Posted on 03/22/2011 6:53:59 PM PDT by 11th_VA
Success and wealth do not make one a good person/society. Nazi Germany was highly successful, they weren't very moral though. The eight aspects I figured out over time and traveling the world (Never taught to me in school because they just teach trash) describe certain aspects of a culture that make it powerful economically, culturally, militarily and politically. It does not make it good. Christianity is the part that if it's lacking allows a nation to take it's power and use it for bad things. The Germans unleashed all the power of a transportation system (railroads), modern chemistry (Zyklon B), information (they knew where they lived and who was what religion), propaganda (radio, print, movies) etc to an evil end resulting in the destruction of 6.5 million people in camps. The moral code is needed more than ever before in a modern technological society because of what we as an individual can do, how many we can communicate with, what we have access to......... A modern high tech society with no morals is a dangerous one. The “real” control doesn't come from an international body, the press, some convention/law, or the separation of powers..... it comes from a moral code. When the Germans decided to exterminate all the Jews, they did so lawfully, believe it or not. When we discuss abortion in America and the 50,000,000+ that have been performed since Roe vs. Wade, we must accept the fact that this happened with a watch dog media, the approval of all three branches of government, the US being a member of the UN, adhering to the human rights laws as outlined in these conventions........
I'm with you 100% in the need for morals. Ethics are the government, education system and business taught rules of behavior where no mention of the “G” word is made in our more secular and diverse society. The nuance meaning of ethics is the teaching of right and wrong without mentioning God or the Bible. The problem with ethics and a society that looses a moral compass is that it ALWAYS falls victim to a form of mob rule and hedonism. In the end, they believe in nothing other than what feels good. Look at the Germans, they don't even have the will to fight for their own freedom, republic...... After a while, if you rob people of morals, you make them into a nihilist and hedonistic society; hollow, purposeless, hopeless, they wonder without direction and principal through life. Life itself will be worth no more that the net value of minerals and chemicals found within the body, roughly $7.50 ( http://bloodindex.org/minerals.php ). Without morals and even discounting the lost souls, that powerful society might do some horrible things themselves or be apathetic in the face of evil.
” The itch to get into wars is a sign of that. We better reform ourselves and soon.”
The US has no option but to be involved. How we got to where we are. Our economy is far more complex than it was in 1776 - 1945 (Where we had long periods of isolationism). Prior to entering WWII we had an isolationist approach. One of the lessons learned was that it doesn't work. Post WWII three things happened:
*** Because of our victory over the Axis powers, our multi cultural society and lack of an axe to grind from the past (we can work with most others), but also our massive economic, political and military might, we were thrust into a leadership position. Not even by intent, post WWII we became a superpower by default and necessity. The Cold War essentially furthered this with the US creating organizations like NATO and ANZUS etc...... Even if we don't want to be this, we are de facto the leader of the western industrialized world to which even S. Korea, Japan, Singapore, Australia and New Zealand belong. Obama with his games of trying to deflect to NATO a war he instigated and ultimately we will back through NATO is a joke.
*** Our economy is infinitely more complex than even just 65 years ago. We today, like all others, are far more dependent on trade not only to sell our goods and services, but also to import those resources or goods and services we need to keep our high tech and industrial economy running. We as people also benefit from this trade directly in the choices, prices etc we have available to us in the stores. Our economy, like everyone else requires things like copper, gold, silver, platinum, oil, cesium........... Resources without which your technology/information, transit and industry based economy grind to a halt. Furthermore, this modern post colonialist economy with open markets depends on the regional stability in key areas where trade is conducted or resources come from, as well as open sea, land and air ways along which the lines of communications run.
*** With the end of the Cold War and new technologies the world grew both more unstable and more interconnected. The advent of the Internet, the fall of the wall and the general ease of movement by people, greater national/racial/religious diversities in near all western nations led us to where we are today. The enemy is among us and while some of the financiers, ideologues, etc might me in Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia, the soldier for this ideology wears blue jeans, a T shirt and wages his war by hijacking our aircraft. The threat today is asymmetrical, has no singular face, there isn't an enemy “doctrine” per say, a flag of a nation that this threat is coming from like with the Soviets/Warsaw pact.
