America First: Why we need to examine our insane Foreign policy

self | 12/29/2001 | Demidog

[Demidog]

I am not an America hater by any stretch of the imagination. Nor are the plethora of folks calling for a re-examination of our foreign policies. But that's what we're called.

I wish I knew why.

I really don't want to be against any American. I don't like being on the butt end of insults. So if there were a way to somehow explain what it is that bothers me about our foreign policy without the resultant cries of "traitor! treason! Islam firster!" I would.

One of the main problems apears to be that any "agreement" with bin Laden and his band of murdering thugs is seen to be support. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is probably true that bin Laden knows that water is tantamount to life in the desert. If I agree with this, I am no more supporting bin Laden than you are by agreeing.

When we decry any actions taken by Israel, we are "anti-semites." When Israel admitted that they had set a booby trap near an area where children played and 5 Palestinian boys died when it went off, you couldn't get near the topic without being ridiculed.

This is puzzling to me. There is nothing wrong per se with Israel and certainly not Jews, but for certain they are not perfect. For some, Israel is perfection and any criticism is tantamount to racism. Those who disagree are shouted down with such fervor it makes one pause.

American policies aren't perfect either. It is arguable for instance that John Wayne's death from cancer could be attributed to nuclear tests performed back in the 40's. Movie locations happened to be in the area where tests occurred. Many film industry professionals who worked on movies filmed in Nevada died from cancer including that great American we called "the Duke."

Many soldiers who were in the vicinity of those tests also died from cancer.

Why is it an indictment on all of America to bring such mistakes to light? In general, the American population has no say so in the slightest regarding these sorts of activities nor do they have much say in our foreign policy.

But as usual, it is the American population that has to accept the consequences of Policy mistakes made by the government. To say that those who object to this "hate America" is completely absurd.

The truth is quite the opposite.

I love America. And those who decry our foreign policy blunders and the theft of our hard earned money that is necessary in order to carry out these blunders also love America. We're simply tired of having to pay the price for those mistakes, while those who carry them out never have to suffer the consequences.

One of the most bizarre claims by those who are calling us "America haters" and "Islam firsters" is that terorrists are simply angry that we are so democratic as a nation and love freedom. These terrorists "hate freedom" and thus hate America and Americans. They're "jealous," in other words, of our prosperity.

This is about as brilliant an analysis as claiming that Timothy McVeigh was upset that he was no longer an employee of the federal government and thus took out his jealosy and rage on that same federal government.

It is the analysis of the simpleton.

The fact is, we only know what the terrorists claim. Not that it matters much. The opinions of mass murderers are not that important. Clearly however, this is not what any of the terrorists are saying. What they are saying is that they believe themselves to be oppressed by our foreign intervention.

When students took Iranian embassy employees hostage, their reason given for such extraordinary measures was American meddling in Iranian internal affairs.

The Shah of Iran was our personally hand-picked leader for their country. The CIA had, in the time period between the time we basically annexed Iran during WWII, purposefully destroyed opposition to the Shah by using tactics they had learned in South America.

None of those tactics were even remotely related to "freedom" or the principles upon which this nation was founded. They were the actions of a government that believed the Iranian people were chattle and were not worthy of chosing their own leadership.

So what happened? A number of Americans paid the price for our meddling. When we allowed the Shah to enter America to receive medical treatment, the last straw was put upon the back of that proverbial camel.

And that is not to mention the American lives that were sacrificed in a botched rescue attempt. For some, these lives are expendable. They are the price a nation pays for being a "super power." I agree with that assesment. But I don't think we need to be a superpower. I don't think we need to meddle in the affairs of other nations in order to protect our borders.

As is proven time and time again, such meddling has a high price.

And therein lies the rub. Dying in order to defend this nation from an attacking force is national defense and is noble. Sending young men and women across the globe to secure oil fields and preserve the "American way of life" is a sick project. I for one, am not willing to lose a single American for the cynical goal of sub-dollar-a-gallon fuel for my SUV.

If that is the measure of value for an American life then you can call me an America hater all day long and I will be proud to wear that badge.

I criticize our foreign policies because they result in the deaths of American soldiers and citizens at home and abroad. In no way do I criticize Americans. In the aftermath of the Trade Center attacks, it wasn't the government that responded with such ferocity and bravery. It was the average American.

The Beaurocrats were busy playing CYA and letting us know that none of this was their fault. In the meantime, Americans came up with over 60 million dollars in cash and even more in valuable resources in spite of the fact that they are taxed to the extreme in order to pay for the very policies that helped to incubate the attacks of 9/11.

America proved it's greatness in the response to the attacks. The government proved it's complete disregard for human liberty by passing laws which violate the spirit and letter of the Supreme law of the land. Even while the fires were still burning.

America is a great nation and is full of great people. Unfortunately its leaders have no respect for its people or its laws. Pointing this out is not showing hate for anything but the lawbreakers who do so.

[carenot]

Libertarian-Socialists, like their philosophical descendents, used the term "theft" irrationally.

"Taxation is theft" became a substitute for "property is theft."

The hatred of America, her laws, institutions, foreign policy, etc., continued with little change.

I truly do not undestand what you are saying. Especially the "property is theft."

[Roscoe]

You do understand the difference between a libertarian socialist and an American libertarian right?

Yep.

Libertarian-Socialists, like their philosophical descendents, used the term "theft" irrationally.

"Taxation is theft" became a substitute for "property is theft."

The hatred of America, her laws, institutions, foreign policy, etc., continued with little change.

[Conservative til I die]

SO much for liberty and freedom eh?

