Question for Mike

[nashvillegoldenflash]

Mike, I believe you once stated that you can identify with libertarians. So please read the following criticism of libertarian foreign policy by Charles Krauthammer and give me your argument for isolationism in a world dominated by terrorists.


Stigmatizing this strategy with the epithet of isolationism, Krauthammer repeats the familiar charge against libertarians that they are naïve about foreign policy:


The Paulites, pining for the splendid isolation of the 19th century, want to leave the world alone on the assumption that it will then leave us alone. Which rests on the further assumption that international stability - open sea lanes, free commerce, relative tranquillity - comes naturally, like the air we breathe. If only that were true. Unfortunately, stability is not a matter of grace. It comes about only by Great Power exertion.

 

[Blueraider_Mike]

I see CK argument. But I also know there are places in the world that are a mess and we will never fix or better stated,- we don't have the will to fix because political winds are always changing.

Example, I just re watched the Vietnam series from the history channel. We didn't lose the war, we just quit. And for some reason the people we try to help (S. Vietmam in this case, or the Iraq in the modern sense) cannot seem to get this s&^%! together despite how much money we spend. Why can't other countries fight? 58,000 Americans dead and we just left, imagine having the serve and you knew we were not there to win but slowing withdraw.

As I have gotten older I am open to different approaches; specifically with the middle east. I would draw a redline around Israel. I would harvest our own energy and sell it to the free world. I would be open to helping Muslims who are willing to fight the extremists. But the idea of an American army in place on their soil is not acceptable unless we are going there to win. The idea of buying any of their energy is ridiculous. Think about the Trillions we have spent in the ME since the first gulf war and for what? Imagine if that money was invested here.

In these areas, there is a lot of grey. There is only so much we can do.

 

[nashvillegoldenflash]

Do you believe that Iran should have a nuclear bomb?

 

[bigbadjohn45]

Originally posted by Blueraider_Mike:
I see CK argument. But I also know there are places in the world that are a mess and we will never fix or better stated,- we don't have the will to fix because political winds are always changing.

Example, I just re watched the Vietnam series from the history channel. We didn't lose the war, we just quit. And for some reason the people we try to help (S. Vietmam in this case, or the Iraq in the modern sense) cannot seem to get this s&^%! together despite how much money we spend. Why can't other countries fight? 58,000 Americans dead and we just left, imagine having the serve and you knew we were not there to win but slowing withdraw.

As I have gotten older I am open to different approaches; specifically with the middle east. I would draw a redline around Israel. I would harvest our own energy and sell it to the free world. I would be open to helping Muslims who are willing to fight the extremists. But the idea of an American army in place on their soil is not acceptable unless we are going there to win. The idea of buying any of their energy is ridiculous. Think about the Trillions we have spent in the ME since the first gulf war and for what? Imagine if that money was invested here.

In these areas, there is a lot of grey. There is only so much we can do.

Mike, pardon for me breaking in your's and Flash's discussion, but you raised an interesting point in your response about energy independence. Without question, this country's economy would improve exponentially if we were to become energy independent. My belief is that the socialists in our government (mainly Democrats with a good smattering of RINO's) is staunchly against this happening. I detailed the reasons for this belief in a previous post which I'll repost in pertinent part:

"Cheap energy is the primary driver of a successful CAPITALIST economy. And that is the problem greenies have with Keystone and every other energy initiative. It will promote capitalism and a successful economy. Have you never wondered why every solution to global warming or climate change or whatever the malaise of the day is involves taxing the wealthy countries and successful companies? Greenies don't care about the environment. It's a concept that is too large for them to even comprehend. All they care about is controlling and manipulating the economy so that everyone is equally miserable and therefore subject to the State for their daily needs. It is all about control.

Why do you suppose the EPA issues massive amounts of regulation that kill business? Having waded through the myriad regulations of the EPA, it is abundantly clear that clean air and clean water, while the stated purpose of the agency, is not even a blip on the radar of the greenies promulgating those regulations. It is all about control of the company and control of the economy. The government cannot force you to live the way it wants you to, eat what it thinks you should, have the health care it believes you should have, drive the vehicle it wants you to, or be otherwise completely dependent on your proper lords and masters in the government if you have your own wealth. Energy independence is anathema to the Left precisely because it gives more people control of their own wealth. Making even the rich dependent on the state is exactly the transformation of America that Obama and his fellow travelers have longed for since Woodrow Wilson."

This post was edited on 2/10 12:54 PM by bigbadjohn45

 

[MTLynn]

Ask yourself what is the truth and what is a lie? And WHO is telling you?

