Howard you are somewhat supportive of talking with the taliban?!?! I don't think you are naive enough to take them at their word.
Of COURSE I would like to see anyone held captive by them released, but am NOT willing to release 5 taliban and/or al queda leaders from Gitmo to attain that.
This administration is proven to be just that naive and spineless. They have been bullied and beaten down in just about any negotiations they have entered into. We are a laughing stock in the world political arena.
In order for there to be successful negotiations, any two parties have to have at least some common ground. That is why this administration is best suited for the task of negotiating with the Taliban. They share the common goals of undermining America's financial stability, taking away freedoms and liberties, and doing what they can to stand in the way of Christianity.
Bob,this "spineless" administration took out Bin Laden, which in itself was a huge risk.
Remember what happened to the Carter Administration after the failed attempt to rescue the iranian hostages?
This spineless Admin also seems to be sucessfully crushing the 2nd amendment. As well as other "rights" all on almost no basis whatsoever, and in the face of the american people. I personally think the spinless ones are those of us that complain and bitch about what the govy does but doesnt bother to vote them out or take a stand in local, city, county or state or national forums and say so. Spineless and apathetic.
As for USA being the laughingstock of the world political arena.....how so? Seems to me every crisis that pops up the world's political leaders look to us for guidance and advice. We still seem to strike fear into the political leaders we set ourselves against. I dont see China or Russia lining up on our borders ready to eliminate our laughingstock leaders. I still dont see the UN having enough balls to dictate to us what we are gonna do and where.
N. Korea. Pakistan. Iraq. Egypt. Yemen. Serbia. Syria. Venezuela.Spain. Mexico. Greece. Lebanon. Algeria.. All these and many more thumb their noses at us - especially the at the current administration. Almost the entire UN sees us as deep pockets that don't mind being snubbed very frequently.
Saying that Russia and China are not "lined up" at our borders is a ridiculous statement, Kyle. They are beating us in SO many ways. Especially China with it's unfair trade practices with us that we continue to tolerate. Russia beats us in the world forum of credibility. I believe both (and maybe others) are more proficient in technological espionage and warfare.
Bush, Reagan, and even Clinton may not have been liked, but they were respected and deemed credible. I see none of that with obama.
I usually agree with your points of view,Kyle, but we are worlds apart on this one.
Why is any talk necessary. We're there one day, gone the next. Not a word need be spoken, except, "Goodbye and good luck.".....My thoughts exactly....they won't honor any type of treaty anyways so why waste any more of our time...we all know the drill, good old uncle sam promises millions in aid ..and we get nothing in return...
Bob, who really cares what that piss ant group of countries you mentioned think. We need to keep our own borders
safe,let the rest of these rogue idiots kill each other. The only reaction from the US should be to pull up a chair, get a bag of popcorn, and watch the show.
I understand what you are saying, and would like to agree with you, but I just don't think you're being realistic in these days and times.
Notice how much of the world's oil is controlled by that "piss ant group". obama won't let us use our own resources or even build the pipeline due his party's ties to the tree huggers.No matter what you say, we are dependent on our enemies for simple survival. We were once THE world power. I submit that we are now a resource of money with no real spine to determine how it is spent. I also wouldn't put China, Russia, Pakistan or N. Korea in a group labelled piss ants. They are all nuclear powers.
My point is simply that we have lost the respect of most nations in the world. I can't say its all obama's fault but the situation has worsened tenfold during his watch.
When it comes to foriegn policy we HAVE to negotiate from a position of strength. We do not have that anymore. I think it was Howard that mentioned Viet Nam. We did not learn then or since that a war cannot be fought from Washington - give the commanders their objectives and get the hell out of the way. Fighting any war with an eye to political correctness is the main reason we have fallen to the low level of respect we receive today.
I stand by my original statement: In the arena of world politics we have become a laughingstock. We have been proven to be impotent in every conflict since, and including, Viet Nam.
Staying completely disengaged from foreign entities was not the intention of our founding fathers, NOR was being the world's police. There has to be a balance. It is unreasonable for our country to impose our system of democracy, representative republic, or what ever title you want to give it. However, we as a nation have built our foundation on a set of ideals that transcend politics and are based on the ideals of basic human rights for all, regardless of distinction. When human atrocities are being carried out, even halfway around the world, we as the standard bearer for humanity, equality, and justice are remiss if we stand by and do nothing. Again, imposing our governmental structure on other nations is neither feasable, nor prudent. Since so many of our founding fathers used the scriptures as their moral compass, I believe their intervention strategies were likely based on James 4:17 "So whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin." ESV
That may be Jeff, but this particular situation is not a good example. Hitler violently invading other countries, Saddam invading Kuwait are 2 examples of times when we probably had to intervene. Internal conflicts are not a great idea. Our presence in the middle east anywhere is just causing more problems. If we intervene, we give them a common enemy,almost every time. If we stay away, they will just fight amongst themselves. The right thing, to me is to extend the hand of friendship and free trade to all countries, while maintaining our defenses, and show by example what peace can accomplish. We have not done that since WW2
" If we stay away, they will just fight amongst themselves" Dave, do you genuinely believe that to be the case with Islamic fundamentalists? Again, I am not advocating being the world's police, but the Taliban is fundamentally skewed toward our demise as a nation, ignoring them will not make them throw down their sticks and stones and walk away.