The nature of conflict today is that we will be more but smaller brush fire type conflicts for a very long time. Through our disengagement and end of the Cold War not only did the lines get fuzzy, but formerly stable area's destabilized and the cards were all reshuffled as forced alliances diminished or the perceived threats disappeared. There wasn't the need to support the enemy of ones enemy as before and the world post Cold War is far more volatile. As crazy as it sounds, the Cold War sort of brought stability with it.
The average person has the tendency to throw his hands up and say, “What the hell, let's pack up and let them sort this out.” But that's unrealistic if you look at the consequences.
You can't turn this clock back. Reverting to a type of isolationism, is simply surrendering all influence we could have. Being involved doesn't mean we will win every battle, but we win some battles and in the end our involvement even in most places where we don't achieve our political objectives we typically still have some influence or impact. By being involved, we shape the world around us, which will impact us anyhow.
On the continuum of action: (1) Appeal to higher authority (Principals, God, etc), (2) appeal to laws and conventions, (3) use of political and economic pressure (isolation, chastisement), (4) use of force; what you address is the one area where it takes the longest and the outcome is the least certain- Appeal to higher authority.
You first ask yourself, is negotiating reasonable? Will they only use it stall me to gain some benefit and is there a feasible zone or reasonable compromise? If the answer is yes, than begin the journey down the road of steps 1, 2 and 3. If the answer is no skip down to the level where you might get action. Ask yourself if this issue is worth the cost of sanctions, negotiations, military intervention etc. If yes, keep drilling down, if no, cut your losses. Not every battle is worth fighting.
Seldom is military action the first resort and it's seldom stand alone (negotiating is happening as the bombs drop). Even when the military itself gets involved, it spans a large spectrum in what they do. It's not a matter of progressing to the next phase and discontinuing the previous approaches either.
However, military involvement and definitely the threat thereof, is a needed tool.
The DoD has the global reach in logistics, it has the C2 to run huge and complex tasks, it has the means to communicate gloably, the legal framework is there, personal is well suited, they have specialized equipment to deal with scenarios that most others don't have, they can operate in austere environments or even where there is a threat (hostilities). Even in a humanitarian capacity, the DoD often takes a lead role while many other aid organizations not dare enter the real hot spots: Haiti (quake), Somalia (92 -93), Sudan............ While the US DoD doesn't get the credit as such, it is not an over exaggeration when I say it is the worlds largest humanitarian aid organization. Often they end up bringing in aid from other organizations that cannot approach the area. In fact, others like the UN often reap the recognition and get acknowledgment for something the US DoD did. No one matches what they do in terms of food, medical, transportation, security etc etc etc on a global scale for humanitarian reasons- NO ONE.
Yes, to itself and others.
We today, like all others, are far more dependent on trade not only to sell our goods and services, but also to import those resources or goods and services we need to keep our high tech and industrial economy running.
There is nothing new here. Every nation has some resources and lacks others; those that it lacks it either imports or goes without. That is not an argument for globalism. Our problem as a nation is not that we import what we need and don't have, but that we export the industrial base to China and import cheap trinkets from China, not much better than these proverbial Manhattan Indians. We need, can afford, and must achieve strategic economic independence. The past 20 years we were doing everything possible to destroy it.
The threat today is asymmetrical, has no singular face, there isn't an enemy “doctrine” per [se]
That threat -- from "terrorism" is secondary and mostly imaginary. Further, to the extent that terrosism is a product of modern times, it is made worse by globalism, because globalism heats up that international hyperactivity that serves to irritate the Muslims. The real threat, however, is loss of moral conviction and (perhaps the latter is a consequence of the former), loss of the industrial base.
Reverting to a type of isolationism, is simply surrendering all influence we could have
Economic strategic self-sufficiency is a national necessity. It is called "isolationism" by sundry globalists to obfuscate the real problem and fight the straw man of an "isolationist" who cannot find other countries on the map, can't figure out the stock market and the Internet, etc. Very much we can, and we must "turn the clock back", -- not on the global trade in principle, but on self-destructing industrial policy of low tariffs, open access to American universities to international students, reliance on cheap foreign labor, domestic legal climate designed to destroy whatever remains of productive economy statesside.
Indeed. But knowing the truth for ourselves helps very much. It is fine to have the military with global reach, but it would be even better not to have a need to send our military anywhere in the first place.
I bet you bin Laden, if he is still alive, is not plotting any more attacks simply because if he has any intelligence in him, he would know that we are doing a great job destroying ourselves through the loss of internal national moral and economic values, without any effort on his part.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.