What is Digg?130 Comments
- JeffDaiell, on 10/12/2007, -5/+34(1) Just as it's not coincidence that The First Amendment comes first, it's no coincidence that the legislative branch is set up first in the Federal Constitution. The Founders intended Congress to be the dominant branch. (2) War fosters Big Gvoernment, and vice-versa. -- Jeff Daiell
- jwaddell, on 10/12/2007, -0/+27whiskey, one must distinguish military "involvement" from commerce. International commerce brings benefits to all, raising living standards. Military intervention breeds enemies and causes destruction and resentment.
"Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations--entangling alliances with none, I deem [one of] the essential principles of our government, and consequently [one of] those which ought to shape its administration." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural Address, 1801. ME 3:321
http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1400.htm
"If goods don t cross borders, armies will" Attributed to Frederic Bastiat
http://www.mises.org/content/fredericbastiat.asp - jeffiek, on 10/12/2007, -1/+27@whiskeymb
"This country needs that oil."
That's only half the equation. The other half is "that country needs our money". It's a two way street. That second direction is just as important as the first.
"When you get finances and politics involved, the military isn't far behind."
You got that one right. But there's no need for the politicians to get involved. Unless you want to count their need to stay in power. Power that would disappear very quickly if people realized that free trade creates a mutual dependence, and a mutual gain. Free trade is not one-sided, it is not something to fear. It promotes peace and good will ( OK, I got a little corny on that last one, but it is the holiday season - peace on earth good will to men and all that ) - populist, on 10/12/2007, -2/+25Washington was right, and so was Jefferson!
"Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations -- entangling alliances with none."
- Thomas Jefferson - dagonweb, on 10/12/2007, -10/+31This is precisely what many europeans would like to see of America, a polite, decent USA that doesnt waste trillions on a machinery of war, fascist black ops milutary advisors trained in waterboarding and electroshocks and sinister black stealth fighters. We'd love to see a rational USA for a change that doesnt stir up trouble all over the world. And while you are at it, clean up your act on human rights, with some prison reform as well.
- argoff, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12I'm beginning to think that the US is like a patch on a big global quilt. If we want to lift up all the other patches on the quilt, the best and most obvious way to do that is to lift our patch of quilt as high as we can, and it will pull up all the other ones with us. How can we bring freedom and liberty to the world, when in the US it is on the decline? How can we bring economic freedom to the world, when our total taxes are well over 40%, our debt is even greater, and out money is being watered down by several percent every year. How can we bring law and order to the world, when we ourselves have more laws than any single human being can possibly comprehend. No knock warrants? War on drugs? Public education? Welfare and social security? We don't need the government to help us with those things, we need them to get the freaking hell out of the way so that we have the wealth, freedom, and prosperity to solve these problems ourselves.
- pintomp3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12umm, we went into Afghanistan to thwart soviet expansion. we funded the extremist madrasas and al-queda to create these crazy radicals helped push the soviets out. then we left the country and let them take over.
as for israel, you think giving them billions of dollars and weapons is holding them back? - havesometea, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11And just "why" do they hate us? For our freedom? Puuuuhhleease. Any time I hear people spouting off these well worn talking points I feel gravely ill to my stomach. Really...just why DID we invade Afghanistan just to all but abandon it almost immediately? We call Pakistan an ally of ours when it is they who are largely allowing our meek efforts in Afghanistan to be undone. Not to mention Pakistan's involvement in spreading the nuclear genie around the world. Yet, Bush and his followers can sit there with a straight face and say that Pakistan is an important ally in the "war on terra".
Kinda reminds me of Bush saying..."Brownie, you are doing a heck of a job" while New Orleans drowned. - Dingo128, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11George Washington did not want us to entangle ourselves in other countries affairs. He did not want us to sign defense treaties that would make us go to war, if one of our allies were attacked. He was afraid of world politics, and he would not have wanted us in the league of Nations, or the United Nations. Which this "website" this was taken from seems to ignore.
George Washington did not want to force America into sanctions, war, or aid just because another nation said so.
"..He called for an America wholly free of foreign attachments, as the United States must concentrate only on American interests. He counseled friendship and commerce with all nations, but warned against involvement in European wars and entering into LONG-TERM ALLIANCES. The address quickly set American values regarding religion and foreign affairs, and his advice was often repeated in political discourse well into the twentieth century..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_washington#Foreign_affairs - PongGod, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12Look what our entanglements have brought us - more and larger wars, which is exactly what Washington, Adams, Jefferson, et. al. knew would happen.
- brbubba, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9"Not only that, but the Americans have been very helpful in Israel and have not done anything wrong."
