Users who Dugg This
DIGG-WillNotFixMy-STATISTICS
12264 Followers
halley, princess of power
93 Followers
hc80Feb 6, 2012
Great question!
isuzu14bFeb 6, 2012
Yup! Dugg for the question... though the rest of the article is worth inquiring into as well.
vitriolandangstFeb 6, 2012
Stossel only has obvious, tired questions that misdirect the REAL issues.
We don't POLICE crap -- a policeman is someone who allegedly helps protect and serve.
Iraq and Afghanistan got "protected and served" into the ground.
schmuckofniFeb 6, 2012
Its through years of corporate funded politicians and people voting for the lesser of two evils. Any mention of withdrawing troops and closing bases across the world is considered "isolationist" and immediately ignored.
beartoyFeb 6, 2012
Our other industries have disintegrated. Exporting military action is our number one remaining industry. President Eisenhower tried to warn against the military industrial complex.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military%E2%80%93industrial_complex
brezel0rFeb 6, 2012
because you like to get oil and other imported goods as cheap as possible. any other questions?
vitriolandangstFeb 6, 2012
No. That about covers it.
... but I would add that we also spend a lot of energy and resources fighting a "big bad external enemy" so we don't question why the world is so f**ked up.
Pakistan is 90% illiterate - so they eternally struggle with India over Kashmir.
Every time some group of Japanese get together and protest US military bases, North Korea fires a test missile into their sea.
Israel gets weekly firecracker attacks from Palestine -- and they remain the low-wage workforce without opportunity. Israel maintains the equivalent of the NeoCons in power called the Likud party, and they stay militant and defensive. They are the world's experts in false flags and they continue to justify everything by persecution.
Iran has the constant threat of US invasion -- and that keeps the youth from becoming more Westernized and demanding a real Democracy -- the Mullahs' couldn't keep order without us.
Saudi Arabia had a insurgent group that was against Saud rule -- if you remember Al Qaeda, run by a Saudi Prince, then started worrying a lot about Saddam Hussein and moving US bases.
>> Seems every where you go, there is a Frenemy who pushes the buttons to preserve some hard line government. Militaries seem more like self-inflicted wounds to maintain the status quo.
The Founding Fathers were most worried about the INTERNAL ENEMY that is created by Religions, Armies, and Bankers -- we have all three.
nitoriFeb 6, 2012
The US government fails to realize that the cold war is over.
U_logic_error_broFeb 6, 2012
yeah it was so uncool when bush did it but when obama continues bush policies its suddenly ok because obama is trying to compromise... way to go sock puppets
10000lakesFeb 6, 2012
1776: America declares it's independence from the British empire with the Declaration of Independence as the Revolutionary War wages on.
2012: The American empire has become the very thing that it fought against over 200 years earlier. Maybe we need another Revolution?
StopAnimalTortureFeb 6, 2012
It does not have to be one or the other. We can have a strong presence in the world, without going overboard. The problem is that certain people have been making a lot of money off of the corrupt government and it's corrupt policies, and so we became over extended - I do not believe out of strategic or military necessity, but simply because of financial inertia. Remember what Ike said on leaving office in 1959.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eisenhower%27s_farewell_address
"We . . . must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering for our own ease and convenience the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow"
FAIL.
next...
"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."
FAIL.
Oh well. You f*cked up your nation and your future by ignoring what you should have paid ceaseless attention to. At some point soon the world is going to devolve and implode in a frenzy of pay-backs. It ain't gonna be so pretty. Along the way a Dark Lord will rise. Along the way innocent millions will be destroyed. Along the way the shadow of death will stalk the world.
Yet in the end, I do feel that truth, justice and the power of Love will prevail. Not all of us will be fortunate enough to see it. But some will. I hope to be among them.
As for those who are ushering us along blindly toward the edge of the abyss... I'm sorry but you are going to get yours. And it won't be very nice for you. I suggest you repent, and turn your souls around. Seek love in life and stop being evil. That would be the best thing for you. But if you won't do that, then ok. But just remember - the consequences are on your own head, and no one else's.
vitriolandangstFeb 6, 2012
Unfortunately, I think the USA is dependent upon our military -- what else do you think backs the power of the dollar besides the de-facto currency for oil trades and nuclear armageddon?
The "pragmatists" all think they spill blood for the preservation of the status quo and would decry your concept of brotherly love as foolish. Yet how much better off would we be today if we'd told the banks and the oil cartels to get lost -- as Jimmy Carter tried to do in the late '70s?
Alternative energy and not following the quick buck of economic bubbles, would have left us a better nation. Instead, we've had no real leadership or true progress in 30 years. We can't cross one major company.
