Is scaling down the military even remotely realistic today? Is isolationism? Hell, is isolationism ever realistic or a good idea?
Yes there is. Bush’s people don’t like the UN to start with. It took effort to get them to even bother taking their Iraq case to the UN, so ignoring it was not exactly a problem for them. That site acknowledges that going outside the UN is an option. If we actually were in a situation where the threat was real and the UN refused to support action, what would the right course be? Doing nothing, or acting outside of it?
I think what the site means is that the rest of the world is, at times, reluctant to act when these kinds of abuses are observed. Although the fact is that everybody is willing to overlook human rights issues when it’s convenient. I disagree that we have “enough on our hands” with human rights (and that’s speaking as someone who’s against the death penalty). There is no or next to no comparison between the US and the countries in the world with the worst human rights violations. Awful as Abu Ghraib was and unconstitutional as Guantanamo is, the United States is not on par with Saudi Arabia, China, Iran, North Korea, and other countries.
Noting that the UN sometimes leaves a bit - or a lot - to be desired is hardly a conservative or neoconservative position.
Completely true.
I think you should go to the PNAC site and read what they have to say before you make posts like this. The PNAC people think the UN is a waste of time in the first place. I don’t see the PPI site supporting wars to improve America’s strategic position, protecting its financial interests, or spreading democracy.
Slight difference; Democrats haven’t elected these nutcases into the highest levels of government.
“The way to keep America safe and strong is not to impose our will on others or pursue a narrow, selfish nationalism that betrays our best values, but to lead the world toward political and economic freedom.”
Sorry, but that’s not your decision to make. If the powers-that-be decide your child is going to be ground into asphalt in the road to Hell, that’s what’s going to happen and you are powerless to prevent it. Except as a voter – and even there, your options are severely limited.
Said like a true citizen of a republic, Brain Glutton. Exactly the principle the Founders laid their lives and fortunes on the line for.
Amazing.
You know, what we have here is a Cult of the Presidency. Once every four years, we get to elect a man who gets to be dictator. On the evidence, the governed seem to like it that way too.
This wasn’t meant to be a military culture like Sparta, where all we get to do is debate who the next general is going to be. Hell, the Founders didn’t even like the idea of a permanent army. We may need one now, given the realities, but we should at least strive to make it as small as practicable, and keep its role strictly limited. From what I can see, very few people seem to know and believe this.
And just to invoke the Law of Unintended Consequences:
Bush I involved us in Gulf War I.
This led to American troops being stationed in Saudi Arabia,
Which gave OBL the excuse he needed/wanted to attack us on 9/11.
Which gave Dubya the excuse he needed/wanted to attack Iraq on a lie.
Violence begets violence. Continue believing in the ideologies of the PNAC and the PPI, and you’ll continue to get more and more violence, and less and less freedom. If that’s what you want, carry on.
The UN, Marley23, isn’t perfect. It is the only vehicle for the true enforcement of international law we have, given that it can, through the consent of its member states, field an army to keep the peace between rivals who would otherwise go to war or turn back an invasion that violates said law. Calling it ineffectual and saying that we are justified in going around it whenever our intentions are good is no different in practice than the PNAC.
Thanks for making my point, Zagadka. The chain of cause and effect does actually start way back with the CIA deciding to fund the mujahadeen against the USSR.
Like I said, violence begets violence. And we don’t owe the world the obligation of keeping it in order, which apparently Carter, another Democrat, thought we did. The only thing we owe it is to keep good commercial and diplomatic relations with all who do the same with us. The UN exists to deal with the stuff that inevitably happens from time to time, and we would do well to allow it to build up the prestige and moral power it needs to do that.
Any state is able to totally ignore the law unless other states feel like doing something about it, and many do. So I wouldn’t say it’s a vehicle for law enforcement.
I didn’t say that, although it is in fact very different from the PNAC, who think it’s stupid to have a United Nations in the first place. Good intentions are certainly not an reason for going around the UN. I didn’t say it was fine to ignore it whenever it suits us. I asked a question that you didn’t answer, would you please? “If we actually were in a situation where the threat was real and the UN refused to support action, what would the right course be? Doing nothing, or acting outside of it?”
The big question Revtim is: Are you inside the circle, or outside looking in? If you go outside the circle, you will note that the world looks at the US as a single political party system: The Capitalist Party. Pubs and Demmis being two wings of the same party.
Ever thought why the circle does not open up and let another viable political party?
This was spelled out for me by my a Junior High teacher. The further you go left or right, once you head into radical territory, there are more similarities than differences. You have to view the political spectrum not as a straight line, but as one that begins to curve back upon itself.
If you’ll look at the very top of the page Reeder linked to, you’ll see a tab labeled “New Democrats Online Home”. Click it and you’re taken to a website labeled “The Democratic Leadership Council’s Online Community”. Click on the link “New Dem Directory”, leave all the fields blank, and click “View All”. Scroll through the list of names, especially under C and K, and you should have the answer you’re looking for.