Also, respect for neutrality would not apply in this situation since the Taliban (read : all Islamic fundamentalists) are a known, sworn enemy of not only our nation, but our freedoms, and way of life.
Yes, I genuinely do believe that. I am hardly alone. The only reason for 9-11 (and I really don't want to get back into this 12 years hence) was our interventions.
As a side note, I just re-read Washington's farewell address, it is always amazing to me that all of the predictions he forewarned about, came to pass. Our republic has gotten past some, but surely not all. He was a brilliant man and as a country we should have and still should revere his words.
Dave, as to your last paragraph, those words could not be more relevant at any other time in our history. The fundamental ideals of those great men should never be discounted as irrelevant or obsolete, they are truly timeless. Well said.
Washington's farewell address is my inspiration and guiding light for two of my fundamental beliefs: Avoid faction (don't join political parties) and avoid foreign entanglements.
People tend to confuse non-intervention with isolationism, or worse, pacifism. That simply isn't the case. Non-intervention is foreign policy as Washington would have it.
Washington was no pacifist, that's for sure Howard. I'm with you on that Howard. Strong defense, free trade and equal treatment, but no meddling. He was right about preparing for the possibly of war, being much cheaper than a panic later. I never got that he was against political parties as much he didn't like the idea of 2 powerful factions constantly fighting each other rather than operating the nation. He was also guarded against following party doctrine blindly. Just my opinion.
"All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests.
However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, <b>they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government</b>, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion. "
Emphasis added.
As far as I'm concerned, there is nothing more damning to the idea of party over principle and party over national interest and the will of the people than Washington's words.
I read in his words no compromise on the idea that political parties are damaging to a free nation.
Here is the link to Washington's Farewell Address, and Dave is so correct at the visionary presence of this man.
As a point of interest, Washington never actually uttered the words 'Avoid foreign entanglements. That phrase was an interpretation of his address. But his meaning was clear. it was derives from these paragraphs
"In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential, than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular Nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The Nation, which indulges towards another an habitual hatred, or an habitual fondness, is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The Nation, prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the Government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The Government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times, it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of Nations has been the victim.
So likewise, a passionate attachment of one Nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite Nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest, in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter, without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite Nation of privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the Nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained; and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens, (who devote themselves to the favorite nation,) facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation."
At the time, the Treaty Of Alliance with France was due to expire and Washington felt, correctly so in my opinion, that treaties for anything other than commerce were inherently dangerous, and the Treaty Of Paris should not be renewed. Those words were followed up until the end of World War II when NATO was formed, Washington probably rolled over several times at that time.
Washington indeed was no Pacifist and neither was Jefferson who asked for and received permission from congress and the funding for a task force to make war with the Muslim Pasha North Africa and enter into war, {Known as the first of the Barbary Wars] when those nations promoted piracy against non Muslim trade vessels in the Mediterranean Sea.
The initial assault and invasion of Afghanistan was not an intervention in Foreign Affairs but it became one when we started nation building a few short years afterwards. Our initial invasion was a direct act of defense, however our prolonged presence there is not an act of defense rather an attempt to build a nation friendly to our ideals and that is in fact intervention.
I'm pretty sure that the only
I'm pretty sure that the only time America has negotiated with the enemy was to sign an agreement to a total surrender.
Like ours in Vietnam,
Like ours in Vietnam, Doug?
For the no votes, what about gaining release of the lone prisoner of war held by the Taliban? Four years in captivity?
I voted no only because I think we should just leave.
Good point
Good point
Don't forget the negotiations
Don't forget the negotiations with Iran by Pres. (elect?) Reagan.
I didn't agree with it then, and I don't now...
Howard; " I voted no only
Howard; " I voted no only because I think we should just leave."
A big amen to you brother.
We should also release anyone in Gitmo who was not Al Queda, and hold court on those who were or were suspected, and get Sgt. Bergdahl home.
Howard you are somewhat
Howard you are somewhat supportive of talking with the taliban?!?! I don't think you are naive enough to take them at their word.
Of COURSE I would like to see anyone held captive by them released, but am NOT willing to release 5 taliban and/or al queda leaders from Gitmo to attain that.
This administration is proven to be just that naive and spineless. They have been bullied and beaten down in just about any negotiations they have entered into. We are a laughing stock in the world political arena.
