Posted on 12/27/2014 8:29:24 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
And how will that be accomplished?
"American interests" are too often those of global corporatists who don't pay taxes to maintain the safety of their financial empires, enforcement of contracts, and safe transit of goods. The Pax-Americana is an operating subsidy to out-sourcing.
Like this author’s, this is a very short-sighted view.
I could say the same about the extreme contrary. The American vision of human rights to "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" everywhere is not the same as growing a military police State for the purpose of enforcing them. As we have seen, the power to enforce a right is the power to violate it. Here the Founders were wise in specifically limiting powers and entrusting the people as law-enforcement. What used to be a policy of empowering the people of foreign lands to throw off their oppressors has become a tactic of using a very expensive military to do it for them. I suspect this distinction is the fulcrum of this conundrum.
It was the "professionalization" of law enforcement in pursuit of an ephemeral "equal protection" that has been a major part of our undoing, in pursuit of distinctions in law too complex to enforce among the myriad variations found in real life. No wonder we're demanding cameras everywhere, but with that much "oversight" is anyone feeling free? From an education system incapable of producing informed jurors and voters has come a professional enforcement behemoth threatening every right itself becoming more ignorant and self-interested by the decade, crushing us under the weight of unionized retirement benefits.
So I'm no so sanguine about protecting the planet. I'm more interested in maintaining the strength and demonstrated will to threaten mortal destruction of any adversary while arming the natives to kill their own damned bad guys. As we have seen, nuclear weapons have produced what I call "the impotence of power," a force so great we dare not use it. It is that restraint as goaded by our enemies within which has emboldened our enemies without and forced us to build a technical architecture capable of enslaving the whole world, an irony that escapes no one. Now that we are nearly done constructing that net with debt, our masters are ready, willing, and able to impoverish us with a tweak of interest rates, free capital so far having built the means to replace labor worldwide. It's a hell of a fix.
Yet the only thing that emplaces said fix is the enforcers' loyalty to their paycheck. As the family disintegrates, that demand is decoupled. Therewith the globalists may have cut their own throats. Sadly, at the rate things are degenerating, perhaps we'll soon see.
Some Guy on a white horse with a sword coming out of His mouth is what I heard.
Benghazi wouldn't have happened if she hadn't overthrown Khadafi (sp?). And, in my favorite touch of class, laughed about his lynching by street mobs. She's a soulless thug.
Hey, Bruce! I don’t understand. The Great Pretender in the Oval Office has steadily reduced our military strength and budget and yet he keeps raising the debt astronomically and the threat against us from the war we are in (having been attacked here at home) keeps growing, with other side steadily gaining ground within our own institutions and those of our allies as well as increasing its territory in the Middle East and North Africa. Peace and a cessation of debt should be right around the corner, in our time, as someone once said. How come its not? Is it possible you could be wrong? Just asking.
Aside from being a ridiculous and fruitless position, that would probably hurt him more than anyone else.
To me, any conservative candidate’s message should be GET THE GOVERNMENT OFF YOUR BACK. Liberals are destroying the middle class. There is NO facet of our lives they don’t want to control. Appeal to people’s sense of individuality and need for freedom. And don’t back down!
Really? What countries are the US military sucking up the “power and wealth?”
I didn’t say the US military was sucking up the power and wealth. I said they’ve become the military for the global elite who are sucking up the power in wealth. Just about everywhere the US, NATO or the EU have been involved in regime change and nation building, it’s involved a transfer of power and wealth from the destroyed countries to them.
Her support of Gaddafi’s overthrow doesn’t necessarily mean hawkishness.
Call it what you will. It was insane.
I remember when "Hawks" were conservative. Those days are long gone.
Real conservatives are still hawkish, but for the right causes. RINOs have actively supported our enemies and got called “war hawks”—as have their openly liberal Democratic allies from time to time.
“What used to be a policy of empowering the people of foreign lands to throw off their oppressors has become a tactic of using a very expensive military to do it for them. I suspect this distinction is the fulcrum of this conundrum.”
I believe you make an excellent point, and this is the very problem you outline. It is a fine line that has been crossed, first broached I believe in WW1 where it seemed necessary, and by the WW2, probably a forced move. Very hard to reel in and reestablish boundaries and protocol, especially once the taste of war profiteering has been experienced by those who have the gold.
I still leave my marker on my anti-isolationism statement about dealing with tyrants who interfere with commerce.
Thank you. It was meant to evoke discussion, as this was the first time I’ve linked the distillation about tax equity to our abandonment of the essential role of the militia. It was the recollection of our support of various underground groups in WWII that brought it to mind.
And this imbecile does not see the connection between point A and point B. Amazing. Like the liberal who laments that we have more people in prison than ever even while the crime rate is down. Duh. The projection of power keeps us safe. Locking up bad guys keeps them from committing crimes. Hard to figure out I guess.
These are the words of a historical illiterate. While Washington did not want us to meddle in European affairs he immediately sent emissaries to negotiate treaties with Britain, France, and Spain. Shortly after signing the Jay treaty with Britain we had a naval war with France from 1798 to 1801. Jefferson went to war with the Barbary coast in 1801, and again under Madison in 1815.
In the first real preemptive projection of American power, James Monroe established the Monroe doctrine, which was an international ban on foreign influence in American hemispheric affairs, to be backed up with force. Then there was our invasion of Canada during the war of 1812, and we later went to war with Mexico.
On it goes. The idea that the US enjoyed a dreamy isolationism from Washington's day until WWII is a childish fantasy. The world is and has been, filled with people who would gladly kill us all and take what we have. The projection of American power is the only thing that has seen us through.
Correct you are. I wondered after posting that if the author had ever heard of the Monroe Doctrine.
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.