Yeah but in so doing it has needlessly entangled the US in Isreal's own mess with the middle east. There is NO DOUBT in my mind that 9/11 would have never happened if the US was not so deeply entangled with Isreal. - xsuite, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8America isnt totally interventionist. Only when it needs something.
We didnt go into Rwanda. We didntintervene when the Hutu rebels slaughtered 800,000 Tutsi's in the period of 100 days. We didnt intervene because they are black and they dont have anything of value to us. This is totally preposterous. Right now as you read this post, hundreds of Sudanese are being held in concentration camps and being executed or tortured. Something must be done. Clinton said it himself" It is our responsibiliyt to assure that the holocaust never happens again." But as we speak there is genocide going on that is WORSE than the holocaust.
We might get involved there but we probably wont because we are afraid to call anyhing a genocide, because if we did, the UN is OBLIGATED to step in.
But how many acts of genocide does it take to be a genocide? Christine Shelley, former spokesperson of the state department says,"...the use of the term 'genocide' has a very precise legal meaning, although it's not strictly a legal determination. There are other factors in there as well." - eth3l, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7here here! and don't forget about intervening in Rwanda.
Oh, and when we do go into situatons like Darfur, Rwanda, etc. we are supposed to help these countries stop magnificant military slaghters but not use our military might. That's like bringng a paper dagger to a fght with a street ganggang - mstnpb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7@eth3l
"Muslims want a muslim state which extends from Gibralter to across Iran - the ba'ath party has sought this since the days of WWII."
uhhh.. where'd you get this?
"With Iran nearng completion of its nuclear arsenal and n light of these facts - and many others - we would be *fools* to deny the threat to our way of life."
"nearing completion of its nuclear arsenal"? so they'll have nukes ready and waiting in what, a week?
"My personal opinion is that the trouble with the US in the middle east began when the Shah of Iran was installed as an influence aganst the soviet empire during the cold war. Carter did nothing to improve relations, and wth the Ayatollah gaining power at that time he was probably in the best position to do something."
the shah wasn't installed "as an influence aganst the soviet empire during the cold war." the shah was installed because mossadegh (the democratically-elected prime minister) wanted to nationalize iran's oil. britain didn't want that because they were the main recipients of iranian oil, so they enlisted the help of the americans. following a facetious claim that iran wanted to "interfere with american interests," the CIA took out mossadegh and installed the shah. it was called "operation ajax" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_ajax).
learn your history, kids. - JonForTheWin, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9Operation Northwoods was an inside job.
Operation Ajax (government sponsored terrorism) was done by the US.
Operation Gladio (government sponsored terrorism), where school buses were targeted, was done by the US and NATO.
The Gulf of Tonkin incident was a fabricated lie (go look at the declassified documents before saying "that's just a conspiracy therie LOL!". . dumb *****).
The USS Liberty attack was orchestrated by the US and carried out by Israel. "I want that god damned ship going to the bottom." -LBJ
Pearl Harbor was provoked, prior knowledge was had, and allowed to be as bad a disaster it was.
911 was . . oh the official story MUST be true the neo-cons didn't want a war there aint no PNAC there aint no Operation Northwoods what the ***** is Building 7 NORAD didn't stand down because we all know fighter jets aren't deployed to intercept stray aircraft and that there wasn't a drill that day for the exact same situation at the exact same time for the exact same location to confuse real patriots lets worship bush and the gun grabbers LOLZ! - jwaddell, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Yes, let us dispense with Washington and Jefferson, as they are so outdated. That was then, this is now. While we're at it, forget about those things that Jesus fellow said, that was even longer ago. "Love your neighbor as I have loved you" really is out-of-step with modernity. Ghandi, Einstein, Galileo, Newton, Shakespeare, Aquinas, Locke, Dickens, Twain...why none of these Neaderthals even made it to the 1970s! What could we possibly learn from them?!
- NoTiG, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Here is another article in a similar vein : http://www.lewrockwell.com/higgs/higgs53.html
I dont think americans generally want an interventionalist policy for foreign affairs. How many people support the war? How many people supported vietnam? I think most actually don't , but the problem IMO is that our government has been hijacked for the most part... roughly since the 19th century and been led into wars with false flag operations, for whatever reasons that a particular few people at the top might want (such as oil, getting rich financing both sides of the war, etc) . - LesterKing, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6He was also right about the two party system.
- portwojc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Funny my fortune just came up with this:
One of the lessons of history is that nothing is often a good thing to do and always a clever thing to say.
-- Will Durant - dcvtss, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Why is that outdated? Technology may have changed since Washington's time but has human nature?
