Posted on 10/09/2001 11:25:39 AM PDT by johnqueuepublic
If you just sold them products you would not have to worry about their hearts and mind.
Tony
That's a very American perspective. We shouldn't count on it working everywhere else. Chances are it won't.
America today is a powerful country you have the most powerful and advanced military in the world, if the objective of the exercise is to defend America well you have won, no other country can touch you.
But America has a new role a role that she is not sure about as this thread will testify to.
In a Free Market environment you but at the sellers price, that is what capitalism is all about, what is on offer and what is the price.
The Arab states of the Middle East have Oil, America wants Oil, simple.
Except America wants to ensure that.
1)The price is ok.
2) She has access to it.
So we are not talking about capitalism anymore, we are talking about a similar arrangement Britain (my country) had with its empire, they sell us the resources we want at a price we have fixed we manufacture goods from those resources and sell them back also at a price we have fixed.
If America pulled out of the Middle East the radical Islamism might/will take over and may up the price of Oil or refuse to sell it to America as a way of getting America to halt its support of Israel.
The answer many say is to take the Oil fields of them, after all we are stronger good answer, unless that rule is brought to America, I want what you got if you wont sell it to me at a price I find agreeable then I will take it of you.
America presents to the world certain ideals, and what I see here is first sigh of hardship, its not going my way lets ditch those ideals
Tony
Lions do kill hardy game, mainly Wildebeasts although they never pass up the opportunity to steal anothers kill, especially from hyenas and jackals who though quite fierce are no match for a 500 pound kitty.
I think you are off the mark a bit when you say that the jungle has no economic value and is therefore somehow irrelevant, its more a semantic manipulation without addressing the core question.
The core question being given the great availability of really nasty weapons to nutcases like the extreme Islamic fundamentalists how do you protect yourselves.
Libertarian thought says that your concerns stop at your (reinforced) borders. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The only thing that will save us is having the will to project our power, OUR WILL, over anyone who threatens us. I think to do this involves acceptance of some mantle very close to empire.
Our system is, as the author noted, very delicate in many ways - we can not accept many more 9/11 without very severe repercussions - look at what has happened to the economy with just one attack.
When you pour sand in a finely tuned watch it stops, when you pour sand in a Timex it just keeps on ticking.
Cultures like Afghanistan cant fall very far, they are already at pre medieval levels, we on the other hand have a long way to fall and the shock of suddenly living like we did 100 years ago would destroy this country imho.
FINALLY!!!
A line that makes sense in this litany of idiocy. Of course, it only makes sense if taken out of context, since the author is an advocate of empire not a proponent of constitutional government.
It takes more to defend freedom than spouting the (L)libertarian catch phrase of the moment.
America is ALREADY an empire, calling it anything else does not change the fact.
I think that you have given very little thought to just how serious a challenge state sponsored terrorism actually is.
Without unparalleled power at our disposal America will die an ugly death because we are HATED because we are successful and because we subscribe to Judeo Christian ethics.
I am not willing to allow this and will gladly support whatever it takes to make us secure.
Security is the primary civil liberty, without we have nothing.
Looks like Ben Stein to me, is this part of some sinister Hebraic conspiracy??
LOL
Yeah, I've always had comtempt for that squishy wingnut, Washington. What an effeminate wuss!
...Although I can't seem to remember which war it was in which William A. Mayer lead an army to victory.
However, wouldn't that result in a one-world government (a new world order) that many of us find repugnant?
The problem with one global government is that it makes it too easy for a nefarious group to control the globe by taking control of that government. We would need to make sure that the Empire wasn't a democracy.
America also has a chance to flower anew.
If only WE could have a dictator, too!
The only way to save a Republic is to kill it.
The British Empire was based on a constitutionally prescribed monarchy.
America already an empire and we do (the last time I looked anyway) have a constitution also.
Again I find the worshiping of libertarianism here kinda troubling, as it wholly fails to offer any way to defend the US because its primary tenet is that our concerns stop at our borders, which is childish and near sighted in the extreme - We do not need to continually learn the lesson of Pearl Harbor and 9/11 - we can only take so much.
Power corrupts and the more power the more corruption.
"We the People" nor the rest of the world needs a new tyrant to contend with.
However, wouldn't that result in a one-world government (a new world order) that many of us find repugnant?
The problem with one global government is that it makes it too easy for a nefarious group to control the globe by taking control of that government. We would need to make sure that the Empire wasn't a democracy.
By making sure that it is our nefarious group that takes control.
Tony
I politely suggested that you may want to rethink the nature of our security requirements and you immediately launch a pre emptive vituperative attack, claiming that I started it, which is hogwash.
Im a newbie here only been posting for a couple of months, but I am seeing a trend. A lot of the posters of your ilk use military sounding names as if they were indeed kin of Thomas Jefferson or John Adams.
I dont care what your military record (if any) is I only care about the quality of your thought, which is in my opinion lacking in both scope and focus.
I think I know where you are coming from so Im not really taking offense, all is fair in a good political discussion, but as viewed by a "man on the street" your verbiage would be seen as pretty extreme.
All I did was post an editorial from an author whose ideas I have grown to like and all of a sudden we are fighting in the streets of America.
I dont get it, but Im sure you have your reasons.
I am no stranger to weapons either but Im not going to use that knowledge as some sort of club in what I thought was a debate.
The point remains that if the United States is going to survive it is going to have to be a lot tougher than it is now, that we will indeed have to develop and deploy weapons of even more fearful power and at the same time extend our reach, globally, so their power can be brought to bear on our enemies.
It seems that your libertarian perspective has blinded you to the reality of survival, hell if you want Hellen Keller as your mentor so be it, but just between you and me I think I read somewhere that she was blind.
I politely suggested that you may want to rethink the nature of our security requirements and you immediately launch a pre emptive vituperative attack, claiming that I started it, which is hogwash.
Im a newbie here only been posting for a couple of months, but I am seeing a trend. A lot of the posters of your ilk use military sounding names as if they were indeed kin of Thomas Jefferson or John Adams.
I dont care what your military record (if any) is I only care about the quality of your thought, which is in my opinion lacking in both scope and focus.
I think I know where you are coming from so Im not really taking offense, all is fair in a good political discussion, but as viewed by a "man on the street" your verbiage would be seen as pretty extreme.
All I did was post an editorial from an author whose ideas I have grown to like and all of a sudden we are fighting in the streets of America.
I dont get it, but Im sure you have your reasons.
I am no stranger to weapons either but Im not going to use that knowledge as some sort of club in what I thought was a debate.
The point remains that if the United States is going to survive it is going to have to be a lot tougher than it is now, that we will indeed have to develop and deploy weapons of even more fearful power and at the same time extend our reach, globally, so their power can be brought to bear on our enemies.
It seems that your libertarian perspective has blinded you to the reality of survival, hell if you want Hellen Keller as your mentor so be it, but just between you and me I think I read somewhere that she was blind.
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.