Why THEY Go To War

[seltian]

Have you ever read "All Quiet on the Western Front" by Eric Remarque?

[paleocrat]

A common slur for American "lack of action" during WWI.

No, I have not read that particular book, nor have I seen the movie renditions of the novel.

Thankfully, our Federal Founders left us with plenty of advice concerning foreign wars, entanglements, and the tyranny of being anything other than a well-wisher to all who would follow our lead in giving life and limb for the ideals we cherish. This is most beautifully seen in President Washington's Farewell Address.

See sidebar for links.

[seltian]

I was just gonna say, one of your statements reminded me a lot of that book.

You said that you don't have any personal problems with the people that our country is fighting. The same is true of Paul Baumer, the main character.

The book is all about the futility of war.

By the way, I totally agree with you. The United States must stop her Imperialism before she destroys humanity completely

[paleocrat]

Ah. Yes, I have no personal problems with those we are fighting. They have never wronged me, my family, or any of those near and dear to me. This is not to say that nobody has been hurt in the wake of 9-11, but our leaders have made a number of unforgivable mistakes:

1. They intentionally misinformed us concerning WMDs.

2. They assumed the role of military enforcer for the UN.

3. They attacked a nation had nothing to do with 9-11.

4. They continue to proceed with this unjust war and impreialism

[seltian]

I couldn't agree with you more.

[opinionhead444]

Do you have podcasts on ITunes?

While I disagree with you on a lot of things, I respect your voice sir.

I am a moderate at heart and I ascribe to many liberal points. I have found a decent conversative antidote for once. You should have your own national show.

[paleocrat]

You can hear me on wocrfm(dot)com every Monday and Friday night from 7-10pm EST. I have a decent number of listeners, many from YouTube. Callers always welcome.

Thanks for the compliment. More people thinking like that and I should have a national show in no time! haha

[digitaljez]

Is someone standing in for Paleo on this one ? The voice seems the same but the words are strangely rational. It is quite disturbing.

[paleocrat]

haha I have plenty of material on war and neoconservatives that I think you would enjoy. Move beyond religion and you may like what I have to say... at least part of the time.

[thompsonlake]

America is NOT at war

The Marines are at war

America is at the MALL

[paleocrat]

You are dead on the nail here, Thompsonlake.

[rowdyg4]

amen

[charcoalmonkey]

thompsonlake "America is NOT at war

The Marines are at war

America is at the MALL"

Well said. This is still true as we face depression!

[coffeeal]

Because they don't have the backbone to fight themselves.

[divinacomedias]

They can just as easily set up another PNAC, under a new name. Clinton is a Democrat, and his record was disastrous. It's not a Democrat vs Republican question, it's a question of getting someone into power that will implement the correct policies so as to reclaim the constitution for the people, remove the central bank autonomy, change corporate laws so that monopolies of interest are no longer monopolizing all areas of our society and resources.

[seltian]

The stupid Democrats are nearly as bad as the Republicans.

In 2002, the Democrats controlled the US Senate. They had the power to kill the Iraq War Resolution. But that power proved useless when 29 (!) Democratic Senators, including John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and Joe Biden, voted for the war. They could have prevented it, and they didn't even try!

Now we have Obama, who is getting us out of Iraq only to expand our war in Afghanistan.

The two party system is a failure.

[19770326]

republicans need war like i need oxygen. They need it because they cant govvern with such a limited platform

[Tony63efc]

There's an interesting set of videos, Dinner with Portillo - America. Portillo, an ex-UK minister invites a distinguished group to dinner in 2003 to discuss attitudes to America against the backdrop of the imminent Iraq war. Poignantly, one guest is the late Benazir Bhutto.

[bigl240]

I guarantee china will dominate the world soon.

[paleocrat]

If we don't stop subsidizing them with our grossly lopsided trade policies, yes. Pissing off Russia isn't going to help us either, especially when Russia and China are choosing to do joint war game operations... where the US is the enemy.

