; not so much the decadence (or otherworldliness) of the people but the fact that a form of government well suited to a vigorous and expanding republic did not work for running a world empire.
Can there be an empire that does not sow the seeds of it’s own destruction by the eventual decline into hubris on one hand or complete impotence on the other?
I have no answers, only the opinion that *if* we want to be #1, then yes, we will always have enemies.
Or President Eisenhower.
Many intertwining things lead to the fall of the Roman Republic. Attempting to maintain an empire may have been one of them.
But the U.S. does not have to maintain an empire to be the dominant power. We have never been much of an empire, in spite of leaders like Roosevelt and McKinley who wanted us to be one. The people rejected ownership of the Phillipines. The Congress rejected ownership of Hawaii. Liberia was left to fend for itself.
Yes, the question likely comes down to “which is safer, to have a multi-polar world, that is likely unstable, which can embroil us in war; or to take up the role of world super power to keep stability?
It is not a clear or easy answer.
Very true. But an interesting question.
I always think of the Chinese parable that it is one thing to ride the tiger, it is another thing entirely as to how you’re going to get of his back and what happens then :-)
I personally think we grasped for empire as a reaction to the USSR. Then when they collapsed we were, and have bee, stuck in the middle between the sheer momentum of a necessarily aggressive foreign policy and our natural national inclination to let other people do their thing and we do ours.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.