Faced with ecological disaster, the best our leaders can do is pass the buck to the next generation rather than push an energy plan.
cantstopwontstopFeb 6, 2012
I would love for the US to pull back from the world and return to its isolationist ways before pearl harbor. But attacks like pearl harbor are one reason why the US is a world police force. Imagine what the world would be like if there was an absence of the US. Imagine who might try to take the place of the US as the world police. And that's one thing people forget, if it isn't the US it'd be someone else, and that someone else might not be so fair.
vitriolandangstFeb 6, 2012
In the absence of the US I'm afraid the world wouldn't look any damn different at all.
I USED to think that we were better than the devil we didn't know before 9/11. But since I've learned that most everything is a lie -- the ONLY war where the US fought the good fight was WW II and the war for Independence. The rest were thinly veiled acts of economic imperialism.
You notice that the Chinese smoothly transitioned to capitalism without having a Democracy? A fascist tyranny is the favorite home of capitalists -- and that is the course our country is set on unless we can stop Wall Street, Big Banking and Big Military from running things.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jivatmanxFeb 6, 2012
Smedley Butler, the most decorated war hero in U.S. history at the time he was alive, wrote "War is A Racket" in 1935" describing how U.S. wars were conducted for profit.
The Anti-Imperialistic league, existed even before that, and consisted of Classical Liberals (Libertarians) such as Mark Twain opposed to attacking the Philippines and other places because they believe Imperialism violated the Republican ethic of "Consent of the Governed"
jivatmanxFeb 6, 2012
There were presidents who were anti-imperialist - classical liberals such as Grover Cleveland and William McKinley, but they were the exception, and we tend to ignore them because we remember war presidents or presidents that used executive power extensively. Opposition to executive power and simply peacefully developing the economy is not a formula for being remembered.
Still, I feel that non-interventionism is the more foundational and legitimate U.S. tradition, and my pride in the U.S. is based on that.
Still, Benjamin Franklin said "A Republic if you can keep it", not "My country right or wrong". I'm not going to support the U.S. government actions that are wrong. That would lead to fascism.
vitriolandangstFeb 6, 2012
I don't get what you are arguing about.
the "War is a Racket" book is kind of what I reference here when I say that US wars are for profit enterprises.
Don't lump in Mark Twain as a Libertarian. Though there might have been that term in his day, Libertarianism as it is practiced today is entirely the product of think tanks like Heritage foundation, with support by NeoCons, Moonies and fascists. Twain was an atheist and constant critic of war, but he wouldn't hand the people over to the wolves of private industry either.
>> Isolationism is NOT the only antidote to full on support of US imperialism, however. And it's a false option.
I prefer the Carter Doctrine, where the US supports integrity and its principles. Violence is only the last resort.
But if we left a vacuum, it would be filled by the same despots the CIA supports today.
jivatmanxFeb 6, 2012
Seriously - Mark Twain was a Classical Liberal.
“The mania for giving the Government power to meddle with the private affairs of cities or citizens is likely to cause endless trouble … & there is great danger that our people will lose that independence of thought & action which is the cause of much of our greatness, & sink into the helplessness of the Frenchman or German who expects his government to feed him when hungry, clothe him when naked … &, in time, to regulate every act of humanity from the cradle to the tomb, including the manner in which he may seek future admission to paradise.”
~Mark Twain~
And I'm not sure what "libertarianism today" is referring to because libertarians have no political power whatsoever. The Chamber of Commerce, for example is a vehicle for an elite of a few large corporations, they, for example, supported SOPA.
jivatmanxFeb 6, 2012
Mark Twain is essentially the apotheosis of the American novelist, the perfection of the tradition began by Benjamin Franklin (especially regarding satire).
I'm not sure why you would be surprised that he would support limited government.
timedalkatFeb 6, 2012
Holy s**t! I dugg up an article by John (Douchenozzle) Stossel.
vitriolandangstFeb 6, 2012
I promote anyone who recognizes the doucheyness of the Stossel. That motherf**ker is the biggest corporate tool every created.
But as usual, he is saying "world police" as if we were providing a service for free -- rather than running a protection racket for multinational interests.
vitriolandangstFeb 6, 2012
Oh crap -- I got suckered into a Ron Paul discussion,... damn, there is no POPULAR way out of this.
YES I agree with Ron Paul -- America acts like an empire and we shouldn't be in these countries.
NO I disagree with RP because just vacating every country we are in means that the vacuum gets filled by China or someone worse.
