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.

[Roscoe]

What is Carto's Libertarian comrade Bradley Smith infamous for, demidog?

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Bump List change:

tex-oma;nunya bidness;malador;OWK;MadameAxe;JohnHuang2;Askel5;Cato;LSJohn;veronica;Uriel1975

New Bump List

tex-oma;nunya bidness;malador;OWK;MadameAxe;JohnHuang2;Askel5;Cato;LSJohn;veronica;OrthodoxPresbyterian

I've gone through a lot of changes of late... new house, new job, etc... all to the good, I'm happy to say, praise God... and I changed my screen name as well (decided to directly reference my chosen denomination to "let people know where I am coming from").

BUT, I would hate for the name change to result in missing out on your ping-list articles.
I almost missed this one!! So, just FYI...

Best,
OrthodoxPresbyterian (formerly Uriel1975)

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Jefferson would legalize sodomy? Nonsense. 918 posted on 12/31/01 8:26 PM Pacific by Roscoe

No, Jefferson would not have legalized sodomy. Jefferson had a gigantic Mind; and, as sometimes happens with gigantic minds, it was sometimes "all over the place". Patrick Henry is an even better example; while many libertarians will often appeal to Mr. Henry on many matters (being as he was opposed to the very concept of any "federal" Government which was not a strictly voluntary association of Sovereign States), the fact remains that Henry was an Establishmentarian advocate of publicly-funded State Churches (ahhh, but Henry believed that these Churches should be Established by the individual States... so, as the commensurate "States-Rights" advocate, Henry was quite "intellectually consistent" in his own quirky way)...

But all of that is a little besides the point. We know that Great Men have often harbored certain contradictions of thought (excepting only the man Jesus Christ -- if you're Christian, that is). The question is, in the progression of philosophical development, do we choose to divest ourselves of their contradictions, or do enshrine those contradictions as though they are the very Word of God? (Even Jefferson himself would not have claimed to be a Prophet, after all...)

Or put another way, the question is: What are your Principles?

Do you, personally, believe that sodomy should be punished by the State?

If so, why?

• On The One Hand, If you are a strict, old-school Christian Reconstructionist, then you could claim that Homosexuality and Blasphemy should be punished by the State -- as these sins are considered to be Crimes under the Levitical Covenant of Exodus and Deuteronomy. Of course, if you are a strict Reconstructionist, you would have to eliminate all Welfare, and all aspects of the Drug War... as these Government actions enjoy no sanction whatsoever under Biblical Law. Even the most rigorous application of Mosiac Law admits no State authority whatsoever over the matter of private intoxication, for example.

• On The Other Hand, if you are a strict Christian Libertarian, you would admit zero moral authority to the State whatsoever save the punishment of Murder, Theft, False Witness, Adultery, and Fraud... in keeping with a literal reading of Romans 13: 8-10.

But you don't claim to be a Christian at all, do you, Roscoe? In truth, you admit no legitimate Biblical constraints on the authority of the State... you are a pure Democrat, in the classical Athenian sense. If the Popular Will condemns Socrates to death by hemlock, you have no principled, moral objection to the Will of vox populi (your chosen "god") at all. It is, after all, the "democratic" thing to do.

"Whatever is.. is Right".
Those are your "principles".

[Roscoe]

Strike the pose.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Strike the pose. 925 posted on 12/31/01 10:43 PM Pacific by Roscoe

Good grief... You're a Madonna fan?

That's another strike against you, in my book... you have no taste in music, apparently.

Fits with your "democratic" ideals, though... Madonna and her pop-music legionnaires are the soma of tha masses, aren't they? And it's all about that vox populi "god" to you, after all, eh?

"Whatever is... is right" -- The Roscoe Book of Ethics

[Roscoe]

And hold it.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

And hold it. 927 posted on 12/31/01 10:58 PM Pacific by Roscoe

Lost me... more Madonna lyrics? I don't have them memorized... do enlighten me.

[Roscoe]

Shaky.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Shaky. 929 posted on 12/31/01 11:32 PM Pacific by Roscoe

Sorry, big guy, I really don't have your command of Madonna lyrics.

My taste has always run to stronger stuff, but I respect your First Amendment right to your MTV fluff (gosh, I even have principles for doing so...)

[Roscoe]

Furtive.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Furtive. 931 posted on 12/31/01 11:56 PM Pacific by Roscoe

fur·tive (fûrtv)
adj.

1. Characterized by stealth; surreptitious.
2. Expressive of hidden motives or purposes; shifty. See Synonyms at secret.

See Example: Roscoe's persistent refusal to answer questions posed to him.
As above: "Do you, personally, believe that sodomy should be punished by the State?"

Well, Roscoe? You raised the counter-example, therefore you assume advocacy for the contrary position.

Since we're making our arguments from pop-culture references, allow me to quote from Bud Fox in Wall Street:
"You never had the guts to stake your own claim!!"

Want to raise a counter-argument? Then assume advocacy, and state your position. Stake your claim.

You can't.

[Roscoe]

Desperate.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Desperate. 933 posted on 1/1/02 12:08 AM Pacific by Roscoe

Nope.

Stake an intellectual proof-claim.
Deliver a properly-premised and consistent logical argument.

I'd love to see it. But you never will. You can't. You know in advance that you'd be crushed.
Thus your usual resort to one-liners. You can't do better, and we both know it full well (you know I'm trying to draw you out, and I know you fear the confrontation. We dance our little dance...)..

Try something more intellectually involved.
You'll lose, every time.

We both know it.
Hence your small-bid bluffs.

Nothing new.

[Roscoe]

.

[AKbear]

LOL, welcome back OP.

[Demidog]

I had forgotten your new screen name. Welcome back. I love it when you spank old Roscoe the troll.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

LOL, welcome back OP. 936 posted on 1/1/02 12:27 AM Pacific by AKbear

"If you crush out individuality by the strong arm of the State, then ultimately the state will be all, and the individual and the family will be nothing, and liberty will be destroyed." -- the Reverend Dr. J. Gresham Machen... Bulwark of Biblical Fundamentalism, Opponent of Prohibitionism, and founder of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church.

Good to be back. May God send His blessings on you and yours.

[AKbear]

Thank you, happy new year to you and yours.

Is the fellow you quoted the Machen of Machen-Butler Society fame?

[Sandy]

I love it when you spank old Roscoe the troll.

LOL. Check out the "Addicted to the Drug War" thread. Donh has been giving him a major butt-kicking.