Why They Hate Us

[Mikerotch]

One of the best articles I have ever read and true to its core.

Mikerotch, Jacob Hornberger Advocate


Empire or Republic

by Jacob G. Hornberger


We now live in a country in which the president wields the power to send the entire nation into war on his own initiative, without the congressional declaration of war required by the Constitution.

We live in a country in which the president and the military wield the power to arrest an American citizen and incarcerate him in a military installation for the rest of his life on suspicion of being a terrorist, denying him due process of law, trial by jury, and other procedural rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.

We live in a country in which the president wields the power to conduct warrantless searches and seizures, regardless of the provisions of the Fourth Amendment.

We live in a country in which the president wields the power to ignore any law passed by Congress simply by signing a statement, in his military capacity as a commander in chief, indicating an intention to ignore the law.

In fact, we live in a country in which the president effectively wields the same power here in the United States that he wields in Iraq, given his belief that the entire world, including the United States, is a battlefield in the “war on terror.”

How did it all come to this? How did a country that once prided itself on being the freest nation in history end up with a ruler who wields such omnipotent powers?

It’s not as if we haven’t been warned. Our Founding Fathers warned us repeatedly what would happen if we abandoned the founding principles of our nation.

James Madison, the father of the Constitution, said that of all the enemies to liberty war is the greatest, because it inevitably encompasses all the other threats to people’s freedom. War is the parent of armies, and with armies come death, destruction, taxes, inflation, regulations, and ever-increasing assaults on liberty at home.

John Quincy Adams, in his Fourth of July address to Congress in 1821, expressed pride in the fact that America does not go abroad in search of “monsters to destroy.” If America ever pursued such a policy, he said, she would inevitably make herself the “dictatress of the world.”

Thomas Jefferson, in his First Inaugural Address, warned against entangling alliances and against our nation’s involvement in foreign intrigues and foreign wars.

Our forefathers warned against the dangers of big standing military establishments, pointing out that historically rulers could never resist the temptation to employ them against others, which inevitably fomented new enemies and crises, which then would be used to suspend rights and freedoms at home, the suspensions being enforced by the military.

What distinguished our ancestors from modern-day Americans was how the former viewed the federal government. Today, Americans look on the federal government as a close friend or even as a parent, sometimes even a god, given that it provides the people with retirement, health care, education, housing, food, money, and other “benefits.” Our forefathers, on the other hand, viewed the federal government as the greatest threat to their rights and freedoms. They believed that government, being force, was neither their friend nor their parent nor their god.

The underlying philosophy of the Constitution, in fact, reflects how the Framers viewed the federal government. The primary purpose of its provisions was to limit the power of the federal government it called into existence. After all, if people trusted the federal government, what would be the point of placing restrictions on its power? With trust, the Framers would have simply said, “We need to elect the best people to public office and then delegate total power to them so that they can get the job done.” But that’s not what the Framers did. Instead, they divided the federal government and severely restricted its powers because they didn’t trust anyone, not even themselves, with omnipotent power.

Even the restrictions on power in the Constitution did not satisfy the American people, however. Soon after the Constitution was ratified, people demanded and secured passage of 10 amendments to the document that expressly forbade federal officials to infringe on fundamental rights and to convict people of crimes without following long-established legal procedures, some of which stretched all the way back in English history to the Magna Carta in 1215.
Why they hate us

“But we live in a different time now. Today, the terrorists hate us and are coming to get us. The Constitution is not a suicide pact.”

That raises the important question of why people around the world, especially in the Middle East, are angry and hateful toward our nation. The issue is important because getting the prescription right usually depends on arriving at a correct diagnosis of the malady.

The issue of why they hate us revolves around two conflicting rationales. The federal rationale is that foreigners hate America for its “freedom and values.” The other rationale holds that foreigners hate our nation because of extremely bad things that the federal government has done to people overseas.

The obvious benefit of the first rationale, from the standpoint of U.S. officials, is that it obviates any critical examination of U.S. foreign policy. In fact, its underlying premise is that a major justification for a pro-empire, pro-interventionist foreign policy is to project power across the world in order to protect America from those who already hate us. The second rationale contends that it is that pro-empire, pro-interventionist policy itself that generates the deep-seated anger and hatred that produce the threat of terrorism against the United States.

Of course, this isn’t the first time that federal officials have attempted to shut down a critical examination of federal actions in the context of terrorism. After Timothy McVeigh blew up the federal building in Oklahoma City, recall the immediate response of U.S. officials when libertarians tried to point out why McVeigh had committed the act. Federal officials suggested that to engage in such an examination would “justify” McVeigh’s actions and, therefore, would not be in the best interests of the country. President Clinton even questioned the notion that one could love his country and, at the same time, hate wrongdoing by his government.

Yet, is it surprising that U.S. officials would take such a position? After all, the last thing they wanted was a critical examination of the federal massacre at Waco, which was what had generated the enormous anger and hatred within McVeigh, which then led to his terrorist attack in Oklahoma City.

But notice something important here: Since Waco, there have been no more federal massacres of American citizens, and there have been no more McVeigh-type retaliatory terrorist attacks. Who can doubt that if U.S. officials were still massacring large numbers of Americans, there would be more Oklahoma City retaliatory terrorist attacks?

The situation is no different in foreign affairs, which is precisely why U.S. officials do their best to shut down any critical examination of federal misconduct overseas by their claim that the “terrorists” hate America for its “freedom and values.”

Part two to Follow :

[Mikerotch]

Let’s consider two examples – Iran and Iraq.

When Iranians took U.S. embassy officials hostage during the 1979 Iranian Revolution, I think that it would be safe to say that most Americans had no idea why the Iranian revolutionaries were so angry at the United States. No doubt Americans assumed that the revolutionaries simply hated America for its freedom and values.

But Iranians knew that in 1953 the CIA had surreptitiously entered Iran and fomented a coup that resulted in the ouster of Iran’s democratically elected prime minister, a man named Mohammed Mossadegh. Not surprisingly, Mossadegh was highly respected by the Iranian people, and he also was selected as Time magazine’s Man of the Year.

Ousting Mossadegh from power, the CIA replaced him with the shah of Iran, who, with his savage secret police force, proceeded to oppress, brutalize, and torture the Iranian populace for the next 25 years.

It was no different with respect to the Iraqi people. While President Bush today bases his invasion of Iraq on the notion that Saddam Hussein was a dangerous dictator who was trying to secure weapons of mass destruction, he fails to mention that U.S. officials, including President George H.W. Bush, had been strong supporters of this dictator throughout the 1980s. In fact, the current President Bush also fails to mention that it was the United States and other Western countries that furnished Saddam with biological and chemical weapons along with nuclear technology.

Then, when Saddam became the new official enemy of the United States after the fall of the Berlin Wall, the U.S. government, in combination with the UN, proceeded to implement what is arguably the most brutal set of sanctions in world history. Over the course of more than a decade, the sanctions contributed to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children. Ramzi Yousef, one of the 1993 terrorists who attacked the World Trade Center, angrily cited the sanctions as one of the reasons for that attack. Later, two high UN officials resigned in protest against what they termed U.S.-government–caused genocide. The most authoritative studies have concluded that approximately 300,000 children lost their lives from infection and illness attributed to the sanctions. But when U.S. Ambassador to the UN Madeleine Albright was asked by 60 Minutes whether the deaths of the Iraqi children had been “worth it,” she answered that, yes, the deaths had been “worth it.”