[Tony63efc]

If Russia and China are seeing America as the enemy I think this is a case of providing a balance of power. After all American military spending exceeds the rest of the world combined and that excludes military aid given to Israel and Egypt.

[paleocrat]

Agreed. The American century is over, and the unipolar world is coming to an end. The question for the US is what to do in a post unipolar world.

Let others have their own Monroe Doctrine. Let others have their own Roosevelt Corollary. So long as we are able to defend ourselves against an attack on our soil by any foe, all is well with me.

[ManufacturedThoughts]

It is not Neo-Conservative, it is Neo-Fascism.

[paleocrat]

I see these as relatively synonymous terms. I speak of them in the former due to its familiarity, and that it doesn't invoke the emotional response that fascism carries with it.

[mediator4u]

To have a right to do a thing, is not at all the same as to be right in doing it.

[Tony63efc]

Point taken; as for your final point I'm pleased you accept the principle that the USA is answerable to the world community but I don't understand why countries who are not democracies are not subject to international law.

[Tony63efc]

It's hard for me to argue that the UN is effective. When Indonesia invaded the tiny (Catholic) country of East Timor the Security Council voted unanimously to condemn the invasion but were unable to impose sanctions because the USA opposed this partly because they were arming the Indonesians.

[owensaruba]

International law is relatively new and total shit. The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758)by Emmerich de Vattel was what it replaced and was a work that the founding fathers relied upon heavily in forming the constitution. Google "Vattel Law of Nations" for many sites that provide the text if you are interested.

[owensaruba]

Under the law of nations each state of our American union is a nation so your nationality would be Californian, New Yorker or Alaskan not American, America is a land mass, or US Citizen which is a member of Federal society.

This was the way things were before the civil war but now most think we, the states united, are a single nation/country. There is a reason every state has its own constitution. If we were a single nation/country we would only need one. We are a union of fifty.

[stone1home]

paleo-libertarian?

WTF?

[paleocrat]

Google search it. Lew Rockwell defines it rather well. Wikipedia also has something on it.

Rockwell defines it as being Old Right conservatism. It focuses on private property, freedom of association, and a radical form of political decentralization. They also tend to be very religious, claiming religion to be the foundation for liberty, property, and the natural order.

Ron Paul is a paleolibertarian.

[seltian]

How do you feel about autogestion?

[paleocrat]

I typically support emplyee-runned business, if by that you mean something along the lines of the guild style system.

[seltian]

Yeah, I think we mean the same thing.

Autogestion is when the workers control their own factories through direct democracy. They continue to produce and sell products, and decide for themselves what to do with the profits.

It's very prevalent in Argentina.

[UnBeguiled]

Your thoughts on international politics are always thoughtful and reasonable. I loved the "Brut cologne" reference.

Have you seen the documentary "Why We Fight"?

[paleocrat]

Yes. I have seen it.

Well, this post has cost me two subscribers.

[UnBeguiled]

Who cares. Stick to your principles. Nothing is worse than pandering, like Willard Romney's transparent fawning bootlick to the Evangelicals.

[seltian]

Amen!

[h2oholic]

hell , the ruling class probably manipulated Saddam into Kuwait so they could turn on the machine .

[arupachino99]

I think there are many reasons. One of it is threat of Chinese economic power. US want to control the oil to slow down China's. Last thing US want is world peace. More chaotic the world are the more money for US. Don't forget Elitest are racist too.

[AzraelsJudgement]

Patriotism is loyalty to your fellow citizens/human beings, freedom and land, not government. When will people get this?

[elroy2112]

oh my goodness what will the french think ?

many countries in world claim to hate america , then when asked if they like to live in a world where the US does not exist , almost all admit they would not , except for paleos terrorist buddies .

is this your way of throwing your hat in for

RON PAUL ? paleo ?