- 15charmaxwtf, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Libertarianism is pretty much the opposite to communism. Whatever the neocons are now in America is far closer to socialism. The neo-cons are not pro capitalist, they are just anti-communist.
- hipnerd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@SteveBee "Of course we went in to Afghanistan in the eighties to thwart Soviet expansion. And rightly so. And aided Afghanis to repelling the Soviets.
And then left. Why not? Cause we're not imperialists, contrary to what the lefties say."
The Soviets invaded Afghanistan to counter the U.S.'s increasing influence with Saudi Arabia, Israel and Egypt (thanks to Jimmy Carter.) They financed a revolution, and then the government "invited" them to come in and help quell the rebellion against the Islamists and intellectuals that were fighting the communist "reforms." They eventually staged a complete coup and installed a puppet government of hand-picked cronies, betting that the people would embrace the new communist government simply because the old government was unpopular.
There is a fairly decent parallel with our own involvement in Vietnam and now Iraq, in that the only people who wanted the Soviets there were the members of the government who would have faced certain death by violent overthrow if the Soviets didn't protect them. The Afghan War was hugely unpopular in Russia, where even with a state-run media, it was impossible to cover up the rising body count with no end in sight. They eventually retreated and the country turned into an Islamic fascist state (the intellectuals and moderates had either become radicalized via the combat, been killed or left, long ago.)
We financed and trained the Islamist mujahideen because they were a thorn in the Soviet's side. One of those receiving training was Osama bin Laden, who, much later, decided that we were the devil and used some of his CIA training on how to mount an insurgency to put together the network that would become al Queda.
So the Soviets were imperialists for invading Afghanistan when the Afghan people did not want them to be there. What does that make the U.S. when we remain in Iraq when the Iraqi people do not want us to be there? The lesson from Afghanistan that we need to pay attention is what the Soviet's learned: You can't impose your own governmental system on another country in the modern era. - kittynipples, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Not to rain on your parade, but the first amendment is actually the third of twelve originally passed by Congress as the Bill of Rights to be submitted to the states for ratification. I don't really believe their order is particularly significant.
- Libberkey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Both Jefferson and Washington were in agreement on peaceful trade with all and entangling alliances with none. Neither were pacifists. (You may remember Washington fought in more than one war!) The policy is rock-solid reason.
- williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Right on brotha! Compared to George Washington, George W. Bush is a ***** Einstein-grade genius, and his foreign policy has put us on a golden road to a shining future! All we need to do is invade Iran and spend another 2 trillion dollars and everything will be fine.
Yeah, right.
And what is even more ***** up is that I bet you think you are a "conservative." Conservative of what? Our money? Our blood? Our reputation?
True conservatives want small, careful governments that don't go invading places at great expense and no apparent purpose. - williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6@SecondGuesser
Our entanglement is with Israel. There was no reason to take down Iraq on entirely false premises except to ultimately invade Iran. Iran makes Israel nervous, because Iran could back a regional campaign of pressuring Israel to withdraw to internationally recognized borders.
The deal was supposed to be: The U.S. gets the oil, Israel gets Iran taken out, and complete freedom of action w.r.t. Palestinians.
As Dr. Phil Putin would say "how's that workin' out for ya?" - rabidg00se, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4jshusta:
The original documents actually contain twelve amendments; however, the first two were not initially ratified, though the second one was ratified two centuries later as the 27th Amendment. Since the first two amendments dealt with Congress itself rather than the rights of the people, the term "Bill of Rights" has traditionally meant only the amendments numbered "third" through "twelfth" in the documents, which were ratified as the first ten amendments; that traditional usage has continued even since the ratification of the 27th Amendment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights - sanman, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9UHHHH, KOSOVO??? Please mention that one too, dear "liberals".
US troops will be stuck patrolling it 'til kingdom come, even as they assist in the ethnic cleansing of the local Serb population.
Just remember, selective liberalism isn't liberalism at all. The rise of ethno-liberalism, which selectively applies "liberal" standards for some ethnic groups and not others, is now in vogue. - tekmonkey, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6He used the word "Palestine" instead of "Israel", because he was referring to Arab nations that the U.S.has been in conflicts with. Since the U.S. is friendly with Israel, he referred to the hostile region as "Palestine".
- MacLiberal, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5If america would take this advice, perhaps one day the world wouldn't hate it anymore, but it won't happen americans have become comfortable with world domination and exploitation.
- xsuite, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4And here is proof, in the most wonderful doubletalk from washington.
At a State Department briefing, spokesperson Christine Shelley is asked, "How many acts of genocide does it take to make genocide?"
"That's just not a question that I'm in a position to answer."