Then there were the illegal “no-fly zones” over Iraq, which had been authorized by neither the U.S. Congress nor the UN. The missiles fired by U.S. warplanes in the enforcement of the “no-fly” policy killed an untold number of additional Iraqis.

Finally, there has been the brutal invasion and occupation of Iraq, a country that never attacked the United States or even threatened to do so, which has resulted in the deaths and maiming of hundreds of thousands of more Iraqis (a recent study by researchers at Johns Hopkins University put the number at more than 650,000), not to mention the conversion of Iraq into a hellhole and wasteland of violence and destruction.

It is almost incredible that, although U.S. intelligence agencies have recently concluded that the invasion of Iraq has increased the threat of terrorism against the United States, there are still U.S. officials who maintain that all the bad things that the U.S. government did in the Middle East had nothing to do with the anger and hatred that led to the 9/11 attacks. It’s all because they hate America’s “freedom and values,” not because the U.S. government has killed, tortured, abused, and humiliated people in the Middle East for years.
A deadly dead end

I could be proven wrong but my hunch is that U.S. troops will be trapped in Iraq for the near future. Since President Bush has suggested that anyone who calls for exiting Iraq is a cut-and-run coward who would put our nation in jeopardy from terrorists, the chance that he will convert himself into such a person by ordering a withdrawal from Iraq is remote.

While U.S. officials and their mainstream media supporters have been fairly successful in immunizing Americans from the horrors of the war, death has an interesting way of forcing people to face reality. The increasing number of casualties among U.S. troops has caused Americans to confront the war in Iraq, like it or not. Moreover, since Bush undoubtedly wants to continue the occupation until he leaves office, Iraqi insurgents will have plenty of time over the next two years to ensure that Iraq stays on the minds of the American people with well-planned ambushes and sniper attacks.

The Iraq intervention might well be the dead end of the pro-empire, pro-interventionist, “super-power” foreign-policy paradigm that has held our nation in its grip for decades. If so, then as the death and destruction continue to mount, Americans might well begin looking for an alternative paradigm – one that not only is workable but is also consistent with the principles of morality, liberty, and limited government on which our nation was founded.

That’s why the libertarian paradigm on foreign policy and civil liberties is so critically important. By restoring the principles of a limited-government republic, libertarianism provides a way out of the morass into which the pro-empire, pro-interventionist paradigm has plunged the nation. Returning to the founding principles of our nation, libertarians would rein in the federal government by bringing home all U.S. troops stationed overseas, including those in Iraq, South Korea, Europe, Latin America, and Japan, and discharging them into the private sector.

The libertarian paradigm also entails dismantling the enormous military-industrial complex that President Eisenhower warned us against (along with the enormous taxes that fund it), retaining a relatively small but sufficient military force. Its sole purpose would be to provide an initial defense to an invasion of the United States, until able-bodied citizen-soldiers were able to come to its assistance. Given the fact that no nation today remotely has the military capability to invade and conquer the United States, the size of such a military force would be minimal.

By the same token, libertarianism calls for unleashing the private sector – that is, the American people – to travel, trade, and interact with the people of the world. That would entail the dismantling of all sanctions and embargoes against all other countries, including Cuba, North Korea, and Iran. The private sector, not the federal sector, provides the best means of restoring America’s rightful place in the world, one which reaches out to the people of the world in friendship and harmony.

The paradigm of empire and intervention has brought our nation nothing but death, destruction, militarism, taxation, and tyranny.

The paradigm of libertarianism would restore liberty, free markets, and a constitutional republic to our land. What better way to lead the world?

May 15, 2007

[Bill McIntyre]

Good stuff.

I read that somewhere, but can't recall where. What was the source?

I think I considered posting it, but maybe I didn't because

a. no one but you would read all of it.:)

b. the others who at least scanned it would ask why I hated America.:)

[JLittle44]

Mikerotch, I deleted your name as the source of this quote, because I know you were just relaying it, not writting it.

Over the course of more than a decade, the sanctions contributed to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children. Ramzi Yousef, one of the 1993 terrorists who attacked the World Trade Center, angrily cited the sanctions as one of the reasons for that attack. Later, two high UN officials resigned in protest against what they termed U.S.-government–caused genocide. The most authoritative studies have concluded that approximately 300,000 children lost their lives from infection and illness attributed to the sanctions.
Most of this shit sounds like propaganda to me, but this statement pretty much pissed me off. Would someone please explain to me how sanctions directly contributed to their deaths? I wasn't aware that the U.S. or the U.N. for that matter was responsible for providing health care to a sovereign nation. I'm going to research it, and I would appreciate ya'lls help, but there better be some damned hard proof to back this shit up. :mad:

[mbhalihunter]

good article. With a slow economy, how could you discharge all of the soldiers into the private sector and not cause huge unemployment?

[JLittle44]

Despite the sanctions, the U.N. Constantly approved aid to those people. I suppose Sadam had nothing to do with the sanctions? If he gave two shits about his people he would have gotten things done.

http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/iwpList322/4BBFCEC7FF4B7A3CC1256B66005E0FB6

14 April 1995 Resolution 986 was adopted by the UN Security Council. Iraq subsequently refused to accept its terms.

10 December 96 The pumping of oil began under the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU). Phase I of the programme officially began.

20 March 97 The first shipment of commodities under Phase I was cleared.

2 April 97 The distribution of wheat flour began throughout the country.

9 May 97 The first medical supplies under Phase I arrived via Trebil (on the border with Jordan).

4 June 97 The Security Council adopted Resolution 1111 approving the 6-month extension of the operation and authorizing another US$2 billion in oil sales, beginning on 8 June.

8 June 97 Phase II of the programme began.

1 August 97 For the first time, Iraqis received all ten items in the monthly food basket at the levels envisaged in MoU.

October 97 The results of the FAO-WFP Special Report on Food Supply and Nutrition Assessment were published. The report found that, although the situation had improved following implementation of SCR 986, malnutrition remained a serious problem throughout Iraq.

November 97 A UNICEF report was published showing that 32% of Iraqi children under 5 were chronically malnourished, i.e. a rise of 72% since 1991.

4 December 97 The Security Council adopted Resolution 1143, formally extending the Oil-for-Food operation for another 6 months with the same ceiling of $US 2 billion in oil sales.

5 December 97 Phase III officially began.

20 January 98 The first medical contract under Phase II (vaccines for infants) was cleared at Trebil.

1 February 98 The UN Secretary General issued his Supplementary Report offering new proposals to improve the process for the approval of contracts and goods delivery. The report recommended enhancing the food basket with additional calories and animal proteins, and proposed that the ceiling of US$ 2 billion in oil sales every six months, which had proven inadequate to meet the needs of the Iraqi people, be raised to US$ 5.2 billion gross (US$3.4 billion for the humanitarian allocation).

20 February 98 The Security Council adopted Resolution 1153 in support of the Supplementary Report of the Secretary General.

19 March 98 The first shipment of food and related items under Phase III crossed the border at Trebil.

2 April 98 One year after the start of distribution of SCR 986 goods, nearly five million tonnes of foodstuffs had reached Iraq.

29 May 98 The Secretary General approved the Distribution Plan, based on a net humanitarian allocation of US 3.1 billion. This represented more than a doubling of the programme.

30 May 98 With Security Council Resolution 1153, the new and enhanced phase of Oil for Food operation began.

4 June 98 Results of a joint Ministry of Health-UN survey showed increased attendance at health-care centres and greater availability of drugs and medicines following implementation of SCR 986.