[paleocrat]

My terrorist buddies?? What are you talking about? I despise them as much as anyone else here. I signed into the military on 9-11 to fight those who terrorized our country.

The problem is that very few people actually study WHY they hate us. Every poll, every interview, every letter written by terrorists leading up to 2001 detailed why they hate us. Absent? Our freedoms. It was due to cultural imperialism and foreign policies in the middle east.

I have supported Ron Paul for months.

[elroy2112]

cultural imperialism , means allowing christians and jews to breath you clown.

cancell my subcription too you bafoon .

[paleocrat]

Cultural imperialism is seen, by them, as our using military force in mandating that they change their political and social norms. Since the war on terror, abortion, liberal women's rights, selling of liquor, and the publication and selling of pornography have all been forced upon them.

Why would over 1/3 of all Christians in Iraq flee the country if what we are doing over there is helping them breath?

2 people call me a clown. 2 want their subscription canceled. Childish.

[UnBeguiled]

Well, the French thought there were no WMD in Iraq. They were right.

[RogerOnTheRight]

Actually, the French *assured* us Saddam had WMD.

[grandconjunct]

the US police are hated by all the criminals too paleo and all the criminals abroad , why dont we take the guns away from our police force and give them peace candells to put in there holsters then everyone will love the police !!! Paleo your a clown , cancell my subscription .

[paleocrat]

Cancel your subscription? Because we disagree over Iraq? That is silly.

I ma not a pacifist. I'm not an isolationism. I AM a non-interventionist.

I think we should continue to have the strongest and deadliest military on the planet. I just don't like the US playing Globocop with our brave young men and women. I think we must seriously consider the reality of blowback and reevaluate why South Korea was better protected by US troops than NYC on 9-11.

[RogerOnTheRight]

I think you have forgotten some historic details. In Iraq, the threat was specifically and consistently described as not imminent. The ideas was to eliminate the threat *before* it become imminent.

Nobody in this administration has ever suggested the US has some superior right to assert itself. Clearly, however, we have deep interests in many parts of the world, so are more likely affected by events in Iran than would be, say, Zimbabwe.

[paleocrat]

Roger, I normally agree with you, but we disagree on this one. This is a given, though, due to my being a non-interventionist.

I should have been more specific about the Iraq portion. I am well aware of the Bush Doctrine and preventative wars (i.e., wars of aggression).

Yes, we have our national paws all over the earth... and we're paying for it.

[RogerOnTheRight]

I understand and appreciate non-interventionism. Yes, we should have made our case on strategic threat. "Slam dunk" was the ubiquitous screwup of CIA. Can't recall when they got a big one right.

Nevertheless, we have our fingers everywhere. Byproduct of size and nature of our economy. Bummer, but we have to protect ourselves.

For the record, and am far from a neocon. More of a paleocon. But, one who sees the world for what it is.

[Tony63efc]

International law does not recognise the right to take pre-emptive action. By giving itself that right the USA places itself above international law and becomes to many of us in the rest of the world a rogue state.

[RogerOnTheRight]

"International law" is not really law at all, rather the collective indecision of many non-democratic countries, supported by touchie-feelie Leftists, mostly in Europe.

International law gets dumped whenever one of "them" decides. Review France's uninvited invasion of Ivory Coast, about the same time we went to Iraq.

Or Darfur. Collective indecision, not law.

[Tony63efc]

If there were no such thing as international law it would be impossible to try individuals for war crimes at The Hague.

International law does exist, America sees fit to break it whenever it sees fit and supports Israel when it does the same.

[RogerOnTheRight]

International law would have to extend to all nations equally, would it not? Equal protection, no?

So, when Israel is attacked by rockets supplied by Iran, where is this "international law"?

It ceases to exist at such times. It has no legitimacy because it lacks a legal system and a constitution.

It is enforced selectively, thus it is not "just" in any sense of the word.

[Tony63efc]

It is enforced when it suits the United States and ignored when it applies to America or Isreal.