If you listen to our great military men they all make statements with a similar theme - and MacArthur states it succinctly:

"Talk of imminent threat to our national security through the application of external force is pure nonsense." General Douglas MacArthur, speech to the Michigan legislature in Lansing, Michigan May 15, 1952

 

[Blueraider_Mike]

Originally posted by nashvillegoldenflash:
Do you believe that Iran should have a nuclear bomb?

I don't believe they should but honestly don't know if I would be willing to spill "enough" American blood to prevent them.

American despite all her resources cannot prevent the world from becoming a more dangerous place. We are a divided country on these issues. I am not trying to be naive, but how do we prevent them? If would take more than just a few hundred thousand soldiers to invade Iran. I don't think we have the "will" to prevent them.

 

[nashvillegoldenflash]

Mike, I appreciate your response and want to preface my rejoinder first by telling you how much I respect your opinion. You seem rational on many of the issues so I just wanted to pose this question to get your thoughts. I understand your view of Vietnam because I served during the Vietnam era although I was never in the conflict. Because the U.S. stopped sending new troops to Vietnam in April of 1972, I missed the opportunity to serve in Nam since I didn't enlist until the summer of 1972 after graduating from high school. My motivation for going there to fight was precipitated when people came to my high school in 1969 asking students to write letters to Hanoi protesting the treatment of our POWs. When I saw the barbaric conditions our POWs were in, I was furious and wanted "payback". I saw photos of our men hogtied in cages and it enraged me so much that at that time I had pure unadulterated hatred for the North Vietnamese. I was skeptical that students writing letters of protest would really make any difference but we were told that when thousands of letters were flowing into Hanoi everyday, the conditions for our POWs were improving. The only reason that I am sharing this with you is so you can understand why I have always taken a hawkish position on national defense. My reaction to the mistreatment of our POWs in 1969 was similar to the reaction that Chris Kyle had when he first saw the twin towers go down on 9/11. Just like many of our 18-year old red-blooded American boys in the late 60s and early 70s, I wanted payback and was more than willing to go to NAM to get revenge. But when Saigon finally fell in 1975, I was deeply saddened but felt fortunate that I was spared the Vietnam experience given the final outcome. I have always thought that perhaps I might have lost much of my warrior attitude toward war had I been in combat but since I never ever had the experience I will never know. But to this day, I still love to hear the sound of a squadron of military choppers flying above. I really can't explain the feeling I get when I hear them. Perhaps it's similar to the scene in Apocalypse now when Kilgore says, "I love the smell of napalm in the morning. It smells like victory." However, I admit it's not to this extreme.

I agree with you that America does not have the will to fight ISIS or against any enemy for that matter. As a veteran, it saddens me to see the United States become another passive country like France. To think how Reagan won the Cold War without firing a shot because he believed in peace through strength and now the U.S. military strength has diminished so much that no one has any respect for our country anymore. We give Pakistan a billion dollars a year and that shit country just spits in our face because its leaders have no respect for our country. Pakistan still has the doctor in prison who helped pinpoint bin Laden's location and our esteemed leader does nothing about it.

I agree the country is divided on Foreign Policy but it is also divided on economic policy as well. Frankly, I don't see much hope in this changing anytime soon.

Once again I appreciate your love for our country even though we may differ in our approach in dealing with our nation's enemies. God bless

 

[MTLynn]

Originally posted by nashvillegoldenflash:
We give Pakistan a billion dollars a year and that shit country just spits in our face because its leaders have no respect for our country.

The Federal Reserve gave Moammar Gadhafi $26 billion in near-zero interest loans that was exempted from sanctions when the US started bombing.

Corruption is the rule - not the exception in Washington. Don't believe anything they tell you.

 

[bigbadjohn45]

Flash, I read your response to Mike and I just wanted to thank you for your service to our country. Whether you actually served in 'Nam or not, your service is very much appreciated in my book.

It sounds as like we're very similar in age. I graduated from high school in May 1974, and I only had to register and carry a selective service card as the draft had ended. My Dad insisted I go to college--and I did (at MTSU)--so I never spent time in the military. I still have the upmost respect and appreciation for those who serve and have served.

Thanks again, my friend.