In 1999, the quantities of oil sold for the first time reached the level allowed under the programme ($5.26 billion/180 days under Phase VI). On 4 October 99, the Security Council increased the ceiling on the value of oil that Iraq is allowed to export by $3.04 billion for the 180-day period that began on 25 May. The estimated revenue for Phase VI is $7.464 billion.


All this BS blaming ourselves is out of the question. That genocidal dictator is the single cause for everything that has happened to that country. PERIOD. No body likes hearing about poor people suffering. But blaming the big-nasty-all-powerful U.S. is just a cop-out. You think the Russians put up with that kind of propaganda when they were in Afghanistan? They got their asses handed to them repeatedly and still never put up with or even acknowledged this kind of ridicule.

[apexpredator]

Read the whole thing and to tell you the truth the amount of it that rings of sound thought and good principles is amazing. The libertarian party is continually marginalized by "the two" party system. This is same reason why the party is perpetually doomed to be nothing more than the obscure voice of logical thought that few will ever embrace. When the right and left start to scare folks with libertarian drug policy, drum up fear from labor unions and endless other propaganda tactics the libs look like a bunch of cooks with the vote draw of somewhere between a Mondale and a Perot and the moral compass of a complete anarchist. I just wish that one of these days beyond all of this a few voters might at least soak up a little of the wisdom of the ideals of the libertarian party and demand as much of these qualities from whichever of the "two" they decide to vote for in the elections.

[Nate Baker]

Despite the sanctions, the U.N. Constantly approved aid to those people. I suppose Sadam had nothing to do with the sanctions? If he gave two shits about his people he would have gotten things done.

I only skimmed everything above, so forgive me if I missed the point, but I have to kind of/sort of/semi agree with this point. We heard a lot about the terrible effects of sanctions on Iraq at the time. Later we heard a lot about how, after the oil for food program was initiated, the lion's share of the proceeds was skimmed off by our late friend Sadam and a few U.N. officials, so it seems a little simplistic to blame it on the U.S. government .

[monster slayer]

Mikerotch, I deleted your name as the source of this quote, because I know you were just relaying it, not writting it.


Most of this shit sounds like propaganda to me, but this statement pretty much pissed me off. Would someone please explain to me how sanctions directly contributed to their deaths? I wasn't aware that the U.S. or the U.N. for that matter was responsible for providing health care to a sovereign nation. I'm going to research it, and I would appreciate ya'lls help, but there better be some damned hard proof to back this shit up. :mad:


That statement pretty much pissed off the Iraquies as well

[lens]

Mikerotch, I deleted your name as the source of this quote, because I know you were just relaying it, not writting it.


Most of this shit sounds like propaganda to me, but this statement pretty much pissed me off. Would someone please explain to me how sanctions directly contributed to their deaths? I wasn't aware that the U.S. or the U.N. for that matter was responsible for providing health care to a sovereign nation. I'm going to research it, and I would appreciate ya'lls help, but there better be some damned hard proof to back this shit up. :mad:


Well, with my basic grammar and vocabulary skills, the word “Contributed” means just that; a factoring element in the problem that occurred, whether a slight push or a significant part. The definition is not up for debate, but rather the multitude of the contribution.

Did we lay forth Sanctions? Yes!

Did these Sanctions turn negatively or bring any positive leeway?


It is pretty much a given and a FACT that “sanctions” do not hurt government officials or a country’s leaders whether Democratic or Tyrannical. In fact, it is proven that it only hurts the people and the citizens of that country. If you would like hard examples of this I can provide them, its pretty easy if you just open your eyes.

And YES, it is the priority of the UN and USA to provide aid to other nations, it kind of comes with the Job description of being a world leader. If you want to play daddy, you need to provide for the family. after continuos taking and taking, you have to give back a little.

I do not think it is a matter of “blame the giant almighty USA.” It is a matter of the Giant Al-mighty USA taking responsibility for its actions. What we do know could bite us in the ass in the future. I know it’s cool to say “shoot first and ask questions later,” but you eventually have to answer to those questions. And for some, the truth sucks.

Cause and Effect man. Basic principles of science.

[Mikerotch]

J, I would agree that on the surface, such statements would strike me as "shit."
Personally, I'm with you on the idea that we are NOT responsible for the livelihood of all those "women and children" on a day in and day out basis.On the other hand, when an economy is shutdown, quite effectively I might add, by the intentional shutting off of materials and services that a particular country may exclusively outsource, then the described effects are quite possible and in this case, probable. As an example, and this would certainly apply to the U.S., say South America and Africa decided to shut off the flow of coffee. Granted, coffee is not an essential item, but we would be without, nonetheless. Substitute most foods and other supplies and change the country to Iraq and there you have it.
I would join you in questioning the numbers if he is quoting U.N sources, as I have no confidence in their ability to count or tell the truth. I will e-mail Jacob and ask for his source on the numbers. Given the fact that he is Libertarian to the core and the additional fact that no group on earth holds the U.N in lower esteem than Libertarians, I suspect he is quoting somebody else's figures. I will post his response when I receive it.

Mikerotch, Wanting Our Guys Home

[Mikerotch]

All this BS blaming ourselves is out of the question. That genocidal dictator is the single cause for everything that has happened to that country. PERIOD.

No one has said that Saddam was anything but a genocidal dictator. In fact, the fact that he was such and the fact that he would likely have never come to power were it not for our support makes the argument Jacob is making all the more compelling. Most of his people obviously and rightly hated him, but our role in his coming to power lumps us in with him. The argument is successfully made that we would have less "haters" if we would simply keep our nose out of their lives and work towards developing trade and other relations with them. It is much easier to like someone if they provide you with a market for your products or products you need but can't make or make cost effectively.

Mikerotch, Free Trade Advocate

[JLittle44]

And YES, it is the priority of the UN and USA to provide aid to other nations, it kind of comes with the Job description of being a world leader. If you want to play daddy, you need to provide for the family. after continuos taking and taking, you have to give back a little.
I am in full agreement with almost everything you said except this one paragraph. We have no right, business or obligation to play daddy and the U.S. policies, or more philosophy, on policing the world has always gotten under my craw. Lead by example and cover your nuts. Nothing else. That's my foreign policy.

But all that aside, we have "taken" NOTHING. The U.S. and it's people have consistently over the years GIVEN so much that now the world expects us to give whenever there is need of anything. We give money hand over fist, aid in food and medicine, intelligence, technology, doctors, tree huggers, lawyers, and our soldiers and even civilian lives in our efforts to help. Yeah, we've stuck our nose where it doesn't belong a number of times, and no one is proud of that. But to say we need to "give back" is, I'm sorry, just a way of thinking that doesn't sit right with me based on history as I understand it.

I want our soldiers back as much as anyone. But we are where we are and we need to figure out a sensible way out.

[Bill McIntyre]

But all that aside, we have "taken" NOTHING.

That just isn't true. We have taken natural resources and exploited local populations throughout our history, as have the developed nations of Europe. The American people like to tell themselves that all we do is give, but are blind to what our big businesses and government have taken.

And as mentioned in the article, we have taken the political freedom of nations as when we overthrew Mossedegh in Iran and installed our puppet Shaw. The Iranians elected him, we took him. Why would we expect them to feel good about us or trust us?

In Chile, we overthrew the democratically elected Salvadore Allende and replaced him with a brutal dictator, Pinoche, who was responsible for the murder and disappearance of thousands of people.

