blah blah blah. you libs really enjoy surrendering to terrorists bent on killing you don't ya? what a sorry lot you fools are. a good defense is a good offense. take the fight to them, fool. take the fight to them.
On Nov 2, 1:47 pm, "M.A. Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > October 31, 2008Conservative Fantasies: A World Never More DangerousDoug > BandowOver the last eight years the Bush administration has sacrificed > American lives, resources, and influence at every turn. President George W. > Bush, with the avid support of Sen. John McCain and most of the Republican > Party, took the US into an unnecessary war in Iraq, increased the number of > America's enemies and the threat of terrorism, strengthened the Iranian > regime, and sacrificed US clout with friends and foes alike. Yet polls > indicate that more Americans trust Sen. McCain than Sen. Barack Obama as > military commander-in-chief. > It's a bizarre conclusion. Sen. McCain is temperamental, sanctimonious, and > moralistic; surprisingly ignorant about the nuances of international affairs, > he believes take the fight hat he knows far more about foreign policy than he > actually does. It would be a combustible combination even if he hadn't > variously advocated war against the Bosnian Serbs, Serbia, Iraq, and North > Korea, as well as promoted confrontation with Russia, a nuclear-armed power. > He could prove to be the most dangerous occupant ever of the White House. > Nevertheless, the Republican sales pitch so far has fallen short. The public > cares more about the economy than foreign policy. While Sen. Obama's economic > nostrums are no more believable than those of Sen. McCain, the Republican > Party has lost any credibility it once had on economic issues. Sen. Obama > might not have the answer, but at least he belongs to a different party than > the one which spent the last eight years engaging in wild spending and > orchestrating trillions of dollars in special interest bailouts. > The GOP has responded by scare-mongering, attempting to convince the American > people that foreign policy remains paramount. Never mind the economy. The > world is about to end unless a steady Republican hand remains upon the > tiller. Republicans warn of potential terrorist strikes at home and > unpredictable dangers abroad. Neoconservatives talk about the US being > engaged in World War III or World War IV against Islamic terrorists. > Rep. John Shadegg recently took the argument to ludicrous extremes when he > wrote his supporters denouncing any cut in military spending – currently > higher, even after adjusting for inflation, than at any point during the Cold > War, Korean War, or Vietnam War. Complained Shadegg: "Our nation is facing > the threat of Radical Islam, the gravest threat to our national security in > history." > Eh? > On September 11 al-Qaeda orchestrated three murderous attacks that killed > about 3000 people. Evil, awful, and ugly. But in no way threatening the > stability of the US government, let alone the destruction of American society. > Other countries have faced great and often greater challenges from terrorism: > the Irish Republican Army versus the British government, the Basque ETA > versus the Spanish government, the Tamil Tigers versus the Sri Lankan > government, the Red Brigades versus the Italian government. Terrorists have > struck in Greece, Germany, Japan, Uruguay, India, and even imperial Russia. > Islamic radicals have murdered widely, including in Britain, Spain, > Indonesia, Jordan, and Iraq. Only in Iraq could one argue that regime if not > national survival was at stake, and that is only because terrorism joined a > far more serious insurgency in the aftermath of a foreign invasion. > It is true that many of America's wars were not animated by security threats, > but instead involved frivolous or even immoral ends. The Mexican-American War > was basically a land grab for Texas and California. The Spanish-American War > used the protection of human rights in Cuba as an excuse to seize the > Philippines as a colony in Asia. World War I was an idiotic imperial slugfest > in which America had nothing significant at stake. Vietnam was more tragic > than stupid, an unnecessary attempt to preserve the remnants of colonialism > in Southeast Asia against a potent combination of nationalism and communism; > three decades later communism is giving way to capitalism with Americans and > their money welcomed back. > Contrast that to the Revolutionary War, from which the American colonies > barely emerged independent. For years British forces ravaged the countryside > and occupied major cities, including the nascent nation's capital. > During the War of 1812 Britain eliminated American ocean commerce, occupied > swaths of US territory, and