Marley23, it’s a longstanding principle of international law, enshrined, as a matter of fact, in our own Constitution: “No State shall, without the Consent of Congress…engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.” The right of self-defense is recognized as being, for all practical purposes, inalienable from the nature of being a state. If the UN refused to support us in our right of self-defense, we would be well within our rights to act on our own, quite obviously. The above is also recognized in the UN Charter, in words very similar to the Constitution:
The thing citizens of the US have to remember is that the UN was put together to try, to the extent possible, to give to the rest of the world the same peace, prosperity, and freedom as we enjoy within our 50 states. It’s a tribute to the success of the US. Undermine the UN, and you are undermining the entire rationale for the US itself. Strengthen it, and the US can only come out stronger.
Notice the similarity between the preamble of the Constitution, and that of the UN:
The UN version is of course way more stilted and bureaucratic, kind of like comparing the King James Bible to some of the later translations, but the general structure is strikingly similar. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
At the 1992 Democratic National Convention, then governor Bill Clinton gave praise to one of his mentors, Carroll Quigley, a professor of history at Georgetown University and advocate for world government. In his 1966 book, entitled “Tragedy and Hope”, Professor Quigley outlined an important part of the plan (conspiracy).
Quigley writes:
“The two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can ‘throw the rascals out’ at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy… But either party in office becomes in time corrupt, tired, unenterprising, and vigorless. Then it should be possible to replace it, every four years if necessary, by the other party, which will have none of these things but will still pursue, with new vigor, approximately the same basic policies.”
I never heard of this Quigley, but it’s fairly obvious that the current administration, advised by neoconservative intellectuals, is not aiming at “world government” in any form other than a global American military hegemony. Is that what Quigley was talking about?
So Quigley is basically saying that both parties should aim down the middle, or that they will inevitably move toward the middle in the attempt to get elected. This is a surprise to whom? I’d dispute that the Bush administration did this anyway, though the 2000 campaign gave that appearance.
Anyway, despite Razorsharp’s ‘conspiracy’ comment runs contrary to most current political analysis. The talk of late has been about how vehement the opposition between the parties is, that the polarization is so great. Also, many have noted that both parties are attempting to mobilize their radical bases. They both expect the November election to be very close, so the party that gets more of their hardcores out their may win for that reason alone. The public is pretty evenly split and they don’t expect that to change.
It comes down to this: to claim the two parties are the same, you have to pick and choose what to focus on and what to ignore to an extreme level. For example, you can ignore Bush and Kerry’s differences on abortion, capital punishment, taxation and international relations and focus only on the fact that both favor a larger military. See, they’re the same!
Yeah, they both favor a larger military, that’s the only similarity. Oh yeah, and they both are in favor of NAFTA and GATT, despite much opposition within the general populace. And I almost forgot, they both have the utmost respect for the United Nations, the World Trade Organization and the International Monetary Fund. And, by the way, despite a majority of the population’s opposition to, they both favor a lax immigration policy and the extension of amnesty, as did Clinton before. And let’s not forget that for the past half century, and to the detriment of America’s standing in the international community, the security of its citizens, and to the national debt, all Presidents of both parties have pleged unwavering support and trillions of tax-payer dollars to Neo-Israel.
But, that’s okay, because American “voters” are really in tune with the important issues, like a candidate’s position on abortion. (idiots)
Yes, darn me for caring about that. Like I said, you have to blatantly ignore a lot of issues people think are important to even make that claim. Apparently this kind of dishonesty doesn’t bother you since you admit it’s true.
“Neo-Israel”? I’ve never seen that phrase before. Did you invent it? I assume you mean it to distinguish the modern state of Israel from the ancient kingdom that was destroyed by the Assyrians. But why? Who would confuse them?
Yes, you and many others do care about that, but that is where you are being duped and used. See, abortion is one of those issues designed to distract the proles as they are being herded into the collectivist corral under the lofty sounding concept of having the freedom to choose one’s destiny. Problem is, the illuminati of the left don’t really give one whit about personal freedom or choice. You will be controlled, under the heel of a boot if necessary. Think not? Well, let’s go back to the paradigm of liberal administrations for some enlightenment, the Clinton administration.
If you will recall, during the Clinton administration, the citizens of the states of Arizona and California, through a ballot initiative, voted to legalize the medicinal use of marijuana. And what was the response of the liberal administration? Well, it certainly was not compatible with the concepts of individual freedom and choice. No, the Clinton administration informed the citizens of Arizona and California that, despite the will of the people, the personal use of marijuana would be prevented by the enforcement of the almighty federal law if necessary. Hell, that sounds like something a Republican administration would do. Is it all coming clear to you now.
As for the difference in Kerry and Bush, Pat Buchanan sums it up pretty well.