In the Middle East, we have propped up repressive governments in Egypt and Saudi Arabia, so its no surprise that the people in the Middle East don't take us seriously about this "spreading democracy" stuff.

The average American is ignorant of this stuff and blind to it, but it looks different from across the borders.

[JLittle44]

Yes, that is a sensible perspective. Lots of sensible things said in the original posts by this Jacob guy too. I get a little riled up when it comes to national pride and that may blind me to some things.

John Little - planning on spending more time posting in the Bikini Thread

[toecheese]

good article. With a slow economy, how could you discharge all of the soldiers into the private sector and not cause huge unemployment?

That's exactly what we did in Iraq. Disbanded their army. Instead of having trained soldiers following orders (we'd replace their commanders) we put them on the street.

[Smudge]

You know, I hear a lot of this, "we want our soldiers back". Why don't you guys spend a little time asking the soldiers what we want? How about aking the guys pounding the dirt over there?

We all want to come home,... when the job is done. That's what I hear over and over from my buddies dodging IED's and morters. One of them came home Saturday. He's here for 10 more days and then he's going back. I aksed hem how he felt about going back. His reply? "I have to go back. We're not done. There are things we have to fix before we can come back."

This coming from a guy working at a detention center over there. He said he gets spit on, has shit and piss thrown in his face daily, gets threats every singe day, is told daily how the particular detainee in front of him is going to cut the heads off of all of his family, but his response is, "I have to go back".

What say you to that?

It's easy to say, "bring them home now!" while you're sitting in your living room watching the war on TV. We're not done folks. Let us do our job.

[lens]

We're not done. There are things we have to fix before we can come back."


What say you to that?


No problem!

I say "what do you have to get done?"

So...what say you to that?

I doubt they are going to ever be able to stop a religious war that has gone on for 1,300 years. Our Armed forces are not peace keepers, they are not hired carpenters, they are not politicians and they are not neighborhood police officers for patrolling Iraqi streets.

The troops did their job and won the battle; you know that 3 week ass whipping we gave them? And they did it to perfection! That was and is their job, thats why they are called the United states "Armed" Forces and not the United States Peace Keepers.

So again, I ask you, “What is it that they still have to get done?”

I have a few friends who want to go back too. Not because they think the job is not done, but because of their unwavering loyalty to their brethren and the psychological need to support them on the line.

[thors hammer]

I can only say that there is something more terrible than a president wich act too fast, like Bush did, and that is not acting at all..Balkan was left too burn while we europeans held conferences and meetings..is that humanism??
Today it is totally clear for most of us, living in Scandinavia..There is a clash of cultures coming up and either we do something about it ore we leave it and let our children fight it out in 50 years..(not an obtion)
Islam is our sworn enemy and it has been for the last 1500 years,Islam is a perfect opposite too western life and should be...,if you are not prepared to defend your values and way of life then you no longer deserve it..
When massmigrations take place empires fall and entire races disapear..It is Troy all over again, they just couldnt believe that an enemy was coming, not until the gates was on fire and it was too late...
Dont get me wrong i respect islam very much sometimes even envy it for its steady values and willingness to stand by its ideals, but i am a dane, a scandinavian, and we are not many left back..so all in all if you dont have an alternative solution we dont want to hear your endless critisism of those who actually go out and risk there lifes for what they believe in
I send a prayer too all the american, english and danish soldiers out there in harms way
vh casper

[Smudge]

Our Armed forces are not peace keepers, they are not hired carpenters, they are not politicians and they are not neighborhood police officers for patrolling Iraqi streets.

The troops did their job and won the battle; you know that 3 week ass whipping we gave them? And they did it to perfection! That was and is their job, thats why they are called the United states "Armed" Forces and not the United States Peace Keepers.



If you think we are not all of those things then you haven't been paying attention. We are the most capable and, more importantly, the most DYNAMIC military in the world. In my years of service I've done everything from putting out a forest fire, to stopping drug runners, to providing flood relief(three times in three different countries), to building schools, painting churches, and feeding starving children. Oh and somewhere in there I fought a war or two.

This is what we have to do. We have to get the bad people off the streets. And we are. Slowly. We have to fix the damage we did during those "3 weeks ass whipping". We have to pait the chuches and build the schools. And we are. We're just not done yet.

Haven't any of you heard of the Marshall Plan? Don't you know your history at all? Do you think Japan and Germany are what they are today because we cut and ran?? Do you think they fixed the holes all by them selves?

Oh, and try to keep the peace without a bigger stick than the next guy.

Our commanders in the field are telling the government what we need and how we need to get the job done. The idealist libertarians and democrats seem to think they know better than us in the field what needs to be done and how.

We're not doing it all right. We are making mistakes, but we're learning from them, no matter what the media wants you to think. There does need to be a better plan, but it doesn't need to include upping stakes and saying, "boy we sure ****ed that up, we had it, you got it, buh-bye!!"

I love how everyone feels they know what's going on over there by the piece meal, politically spun snippets you receive from the mass media.

If you really want to know, if you really honestly want to help get the job done, then sign up, go over and help.

Speculating on the situation through the looking glass of the media isn't helping us.

[Smudge]

I can only say that there is something more terrible than a president wich act too fast, like Bush did, and that is not acting at all..Balkan was left too burn while we europeans held conferences and meetings..is that humanism??
Today it is totally clear for most of us, living in Scandinavia..There is a clash of cultures coming up and either we do something about it ore we leave it and let our children fight it out in 50 years..(not an obtion)
Islam is our sworn enemy and it has been for the last 1500 years,Islam is a perfect opposite too western life and should be...,if you are not prepared to defend your values and way of life then you no longer deserve it..
When massmigrations take place empires fall and entire races disapear..It is Troy all over again, they just couldnt believe that an enemy was coming, not until the gates was on fire and it was too late...
Dont get me wrong i respect islam very much sometimes even envy it for its steady values and willingness to stand by its ideals, but i am a dane, a scandinavian, and we are not many left back..so all in all if you dont have an alternative solution we dont want to hear your endless critisism of those who actually go out and risk there lifes for what they believe in
I send a prayer too all the american, english and danish soldiers out there in harms way
vh casper

Thank you Casper. I've been to Denmark, Norway and Sweden in recent years. You're being overrun. Refugees are eating away at your society and I've seen it first hand. Europe's gates are burning. Ours are next.

[Bill McIntyre]

Smudge,

With all due respect, I don't think the troops are the ones to ask whether the mission is worth it. Each of them sees a very small piece of the big picture, and they have no choice but to keep a positive outlook. No one wants to believe that his death or that of his friends is meaningless and didn't further the welfare of the nation but just served to make money for companies able to get no-bid contracts from their buddies in the administration, but sometimes its true.

Brave men fighting valiantly in the wrong war doesn't make that war serve our national interest. It only wastes the brave men and weakens our ability to counter real threats.

[Smudge]

Bill, my point is that we are there now, and we made the mess. We have to clean it up. All of this hemming and hawing is after the fact.

Like I said, we, as a nation, made mistakes. But we can't just walk away from them or ask for a mulligan.

[Bill McIntyre]

Smudge- an afterthought.

Does it ever bother you the least little bit that this war was started and planned by men who had carefully avoided serving in their generation's war? I never saw Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz et all in Vietnam. They all had other priorites until it came time to send you. Does it bother you that the only one of them who had any combat experience, Powell, was the one trying to advise caution?