Whatever the weaknesses of the UN charter you cannot ignore the fact that the USA is a signatory and if you are an honourable country that places obligations on you, obligations that both you and Paleocrat have admitted you don't believe America are obliged to adhere to.

[RogerOnTheRight]

France signed too, but they ignore the resolutions. As do Russia, China, a good part of Europe, all of the Arab states, most of Africa... you get the idea.

"when it suits..." applies to all of the above.

If we were truly honorable, we would dump the UN and strive to create a new body, only including democracies.

[paleocrat]

Yes, the US is a signatory.

Yes, I think that it we shouldn't be.

BUT, if we want to remain in the UN, we MUST adhere to those things we have obligated ourselves to.

This is all the more reason for my insisting that we get the heck out of there.

[Tony63efc]

Sorry but I can't accept this American attitude that there is something so unique about their country that they can be the arbiters of when military action is appropriate.

This attitude ensures that America is feared by many and very often this fear is translated into hatred.

[paleocrat]

If we were not seen as the military wing of the UN, and if we declares and adhered to a humble foreign policy of non-interventionism, why would people fear us?

Meddling in the affairs of others and using military action to force change have been sure reason for countries to both fear and hate us.

[Tony63efc]

I see your argument now, IF the US follows a humble foreign policy of non-interventionism then the world may well be a safer place.

Looking at the number of US bases scattered all over the globe I don't see it happening any time soon.

[paleocrat]

This is an unfortunate fact. So long as we have national leaders who refuse to adhere to the wisdom of our non-interventionist founding fathers, we will continue our imperial ventures abroad. We need to dismantle bases in most all countries we currently have them and bring our men and women home. American troops should be in our country and on our borders and coastline. This is the great tradition of American self-defense.

[RogerOnTheRight]

Were the Barbary Wars non-interventionism?

[paleocrat]

Yes. Jefferson's cry to President Washington that we go to war was to no avail. It wasn't until Jefferson's presidency that we went to war, and this was only after Pashi had declared war against us in 1801. Furthermore, Congress restricted him to command actions appropriate for war situations.

[RogerOnTheRight]

My precise point is, there is no real arbiter. The UN cannot be trusted in that function, nor the ICJ.

It's a wooly world out there.

[paleocrat]

Here is my take (in 10 minutes) on foreign policy. It gives a backdrop as to why I stand where I do.

/watch?v=reQt-aeRpAI

[morsec0de]

I don't know, Paleo, if one of these countries met you...we might be in more trouble. ;)

[Tony63efc]

At Nuremburg Justice Jackson (for the USA) stated that "If certain acts of violation of treaties are crimes, they are crimes whether the United States does them or whether Germany does them, and we are not prepared to lay down a rule of criminal conduct against others which we would not be willing to have invoked against us"

[Tony63efc]

Compare these fine words with President Nixon's instruction to Kissinger regarding Cambodia "A massive bombing campaign in Cambodia. Anything that flies on anything that moves." A war crime? I think so.

[RogerOnTheRight]

Kuwait was brutally invaded by Iraq.

Was that a crime?

We went over there at the behest of virtually the entire world. We were then left hanging, to keep a lid on Iraq while they shot at our planes, murdered their own civilians.

Meanwhile, UN officials took bribes from Iraq, along with Jacques Chirac and Vladimir Putin.

Was that a crime? If so, where is the outcry?

[Tony63efc]

Kuwait was invaded by Iraq in contravention of international law so it was right to go to the aid of Kuwait.

Bribery, however unacceptable*, is not what is being discussed here.

*I am the 8329th signatory to the Paris Declaration against Global Corruption.

[RogerOnTheRight]

But, bribery was the backdrop and motivation for "denying" the US support from the United Nations.

America did not end diplomacy over the Iraq matter, it was the French, plain and simple.

If a crime was committed, hang Chirac and de Villepin.

