Derek,
I think you meant this for Phil, even though you used the salutation "Michael."
Have you responded to my claim that a foreign policy Hawk is, of necessity, a Big Govt supporter domestically?
Best, Michael
[ Attachment content not displayed ]
Derek, I did not use
the word isolationist, I
used the word
'nuetral" foreign
policy, like
Switzerland. I did not
say I advocate a
weak or even passive
military stance.
Swittzerland
maintains one of the
strongest militaries in
the world. Germany
left it alone in WWII
in part because it
maintained a nuetral
stance and in part
because it was
viewed as
invulnerable. The
words " Switaerland
does not have an
Army , it is an Army`"
are attributed to John
McPhee in a google,
but I recall attribution
to a high Nazi Officer.
I don;t even have a
problem going after
Osama, althogh it
appears that for
resons of perceived
US interests with
Saudi Arabia and
thier appeasement of
the Wasabi muslims,
Osama was given a
pass. Thus the Bin
Ladden family was
gathered together and
filled the first plane
allowed to leave the
US while the rubble
in lower Manhattan
still smoldered. Once
it was decided to
leave Osami and his
tribe of Wahabi
Muslims alone,
Saddam was the
unfortunate thrown to
the lions for the neo
con circus. Osama
was in the sights of
US personel on at
least one occasion
and possibly more
and given a pass. As
for the reqal politik of
Saddams torturing
people and gassing
vilages, I am deadly
serious. The British in
the treaty of
Versailles set up a
Nation State of tribes
that have either a
racial or or religious
hatred that runs long
and deep. Most
dictators who find
themselves ruling in
such divisive
circumstances
perdorm torture and
other acts of cruelty
to maintain order
through power. This
guy was supported
overtly by Reagan in
the lean towards Iraq
policy, and possibly
before that in the
continuous intrigues
the CIA and others
have played since the
inception of American
Hegemony in the
region after WWII.
Meanwhile the US
government , in order
to maintain some kind
of order in Afganistan
looks the other way
as the poppy industry
thrives, driving the
street price of Heroin
to record lows and
putity to record highs.
It is amazing when a
market gets just a
little room to breath,
how much price and
quality improve. So
the end result is
Osama runs free, the
athiest US
apparatchnik is on
trial, and billions of
dollars and tens of
thousands of young
Americans limbs,
faces and genitals
are mutilated, and
thousands die, all for
what? For Freedom?
For our safety? You
keep quoating Osama
and his threats. You
are pumping those
quates a lot more
than the US
government or the
President. I haven't
heard or seen him for
a long time put on
the old Texas Sherriff
drawl, and lean on
the podium and say,
he can't run , he can't
hide, because our
dogs got his scent,
and we're gonaa find
him, or words to that
effect.... Like I said ,
it sure seems like
Osama is getting a
pass to appease the
powers that be in
Saudi Arabia, mostly
cuz the idiots running
this country never
had economics 101
nor do they trust the
strength of character
of the American
people nor our
resiliency, nor the
power of a free
market, so they do
not have a clue that
we can tell the Saudi
pricnces to stick it,
hunt down,arrest and
try Osama and all his
supporters inside and
out of the Saudi
refgime, and do just
fine without thier oil
for a few monts or
years. For gosh
sakes, we have
enough coal and the
tech to turn it into oil
to last for a thousand
years, not to mention
the montana oil
shale, or the Saudi
sized proven and
economic and
currently producing
at ten buck a barrel
Canadian tar sands.
But these are the
idiots who kept price
controls on gasoline
in Bagdad. I think
Jimmy Carter and
Walter Mondale had
a better grasp of
basic economics. But
I digress.
Did you miss what I
said. The British
could appear on the
horizon without
warning and burn
New York with in
minutes or hours in
the days when
Washington made his
speach. To
emphasize what I
said, and to clarify
that things were as
insecure than as they
are now, and it took
as much guts to
stand up for Liberty
against the forces of
imagined Security, I
remind you that from
what he knew as he
stood delivering his
speach in Annapolis,
a landing party could
be on the Potomac
beach of Mount
Vernon and already
messing with
Martha's cootchie.
The point is,I repeat,
nothing about national
security has changed
in prciple from the
Seventeen eighties
untill now. The
wisdom holds. Those
who trade liberty for
security deserve
neither and will have
neither , I think that
was Franklin, it holds
today as well as
yeaterday. The
arguement that the
world is somehow
different today in
fundamental ways is
the primary
arguement used to
trash the relevance of
the Constitution used
by Wilson and
Roosevelt to
undermine the
Constitutions
protections.If anything
times were even
more insecure then,
and it took a great
deal of bravery to
defend the priciples
of Liberty. The British
appeared at the
Mouth of the
Chesapeake in 1814
and there was not
enough time to put
together a defense of
Washington. the town
was burned to the
ground. Baltimore
monted a valient
defense together by a
Polish General
Pulaski, and through
the rockets red glare
the town was saved.
The lesson, we do
have to heve a strong
invinceable homeland
defense and a strong
invincable Navy able
to project massive
power if we need to.
But we don't need to
be up to our ears in
the intrigues and
hatreds of foreign
lands. We should as
much as possible be
nuetral and fight
viciosly the direct
attacker, or the clear
and direct treat, beat
em and leave.
So where is Osama
lately, and why don't
you hear many dems
or republicans or
mainstream media
asking more about
him than they do
about what Saddam
is wearing, and why
were a planeload of
Bib Laddens the first
and only plane
allowed to fly in the
immediate aftermath
of 911. Could it really
be that he is getting a
pass cuz the Saudi's
have a deal with him
and his tribe.
Your arguements
would be a lot more
convincing if you
were quoating the
guy we fought the big
war against, not the
gu;y who slipped
away into the night.. I
still think George W
husband of Martha,
has much better
guidance for our
country today than
George W. husband
of Barbata.
To "conquer us"? Are you expecting a 20 million man amphibious invasion, or a similarly size paratrooper assault to traverse the 3000 miles of water on either side of us and attempt an invasion of a country with a population of almost 300 million which spends more on 'defense' than the rest of the world combined?
-- Steve
[ Attachment content not displayed ]