Does it bother you that the carefully thought out contingency plans for the invasion and occupation that had been drawn up by a Marine 4-star when he was in command of CENTCOM were thrown out the window and replaced by a plan by civilians at DOD who had never heard a shot fired in anger?

[Smudge]

Of course it does. It bothers all of us. But we are the real professionals and don't use scapegoats.

[Bill McIntyre]

My last one crossed in the mail with your last one.

It would be nice if we could clean up the mess we made, but I have doubts that its possible. Some broke things can't be put back together. It sure doesn't look like its getting any better now.

[Smudge]

But we can't not try Bill. It's not part of who we are. You know what insurmountable odds we've overcome in the past. The most frustrating thing for me in the last 13 years is how many times we've been sent in to do a job and when the cameras send the ugly truth of war home the very instant it happens, everyone gets cold feet and starts shouting, "Bring them home!". That's far more frustrating then combat dodgers.

[Bill McIntyre]

Of course it does. It bothers all of us. But we are the real professionals and don't use scapegoats.

I can relate, but that is a different subject. I expect you to follow orders and do your best at whatever task out civilian leadership sets for you, but that doesn't mean that they were right.

And of course the title is "Why They Hate Us." While the title addressed the bigger picture, I can easily see how many Iraqis that initially thought our invasion might be good for them have now come to hate us. After all, they could marry between Sunnis and Shiites and live in mixed neighborhoods, they could shop without danger of being blown up, they could dress they way they wanted, women could be educated, they had dependable electric power, etc. Thanks to us, all that is gone.

[Smudge]

I can relate, but that is a different subject. I expect you to follow orders and do your best at whatever task out civilian leadership sets for you, but that doesn't mean that they were right.

And of course the title is "Why They Hate Us." While the title addressed the bigger picture, I can easily see how many Iraqis that initially thought our invasion might be good for them have now come to hate us. After all, they could marry between Sunnis and Shiites and live in mixed neighborhoods, they could shop without danger of being blown up, they could dress they way they wanted, women could be educated, they had dependable electric power, etc. Thanks to us, all that is gone.

All that was fine if you were Sunni or Shia, but it didn't apply to the Christians and Kurds.

I won't disagree that we've made an aweful mess over there, but at this time, pointing fingers isn't going to restore reliable electricity and water...

[Smudge]

Tell you what. I deploy again next March unless I get bumped onto an IA tour when I transfer, then I'll be over sooner. If I change my mind, I'll be the first one back here with you guys pointing fingers. But right now, I'm going to remain head down and work on the solution. Fair enough??

[Mikerotch]

Thank you, Bill Mc for respectfully dealing with the attempt on Smudge's part to make himself and others feel better about the crap our illustrious leader has gotten them into. This thread was not intended to become another poll on the "war", but instead was intended to get people to look at the root cause of many of the problems we have around the world. Whenever we impose our will on others and /or make them dependant on government for subsistence, the result is always the same. Please see, Iran, Iraq, New Orleans, etc. Smudge speaks of the soldier who has various excrements hurled at him by the guy in captivity, but I must ask the question, what would each of us do if captured and locked up by a foreign invading, occupying force ? By the same token, I noticed that many were not exactly lavish with praise for the late Jerry Falwell and I know exactly why. He tried, by "political" means, to force his views and values on other people. Odd, I hold many views Jerry did, but I also believe that he erred and left his true calling when he abandoned his commission to share the Gospel and adopted a forceful means by which to achieve his "moral" end. The reason many people despised him is exactly why many Muslims despise us. Human nature doesn't lend itself to being forced into accepting other's philosophies. If Jerry had spent the last 40 years of his life the way he spent his first years, I'm quite sure he would have accomplished many more of his original goals, which by Biblical standards have eternal significance, as opposed to whatever "political" goals he achieved. In many ways, he practiced exactly what the pharisees did, and based on what Jesus had to say to those guys, I think he erred. Now I've derailed my own thread. For more on the data regarding Iraqi children, please see the following link :
http://www.fff.org/whatsNew/2004-02-09a.htm

Mikerotch, Still Wanting The Guys Home

[thors hammer]

its not pretty too look at when a great nation hesitates because of inner doubt..especially when this doubt comes from a generation who never had too fight for their values themselves..
The ultra liberals of america should realise that when they go on with their endless critisism of the administration the whole world is watching, both allies and enemies, and that has an effect..your critisism becomes the arguments for frustrated nations all over the globe..and thereby you dig your own graves..America is Rome in all its glory and horror..no superpower have ever been able too govern without abillity too go beyond the laws..it is not supposed too be like that..so stand united and take up the responsobility it is too bee the leading culture of the world.
and too Smudge..thanks and you are right..are naiv humanism is the reason for our current situation i the north...
Many hundresThousand of muslims immigrate without integrate and they disregart the culture they enter..They only choose two ways..1,the way of the frustrated afro-amrican stars on MTV wich lead too ghetto's and gangs and an enviroment that we in Denmark have no experience in dealing with. ore 2. the islamic way witch lead too radicalism and allination of the society..
we must take up this problem before we ethnically disapear like the Hawaiians ore the caucasians in USA,( please dont take it in a racism way but in aconservasional way, we are not better than anyone else, just ethnically volurnable too a multi-ethnical society)..

[Smudge]

You missed my point Crotch. I never defended what got us over there. Once again. Pay attention.

We cannot cut and run or they will hate us more. If we walk away now, then the we're done. I don't defend the CIA's foolish political meddling. I don't defend ousting Saddam. I just want us to finish what we started. We finished in Japan, We finished in Germany. We stuck it out until the job was done and it was not easy or cheap, but we did it. I have faith that we can do it again if people would just let us.

One nice thing about being in the Navy is the fact that they teach us military and political history. Shocking I know, but it's true. Go on the Navy.com website and look up the recommended reading list. I bet you would be shocked at some of the titles listed.

[lens]

Respectfully,
If you think we are not all of those things then you haven't been paying attention. We are the most capable and, more importantly, the most DYNAMIC military in the world. In my years of service I've done everything from putting out a forest fire, to stopping drug runners, to providing flood relief(three times in three different countries), to building schools, painting churches, and feeding starving children. Oh and somewhere in there I fought a war or two.

Good for you, but is not the job of the military to build Mosques in Iraq is it?

And yes I am sure you had to do all these jobs, but were they completed in the middle of a religious civil war combined with nationalist trying to get rid of occupying forces.

All of the tasks you just listed are the majority state related duties of the National Guard during disaster relief.

But I did not see you list Peace Keeper in the middle of a religious war?

This is what we have to do. We have to get the bad people off the streets. And we are. Slowly. We have to fix the damage we did during those "3 weeks ass whipping". We have to pait the chuches and build the schools. And we are. We're just not done yet.

Who are the bad people? Can you tell the difference? Please do not say the terrorist, because once again, fighting terrorism is a policing and intelligence battle. It cannot be deterred by a massive Army blanketing of one country. Terrorism is borderless.


Haven't any of you heard of the Marshall Plan? Don't you know your history at all? Do you think Japan and Germany are what they are today because we cut and ran?? Do you think they fixed the holes all by them selves?

Apparently you do not know your history to well by trying to compare WW I or II to Iraq! So I will leave that one alone and let someone else comment on that.

Oh, and try to keep the peace without a bigger stick than the next guy.

Try to keep peace when you are not trained to be a peace keeper, and the people you are protecting do not want you there, and do not care for human life in such a way that they offer up their kids for suicide bombers! Can't hold the big stick when your hands blown off by an IED.