The World is full of Dicks, Pussies and assh**es --- and while I hate the dicks who screw us, we pussies need them to protect the world from assh**es. It's not my metaphor, I just stole it from World Police.
If Ron Paul cannot accept the wisdom of puppets -- he is the bleeding heart liberal that conservatives fear most. Welcome to the strange world of the 21st century young Libertarians -- you've pushed all the way around to the other side!
lemonrindFeb 6, 2012
Here's the problem with your metaphor. The United States isn't a dick; it's an assh**e.
vitriolandangstFeb 6, 2012
Well, I figured that breaking that shocking bit of news would be too much for people to swallow.
Better that they understand the world's paradigm and slowly and gradually come to realize that the world needs a dick to protect the world's pussies from an assh**e military like the USA.
/LOLComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
davidnivenFeb 6, 2012
Ask Obama. Why do you liberals give Obama a pass on this kind of stuff?
ddarko789Feb 6, 2012
Because bipartisan in and of itself and the media outlets that exaggerate/exacerbate this "rift" have effectively accomplished their goals of setting the citizens against one another so that both sides can feed off of that...
vitriolandangstFeb 6, 2012
I didn't give him a pass.
If you hadn't noticed, Obama kind of gives short shrift to the Left and anyone not on Wall Street.
So I thought he was one of your guys, myself.
tehravenFeb 6, 2012
How about liberals ask Obama, conservatives ask Obama, and when the next president comes in we ask him too. Chrissakes why's it always gotta be about left and right?
vitriolandangstFeb 6, 2012
The next president will be Obama.
You know I'm right and the Republicans don't even WANT THE JOB. Obama is continuing Bush's fascist legacy without making as many waves.
If Mitt Romney of Bain Capital were trying to push something like the NDAA through, there would be rioting in the streets.
>> And besides, the Republicans never sound SANE ENOUGH to anyone but right wing extremists,... so there is little chance of them capturing hearts and minds beyond the believers and the f**king pathetic media we've got who pretend they make sense.
vitriolandangstFeb 6, 2012
I didn't know the mob running a protection racket was called "policing" -- maybe this is the wrong term for the US busting heads until some politico makes way for the corporate exploitation.
melthornalFeb 6, 2012
I believe if you were to set up an ideal scenario for American defense, it would be a very large, powerful navy. The United States is essentially an island nation, since our only meaningful borders in a military sense are the oceans. Having a large naval presence in Oceania, the eastern Pacific, and the Atlantic should be enough to have a solid military defense against most legitimate threats the United States would face in a real world scenario. That combined with a reduced Army, redefined Air force (surveillance), and repurposed Marine Corp. (they aren't a second army) would defend the United States and its assets.
I guess the point is this, putting the Army into a region isn't defense. Putting Marines into a region isn't defense. It is offensive war. The Marines in particular are solely an offensive branch in the military.
vitriolandangstFeb 6, 2012
You cannot HOLD land with a Navy.
You could ship an invading army in piece by piece over a normal airline and then take over.
The idea of having some sort of "water fence" seems to ignore the real realities of modern warfare -- it's holding bits of land.
The Navy best acts as a mobile base of operations to project force. Their most USEFUL branch however is the Air Craft Carriers -- subs are probably more of a nuclear deterrent than any sort of offense.
You ALWAYS control things with boots on the ground. The airforce reduces casualties but cannot control land if you want people to live there and raise families.
The one part of the military you could actually SURVIVE not having is the Navy. Unless of course we are talking about the secret space-based Navy but that's once again "flying over stuff." In the water with supersonic missiles and against a nation more advanced than Iraq -- you are a "sitting duck" so to speak.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
melthornalFeb 6, 2012
You really do like attacking the strawman, don't you?
mhkingFeb 6, 2012
Cosby had a great quote that applies here: "The Police are your mother and father...."
skyscapeFeb 6, 2012
I suppose they play defense on the enemy territory. Oh and offense could be your best defense.
battmannFeb 7, 2012
Why do we have to go broke policing the f**king world, we have no more money we're in debt, are we going to go into debt so far, that the dollar loses all value? Or are we policing the world from getting rid of the dollar? oh- now your onto someting! duuhr!
luke1h7Feb 6, 2012
We spent 7+ trillion dollars on the wars since 2001. That means people got paid 7+ trillion dollars since 2001. I wonder. It's a mystery (Chris Farley voice)!
chadpyleFeb 6, 2012
A good article and aptly named website. It would be nice to hear such a question during a debate.
ereneeFeb 6, 2012
if we are, not very effective.
falcon642Feb 6, 2012
Food for thought, COMPLETELY eliminating the Department of Defense wouldn't even cut the deficit in half. $600 billion in Defense spending compared to a $1.2+ TRILLION deficit.
