well i have some geopolitical questions to the great wally.
u have spoken from an foreign politic based on Isolationism. do you think it was wrong the usa took part in ww2 in europe even the outcome was a big succes? furthermore what do you think about the interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan? Do you think its ok to send military forces to crash a regime which is oppressing people?
Ahh, Peja. As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another. You have brought worthy questions to my table, and are deserving of a worthy response. Since you have requested I slowly bequeath my knowledge unto you, so therefore it shall be done:
U.S. was following isolationist tenets and was as close to true isolationist foreign policy as it ever had leading up to Franklin Roosevelt's declaration of war following the Pearl Harbor attack by the Japanese. Churchill had been lobbying nonstop for quite some time leading into the U.S. entry into the war to get Roosevelt to join with him in the fight against the Axis. Roosevelt was steadfast in the notion that the U.S. would not enter the war, falling in line with the wants of the U.S. public. However, he changed his mind. Pearl Harbor was not a suprise attack.
In fact, Churchill and FDR were co-conspirators in the greatest turncoat action ever perpetrated on the American people. At the time, congress and the American people were very opposed to the war, and Roosevelt got all the justification he needed with the Pearl Harbor attack. Roosevelt denied intelligence to the armed forced in Hawaii about the location of the Japanese fleet and deceived them regarding ongoing relations with the Japs. He made ready the red cross to prepare for the disaster before it even happened. The 'devastation' of the pacific navy fleet was a myth, the ships destroyed in the attack were older ships nonessential to the main force of the navy in that region. FDR had the essential ships put out to sea previous to the attack in preparation. I forget who he called, but he called someone with the British government, I don't think it was Churchill, mere minutes after being informed about the attack and without any damage reports, and told them that none of the newer ships were in the harbor. Churchill and J. Edgar Hoover have both confirmed that FDR had knowledge that the Japanese were coming. He intentionally kept Hawaii in the dark to spark public outrage when the attack happened, knowing that was the only way congress would let him enter the war. The was in an era where you needed the support of congress to declare war
That being said, the U.S. entry into WWII was a net positive. I have no doubt Hitler could have stonewalled Stalin and Churchill without the intervention of the U.S. The Axis would have dominated all of Western Europe and the Russians were far too poorly organized to ever defeat the Nazis on their own. One of Hitler's biggest miscalculations was the United States' willingness to enter the war. FDR did a deplorable thing to get the U.S. into the war, but it needed to happen. In this case,
Isolationism is defeated by the greater good of the largest part of the civilized world at the time. I would have opposed entering the war, and I would have been dead wrong. That being said, lets move to your next question:
The invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan were both deplorable. There as no reason for either, with or without Saddam's supposed weapons of mass destruction. That's why it is a moot point for me, and my eyes glass over when people argue about Bushs' intentions, and whether or not there was actionable military intelligence on WMD's.
It doesn't matter. Possession of WMD's in the hands of an aggressive country isn't a crime, we would have turned on Isreal long ago. Of course, Netanyahu isn't gassing his own people, but still, there was no aggression toward another country. There is no doctrine that requires the United States to be the watchdog of the world. Judgement must be applied, and action taken only when the greater good of a large group of countries is at stake, and it wasn't. Afghanistan is barely a country. Iraq was downright inept, it's a good thing they invaded Kuwait preceding the Gulf War, because they would have gotten their ass handed to them if they invaded anywhere else.
Alternatively, I approve of strike actions like the one that netted us Bin Laden. Sovereignty is overrated. I know that will anger some of the purists here, but one constant of the United States has been a strong military, and that allows us to do whatever the hell we want, basically. I draw the line short of occupying a country. People may cry foul about this, "The United States is a bully," and "The US has no right." We have the right, and its stamped on every serviceman's uniform and piece of war machinery. It's the universal law of force, and we didn't invent it. It's been practiced in every civilization from the dawn of time. Any notion that we have simply moved past it is a fallacy. Mablak and Shy might want to cut military spending way down, but there's a reason no country has even though about invading the United States in 60 years. Theres a reason North America is the safest place in the world in terms of armed conflict. Could you imagine if the US was situated in mecca with its current force? Would Hezbollah be running skirmishes on our borders? I think not. The people that want to cut military spending in half, are the very people that take their absolute safety every day for granted. I know that is a hard line, but I feel military spending is important to the United States. Who in this country is really suffering? I mean, really. Take a trip down skid row in Mumbai and tell me the soup kitchen line in Los Angeles compares. The needs of the many have always outweighed the needs of the few.
Long story short, Peja. No. I wouldn't commit the resources. I'd bomb the shit out of key locations and equip the oppressed as best I could, but liberation of a country rests in the hands of its citizens. My country was founded on those principles. Only in situations of world war and/or a threat to the immediate safety of the American people do I order troops to occupy a country.
Forums
Author
Topic: Wally's school of politics (Read 9924 times)