Our commanders in the field are telling the government what we need and how we need to get the job done. The idealist libertarians and democrats seem to think they know better than us in the field what needs to be done and how.

I guess all these US Generals complaining that Bush did not give them what they needed at the start, and that the Admin did not take any advice are not telling the truth?


We're not doing it all right. We are making mistakes, but we're learning from them, no matter what the media wants you to think. There does need to be a better plan, but it doesn't need to include upping stakes and saying, "boy we sure ****ed that up, we had it, you got it, buh-bye!!"

No one blames the troops, like I said, they did their job. The Admin Fu@%ed up the rest.

If you really want to know, if you really honestly want to help get the job done, then sign up, go over and help.

I am glad you served our country and thank you for your service in Iraq, and respect your point of view, but nowhere does it say I have to agree with it.

Me, I had a full paid athletic scholarship to college. I am one of the so called Educated Elitist that does not know anything. And last I learned in my edumacation, Nation Building and Political Coercion is not included in Basic Training for the Military.

But in the mean time, I will thank my father who recently retired, along with my aunt, two cousins and six friends that email me once a week from Iraq. And hope for the best that they and all others come home safe.

[Mikerotch]

Thors, you related to Hitler or Mussolini ?

no superpower have ever been able too govern without abillity too go beyond the laws.

This is one of the more amazing statements I have witnessed. A dictator's dream. We don't need to govern anyone but ourselves, and that should be minimized. It is the freedom we have enjoyed that gave us the capacity to become a "superpower".

it is not supposed too be like that..so stand united and take up the responsobility it is too bee the leading culture of the world.

Perhaps you could enlighten us on how "it" is supposed to be. And while you're at it, just who decides what responsibilities we have because of our past success with regard to culture? When do we get the "bill" for our successes and how much is it going to be?

Mikerotch, Didn't Know The Whole Deal

[Mikerotch]

You missed my point Crotch. I never defended what got us over there. Once again. Pay attention

Smudge, I'm trying to pay attention. The thread was, again, not a poll or commentary on the current Charlie Foxtrot in Iraq. If I get your drift, it appears you would agree with the premise that our founding fathers were so adamant about, that is, avoid entangling alliances, and stay out of the rest of the world's problems. I will leave the subject we obviously disagree on, that is what to do with the Charlie Foxtrot, for another thread. I will say; however, that a wise man once said "Never do the same thing over and over and expect different results." With that said, another 3,500 of our finest dead and another 1/2 Trillion dollars is not going to fix what we broke.

Mikerotch, It's Rotch, By The Way, Crotch Sounds Demeaning

[Smudge]

Respectfully,


Good for you, but is not the job of the military to build Mosques in Iraq is it?



Whose job is it? I blew up the Mosque. You gonna fix it?



And yes I am sure you had to do all these jobs, but were they completed in the middle of a religious civil war combined with nationalist trying to get rid of occupying forces.



Ever been to East Timor??



All of the tasks you just listed are the majority state related duties of the National Guard during disaster relief.



Who's talking about the National Guard? I'm active duty Navy...



But I did not see you list Peace Keeper in the middle of a religious war?



My resume reads like a book.



Who are the bad people? Can you tell the difference? Please do not say the terrorist, because once again, fighting terrorism is a policing and intelligence battle. It cannot be deterred by a massive Army blanketing of one country. Terrorism is borderless.



We are the police force right now, whether we like it or not.

I'm telling you man. Spend some time over there. Being able to tell the difference keeps you alive.




Apparently you do not know your history to well by trying to compare WW I or II to Iraq! So I will leave that one alone and let someone else comment on that.




Apparently your reading comprehension has suffered since graduating. I was comparing the clean up after the wars rather than the fighting or the reason we got into the war. Why is no one able to see this? Am I speaking Farsi??



Try to keep peace when you are not trained to be a peace keeper, and the people you are protecting do not want you there, and do not care for human life in such a way that they offer up their kids for suicide bombers!



I do it everyday.



Can't hold the big stick when your hands blown off by an IED.



I can't really go into the IED and RIED issue but lets just say I know a few things that you don't. Not being a smartass here. It has to do with what I do. That's all.



No one blames the troops, like I said, they did their job.



Once again, we're STILL doing our job. It's not done.





Me, I had a full paid athletic scholarship to college. I am one of the so called Educated Elitist that does not know anything. And last I learned in my edumacation, Nation Building and Political Coercion is not included in Basic Training for the Military.



If I relied only on what I learned in bootcamp, I'd be dead. How much of what you learned in college applies directly to your current occupation??



I don't want you to agree with me. If everone just rolled over and agreed I'd say we're in more trouble than I thought.

Thank you for your very specific concerns and comments. And thank your friends and family for their service. And believe it or not, thank you for taking that full ride and getting educated. If you didn't, this nation would be weaker. Education is key.

[Smudge]

With that said, another 3,500 of our finest dead and another 1/2 Trillion dollars is not going to fix what we broke.

Mikerotch, It's Rotch, By The Way, Crotch Sounds Demeaning


Sorry about the Crotch, Rotch.

Do you really believe pulling out right now will fix things?

I agree that we shouldn't have gone in there, but the fact remains that we are indeed very much in there.

[lens]

Apparently your reading comprehension has suffered since graduating. I was comparing the clean up after the wars rather than the fighting or the reason we got into the war. Why is no one able to see this? Am I speaking Farsi??

All the rest was opinion verses opinion. One does not have to be in the “military” in “Iraq” to see what is going on. I was actually in Europe in late 2002 after finishing my Masters Degree. I had just received my certificate as a member of the AP or rather the News Media Guild as a photographer, and was immediately assigned. So needless to say, I saw it before it got all ****ed up and witnessed the downward spiral right up in the front row on the fifty yard line. Never the less, I was just a worthless photo journalist that does not know anything. Glad I left that job, the pay sucked. :D

But I will go back to this comment. I know exactly what you were referring to and chose to leave it alone. But since you insist?

After the two great wars we had “help” with rebuilding. Notice the word “help.” And with that, our help was “wanted” and supported by the nations we were rebuilding. And we were “helped” by other nations as a whole. Last but not least, we were not trying to rebuild (notice I did not say build) a nation with 1,300 year old religious beef going on around us. You can’t help people that will not help themselves.

we could get into comparisons to Vietnam if you want?

My views on this war are not politicaly related. I am just being a realist.

[thors hammer]

Dear mike i try not too bee affended by your comparision with Hitler. Most of my family died in the camps of germany for fighting for Denmark against nazism and too protect the jewish minority
Today i live in a city where jews are being targeted once again.this time by anti-american punkers ore islamic gangs..the liberals of denmark are allmost stalinistic in there antisemitism so therfor they find a good forum for agreement with radical islam..
You seem too think that war is inhuman but thats wrong..If there is anything war is, then its human..no other animal could come up with something that horrible..The european freedom and demokracy today is build on war and your fathers blood by the way, so is all other nations in this world..you seem too think its a brutal way of thinking but all it takes is for mee too burst into your home ore push you arround for a bit and then you would feel the natural instinct too answer back using other things than that twisted thung of yours!!..We all carry the natural war-instinct inside us, just because we now live in major cities and dress ina tie dosent change our nature!!!!
you can still be proud of your ethnicallity without hating everyone else its a shame yo cant see the middleway...A nazi is a anti-nationalist and a traitor too his queen and land.
a traitor is also a person undermining a project wich is difficult but nesserary

[Bill McIntyre]

you seem too think its a brutal way of thinking but all it takes is for mee too burst into your home ore push you arround for a bit and then you would feel the natural instinct too answer back using other things than that twisted thung of ours


Iraqis didn't burst into our home. The most numberous of those who did were Saudis. We didn't invade Saudi Arabia.