"Well, is it true that you have specific guidance not to use the word 'genocide' in isolation, but always to preface it with these words 'acts of'?"
"I have guidance which I try to use as best as I can. There are formulations that we are using that we are trying to be consistent in our use of. I don't have an absolute categorical prescription against something, but I have the definitions. I have phraseology which has been carefully examined and arrived at as best as we can apply to exactly the situation and the actions which have taken place ... " - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7The U.N. adds little to international relations. It is a corrupt organization that has lost it's way and should be closed down. I have no idea why we continue to support this failed experiment.
- williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4There are four separate defects in that statement.
- pabut, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6It was "Palestine" before it was "Israel." Disenfranchise a whole nationality ... that's bound to piss someone off.
- Libberkey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"Outdated" is the same pseudo-argument - i.e., non-argument - here that it is everwhere else, and a confession that one has no argument or position to offer.
- d00ley, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Our invasion of Afghanistan became inevitable in '99. "We" went in to restore "our" heroin trade and re-establish the pipeline project. Period.
- xrayecho, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"Rockwell is the Malakin of the left"
Hah. That is hilarious. Yeah. Lew's a damn commie pinko from way back. - williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3What was 9/11? Well, some people thought we "needed a new Pearl Harbor." We got one.
- stevebee, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8 SOME INCONVENIENT TRUTHS
Oh, by the way. When you say, "corporate greed" has it occured to you that American corporations have brought more health, wealth, happiness to humanity than any group in history? Well, maybe second to the American military.
On the other side, socialism and communism have brought more mass murder, starvation, war, misery, and environmental ruin to more people than any force in history.
And did you know that Hitler was a socialist? Yes. The name Nazi Party is actually short for....National Socialist. - BoneDaddy64, on 10/12/2007, -7/+10Go get em Ron.
- whiskeymb, on 10/12/2007, -7/+10I don't know how much Washington's word still ring true today. It was a little easier to stay out of the politics of other companies back in the 1700's then it is today. I personally don't think we should be involved with other countries, but when we import so much crap from all around the world, it's hard not to.
- pintomp3, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8our foreign policies aren't based on what's good for the american people or for any people. they are based on what's good for certain corporations and contractors.
- Roppongi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It's a commonly held belief in the US that intervening militarily in a country is okay if it helps spread American 'values'. It's sad but true. This precedes Bush and it's a view shared by both Republicans and Democrats. It's *****, a lot of people die, and it's bankrupting the country. And it's not just the mid-east, the US killed a lot of South Americans during Reagan's time and the US is still hated there.
- DigitalBrian, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4"don't disagree with your points, however, Washington was not afraid to engage foreign enemies when they invaded our land. I doubt he would have advocated an isolationist policy when the twin towers were hit, but that is just speculation."
Oh no? and how many foreign enemies invaded the US during his presidency? ummm ok?
And about the middle east hating America, my mommy always said that if someone really doesn't like you there is NOTHING you can do to force them to like you, sorry but we need to leave them alone, it is their right to dislike whoever they want, we dont need to talk to them do we? we could ignore them and eventually they turn Saurons eye somewhere else. - d00ley, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Also, Afghanistan brought the end of the Soviet Empire, which they are now doing to us. Why do we not learn from others' mistakes? Vietnam kicked France's ass, yet we go in right after them using the same methods and proceed to get our ass kicked as well. We didn't learn from the Soviet's ass-whooping in Afghanistan and didn't learn from the ass-whooping that the British got in Iraq. Will we ever learn?
- hattrick35, on 10/12/2007, -9/+11You mean Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, or Israel. "Palestine" is not a country.
- williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2We are seeing our last gasp as a superpower hijacked and abused in the Middle East. And, on top of all that, the plan didn't even work (unless we get yet another "new Pearl Harbor" that false-flags us into war with Iran). Our grandchildren (well, not mine, since my kids already have second passports) will be tax slaves to pay for this folly. Faugh.
- pabut, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@SecondGuesser
I'm all ears .... care to expand on that statement??? - pabut, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@H3LLSL33T
True, maybe not an official administrative boundary ... but that's like saying there was no American Indian Nation or Poland didn't exist before WWII. My grandmother (born before WWII) would never buy my explanation why her birth certificate said Russian and not Polish for her parents ethnicity.
Worse according to the links you provided ..... the occupants of what was the region formally known as Palestine ... those of Jewish decent were clearly in the minority. That minority became the ruling faction which would put it on par with South Africa before 1994.
Look, I'm not trying to start a flame war here ... why can't we all just get along .... and in order to do that we need to look at things from all points of view. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Time to learn some French...
-
Show 51 - 100 of 124 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is