The louder the World screams, the more convinced I am that the US is right.

http://www.briansbrain.com | Me

[Austin Willard Wright]

Obviously, you don't have the evidence. The purpose of the military is to defend the U.S. not to "build democracy" or protect Israel or provide a "counterweight" to Saudi Arabia.

[Austin Willard Wright]

100 percent? Some would say that there was a 100 percent chance that the Pakis would use nukes against India when they could, or that it was 100 percent chance that Stalin would commit suicide and use them, or that it was 100 percent for sure that the Chinese would use nukes against the U.S. or Vietnam, etc. Your 100 percent assertion is based on pure speculation.

BTW, North Korea already has nukes (haven't used them though either). Why aren't you on your hind legs demanding that Bush stop his appeasement policy there of giving the Commies 170 tons grain last year! If we had pursued the "isolantionist" policy, much despised here, of cutting off foreign aid North Korea would have fallen of its own weight years ago...yet Bush (just like Clinton had) kept it on life support. Do you intend also think we should launch an invasion of Brazil (now ruled by a commie) because of the possibility that the might build nukes?

I agree that "taking out," Saddam will not be that difficult. The problem begins when we start to police... err "patrol" (like that better?) that medieval, ethnically/religiously fragmented hell-hole called Iraq and "reconstruct" it.

You may think that building democracy doesn't mean squat to U.S. policy, but if you are right then Bush is a liar. He has vowed that we will "not walk away" from Iraq and build democracy there and make it "stable" (LOL).

The reborn conservative Wilsonians, who were sensible nationalists and realists on Kosovo and Haiti, actually seem to believe in the fairy tale that the Kurds, Shi'tes, Sunnis, with our "help," will hold hands and sing Kumbaya in "new Iraq." It would be funny if it weren't so tragic. Finally, according to the logic of your "take out" theory, Kennedy tried to kill Castro, therefore Castro has the right to "take out" Dubya, or does the logic only apply in one direction?

Again, the best solution for the U.S. is to fortify its borders, stop playing nanny to the world and spreading ourselves thin, and build SDI.

[Austin Willard Wright]

I share your mixed feelings about Bush. His stand on the Michigan case (though I wish it had been stronger) was very encouraging as well as his stands on dividend tax cuts. Having said that, he has listened too much to the Wilsonians on foreign policy. The original war in Afghanistan was just and proper....this new crusade is going down the dead end road of Clintonian "humanitarian intervention" and world policing.

[kidd]

Again, the best solution for the U.S. is to fortify its borders, stop playing nanny to the world and spreading ourselves thin, and build SDI.

Would a fortified border stopped the sleeper cells on US soil? (A: no)
Would SDI stop airliners from crashing into buildings? (A: no)

Its time for Libertarians like yourself to enter into the 21st century. 9/11 has demonstrated that a small group of determined, well financed and well supplied individuals can do great harm to us. What kind of defense can the military provide against this modern threat? They can cut off the supplies and the financing by taking out regimes that support terror. They can make it highly undesireable for other countries to associate themselves with terrorists by setting an example.

Iraq is perfect for this goal: they finance terrorists, they can supply terrorists with WMD, and they are easily beatable. A bonus to the defeat of Iraq may be the self-collapse of the current Iranian government. OTOH, North Korea would be more difficult to defeat and diplomatic avenues (which is far cheaper than war) have not been exhausted.

Libertarians need to reconsider the value of pre-emptive strikes as a means of self-defense, and in fact consider pre-emptive strikes as a duty of the government. I believe a Libertarian published such an article several months ago (it was posted on the FR, but I cannot find it).

[Austin Willard Wright]

I supported the Afghan war which was in the fine and honorable American tradition of national defense. If emulating Tojo is your idea of being "modern," count me out.

The war against Al Qaeda should be fought but what in God's name does that have to do with a campaign to conquer and occupy a country run by a secularist, wannabe Mussolini (who spurns Islamic law) have to do with that goal? Your national defense arguments ring allow. This war is being waged for a mixture of Wilsonian goals and regional goals which have nothing to do with home defense and everything to do with spreading ourselves thin.

World policing in Iraq is hopelessly utopian and unrealistic as the sad list of failures in international social engineering demonstrate: Kosovo, Somalia, Gulf War I, Haiti, etc.....but nothing seems to succeed like failure eh?

Instead of being "modern," your proposal takes us back to outmoded policies of the Cold War.