[Mikerotch]

Sorry about the Crotch, Rotch.

No offense, forgive my unending sarcasm. For those that don't know, I'm really not a Rotch. My real name is Ben Dover. Each time I get a call from a government entity, they say "Ben Dover, it's for you."

Do you really believe pulling out right now will fix things?

Never said that. I do believe; however, that the Iraqi people know better how to take care of themselves than we do. As a former "radical conservative" for lack of a better term, I find it amazing that those in the "conservative" movement can constantly decry government on the one hand ( when dealing with domestic issues ) and somehow believe that the very same government will have different results when applying their will by force in foreign lands. And by the way, there are plenty of guys on this board who are paying out the you know what for not pulling out sooner.

Mikerotch, Thinks Government Pretty Much Sucks Everywhere.

[thors hammer]

my point is this,,iraq is just a vissible statement of the ongoing conflict between islam and the west. this conflict takes place in the suburbs of europe asswell as in the states. It goes on in Iraq and Afghanistan and many other places..this is a struglle for values and a way og life and only the ones who stand ferm will survive this turmoule...Iraq needs to be fought for a number of reasons one of them being that its a testground of the will between two opposites...

[Smudge]

My views on this war are not politicaly related. I am just being a realist.

Me too!! :thumps:

[Bill McIntyre]

my point is this,,iraq is just a vissible statement of the ongoing conflict between islam and the west. this conflict takes place in the suburbs of europe asswell as in the states. It goes on in Iraq and Afghanistan and many other places..this is a struglle for values and a way og life and only the ones who stand ferm will survive this turmoule...Iraq needs to be fought for a number of reasons one of them being that its a testground of the will between two opposites...

We were told the same about Vietnam. It was a test between Godless Communism and our pure values. If Vietnam fell, the rest of Asia would fall like dominoes. It was bullshit then, and its bullshit now.

Your choice of user name leads me to believe that you have been fantasizing too much about your glorious Viking ancestors.

[Mikerotch]

Not to further derail down Vietnam road, but our relations with that country are better now than they have been in a long time and it has developed through the use of trade and economic activity as opposed to napalm and lead. Not that there is never a time for napalm and lead, but I would submit that those times are extremely few and far between.

Mikerotch, Back From Vietnam

[thors hammer]

hehe you boys..Thor is a very common name in Scandinavia adn can only mean one thing..YES we are proud of our heritage and our ethnicality( dont forget we brought you blonds). USA in generell is not aware of the situation in europe because of its lack of interest..but we have a serious problem with integration of not immigrants, but muslim immigrants..that has nothing to do with racism but alot to do with clash of cultures.
Communism viewed through the world history, was mearly a short brake from the long and ongoing fight with islam..
The islamic Umma should be helped on its feet so that all could seperate as friends and the western culture survive as it was intended..this is the only alternative if we are not going too fight it out..

[Smudge]

..but we have a serious problem with integration of not immigrants, but muslim immigrants..that has nothing to do with racism but alot to do with clash of cultures.



I saw a lot of this while living in Europe. It's really bad folks. I'm not trying to be alarmist either.

It is starting here as well. The cabbies at the Minneapolis International Airport for instance...

[chuam]

I think a big point a lot of you guys are missing is why Islam is the problem right now. The largest muslim country (Indonesia) is a much more peaceful country and brand of muslim. Most of the problems we have with Islam is in the Wahaabist (sp) sect. This is the sect from Saudi Arabia that believes in a strict reading of the Quran and wanting to go back 2000 years. It is Saudi money that is funding the growth of Wahaabist Islam. Go to mosques around the world that are being built and there are plaques that say thanks to the Saudis for sending money to build the mosque. A majority of the terrorists were saudis.

If we want to stop the conflict between Islam and the world we need for the moderates in Islam to take a step forward. There is no way we can do this with our current foreign policy.

[Bill McIntyre]

If we want to stop the conflict between Islam and the world we need for the moderates in Islam to take a step forward. There is no way we can do this with our current foreign policy.

Bingo, and now we have finally come back to the title of the thread.

[thors hammer]

too round it up on Iraq and the government of the USA..Wether it was good ore bad too go into Iraq and kill Saddam can be debated.. but we are there now and it leaves us with two choices 1. we sit in our sofas and watch on tv as they kill eachother off 2. we go in and try to make a difference

I for one is happy too live in a country wich has a free democracy thanks too the young men from america who went in and fought brutally and without mercy against thoose who didnt have any mercy, the nazi's...
Likewise in the fight against global terror and radical islam you cannot defend the soft liberal values without and ironfist against thoose who are not soft but hardend and tuff, and set on destroying what you build...

[thors hammer]

all major mosqes in Denmark is financed by Saudi arabia..the wahabiis is the climing majority in muslim europe

[Bill McIntyre]

And once more trying to stay with the theme of the thread, I thought that some of those "soft liberal values" included letting other nations choose their own leaders and way of life rather than participating in assassination of their leaders and installing our own favorites.

But wait, maybe that was a soft Libertarian value- its so confusing.

[thors hammer]

The UN is based on the promise by all nations never too let a dictator kill and upress his people...this promise goes for Saddam aswell ass for Hitler ore MIlosovic and Bill..Im all for the soft liberal values this is why i think we must stand ferm and protect them from radicalism wether its from the christian fundamentalist of the mid-west in USA( but they are not really the problem here are they??) ore its the fundamentalist from the middle-east.
There is a time for peace and a time for war...

[chuam]

The UN is based on the promise by all nations never too let a dictator kill and upress his people...this promise goes for Saddam aswell ass for Hitler ore MIlosovic and Bill..Im all for the soft liberal values this is why i think we must stand ferm and protect them from radicalism wether its from the christian fundamentalist of the mid-west in USA( but they are not really the problem here are they??) ore its the fundamentalist from the middle-east.
There is a time for peace and a time for war...

The problem is our foreign policy HAS supported these dictators. We supported the shah of Iran, we supported Saddam, we supported Pinoche with our foreign policy. We need to rethink our foreign policy and the way our previous errors are coming back and biting us in the ass.

[thors hammer]

The american foreign policy can be debated and surely improved, but when you ditch the inhuman way the CIA conduct their buisness i only ask..They are bad compared too what?? What global power has ever had a nice and polite intelligence service. The USA is doing a better job than the previous worldpower..The Sovjets ore the british..no doubt there is room for improvement, it can be done better, but im personaly grateful that the OSS(pre-CIA) made and effort too dominate my land in 1945 otherwise we danes would have been left for the Sovjets and death under the communism...
i dont mean that in an red-neck way but in a " i grew up with the Berlin-wall"-kind of way..there is nothing glamouros about that kind of regime ore ideologi and even though the over exposed amercian soap-culture can sometimes provoke us europeans i think most of us have no doubt of witch foreign policy we would go with..if it came too that...
You didnt create Pinoche ore Saddam ore the Shah of Iran (who by the way was no dictator,but an persian democrat)..they were there acting out their piece of world history all you did was trying too control their ambitions and directions..get over it and move on..your strength and will is needed in the world today..and maybe..just maybe the current problems are not due to only bad strategies but also lack of will and support among the citizens of the new Rome

When i wright that you americans should stand united i mean it in the sence that your culture is the role model for the rest of the world..The rest of the world is watching you and if you hesitates then so does the rest of world..(for example when a attention seeking american democrat says that the war is lost, just to prove some domestic issue)......and about Iraq..can you "pull e'm home" people outthere really imagine yourselfs watching it on the news as the iraqis kill eachother off because WE went home in the name of peace..and second do you think that the foreign policy/intelligence operations would be less cruel if the troops werent there??