Point 2, look back at history and see what happens every time the world's dominate power shrinks. The effects of the resultant power vacuum are not pretty. When Rome fell, it took Europe nearly 1,000 years to reinvent all the technologies that were lost with the fall of Rome.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
u2canfailFeb 6, 2012
I agree we should not be policing the world. The problem with Paul's vision of defense is no defense at all. If Paul had been President when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor...
1. Only 2 small boats would have been there, he sold the NAVY.
2. Paul would have called the Hirohito and said "HELLO", inquired about the weather, and explained his isolationists views.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
u2canfailFeb 6, 2012
I forgot to mention, if one takes the Constitution at it's literal word, we only get a militia for defense. ( Those 2 small boats in Pearl Harbor, would not have had guns.)Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
FrankLuskaFeb 6, 2012
Your ignorance knows no bounds, does it, why not try reading the constitution sometime,
militia, to keep a free state
US military, to fight wars against invaders.
You just love to twist and turn things into what ever suits your needs, or, i should say, Your twisted Mind needs psychiatric treatment.
diverdan117Feb 6, 2012
Your argument is questionable at best.
1) Besides supplying China with arms, the US-imposed oil embargo was a crucial reason as to the invasion of Pearl Harbor. If Paul were to be present at this time, free markets would have not dictated this course of action and would have continued the supply of oil to Japan. Therefore, it would not have been in their best interests to attack their main oil supplier.
2) Countries do exist that contain no true standing army, ie Costa Rica. While they do retain security forces, it is by no measure anything comparable to anything else in the region. They maintain an extremely high literacy rate with the reallocation of funds. It is possible to maintain national stability without the excessive diversion of funding to military causes.
u2canfailFeb 6, 2012
Questionable or correct? Read the Constitution, then take it literally.
Then add Ron Paul the crazy. Correct.
ddarko789Feb 6, 2012
Better to take it literally than have people fighting over semantics or lack thereof
u2canfailFeb 6, 2012
Who gets to build the muskets?
FrankLuskaFeb 6, 2012
Is there any adult thinking inside your head at all? Do you always have to act like a child and make clearly worthless comments. Grow Up.
vitriolandangstFeb 6, 2012
It's hard to have an honest debate because Ron Paul fans always travel in groups of 12. Delusion becomes a club when you have company, after all.
From my point of view, both your points are correct, U2CanFail is correct about the Constitution, while you are correct that no real country on earth is running around WITHOUT a standing army.
We can't just pull out of countries -- but we need to reduce or presence and start acting like we actually believe in the stuff we preach.
>> I have to wonder WHAT our military protects us from -- it acts more like a parasite and creates enemies to justify its existence. I'd prefer to go back to the Carter doctrine, and start building more schools and hospitals than tanks.
jivatmanxFeb 6, 2012
Actually, Switzerland has no standing army, instead having a citizen militia. They also have an extreme decentralized government system. They also haven't joined the European Union.
The founding of the modern state was heavily influenced by by American Revolution and they essentially adopted the philosophy of the anti-federalists.
vitriolandangstFeb 6, 2012
Switzerland doesn't NEED to have a standing army -- they've got the European alliances, NATO, and a few nations with US nukes surrounding them. Besides -- they also have a lot of the loot that invading countries might have stored.
Not that I don't WANT standing armies to stand down -- and a country like Switzerland cannot invade. But let's not kid ourselves that the real invasions of the world are by the World Bank.
Armies help waste money and reduce the need for nukes to get what Capitalists want.
However, doing away with these armies would mean the OTHER rat bastards would get what they want -- if there IS anyone else beyond the rat bastards pulling our strings.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jivatmanxFeb 6, 2012
Switzerland is not part of any military alliances like NATO. Again, they're not even part of the E.U. They have a militia they can constitute if they are invaded. However, because they don't invade other people, that's probably not going to happen.
vitriolandangstFeb 6, 2012
Someone would have to march through Germany or Holland to invade Sweden.
I'm definitely an anti-war person, but come on.... Sweden's freedom is NOT preserved by only having citizens trained to fire a rifle.
They wouldn't last as long as Iraq after it was defanged against a modern military if the purpose was to clear the ground.
... It's sad, and I wish we could get rid of all militaries,... but Sweden is NOT defending itself.
It's a nice token gesture that they are neutral, but what Country would want to invade Sweden or for that matter, expose itself for doing so?