burned Washington, D.C. America was saved by its > lack of centralization and development. Having just suffered through years of > war to end Napoleon's brutal depredations, the British public had no > enthusiasm for escalating the battle with the former colonies. > The Civil War tore the country apart. That was an internal conflict, to be > sure, but for a short time the national government risked war with Britain > over the illegal seizure of the Trent, a mail and passenger vessel, and in > the first year or two the potential of intervention by Britain and France in > support of the Confederacy loomed large. For the North to have battled the > Southern states allied with two foreign adversaries would have made America's > bloodiest war far more costly. > World War II found the US confronting Nazi Germany and militaristic Japan. > These were real countries animated by real ideologies deploying real > militaries. Washington created a 13-million man military for combat spanning > the globe. Although the US never came close to defeat, World War II was > America's first, and so far only, taste of the sort of total war which has > consumed other nations. > During the Cold War, with some very hot spots, the US faced a nuclear-armed > hegemonic power animated by a hostile ideology. There was nearly a direct > nuclear confrontation over Cuba, wars between the US and local communist > regimes – North Korea, backed by China, and North Vietnam, supplied by China > and the Soviet Union – and proxy wars throughout the Third World. Although > the two great powers and their respective alliances avoided the many > tripwires for a new global war, few people took peace for granted: indeed, > for a time American schoolchildren practiced taking cover in response to a > possible nuclear war. > However, apparently Rep. Shadegg believes these conflicts to be minor > compared to the threat of terrorism. The Soviet Union was capable of > launching a nuclear attack that could annihilate the United States. Imperial > Japan ranged throughout the Pacific seizing US possessions and attacking > American territory in Hawaii and the Aleutians. Nazi Germany battled the US > Navy in the Atlantic, the US Air Force over Europe, and the US Army in North > Africa and Europe. > But no matter. It is a few jihadist terrorists who pose "the gravest threat > to our national security in history," in the words of Rep. Shadegg. Which > means not a single dollar can be cut from the defense budget. To the > contrary, the only way to fight the terrorists is to create the biggest, most > expansive, most expensive, most advanced military, deploy it to every corner > of the globe, and meddle in numerous tragic but irrelevant conflicts. The US > must spend as much as the rest of the world combined on the military. And > spend as much, adjusted for inflation, as the US spent at any point during > the Cold War, Korean War, or Vietnam War. Indeed, presumably Washington isn't > spending enough to fight jihadists because military outlays still lag behind > expenditures during World War II. What is Congress thinking? If Osama bin > Laden is more dangerous than Adolf Hitler, Hideki Tojo, Joseph Stalin, and > Mao Zedong, why aren't we spending even more on defense! > The upcoming election has focused on economic issues, but the present > administration's irresponsible foreign policy has wasted hundreds of billions > of dollars while creating trillions of dollars in future liabilities. More > important, Americans have been made less secure as politicians like Rep. > Shadegg have misled the public about the kind of enemy the US faces and the > best means of defending the country. > Terrorism is ugly. But it does not constitute the most serious threat ever > faced by America, akin to another world war. We will be safer not with > additional expensive carrier groups and air wings to back a belligerent > stance against countries like Russia over irrelevant geopolitical struggles > in the Caucasus, but with a noninterventionist foreign policy which > steadfastly avoids unnecessary conflicts. The world is filled with tragedy, > but that doesn't mean the US has to join in at every opportunity. > Republicans as well as Democrats once believed that the federal government's > job was to defend America, not wander the globe, mixing war-mongering with > social engineering. Over the last eight years, however, the national > government has become a tool of neoconservative activists who see war as the > ultimate solution to most foreign problems. The economy is an important > issue. But so is foreign policy. We cannot afford another four or eight years > of misguided militarism and perpetual > war.http://www.antiwar.com/bandow/?articleid=13694 --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