[paleocrat]

Why did we need support from the UN if it was a preventative war for OUR survival? If they were a real threat, those closest to them would have been the ones beating the war drums, not us.

Regardless of what the French did, we could have continued trying to negotiate with Iraq. We chose not to.

If a crime was committed, they should receive the penalty that corresponds to that crime. The same goes for our leaders.

[RogerOnTheRight]

Those closest to the matter were the ones beating drums loudest. Our bases were in arab countries, at their behest.

Putting our lot with the UN was a mistake for sure. It was from this the French felt they could block our military, and gave courage to Saddam to resist us. When they said absolutely no to war, diplomacy was ended and war was inevitable.

[paleocrat]

Not all at their behest. Many of them wish we were gone. Iraq wishes we were gone. Regardless, their wishing for us to be there is no justification for our being there. I take Washington and Jefferson very serious.

Regardless of what the French said, we could have continued to pursue diplomacy. There was no inevitability here.

[RogerOnTheRight]

Actually, the French action indeed forced war. Diplomacy is only meaningful if there is some hard edge to it, somewhere. The French created belief in Saddam we would *never* be allowed to invade. Thus he defied us, and the UN resolution.

[paleocrat]

Well, it depends on who you ask? We certainly had an interest over there: oil and Israel. And we definitely sympathized with the Kuwaitis. But is keeping our oils supply at status quo levels, our friendship with Israel, and our altruistic feelings towards Kuwait sufficient to satisfy the demands of Just War? This is worthy of debate and discussion.

[RogerOnTheRight]

That is an internal policy matter, not a international community matter. That is, it was our right to exercise or not. Preference, not justice.

[paleocrat]

Military interventionism boils down to preference? Maybe I misunderstood you.

Regardless of whether or not it is an international policy matter or an international community matter, the issue is whether or not we had just cause for intervening.

Do you believe that the US should be the military wing of the UN?

[RogerOnTheRight]

No, I think we may well agree on this. What I mean is, it is our decision when and where to go to war, not anyone else's. Certainly not the UN.

Justification is for us to decide, internally. It is our decision-- preference really-- not that of some foreign body.

The idea of a just war is quite nonsensical outside the US culture.

[paleocrat]

Good.

Good.

Possible. Still, the tenets of Just War theory are standards that a nation seeking to be just and righteous ought to embody. I think our current adventure in the Middle East (not including Afghanistan) falls flat on its face in light of these guiding principles.

[RogerOnTheRight]

Sure, there ought to be standards. At least, standards that can be maintained.

Just as we ought not put ourselves above others in terms of assumptions of rights, we also ought not place ourselves beyond reason with regard to our methods of force.

We certainly don't want to fall into Kerry's "global test" trap. Standards that satisfy our own culture alone will suffice.

[paleocrat]

Agreed. I do not want to submit to some "global test." This is why I think Bush and Co. using UN resolutions as a justification for the war is absurd.

Still, I think that the we are bound to Just War principles. These are the standards we recognized as a Christian republic; these are not the standards we recognize as a pluralistic and secular empire.

[RogerOnTheRight]

We agree on the silliness of the UN. But, I don't know how you define Just War principles. I would really love to read that document.

[paleocrat]

Plenty has been written on the matter. Its championed by Augustine, Aquinas, and Calvin. Ron Paul has a video about it on YouTube. I think it is in my Ron Paul playlist. I'll get you the link.

When God Says War Is Right is a realist approach to the matter. I agree and disagree with Darrell Cole on some points, but great for general idea.

[Tony63efc]

Do other countries have the same right to go to war as the US? If Israel were to make aggressive statements could Iran make a pre-emptive strike in self-defence? How can the rest of the world have confidence in US policy if you give yourself the right to go to war without nSecurity Council approval?

[RogerOnTheRight]

"right"? You don't have rights granted to you, you claim them. If a country feels threatened sufficiently, it goes to war.