They are participating with NATO in Afghanistan.
aliaswaveFeb 6, 2012
"Someone would have to march through Germany or Holland to invade Sweden" (from a comment below it wouldn't let me comment on it)
I think you have your countries backwards. Its Switzerland not Sweden. Sweden is next to Norway.
Switzerland foreign policy works.
Also Hitler was afraid to attack them because of their defense (militia army).
In Switzerland every Man 18 and over is trained and has a Automatic rifle in their home doesn't protect your country I don't know what will.
Donuts4UFeb 6, 2012
I was under the impression that Washington, the guy not the place, pretty clearly solved whether we should have a army or a militia. He was the first and only President to physically ride out with the troops and kick butt. Then he went back home and kicked the government into giving us an army.
The original founders spoke. We have an army. No question.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jivatmanxFeb 6, 2012
Eisenhower was also a general and famously warned about the Military-Industrial-Complex.
Donuts4UFeb 6, 2012
Agreed, but I don't see your point?
vitriolandangstFeb 6, 2012
"The original founders spoke. We have an army. No question."
I recognize a slight need for standing armies - but your "No Question" point is referring to Washington who lost almost every engagement to superior trained british troops -- and he was in the middle of a war. AFTER that war, those people went home and actually "stood down."
It's scary that you think you've made some slam dunk point at all.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Donuts4UFeb 6, 2012
"President Washington" Not General Washington. Whiskey rebellion? Never heard of it? Only time a sitting President fought?
Came back and kicked the government into funding a real army? Showed the Government could control dissenters?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jivatmanxFeb 6, 2012
The response to the Whiskey Rebellion was or universally unpopular, and was the catalyst for the creation of the Democratic-Republican party which would completely dominate U.S. politics until the civil war. Federalists would only elect one president, John Adams.
(Washington was essentially a Federalist, though not officially)
vitriolandangstFeb 6, 2012
George Washington wasn't even a "founding father" -- so if you were making the case that the Founding Fathers were actually for Standing Armies -- you failed.
Washington did not keep a standing army.
While I recognize TIMES HAVE CHANGED -- and I think it's necessary to have SOME standing army, bringing in the "founding fathers" is some sort of hero worship that doesn't further the discussion.
They were not infallible, and I think we can debate the merits of keeping our current bloated military vs. some compromise with giving everyone a rifle and a compass and hoping China doesn't build tanks WITHOUT trying to read the minds of people who are no longer alive to debate the issue with current realities.
aliaswaveFeb 6, 2012
"They were not infallible, and I think we can debate the merits of keeping our current bloated military vs. some compromise with giving everyone a rifle and a compass and hoping China doesn't build tanks WITHOUT trying to read the minds of people who are no longer alive to debate the issue with current realities."
I don't know where your coming up with we wouldn't have Tanks?
You think we wouldn't hardware to fight off an invader?
Switzerland has Tank,Planes and bombs!
FrankLuskaFeb 6, 2012
What, your seeing groups of 12, you do those people are the Illuminati, you better watch out, don't get too paranoid, your brain may finish it's implosion,
Are you sure you and u2canfail aren't the same?
You both seem just to live to bash Paul, you always agree with each other, makes one wonder..........
FrankLuskaFeb 6, 2012
Showing your ignorance ever get tiring? Or just getting bigger paychecks for bashing Paul, seems that's about all you do nowadays.
And of course the non isolationist values you and others have thrust upon the world have worked so wonderfully well, haven't they.
ka5p3rFeb 6, 2012
roman's had there imperial rule, British imperialism had it's control over many,josef stalin had the ussr,hitler had his third reich.all dictators want what they cant have.why should america be any different.and what happen's to dictators,they fall.,josef stalin said america will rot from within.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
yaosioFeb 6, 2012
More socialist tripe.
karmashockFeb 6, 2012
Basically because we tried not getting involved after WW1 and look where that led. Any idea what the Russians would have done if we hadn't suppressed them during the cold war? No one does... because we don't have time machines. But if you're serious about turning your back on the world then you have to have the stomach to watch BILLIONS burn and do nothing. I'm not saying they will burn. It's just that if you're not involved, then you have to be prepared for that. We keep getting involved because we perceive problems that will effect millions or billions of people. Who's ready to let East Asia get eaten by China? Or eastern europe by the Russians? Or the middle east along with the israelis get eaten by whatever it is the muslims think they're doing. ANNND so on.
We can "shrug" and walk away but it will be a waste of resources if we say "just kidding" as soon as people start to die and then rush back to defend them.
You have to be willing to watch the world burn. Americans still aren't ready for that. Though the ingratitude of the euros is pushing us in that direction.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.