Yeasterday another danish soldier was killed in Iraq by Shia's in an ambush and that hurts my heart to loose a fellow-countryman, but if we are not there then the enemy will come too us(the number of terror-cells would climb dramatically) and so therfore the boys outthere are basically fighting for our security so that we can sit here and debate them..i think that deserves a little respect....a little standing ferm!!

[Mikerotch]

The american foreign policy can be debated and surely improved

That was the whole point.


Mikerotch, Glad You Got it

[Mikerotch]

I read that somewhere, but can't recall where. What was the source?

Sorry Bill, I forgot to answer your question. The source is my favorite non-spearfishing website, http://www.lewrockwell.com/. Jacob has done about 200 articles that are all archived and extremely good reading.

Mikerotch, Jacob Fan

[Bill McIntyre]

Here is another one in the same vein from the same source, sent to me by a retired Marine Gunnery Sergeant today.
********************************
Ron Paul Said It


by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.


DIGG THIS

Plenty of reasonable people can disagree about foreign policy. What's really strange is when one reasonable position is completely and forcibly excluded from the public debate.

Such was the case after 9-11. Every close observer of the events of those days knows full well that these crimes were acts of revenge for US policy in the Muslim world. The CIA and the 911 Commission said as much, the terrorists themselves proclaimed it, and Osama underscored the point by naming three issues in particular: US troops in Saudi Arabia, US sanctions against Iraq, and US funding of Israeli expansionism.

So far as I know, Ron Paul is the only prominent public figure in the six years since who has given an honest telling of this truth. The explosive exchange occurred during the Republican Presidential debate in South Carolina.

Ron was asked if he really wants the troops to come home, and whether that is really a Republican position.

"Well," he said, "I think the party has lost its way, because the conservative wing of the Republican Party always advocated a noninterventionist foreign policy. Senator Robert Taft didn't even want to be in NATO. George Bush won the election in the year 2000 campaigning on a humble foreign policy – no nation-building, no policing of the world. Republicans were elected to end the Korean War. The Republicans were elected to end the Vietnam War. There's a strong tradition of being anti-war in the Republican party. It is the constitutional position. It is the advice of the Founders to follow a non-interventionist foreign policy, stay out of entangling alliances, be friends with countries, negotiate and talk with them and trade with them."

He was then asked if 9-11 changed anything. He responded that US foreign policy was a "major contributing factor. Have you ever read the reasons they attacked us? They attacked us because we've been over there; we've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We've been in the Middle East – I think Reagan was right. We don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. So right now we're building an embassy in Iraq that's bigger than the Vatican. We're building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting. We need to look at what we do from the perspective of what would happen if somebody else did it to us. "

And then out of the blue, he was asked whether we invited the attacks.

"I'm suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it, and they are delighted that we're over there because Osama bin Laden has said, 'I am glad you're over on our sand because we can target you so much easier.' They have already now since that time – have killed 3,400 of our men, and I don't think it was necessary."

Then the very archetype of the State Enforcer popped up to shout him down.

"That's really an extraordinary statement," said Rudy Giuliani. "That's an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of September 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don't think I've heard that before, and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th."

Now, this is interesting because it is obvious that Ron never said that we invited the attacks. This was a lie. He said the US foreign policy was a "contributing factor" in why they attacked us, a fact which only a fool or a liar could deny. Guiliani then went on to say that he has never "heard that before" – a statement that testifies to the extent of the blackout on this question.

Ron Paul was invited to respond, and concluded as follows:

"I believe very sincerely that the CIA is correct when they teach and talk about blowback. When we went into Iran in 1953 and installed the shah, yes, there was blowback. A reaction to that was the taking of our hostages and that persists. And if we ignore that, we ignore that at our own risk. If we think that we can do what we want around the world and not incite hatred, then we have a problem. They don't come here to attack us because we're rich and we're free. They come and they attack us because we're over there. I mean, what would we think if we were – if other foreign countries were doing that to us?"

Wow, he broke the great taboo in American political life! Why this should be a taboo at all is unclear, but there it is. But now that it is finally out in the open, this shocking theory that the terrorists were not merely freedom-hating madmen but perhaps had some actual motive for their crime, let's think a bit more about it.

It is a normal part of human experience that if you occupy, meddle, bully, and coerce, people who are affected by it all are going to get angry. You don't have to be Muslim to get the point. The problem is that most of the American people simply have no idea what has been happening in the last ten years. Most Americans think that America the country is much like their own neighborhood: peaceful, happy, hard working, law abiding. So when you tell people that the US is actually something completely different, they are shocked.

Why would anyone hate us? The problem is that the military wing of the US government is very different from your neighborhood. After the Soviet Union crashed, US elites declared themselves masters of the universe, the only "indispensable nation" and the like. All countries must ask the US for permission to have a nuclear program. If we don't like your government, we can overthrow it. Meanwhile, we sought a global empire unlike any in history: not just a sphere of interest but the entire world. Laurence Vance has the details but here is the bottom line: one-third of a million deployed troops in 134 countries in 1000 locations in foreign countries.

All during the 1990s, the US attempted to starve the population of Iraq, with the result of hundreds of thousands of deaths. Madelyn Albright said on national television that the deaths of 500,000 children (the UN's number) was "worth it" in order to achieve our aims, which were ostensibly the elimination of non-existent, non-US built weapons of mass destruction. Yes, that annoyed a few people. There were constant bombings in Iraq all these years. And let us not forget how all this nonsense began: the first war in 1989 was waged in retaliation for a US-approved Iraqi invasion of its former province, Kuwait. Saddam had good reason to think that the US ambassador was telling the truth about non-interference with Kuwait relations: Saddam was our ally all through the Iran-Iraq war and before.

Ron spoke about complications of the Middle East. One of them is that the enemy we are now fighting, the Islamic extremists, are the very group that we supported and subsidized all through the 1980s in the name of fighting Communism. That's the reason the US knows so much about their bunkers and hiding spots in Afghanistan: US taxdollars created them.

Now, I know this is a lot for the tender ears of Americans to take, who like to think that their government reflects their own values of faith, freedom, and friendliness. But here is the point that libertarians have been trying to hammer home for many years: the US government is the enemy of the American people and their values. It is not peaceful, it is not friendly, it is not motivated by the Christian faith but rather power and imperial lust.

Ron is such a wonderful person that I'm sorry that he had to be the one to tell the truth. One could sense in the debate that he was making an enormous sacrifice here. After Guiliani spoke, the red-state fascists in the audience all started whooping up the bloodlust that the politicians have been encouraging for the last six years – a mindless display of Nazi-like nationalism that would cause the founding fathers to shudder with fear of what we've become. These people are frantic about terrorism and extremism abroad, but they need to take a good hard look in the mirror.

Thank you, Ron, for doing this. We are all in your debt.

May 17, 2007

Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. [ send him mail] is president of the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama, editor of LewRockwell.com, and author of Speaking of Liberty.

Copyright © 2007 LewRockwell.com

Lew Rockwell Archives






Find this article at:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/paul-said-it.html