--BBJ
This post was edited on 2/11 7:52 AM by bigbadjohn45

 

[nashvillegoldenflash]

BBJ, I appreciate your appreciation. Another time I felt the need to serve was during Desert Storm. I remember watching the final hour before the war began. As you know the United States issued an ultimatum to Saddam Hussein to leave Kuwait by January 15,1991 or face a full attack by the multinational force. January 15 came and went with no response from the Iraqis. The next night Desert Shield became Desert Storm. Prior to our assault, I prayed that Hussein would finally give in and decide to leave Kuwait but at midnight when no word came in of his withdraw, a tear rolled down my face because I knew that some American lives would be lost. But once the fight was on, I was excited and truly wanted to be a part of Desert Storm. When watching the tanks advance towards Baghdad, I couldn't help feel the euphoria. As you can tell, I'm a very emotional man. In deep prayer, tears often come easy for me. I'm not comparing myself to General Patton but he also was a very emotional man. As you know, his men called him, "Blood and Guts", but he was known to weep openly at times. Given my strong emotions, I have always questioned whether I could hold up well in battle. Not because of fear of my own death but seeing my buddies killed in action. At any rate, I appreciate your support of our men and women who serve our country. Although you never served in the military, your respect and honor of our servicemen is commendable. God bless

 

[bigbadjohn45]

Originally posted by nashvillegoldenflash:


BBJ, I appreciate your appreciation. Another time I felt the need to serve was during Desert Storm. I remember watching the final hour before the war began. As you know the United States issued an ultimatum to Saddam Hussein to leave Kuwait by January 15,1991 or face a full attack by the multinational force. January 15 came and went with no response from the Iraqis. The next night Desert Shield became Desert Storm. Prior to our assault, I prayed that Hussein would finally give in and decide to leave Kuwait but at midnight when no word came in of his withdraw, a tear rolled down my face because I knew that some American lives would be lost. But once the fight was on, I was excited and truly wanted to be a part of Desert Storm. When watching the tanks advance towards Baghdad, I couldn't help feel the euphoria. As you can tell, I'm a very emotional man. In deep prayer, tears often come easy for me. I'm not comparing myself to General Patton but he also was a very emotional man. As you know, his men called him, "Blood and Guts", but he was known to weep openly at times. Given my strong emotions, I have always questioned whether I could hold up well in battle. Not because of fear of my own death but seeing my buddies killed in action. At any rate, I appreciate your support of our men and women who serve our country. Although you never served in the military, your respect and honor of our servicemen is commendable. God bless

You're very welcome, sir!

With regard to national security, let's face it, if we don't protect and secure our borders, all other issues are irrelevant. Obama has failed miserably in this regard and has exacerbated the problem with his recent, illegal executive order.

So, in your view, what would you do if you were Senate Majority Leader McConnell at this juncture? Obviously, the onus has been placed on the Senate to move the House bill that fully funds DHS but does NOT fund Obama's EO. Should McConnell change the rules and nuke the fillibuster as Harry Reid did? Should he allow the bill to stay as is which will lead to a total defunding of DHS as of February 27?

 

[MTLynn]

Originally posted by bigbadjohn45:
With regard to national security, let's face it, if we don't protect and secure our borders, all other issues are irrelevant. Obama has failed miserably in this regard and has exacerbated the problem with his recent, illegal executive order.

The borders have never been secure. THAT alone should tell you there is little threat to our national security.

 

[nashvillegoldenflash]

BBJ, if I were McConnell I would stop the filibuster and have them vote on H.R. 240 for DHS funding. I would tell them you either care about our country and what the vast majority of the electorate want-- no executive amnesty-- or you care about illegal immigrants-- choose. The vital function of the DHS, protecting our nation from threats, especially external, are infinitely more important than amnesty for illegal immigrants.






Great Job So Far, Sen. McConnell.

 

[bigbadjohn45]

Originally posted by nashvillegoldenflash:
BBJ, if I were McConnell I would stop the filibuster and have them vote on H.R. 240 for DHS funding. I would tell them you either care about our country and what the vast majority of the electorate want-- no executive amnesty-- or you care about illegal immigrants-- choose. The vital function of the DHS, protecting our nation from threats, especially external, are infinitely more important than amnesty for illegal immigrants.

Flash, thanks for sharing the article.

I guess the big question is whether or not McConnell can change the rules to enable a simply majority to pass the bill and suspend the filibuster. Can he do this? Former Majority Leader Harry Reid did so on the judicial appointments (excluding Supreme Court nominees).

 

[nashvillegoldenflash]

Proud to stand with House and Senate colleagues to say we must fund DHS and stop President Obama's illegal amnesty! --Senator Ted Cruz

 

[bigbadjohn45]

Originally posted by nashvillegoldenflash:
Proud to stand with House and Senate colleagues to say we must fund DHS and stop President Obama's illegal amnesty! --Senator Ted Cruz

Flash, I hate to say this, but as sure as I'm writing this, I believe the Republicans will cave and send a clean DHS funding bill to Obama. They haven't got the backbone to defy him. They're more concerned with what a potential government shutdown might do to their image than doing what's best for our nation. How sad is that?