You're not really a "9/11 truther," are you?? At any rate, I find it interesting that people 'ask people they know' or talk to members of their own family to form opinions on the military and diplomatic actions overseas, yet I can talk first-hand. Clearly mentioning that one has this experience is a sure fire way to draw a target on your back and have people accuse you of being a "liar," (not you, Iesos), but I'll let that go.
Here is what I will say, though. I am no friend of the "inside the beltway crowd." I would rather see the United States be the republic it was intended than have the far too powerful central government that we have now.
On foreign policy, l suggest this: let's pretend for one second that we do not have treaty obligations (can't really do that, because we do, and that is not necessarily a bad thing. It works in our interest. Take Poland, for example. After being robbed of the opportunity to be a State most of the last century, they labored hard after the wall came down to get into NATO. Why? Because of the Article V protections provided in that treaty that state an attack on one is an attack on all. We supported Poland's efforts, and now Poland is one of best allies. Not because they "like" us, but rather because it is in their interest and ours. There are other examples, but understand this--we are committed to the defense of all our NATO allies, even if the attack was not directed at America or Americans.) I would propose that, just as Romney said we should apply the China test to new departments (we start none if we have to borrow the money from China), I would apply a test to foreign policy and the use of the military force that states, "we will use force only to defend the lives of our citizenry, to defend our borders, and to defend the liberty and freedom of American citizens." If the issue doesn't meet that criteria, than we do not deploy troops. That would, of course, end our efforts to assist in finding Kony and the Lord's Resistance Army in the jungles of Africa. We also wouldn't be in South Sudan, and we certainly would have to drop Obama's policy to fight genocide around the planet. (Yes, the Obama administration committed your sons and loved ones in the military to be the world's genocide police.) I'm good with pulling back from some of these over commitments. Note however, that you would STILL have to go after Al Qaeda and the Taliban, and other Islamic Supremist groups because they are irreconcilable and totally dedicated, for ideological reasons, to killing Americans. You're not going to stop them by dreaming, by musing, by reason, by well-crafted arguments. I suppose you could surrender, but fortunately most of us don't do surrender.
Of course, a foreign/military policy this simple ignores the fact that we indeed have treaty obligations that we would be foolish to throw away. However, I think it would be possible to honor them yet still pull back somewhat. Not fighting fanatical Islamic groups; that's never going to be an option. I do not have faith in DC, but I do believe in liberty, freedom, and why this country formed. Conversion and/or submission might be okay for some, but it most certainly is not for me. And there is definitely going to be collateral damage. The line in the sand was drawn long ago, and its time everyone threw a rock and committed to what they believe in, gritted their teeth. and steeled their souls to what lies ahead. Gouging our own eyes out and worrying about who "likes" us has never been the right answer.
That's all I have to say on this subject. Most other commentary here has merely been a vicious personal attack on me--kind of like what Vietnam vets must have experienced in the San Francisco airport when they returned and were spit on by their fellow citizens. I'm rather shocked to see the personal viciousness I've seen on the 24hr Gold commentary pages. I can take it, though. I am just the bearer of bad news, and that news is that there are bad people out there dedicated to murdering our citizenry, and it is NOT/NOT our fault.
Commented 4141 days ago |