One of the arguments many prefer in challenging libertarian
views is calling them isolationist, and I don’t think my views are particularly
isolationist. I have tremendous
concerns about our current foreign policies regarding Europe, the near east and
the far east, Our standing army in Europe is standing because of … well,
because they’ve been there since the start of the cold war, back in 1945. The argument for keeping them there is
to support our aggressive armies in the near east. Sounds like someone forgot to get off the round-about.
Free trade agreements are far more self serving than
militaristic bullying tactics.
Self preservation is very important, obviously, to any nation, and
mutual aid agreements such at NATO have that as their basis. So why did we invade Iraq? Why did we invade Afghanistan? If our real purpose was to protect
economic interest of American business, think oil, and many believe that, then
wouldn’t the proper thing to do would be to establish a government friendly to
our concerns? You know, replace
one dictator with one friendly to our economic concerns?
After World War Two, as our armies cleared out the Nazis in
Europe, we went out of our way to establish rightful governments in most of the
devastated countries and return them to economic and political stability. The Marshal Plan worked well in most of
Europe, and today many of those European countries are economically
stable. Not so in the near east
and far east because those areas were dominated by European colonists.
As we chased the Japanese armies out of country after
country, we simply turned the areas back over to the original colonizing
entities: Dutch, British,
French. Two completely different
foreign policies, one for Europe, one for the far east. And in the near east? After World War One, Persia and Arabia
became a dozen or more countries based on some British bureaucrat drawing lines
on a map. Complete tribal groups,
having control over their homelands for hundreds of generations,
dispersed. This is Iraq now, not
Kurdistan. It became American
foreign policy as well.
A bully picks a fight because he knows he can. He’s bigger, stronger, has an
impressive swagger to his walk and never challenges one who might fight
back. Our government is a bully in
every sense of the word. Did you
read “The Ugly American”? Age has
not made him adorable. In foreign
efforts to build and protect American economic interests our state department
often uses threat more than efforts at free trade agreements. We often support governments led by
deranged fools for economic reasons, then bully those fools to the point they
become enemies, then invade.
This form of foreign policy has stood the test of time,
dating back to the years following WWII.
Our treaties with some of our so-called allies need to be examined in
detail. We are committed to
defending nations that are in no way committed to defending us.
We attacked Iraq because: _______________________.
We attacked Afghanistan because: ________________________.
We want to attack Syria because: _______________________.
In one thousand words or less probably not one of our last
five presidents could answer those questions in such a manner as to convince a
majority of Americans to vote for him.
America is the strongest nation in the world at this time,
probably will continue to be for another couple of generations, and probably
not much past that if we don’t pull in our horns and work toward what made us
strong in the first place.
Business, strong business making excellent products, hiring millions of
educated and willing workers, producing products that were offered worldwide.
And that business thrived in freedom, our labor force
thrived in freedom, our citizens thrived in freedom. Government snooping into private enterprise wasn’t talked
about because it didn’t exist.
Government spies listening in to our telephone conversations? Come on, be serious. Presidents telling congress to go jump
in the lake, he’ll do whatever he wants, and just try and stop him was rarely a
topic of conversation not too many years ago.
We need to put order back in our house, drive out the dust
devils, rats, and bugs, use our military to protect the United States and its
interests, let those that are not a threat to our lives and livelihood live their
own lives, protect our business interests without the use of tanks and bombers,
you know, by way of “the art of DIPLOMACY.”
It’s time to put common sense back in our way of dealing
with foreign and internal interests.
Common sense tells us that corporations are not individuals, so why
should corporations have the political rights that they have been given? We need to reinterpret how
International Corporations are taxed and regulated as opposed to purely local
businesses. If a corporation
expects the benefits of being a U.S. corporation, it shouldn’t be allowed to
hide its assets overseas. Simple
common sense.
Okay, you’re right, one shouldn’t say common sense in the
same dissertation in which politics is discussed. One shouldn’t suggest something as foreign as common sense
when talking about bureaucrats. Or
the current state of the judiciary.
Or congress. Silly me.
Have a great day, read good books, and stay regular.