The Security Council passed resolution 1441 unanimously. It was their fecklessness that forced the war to begin with. If Saddam had been led to believe the UN actually meant what it said, and had he complied, we would never have invaded. And this can be objectively determined.

[paleocrat]

Did we feel threatened sufficiently? With what? WMD's? How would he use them against us, even if he had them? What range would they have, and what nations' airspace would they fly over?

They could be brought over the border illegally or through the port system. We ignore these, but fight over there?

Those who hurt us were in our country. Iraq, outside, was absolutely no threat, even in the worst case scenario.

[RogerOnTheRight]

Well, the point is, we are told, he did not have WMD any longer. Had he called our bluff, and cooperated, he would be off the hook by now. No more UN sanctions, but still in possession of WMD technology.

You don't think he would have rebuilt his programs? Been gladly competing with Iran for nuclear dominance?

Are we to imagine he changed his stripes somewhere along the line?

[paleocrat]

He did cooperate. Many times over. He was willing to cooperate further.

Regardless, UN sanctions are meaningless. Would you suggest we obey them were they to be honed in on us? What if we believed they infringed upon our sovereignty?

I could care less if Iraq had nuclear weapons. I could care less if Iran could. Let nuclear Israel deal with them. Let Europe deal with them. Not the country all the way across most of Europe and all the Atlantic.

[paleocrat]

So our brave young men and women are sacrificed because Babel couldn't put a bite where their growl was? Roger, this isn't right.

[RogerOnTheRight]

I think, given his history of invading his neighbors and murdering his own people, his pattern of "bite" was well established.

[paleocrat]

But what he did with his neighbors was no more our business than what we choose to do with Mexico or Canada would have been his business.

Regardless, he was no threat to the US. He may have been a threat to the price of oil, but our access to oil is not a US right any more than Iraq would have a right to our resources.

[RogerOnTheRight]

Flow of oil is definitely our national interest. And what he did certainly threatened oil supplies.

You would think the lesson of WW2 would have been remembered by more people. That war was started over oil as well.

[paleocrat]

We have oil reserves in this country. If our leaders refuse to drill on our land, where we have sovereignty, we have no right to deem what is on another's land to be ours. We would never, ever allow another nation to treat OUR natural resources as their own, regardless of their dependence. This is gross hypocrisy.

WWII for the US was due to our being attacked. We didn't even assist Europe until well into the war. And when we did decide to jump in, we entered Africa!

[RogerOnTheRight]

Do you recall why Japan attacked us? There was a specific reason.

[paleocrat]

They weren't too happy with the results of Versailles. In 1921, we encouraged Britain to end their alliance with Japan. In 1940, we placed an embargo on them for moving into Indochina. Germany invaded Russia, Japan moved south, FDR froze all their assets. Dean Acheson worked the sanction in such a way as to disallow the Japanese to purchase oil.

What would we do?

[RogerOnTheRight]

Right, first we denied them steel, then finally oil.

[paleocrat]

Where are you going with this? At worst, this is a case in point against arrogant diplomacy and interventionism. Maybe I am missing something here, Roger. It wouldn't be a first. :)

[RogerOnTheRight]

It suggests self-interest is a long established fact of diplomacy-- arrogant or otherwise.

Saying we ought not be involved in other countries' business, like troops in Europe, is certainly non-interventionist, and a good idea. But, not caring if Iran has nukes is well into isolationism.

And we have never really been isolationist.

Arrogance is in the eye of the beholder. I doubt even today many Japanese thought they were "arrogant" in the early 20th century.

[paleocrat]

Self-interest has always been at the core of American foreign policy. The question is as to what we ought to be interested in.

I could care less if Iran has nukes. Israel can well defend herself with the arsenal of nukes she has in her possession. She could blow the surrounding states off the face of the map. Iran desiring to be a player in the nuclear community (energy or weapons) is their right, just as it is ours.

