Posted on 10/23/2006 4:43:37 AM PDT by Tolik
VDH sees the big picture with a clarity that borders on the supernatural. If I was Rove I would pull this guy in and make him a policy advisor.
We have enabled millions MILLIONS in the world to live in freedom and peace. Kind of sad really, that you can only see the costs associated with the way America has played her hand and nothing of the benefits.
--Kind of sad really, that you can only see the costs associated with the way America has played her hand and nothing of the benefits.--
So our young people have to die, and our treasury depleted, so the USA can play Santa Claus?
The costs of another 911 would be vastly more expensive than the entire Iraq war. What do you suggest Mr. Isolationist? Retreat to our borders and roll the drawbridge up? We tried that(ignoring the terrorists - thanks Clinton). It got us 911.
You may be right, or you may be wrong. I read very persuasive arguments for and against your point. It is very interesting.
But from the practical point of view, our President has to deal with here and now with the world we know. He has to make decisions in this real world, not how it would have come out if you were right.
And even if isolationism had standing 90 years ago, in today's world with international trading, easy travel and even easier communications, miniaturized weapons and weapons black market when you don't have to be an industrial power like Germany or Japan to inflict untold damage on your enemy, it does not work. The world became too small and too inter-vined to cut ourselves out of it.
And, btw, there are some accidents of history where we had no say at all. If there was no oil in the Mideast, wahhabism would remain totally irrelevant fringe and had no money to spread and indulge in its fantasies that metastasizing in the world now.
--Retreat to our borders and roll the drawbridge up? We tried that(ignoring the terrorists - thanks Clinton). It got us 911.--
Bollocks! Clinton was as interventionist as the rest. Remeber Bosnia? Remeber Kosovo? We left our drawbridge DOWN under Clinton; no border security, an intelligence apparatus with its head up its butt (couldn't spot young Arab muslim men taking airliner flight lessons?!), a "Chinese Wall" between intelligence and law enforcement etc. In fact, we scarely had a drawbridge at all. It's not a question of "ignorning" as you falsely put it; it's a question of protecting! I guess you are against a missile defense program, since all we are doing in that case is "ignoring" ballistic missiles. Sheer sophistry.
"They accept the terms of the debate imposed on them by the Leftists. "
BINGO!
Until we find leadership that challenges and destroys the absolutist statements made by the Left (Bush lied. Iraq is a failure??? How do you 'debate' those statements???) we will continue to lose focus on the objectives. We will flounder and never achieve our goal.
The leadership must 'frame' a real debate and get real solutions.
As I consider you nothing but sincere, let's have a little more of a detailed opinion if you would, please. I am truely interested.
For more polemical detail, check out Daniel Larison's commentaries on Hanson. Larison is a Byzantinist of the Orthodox Christian faith, and hence more aquainted with Western-Islamic history than Hanson the Classics professor, who I admit has done some good work on ancient vineyards and the decline of classical studies in the modern academy.
Pangloss Hanson ping!
"Hindsight" is what's left over after people ignore what "foresight" could tell them.
I think your history's a little weak there.
The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was a result of our beginning to crimp their access to oil as a result of their development of the "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere", including, among other barbarisms the "Rape of Nanking".
Perhaps you've heard of it.
If our Pacific Fleet hadn't been based in Hawaii, the Japanese would ultimately have had to go after it wherever it was, which would have likely been somewhere on the US West Coast.
We did not get involved in a war with Japan because we decided we were an "Asian" nation, we got involved in a war with Japan because we decided (rightly at the time) that the Japanese were a "barbarian" nation.
--Perhaps you've heard of it.--
Um, yeah, I have as a matter of fact. I've heard of lots of unpleasant episodes which have happened over time. Doesn't mean the US should get its knickers in a knot every time one happens. From your point of view, the Slick One was right to intervene in Kosovo, since Muzzies were being abused by those naughty Serbs. If that's how you feel, I very strongly disagree.
--If our Pacific Fleet hadn't been based in Hawaii, the Japanese would ultimately have had to go after it wherever it was, which would have likely been somewhere on the US West Coast--
Logistics, old boy, logistics. A suprise attack from Japan on San Diego would have been virtually impossible. For one thing, the distance between the US mainland and Japan was too great. Even if such a task force was somehow able to be replenished and defended at such a greaat distance from Japanese home waters, the odds of it being able to maintain a suprise factor within striking distance of San Diego are terribly small. Even the Pearl Harbor attack was something of a Hail Mary for the Japanese; a successful strike on San Diego would be like winning Powerball.
--We did not get involved in a war with Japan because we decided we were an "Asian" nation, we got involved in a war with Japan because we decided (rightly at the time) that the Japanese were a "barbarian" nation--
No, we got involved because our interests were far enough in the Western Pacific that they were vulnerable to Japanese attack. The world is full of "barbarian" nations; maybe you should put together your own little army and go off to fight the Janjaweed in Sudan. After all, they're doing terrible things in Sudan.
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.