Bob, I said we should just
Bob, I said we should just leave. Where is talk in that?
In order for there to be
In order for there to be successful negotiations, any two parties have to have at least some common ground. That is why this administration is best suited for the task of negotiating with the Taliban. They share the common goals of undermining America's financial stability, taking away freedoms and liberties, and doing what they can to stand in the way of Christianity.
Bob,this "spineless"
Bob,this "spineless" administration took out Bin Laden, which in itself was a huge risk.
Remember what happened to the Carter Administration after the failed attempt to rescue the iranian hostages?
This spineless Admin also
This spineless Admin also seems to be sucessfully crushing the 2nd amendment. As well as other "rights" all on almost no basis whatsoever, and in the face of the american people. I personally think the spinless ones are those of us that complain and bitch about what the govy does but doesnt bother to vote them out or take a stand in local, city, county or state or national forums and say so. Spineless and apathetic.
As for USA being the laughingstock of the world political arena.....how so? Seems to me every crisis that pops up the world's political leaders look to us for guidance and advice. We still seem to strike fear into the political leaders we set ourselves against. I dont see China or Russia lining up on our borders ready to eliminate our laughingstock leaders. I still dont see the UN having enough balls to dictate to us what we are gonna do and where.
"For the no votes, what about
"For the no votes, what about gaining release of the lone prisoner of war held by the Taliban? Four years in captivity?"
How could that not include talks and negotiations with the terrorists, Howard.
Frank, do I really need to
Frank, do I really need to list all the foreign policy blunders by the obama administration?
N. Korea. Pakistan. Iraq.
N. Korea. Pakistan. Iraq. Egypt. Yemen. Serbia. Syria. Venezuela.Spain. Mexico. Greece. Lebanon. Algeria.. All these and many more thumb their noses at us - especially the at the current administration. Almost the entire UN sees us as deep pockets that don't mind being snubbed very frequently.
Saying that Russia and China are not "lined up" at our borders is a ridiculous statement, Kyle. They are beating us in SO many ways. Especially China with it's unfair trade practices with us that we continue to tolerate. Russia beats us in the world forum of credibility. I believe both (and maybe others) are more proficient in technological espionage and warfare.
Bush, Reagan, and even Clinton may not have been liked, but they were respected and deemed credible. I see none of that with obama.
I usually agree with your points of view,Kyle, but we are worlds apart on this one.
"How could that not include
"How could that not include talks and negotiations with the terrorists, Howard."
Why is any talk necessary. We're there one day, gone the next. Not a word need be spoken, except, "Goodbye and good luck."
Why is any talk necessary.
Why is any talk necessary. We're there one day, gone the next. Not a word need be spoken, except, "Goodbye and good luck.".....My thoughts exactly....they won't honor any type of treaty anyways so why waste any more of our time...we all know the drill, good old uncle sam promises millions in aid ..and we get nothing in return...
Bob, who really cares what
Bob, who really cares what that piss ant group of countries you mentioned think. We need to keep our own borders
safe,let the rest of these rogue idiots kill each other. The only reaction from the US should be to pull up a chair, get a bag of popcorn, and watch the show.
I understand what you are
I understand what you are saying, and would like to agree with you, but I just don't think you're being realistic in these days and times.
Notice how much of the world's oil is controlled by that "piss ant group". obama won't let us use our own resources or even build the pipeline due his party's ties to the tree huggers.No matter what you say, we are dependent on our enemies for simple survival. We were once THE world power. I submit that we are now a resource of money with no real spine to determine how it is spent. I also wouldn't put China, Russia, Pakistan or N. Korea in a group labelled piss ants. They are all nuclear powers.
My point is simply that we have lost the respect of most nations in the world. I can't say its all obama's fault but the situation has worsened tenfold during his watch.
When it comes to foriegn policy we HAVE to negotiate from a position of strength. We do not have that anymore. I think it was Howard that mentioned Viet Nam. We did not learn then or since that a war cannot be fought from Washington - give the commanders their objectives and get the hell out of the way. Fighting any war with an eye to political correctness is the main reason we have fallen to the low level of respect we receive today.
I stand by my original statement: In the arena of world politics we have become a laughingstock. We have been proven to be impotent in every conflict since, and including, Viet Nam.
Cure to being a
Cure to being a laughingstock: Don't mess in other people's business.
Better solution: Be credible,
Better solution: Be credible, respected, and armed - just like on the street.
