Posted on 09/12/2002 1:10:30 AM PDT by kattracks
Edited on 05/26/2004 5:08:27 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Well, Yes, and lets hope it stays secret.
Either that OR even the Domino's Pizza delivery guy managed to leave the "secret meeting" with a copy of the "secret plans" marked, Confidential: 'SECRET PLANS'.
You are closer than anyone else, so far.
Dang! You really think it'd take THAT long? Sheesh, our southern boys must be slipping. LOL!
It is extreme hubris to assume murderers will become nice people by talking to them and cajoling them after they have already come to our places of work and murdered our families.
Perhaps we should disarm our police forces? or at least tell them never to use their guns if they are faced with a violent situation.
Your "argument" makes no sense in any context in which we are faced with irredeemable murderers and enemies. LOL "hubris" you say? No, it wasn't even hubris when the colonial Americans took on King George III.
Colonial Americans taking on King George III is exactly what I'm talking about. The Brits were stretched too thin and their colonies revolted, in all parts of the world.
They couldn't afford beating back every single rebellion as their colonies chipped away at British power worldwide.
I am not talking about any emotional appeal whatsoever. I am not saying "let's get along" or "let's be nice".
First off, remember a former evil empire called the Soviet Union? Didn't we contain them and successfully avert war? Even though many of their leaders such as Stalin etc. were as murderous as Saddam?
Saddam is a murderous pig, but not a total idiot. He knows that if he strikes, we strike back. But, ok, suppose we topple Iraq. What comes after that?
I am talking about cold, hard, rational, logical MONEY. You are suggesting that we indefinitely occupy Iraq, Iran, and so on. We may even be doing it for the right reasons, the wrong reasons, whatever. But that doesn't matter.
The "hubris" I'm talking about is thinking that the US treasury can provide the money for sort of thing indefinitely.
We need to protect our country and way of life by guarding our financial security! Time and time again history shows that powerful countries rapidly become weak ones by attempting to hold on to every single (*#(*& patch of earth.
Stan Kubrick
I too an talking cold hard money. That is precisely why we should establish colonial rule, not a simple military "country-building" operation. These countries have a vast amount of wealth. Their people must be taxed, and their natural resources must be used to repay the war costs, to pay for continuing administration costs and to reap a profit for whichever US corporations are required to provide services.
In other words there is more than enough wealth for the US to actually turn a financial net profit AND rebuild a functioning economy and civilized society for the native peoples.
This model worked successfully for the Romans and it worked for the British. Both the British and Romans reaped tremendous net rewards from their Empires, tremendous. They were not cast off by barbaric races with no wealth. They were cast off by societies that had become sufficiently enriched and powerful to do so. They were cast off by their success, not their failure.
When Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia become capable of casting off US colonial rule it will because the US gave them the capabilities to do so, like a child growing up and becoming a responsible adult.
I agree with you that we cannot afford to unilaterally occupy countries. never again. We must rule them and fund our activities with the local resources. We will benefit, and the local people will reap the greatest reward by joining the ranks of developing nations in time.
The US could never be what it has now become without first being ruled by Great Britain for over 100 years. (and Great Britain made a profit)
Wealth and power must never be squandered on ventures with negative returns.
I absolutely agree! This is what we need to do, and we have successfully done that in countries like South Korea.
I guess we will see what happens after Saddam is toppled.
I hope that any readers of FR with pull in these matters encourage the Bush administration to take a long-term approach to keeping these crazies from sprouting up like mushrooms in the future. We can do that by making money there building infrastructure, encouraging democratic rule, making sure that the kids are getting a secular education, and so on. Once they have a middle class, they will not want to go to war.
We helped Saddam in the 80's against Iran, we aided the Mujahadeen (and indirectly Bin Laden) against the Soviets, but when you pay murderous thugs (or worse, smart and evil murderous bastards) for your wartime activities, they will turn on you later. It's right in Sun Tzu's art of war: Mercenaries will desert you at the first opportunity. Or as the CIA calls it, "blowback".
We need a long term, 50-year approach that develops the next generation of leadership in these countries. Our approach in some parts of the world has been coming back and biting us on the ass. There have been some successes during the cold war such as South Korea, but some situations such as Panama/Noriega also comes to mind.
Stan Kubrick
FR is widely read, but it's direct political influence is minimal. Indirectly though, conservative radio and TV talk show hosts will read FR for show prep. Many times I've heard conservatives from Rush Limbaugh to Ann Coulter reference FR, and pick up on ideas first discussed here. Many lesser known local hosts read FR for prep.
But the reality is that even with broad public discussion of ideas in FR there is little impact on the political scene . The reason is simple, logical and appropriate. Money.
FR is about ideas, philosophy and political principles. Policy is driven by money. There are over 5,000 political lobbying groups (PACs) with more direct influence than FR. That is at it should be.
I'm a Jeffersonian liberal (classic liberal) as are a large percentage of Freepers, though in modern lingo they might call themselves conservative or libertarian. As such, I am opposed to engaging in initiation of international wars for reasons of vanity, political philosophy or economic expansion.
But if a country declares themselves to be a mortal enemy then their lives, the lives of their citizens and their fortunes are forfeit, irrespective of the relative military or economic power of the US.
"It is even better to act quickly and err than to hesitate until the time of action is past."
-- Carl von Clausewitz.
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.