[RogerOnTheRight]

What we had going for us during the cold war was the reasonable supposition the Soviets wanted to live as much as we do, and avoid mutual annihilation.

Not so sure the Iranian mullahs are entirely sane. But, maybe I am wrong and there is nothing to worry about.

[paleocrat]

Well, their sanity is offset by the nuclear nations that would react (and world reaction!) were they to try something stupid. If it is for energy, they have every right. If it is for weaponry (which has been debunked, at least as of late), that is their right. If they use it, they'll be wiped off the face of the earth. haha

[RogerOnTheRight]

but if what they seek is armageddon, then threat of annihilation is useless. It is what they seek.

And, their weapons program is anything but debunked. That last NIE report did not debunk anything.

[paleocrat]

You get a report compiled by the best and brightest of our security and defense agencies and toss it to the wind? Come, now.

Who says they want Armageddon or that the Iranian people would stand for such a move? A war with Israel? Not gonna happen. It wouldn't be in the best interest of their allies, the more secular Muslim countries, or the EU. Not gonna happen... even in the instance where they were pursuing nuclear weaponry, which they are not.

[RogerOnTheRight]

Best and brightest? When was the last time CIA was right on a major issue? Can you name a time? Go back to the beginning of the Cold War if you like. It's a "slam dunk", I'm sure.

Re Armageddon, listen to what they say, to their own people. Hitler told us exactly what he intended to do, then he did it. You dare to disregard their words, expressing their intent?

[paleocrat]

The NIE isn't just the CIA, if I remember correctly. It is the consensus among all our major intelligence and anti-terror agencies. I may be wrong on this, but I'm pretty sure it is made up of various organizations who specialize in these areas.

They say they want nuclear power. The NIE confirms that this is the only thing they are doing. This confirms earlier reports.

An action against Israel is Israel's concern, then the concern of those near them, both secular Muslim countries and the EU.

[RogerOnTheRight]

Yes, NIE is a composite report. But, it does not say Iran is not going after nukes. It just said it had a moderate confidence one particular piece of the program was inactive for now. That aside, they are refining their own fuel, unnecessary for "peaceful" nuclear power.

CIA actually works to undermine our foreign policy, time and time again. Though they are not the only "players", they have a hugely disproportionate role.

[paleocrat]

The particular piece of the program was that of creating nuclear weapons. And it was with "high confidence." Their report was virtually identical to the IAEA reports back in 2004. Furthermore, National Security Adviser Hadly admitted that the issue was less bad than formerly thought. Sounds pretty fair to me.

[RogerOnTheRight]

Any action of a nuclear nature is of concern for the entire world.

This is what I mean when I say non-interventionism becomes isolationism. I am far from being a neo-con, but though we are in many places we shouldn't be, we are indeed involved.

Extricating from a mess is not a simple matter of redeploying to Okinawa.

[paleocrat]

Why would Iran having nuclear weapons be any more of a threat to our country than Pakistan, China, and Russia having nuclear weapons? Al Qaeda plays a far more prominent role in Pakistan than in Iran, and China and Russia uniting in war games with the US as the "hypothetical" enemy would be reason for great fear. Yet we focus on Iran? Iran can't do anything for close to ten years, even if they put all their effort towards it, yet we fret?

[RogerOnTheRight]

Maybe you are right. The nuke cat was out of the bag long ago, with Pakistan. It was their people who pushed NK, Libya and Iran along, as a commercial enterprise.

But, perhaps if we do less, their neighbors would do more. Look less to the USA to solve your problems. India, for example, also has nukes.

Unsettling, at best.

[paleocrat]

I don't advocate isolationism. I advocate non-interventionism, diplomacy, and honest friendship.

Arrogance. Versailles was disproportionate with the loss of Japanese life in the same way our post WWII distribution of land was disproportionate to the loss of Russian life. We got Britain to drop alliance with Japan. We place embargoes on them. Then we freeze their assets. How is this not arrogant? These are the actions of an empire, not a republic.