Staying completely disengaged
Staying completely disengaged from foreign entities was not the intention of our founding fathers, NOR was being the world's police. There has to be a balance. It is unreasonable for our country to impose our system of democracy, representative republic, or what ever title you want to give it. However, we as a nation have built our foundation on a set of ideals that transcend politics and are based on the ideals of basic human rights for all, regardless of distinction. When human atrocities are being carried out, even halfway around the world, we as the standard bearer for humanity, equality, and justice are remiss if we stand by and do nothing. Again, imposing our governmental structure on other nations is neither feasable, nor prudent. Since so many of our founding fathers used the scriptures as their moral compass, I believe their intervention strategies were likely based on James 4:17 "So whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin." ESV
That may be Jeff, but this
That may be Jeff, but this particular situation is not a good example. Hitler violently invading other countries, Saddam invading Kuwait are 2 examples of times when we probably had to intervene. Internal conflicts are not a great idea. Our presence in the middle east anywhere is just causing more problems. If we intervene, we give them a common enemy,almost every time. If we stay away, they will just fight amongst themselves. The right thing, to me is to extend the hand of friendship and free trade to all countries, while maintaining our defenses, and show by example what peace can accomplish. We have not done that since WW2
As for the founders, there are many many examples of their respect for neutrality.
I would suggest Washington's farewell address for starters. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp
" If we stay away, they will
" If we stay away, they will just fight amongst themselves" Dave, do you genuinely believe that to be the case with Islamic fundamentalists? Again, I am not advocating being the world's police, but the Taliban is fundamentally skewed toward our demise as a nation, ignoring them will not make them throw down their sticks and stones and walk away.
Also, respect for neutrality would not apply in this situation since the Taliban (read : all Islamic fundamentalists) are a known, sworn enemy of not only our nation, but our freedoms, and way of life.
Yes, I genuinely do believe
Yes, I genuinely do believe that. I am hardly alone. The only reason for 9-11 (and I really don't want to get back into this 12 years hence) was our interventions.
Here is Ron Paul's 2008 reading suggestion for Giuliani when he said basically the same thing you just did. Still all true. http://www.amazon.com/Educating-Rudy-Paul-reading-list/lm/RJML1CA9L0NCZ
As a side note, I just re-read Washington's farewell address, it is always amazing to me that all of the predictions he forewarned about, came to pass. Our republic has gotten past some, but surely not all. He was a brilliant man and as a country we should have and still should revere his words.
Edit because i forgot the link
Dave, as to your last
Dave, as to your last paragraph, those words could not be more relevant at any other time in our history. The fundamental ideals of those great men should never be discounted as irrelevant or obsolete, they are truly timeless. Well said.
Washington's farewell address
Washington's farewell address is my inspiration and guiding light for two of my fundamental beliefs: Avoid faction (don't join political parties) and avoid foreign entanglements.
People tend to confuse non-intervention with isolationism, or worse, pacifism. That simply isn't the case. Non-intervention is foreign policy as Washington would have it.
Washington was no pacifist,
Washington was no pacifist, that's for sure Howard. I'm with you on that Howard. Strong defense, free trade and equal treatment, but no meddling. He was right about preparing for the possibly of war, being much cheaper than a panic later. I never got that he was against political parties as much he didn't like the idea of 2 powerful factions constantly fighting each other rather than operating the nation. He was also guarded against following party doctrine blindly. Just my opinion.
"All obstructions to the
"All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests.
However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, <b>they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government</b>, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion. "
Emphasis added.
As far as I'm concerned, there is nothing more damning to the idea of party over principle and party over national interest and the will of the people than Washington's words.
I read in his words no compromise on the idea that political parties are damaging to a free nation.
Here is the link to
Here is the link to Washington's Farewell Address, and Dave is so correct at the visionary presence of this man.
As a point of interest, Washington never actually uttered the words 'Avoid foreign entanglements. That phrase was an interpretation of his address. But his meaning was clear. it was derives from these paragraphs
"In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential, than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular Nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The Nation, which indulges towards another an habitual hatred, or an habitual fondness, is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The Nation, prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the Government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The Government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times, it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of Nations has been the victim.
So likewise, a passionate attachment of one Nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite Nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest, in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter, without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite Nation of privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the Nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained; and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens, (who devote themselves to the favorite nation,) facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation."
At the time, the Treaty Of Alliance with France was due to expire and Washington felt, correctly so in my opinion, that treaties for anything other than commerce were inherently dangerous, and the Treaty Of Paris should not be renewed. Those words were followed up until the end of World War II when NATO was formed, Washington probably rolled over several times at that time.
Washington indeed was no Pacifist and neither was Jefferson who asked for and received permission from congress and the funding for a task force to make war with the Muslim Pasha North Africa and enter into war, {Known as the first of the Barbary Wars] when those nations promoted piracy against non Muslim trade vessels in the Mediterranean Sea.
The initial assault and invasion of Afghanistan was not an intervention in Foreign Affairs but it became one when we started nation building a few short years afterwards. Our initial invasion was a direct act of defense, however our prolonged presence there is not an act of defense rather an attempt to build a nation friendly to our ideals and that is in fact intervention.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Washington%27s_Farewell_Address#22