[RGSpincich]

One of the main problems apears to be that any "agreement" with bin Laden and his band of murdering thugs is seen to be support. Nothing could be further from the truth.

So you no longer feel that there is not one shred of evidence connecting OBL to the WTC attack?

[Demidog]

There is nothing concrete. That is not the point of this article.

[JakeWyld]

That wasn't quite what I was looking for.

A "Libertarian-Socialist" is the European term for what we would call an "anarchist" over here.

They are anti-capitalist, eco and animal terrorists, and their webpages are extremely difficult to understand.

An American libertarian is pro-capitalist and sits on the general opposite side of the political spectrum of the "libertarian-socialists".

In many ways taxation is theft. It is the stealing of one persons money and using it for whatever purpose those in power see fit to do with it. You may be very well content to pay for abortions overseas (some more of that foreign aid you seem bound to argue for). To pay for a road that all use equally is one thing...however, it is completely another to pay for someone elses social agenda.

[Roscoe]

Who were the 3 that voted against?

Against promoting their anti-187 stance?

Dunno. Ask Kim Goldsworthy. gebegb@earthlink.net

[carenot]

Candidates choose to run.

I thought so to.

Until GW chose to run. He and his family did not want to. Then he did.

What happened between times?

I wonder and I sure don't know.

[Roscoe]

In many ways taxation is theft.

Clarification, please. In what ways would you concede that it isn't theft?

[RGSpincich]

The moderator changed it, and I thank the moderator for doing that.

As opposed to deleting it. So what is with all the whining about a certain group getting their threads deleted.

[Demidog]

In what ways would you concede that it isn't theft?

Whenever its voluntary.

[JakeWyld]

Well...

To be completely honest I see nothing wrong with local taxing authorities...that reflects the views of the citizens in that area. Also, they can easily take an active role in policy. Taxing for maintenance of the local roads, sewer systems, schools(I'm a bit shaky on this one, but some communities may want publicly funded schools).

On the National level, taxation for national defense(if necessary). It is theft when a beauracracy many miles attempts to shape the laws of states and communities by threatining its money supply. If the social activists want to control the Fed gov. let 'em...but I don't want them strangling me to death just because my state and city refuses to adopt their agenda.

[Roscoe]

Your position seems pretty reasonable, which puts it direct opposition to the Libertarian position.

Check out the official party line at http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/platform_print.html when you have a chance.

[RGSpincich]

There is nothing concrete. That is not the point of this article.

The point of the article is to point out Americans who you feel have no respect for other Americans. All the while you are giving the terrorists a pass.

America is a great nation and is full of great people. Unfortunately its leaders have no respect for its people or its laws. Pointing this out is not showing hate for anything but the lawbreakers who do so.

You are willing to fabricate a faux disrespect by leaders towards the American people. You, by your own words, promote hate towards those leaders even while you give the terrorists a pass.

[Michael2001]

"I think that given the fredom to deal with their own problems, a majority of the people in that region would denounce bin Laden. The problem is that much of what he says resonates with those who are legitimately concerned and affected by our meddling. We are in essence providing bin Laden with his audience."

And I think you're wrong. The Muslims/Arabs are constantly blaming Christians, Jews, Israel, the West, the US for all there problems, when in reality, we contribute to very few of their problems. Can you tell me why the hate us in Egypt when we send them 2 billion dollars a year?

Can you imagine doing what you're doing to just an ordinary murderer (as opposed to a murderer of thousands)? Well let's examine why he killed that guy, maybe that guy was a jerk. Maybe that David Berkowiz (Son of Sam) had a rough childhood, maybe if we just treated him nice he'd stop killing people, no need to lock him up.

You cave into this terrorist and you give a message to all terrorists that the US is weak. Where do you draw the line of where you cave and where you don't? Do you know what the Nation of Aztlan is (They are a group of Hispanics who say that California, Texas, and much of the South is rightfully part of Mexico, their are more of them than people think). What if the Nation of Aztlan starts blowing people up (after they saw that it worked for Bin Laden)? Do we give them Texas? After seeing how well it worked for militant Arabs, maybe militant blacks will decide to blow up some people in order that we free Mumia Abu Jamal. I guess we might as well free him, better that we set him free rather than have more people blown up. You might think this is all hypothetical, but you send a message that you will cave into terrorists, and all these other crazies with militant tendencies start to get ideas. You do not appease terrorists, that is a suicidal game plan.


My solution to this conflict would be tighter borders. You can see a thread I wrote on this subject about a month ago called "Why Japan won't have to worry about Islamic extremists". Japan won't have to worry about Islamic extremists terrorists because they didn't allow many Islamic extremists into their country. I do not want my friends and family who are in the military to be shipped away to far away God forsaken lands, but as long as these crazies are in our country there is no better option, and believe me our boys in the military understand that.

Changing our foreign policy would only make us look weak to the rest of the world, look weak to the terrorists, and that is asking for trouble. Changing our foreign policy, IMHO, would only lead to more American deaths.

[Demidog]

You are willing to fabricate a faux disrespect by leaders towards the American people.

There is nothing faux about it. Not only do they show complete disregard for you and I by ignoring the supreme law of the land, they spit upon the memories of the dead so that they may gain political advantage over us whom they swore to serve.

[Demidog]

So what you are advocating is a game of psychology with the terrorists where the pawns are American lives.

We can't do anything that would concede the slightest to the terrorists even if it means more human suffering and death. After all, the most important thing here is not protecting our nation but being "right."

I don't buy that. The motivation behind pulling out of the mideast and other places we do not belong is self-preservation, not concession to terrorists.