Discussion in 'Current Events' started by wkmac, May 24, 2009.
link to op-ed
Multi-step Plan to Ending the Empire thanks to Chalmers Johnson
As to the last link, someone in another thread asked what the avowed socialists were thinking about Obama. Hail Ceasar is just a tip of the iceberg from the New Statesman.
Walk softly and carry a big stick has always worked for me.
Ask the Kuwaitis.
Thich Nhat Hanh, Vietnamese Buddhist monk
H. L. Mencken
disband our military, scrap the ships, the subs, the tanks, and the planes
and as foreign troops occupy our soil .........now ask your question.
Does no military power keep us safe?
Does no military power keep us safe?(see Switzerland)
Just a little history of the United States origins of sustaining non-Intervention policies and how we as a nation, evolved into The Global Intervention Police.......
But Switzerland has a military with compulsory service or conscription or draft or however you would like to put it.
how about Iceland ? We used to keep troops there . Of course they have almost nothing that anyone else would want, so the lack of military power is moot.
Don't forget the Swiss Guards, the personal protective service of the Roman Catholic Popes.
Iceland occupies a highly strategic position along the North Atlantic shipping lanes. During WW2 the Germans would have invaded Iceland but we got there first; use of the islands airstrips allowed us to maintain air superiority over the sea approaches to the UK and keep the German U-boats at bay. Icelnd was also a vital outpost during the Cold War.
We never "invaded" Iceland; we were there with the permission of its monarch at the time, the King of Denmark. We merely secured it. After WW2, Iceland became independent and joined NATO, so our military presence on their island was agreed to by treaty.
History teaches us that weak nations are inevitably conquered by stronger ones.
I want a strong military for our nation, but I want it to be a lot leaner and more defensive in nature.
We can keep out nation safe without the need to project military force globally.
Good point D. Non-Interventionism is IMO a worthy study either way but where it becomes real interresting is when you study it from the side of economics.
Some "conservatives" argue that when you take money from the private sector and transfer to the public sector then turn around and redistribute as public welfare that you are re-allocating resources and distorting the economy by propping up unproductive areas at the expense of productive areas. This is a pure view of free market economics and doesn't consider any moral requirements so don't get upset here because I wanna make a point about war.
Many here who at present support war and large scale funding of State warfare would agree with all or most of my observation above but the very same premise is also applied to the State's use of warfare. The State takes money from the private sector and transfers to the public sector and then turns around and redistributes for the public defense and again you are re-allocating resources that distorts the economy. Outside of any State entity, where is a private sector demand for an aircraft carrier? There's your distortion, there's you State monopoly if you will.
In either case, it's still a function of the collective of the group over the free market of the individual and in that sense it's still socialism and I don't use that word to call names, that is what it is. This is the reason we have a left socialism as we have a right socialism in the political spectrum.
Let's be honest with ourselves and that any time we walk away from the free market of volunteerism and go to a collective market of complusion (large group compelled to pay tax to support a function for the group by proxy of group leadership) you are re-allocating resources from free individuals acting in voluntary concert by mutual consent to a collective forced by complusion to contractual obligations. Both force and potentially fraud are at play here.
The reason why is irrelevant IMO, sure it can be the most noble, but it's still an operation of the collective based on complusion and therefore this fits very well into the framework of socialism. Why do we avoid calling it what it is? Even the founding fathers advocated some measure of socialism though limited it was intended to be.
This is also why many have taken Randolph Bourne's "War is the Health of the State" and now say "War and Welfare are the Health of the State" because when the State extracts resources from the private sector, it causes distortions and shortages in that sector as it re-allocates those resources. As the private sector reacts to removal, the State reacts by then trying to fill that void (maintaining the State's central plan ie tax revs.) which again causes market distortions. From this come reactions, State injects again and here come the distortions. It's a snowball going down hill and thus one reason the State is unable to implement the perfect utopian central plan without ultimately controlling all aspects of society. The problem, the central problem is a mass of people who have one thing and one thing only that mucks up the entire concept.
Free Will! Control people and the choices they make and you have a shot at the perfect system. The question is, how large an area do you have to control (conquer and police) before your central ideal of utopianism is safe?
Couple of good articles of recent from the American Conservative on the subject of interventionism and take the time if you can to also read the responses from readers.
Solving Non Interventionism's Tough Guy Problem
The Southern Avenger's Response
John Denson's Defending the Non-Interventionism of Our Founders
Not relating to war but is this nothing more than another market distortion? Who benefits and does this action cause only a short term effect or does it cause a true free market long term effect that sustains itself over time without more intervention? Was depressing interest rates for political purposes a market distortion which in turn caused bad allocation of resources into a marketplace that utlimately had no means to sustain itself on it's own and therefore collasped?
Another question and IMO a more important one is, what effects of gov't policy (political/economic) and foreign affairs (both a civilian function in our system of gov't) places our military into certain actions and certain events? Who also if anyone stands to benefit from such actions and are such actions purely and wholly defensive in the context of the ideals of the organic constitution?
Since today, we believe the region known as the Middle East poses the greatest threat and therefore our military must go there to keep us safe, does it not behove us to learn about this region and it's history? Do we not owe it to every man and woman we send over there to be knowledgable and informed on as many aspects of the situation in order to hold our civilian gov't accountable in order to do right by those who place themselves in harms way in our name and on our behalf?
The chain of events to understanding the Middle East begin with the events of WW1 and the actions of the European colonial powers and the Ottoman Empire. In 2006' a documentary was made entitled Blood and Oil, The Middle East in WW1 and IMO it is excellent. There's no Bush/Cheney, no NeoCons, none of that so if you want that you'll be disappointed. However the movie discusses the numerous military battles, strategic moves by bothsides in and just after WW1, major battles at names of places very familar to all of us in today's context and gives a really good overview of the entire region that really helps to understand as much as the history but also what makes many muslims think like they do when it comes to the western powers. You'll also learn that by no means did America create this whole mess but yet now we find ourselves in the middle of it, trying to solve it.
The Defense Industry's Secret Weapon
Separate names with a comma.