Posted on 09/21/2003 9:04:15 PM PDT by Recourse
"Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all...
"In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence, frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation, prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of nations, has been the victim."
"So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation."
Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.
"The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible..."
"Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand; neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing; establishing (with powers so disposed, in order to give trade a stable course, to define the rights of our merchants, and to enable the government to support them) conventional rules of intercourse, the best that present circumstances and mutual opinion will permit, but temporary, and liable to be from time to time abandoned or varied, as experience and circumstances shall dictate; constantly keeping in view that it is folly in one nation to look for disinterested favors from another; that it must pay with a portion of its independence for whatever it may accept under that character; that, by such acceptance, it may place itself in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favors, and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more. There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion, which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard. "
The decision by American politicians to forgo the peace and neutrality our forebears left us is costly. Our efforts to buy peace between Israel and Egypt leave American taxpayers funding a military that, through no fault of our own, engenders enmity against Americans. The consequence of this policy has resulted in thousands of American dead and billions of American tax dollars expended. What have we gained for this price we have paid?
I don't know what the definition of the paleo-con is supposed to be, so I won't try and speak for them. That having been said, the desire isn't to renounce international relations with Israel, just not to annually give them billions of U.S. tax dollars worth of military hardware (in concert with Egypt, etc.) in an effort to buy peace. Doing so has made us the enemy of people we don't give a fig about, and certainly didn't set out to make enemies with. Their response has been to attack us. Like I said, GW warned about this, and he was remarkably prescient. Not that most would know it, schooling is poor, and most would consider our nation a democracy.
Israel also causes static cling, damn them....
The data show that there is little connection between suicide terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism, or any religion for that matter. In fact, the leading instigator of suicide attacks is the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, a Marxist-Leninist group whose members are from Hindu families but who are adamantly opposed to religion (they have have committed 75 of the 188 incidents).
Rather, what nearly all suicide terrorist campaigns have in common is a specific secular and strategic goal: to compel liberal democracies to withdraw military forces from territory that the terrorists consider to be their homeland. Religion is rarely the root cause, although it is often used as a tool by terrorist organizations in recruiting and in other efforts in service of the broader strategic objective.
I don't know whether to trust this. It could simply be that the author has tailored his conclusions to fit what he already believes. The article does suggest that those who argue that we are already in WWIV against tens or hundreds of millions of Muslims are wrong. His recommendations are certainly questionable and would amount to giving terrorists a victory, but his view shouldn't simply be discounted.
The neocons seem to be much more in the driver's seat under President Bush than they were under Reagan. The shift from Alexander Haig to George Schulz at the State Department may have had something to do with it. So did the development of detente with Gorbachev.
Under Reagan, stark neoconservative alternatives were moderated and neocons reined in as time went on and detente developed. That wasn't the case until quite recently with the current Bush administration, though things may be changing.
I agree, but that doesn't oblige me to pay for them and become the enemy of those arabs.
Quite frankly, the Palestinians have been treated with great RESTRAINT by American froeign policy, and I'm about to the point where I'm ready to let Israel do whatever the heck they want with `em.
Then let's do it. Wash our hands, slip the leash, and let them settle their problems. The current policy of buying weapons and providing funds to both sides isn't endearing us to anyone, and it has dragged us into their conflict. Carter's policy of directly engaging the U.S. in the Middle East was a mistake.
I guess I have more faith in their ability to whip the arabs than you. Regardless, it is their war, not ours. I'm as apathetic toward them as I am the Liberians, etc.
if we stop giving them billions and supporting them, they might be crushed by nations that are envious/hateful towards them, i'm afraid. you actually want israel to fight the world alone!!?? c'mon!!
They're not fighting the world. No need for hyperbole. At least an argument could be made for countering Soviet efforts at hegemony in the region, but there is no Soviet Union anymore. The Israelis have dozens of nukes, they're not going anywhere.
Maybe they need a Cowboy vs. Indian solution to their problems. I don't know, I know that we don't have the answer, but we are getting the blame and the black eye. No one has told me yet what our thousands of American lives and billions of tax dollars have bought us for renouncing Washington's advice and getting in the midst of this centuries old conflict.
I would concur with the Black Flag for our enemies, but that isn't the policy being exercised now either. Rome knew how to take care of her enemies, when she still had the strength.
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.