Replies

The mere fact that we ARE the ultrapower - the greatest and most unchallenged military and economic power the world has ever known - makes us a target whether you like it or not, and no matter what we do. Like it or not, the success of our Constitution and our way of life has brought us inevitably to this place, and we are the leaders of the world culturally, economically, and militarily. To deny our responsibility is as laughable as the pro athletes denial that they must properly act as role models for our youth. To change that, we would have to do as the French and Russians and Germans and Koffees want and surrender our sovereignty and lower our economic standards.

Surrender of our sovereignty would most decidedly not be in keeping with the standards the Constitution sketches out for us.

In fact, it is very Conservative to insist that our government be used to PROVIDE FOR THE NATIONAL DEFENSE - and in the Twentieth Century, when failure to maintain a standing army and use it in time arguably led to far more destructive wars and cost to this country due to YOUR type of shortsighted "conservative" isolationism added to the Peace Nazis efforts - and as well that gave rise to a far more destructive Cold War and Soviet influence than would have been the case had we more energetically opposed them. Similarly, it is shortsighted to recognize that PREEMPTIVE use of military power and economic power and other national assets is critical in the present world environment, and that it is necessary to PROVIDE FOR THE COMMMON DEFENSE, as the clear failure to act preemptively against Afghanistan and earlier, Iraq, cost us dearly.

I highly recommend that you look up President Bush's Jun.1.2002 Graduation Speech at West Point http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/06/20020601-3.html and the "National Security Strategy of the United States": http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html for a more farsighted view of the global situation and how we must act in order to counter the threats to our National Defense.

Man you have bought the neocon line totally. I agree our size and influence make us a target regardless. But we are more of a target because we intervene. As I have said before on this board, no terrorist are attacking Switzerland. And absolutely nothing I have said would fairly lead you to accuse me of wanting to sacrifice our sovereignty. I think we should get out of the UN and NATO and other multilateral organizations that sacrifice our sovereignty. I also have not, unlike some paleos, embraced the more dovish or realistic Colin Powell, because I realized his position was not motivated by principled isolationism but by multilateralism. I and most antiwar paleos and libertarians are the ultimate unilateralist. We should never have to seek anyone else's permission to protect ourselves. But providing for the common defense means protecting our northern border from Canada, our southern border from Mexico and Florida from Cuba and not much else. It does not include toppling foreign dictators halfway around the world just because we do not like them. If Saddam was blockading the Persian Gulf demanding we pay tribute to him on every barrel of oil that passed through, I would send in the 5th fleet. If Saddam is a ruthless dictator, it is the responsibility of the Iraqis and the Iraqis only to overthrow him. It is not America's responsibility and it is certainly not the responsibility of the poor Army grunt who is over there carrying water for all the keyboard warriors at National Review and the Weekly Standard. I am very familiar with the National Security Strategy for The United States. It could not be much worse if it was written by Satan himself. It is a strategy for perpetual unwinable war, and it has neocon fingerprints all over it.

The idea of preemptive war is dangerous in the extreme. Especially for the citizens in the country we supposedly have some crystal ball and are supposed to realize they represent some sort of threat. It also violates the Christian principle of a just war. You can not make absolute assertions that this or that would have been better if only we had intervened sooner because it is absolutely unfalsifiable. There is a significant case to be made for example that had we stayed out of WWI there would have been no WWII. If we had stayed out of WWII there would have been no Cold War as the Germans and Russians would have fought each other into the ground. The Russians were our allies in WWII remember. Do you think we should have been fighting a "preemptive" two front war then? Against the Germans and Russians. Those Russians were bad fellows and maybe we could have prevented the Cold War had we just stomped them sooner, right. You are living in neocon fantasy land.

If we are recommending readings for each other, may I recommend you read Washington's Farewell Address? I'll take the wisdom of the founders over wisdom from the neocons any day of the week.

BTW, did you get my private reply?