[VaBthang4]

That's okay...I couldn't help but think of being taught "To be friends with the World is to be an enemy of God"

Just something to think about.

[VaBthang4]

Huh?

You open with...

"I supported the Afghan war which was in the fine and honorable American tradition of national defense."

And close with...

"Instead of being "modern," your proposal takes us back to outmoded policies of the Cold War."

???

The Cold War is a supreme example of American National Defense.

Are you positive that you're competent in what you're talking about?

[Austin Willard Wright]

The Cold War is over. That was my point.

[VaBthang4]

"All of the above goals have nothing to do with home defense."

I think it would be a better statement had you said all of the above goals are not motivated purely from a home defense perspective.

That would be true. But to imply that removing Saddam Hussein doesnt affect home security in a positive way is brutaly ignorant if not simply knee-jerk contrarianism.

"Another foreign war will go down as yet another failure of internatioanl social engineering"

Then it seems to me that you have nothing to concern yourself with. If it is doomed to failure then sit back and let it flow...dominated a thread with your contrary opinion gives away your true thoughts.

[VaBthang4]

"The Cold War is over. That was my point."

Tell us something we dont know.

You said you support traditional National Defense but then besmirch the shining example of American National Defense...the Cold War...as being an outmoded policy.

Seems a bit confusing.

[Austin Willard Wright]

Besmirch the shining example of the American military?! Hogwash! I am merely pointing out that world conditions have changed and thus strategic national defense needs have also changed. As to besmirching the American military, perhaps you should look in a mirror. I am not the one who wants to put them in harm's way in international futile and endless Wilsonian crusades to "build democracy" and "enforce regional stability" that have nothing to do with home defense.

[kidd]

Your entire reply does not make any sense. Perhaps you would be so kind as to clarify it for me.

1) How is cutting off the financing and weapons of terrorists an emulation of Tojo?

2) How is cutting off the financing and weapons of terrorists Wilsonian?

3) While I agree that Kosovo, Somalia and Haiti are social engineering failures, why do you think that the Gulf War was social engineering and do you believe it was a failure?

4) I'm suggesting that pro-active strikes are the most effective mode of combating terrorism. The Cold War was a series of re-active strikes as a method of containing communism. How in the world do you equate the two?

[talleyman]

Mega bump!

[talleyman]

Sorry, old chap - this is not the DU website - you've lost your way.

[talleyman]

American taxpayers are not a bottomless pit.
The demoncrats think we are.

[45Auto]

I suggest that we shift tax dollars to defense (from the welfare state) including real home defense, i.e., close the damn borders.

[Austin Willard Wright]

Back in the late 1990s on Kosovo and Haiti, the Democrats were the warmongers the freepers were the "peaceniks." Now....they have switched sides. I have remained consistent. BTW, some of us don't determine our views on war and peace on a knee jerk partisan response to what "the other side" thinks.

[VaBthang4]

You opened with:
"Besmirch the shining example of the American military?!"

Huh? I didn’t type that did I?

I wrote: You said you support traditional National Defense but then besmirch the shining example of American National Defense...the Cold War.

You wouldn’t be attributing false quotes to people, now would you? And then going on to build a rebuttal based on the false quote?

Now, as to the rest of your response...

"I am merely pointing out that world conditions have changed and thus strategic national defense needs have also changed."

Well, obviously by default you want to "contain" Iraq correct? Or do you simply want to ignore them? If you want to contain them then you are using the exact same method used during the Cold War....a method you said was outdated or something to that effect.

"I am not the one who wants to put them [The Military] in harm's way"

That is what the Military is for. To be placed in harms way. Implying that putting them in harms way is something irresponsible or improper is foolish. That is what you do with a military. Place it in harms way in order for the civilians not to be.

"in international futile and endless Wilsonian crusades to "build democracy" and "enforce regional stability" that have nothing to do with home defense."

Again a poorly worded or simply cerebrally weak statement. I doubt you want to state that American National Security isnt positively affected by the above actions.

[Gore_ War_ Vet]

"To be friends with the World is to be an enemy of God"

That's a new one to me. What is its origin?

[johnb838]

Not to mention one little fact that nobody brings up. As much of a monster as Kim may be, he has only gotten up to mischief. He has not gassed his own people (though granted has has treated them very badly). But he has not invaded his neighbors. I think this alone qualifies him to be in the category of nations we talk to and not attack. For now.