Letters to the Editor
-
And I'll just point out
That the very architect of the Pearl Harbor attack, admiral Yamamoto, knew he was embarking on a course that would almost certainly end in the destruction of his nation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isoroku_Yamamoto
-
Apologies!
Eat Asian kamatazuna, mizuna greens, onions, spinach, and Mizos soup.
Contact!
Sometimes the flies fly around the flame, and honesty is too hot to touch.
-
Aycharaych/Bucky
For those in the "Obama-is-no-different" group, here is an interview with Justin Raimondo -- who has long protested the lack of difference between Democrats and Republicans and contended they are but two factions in the same War Party -- arguing that there are, indeed, meaningful and fundamental differences between Obama's foreign policy and McCain's.
Many people here won't care about this, but for those inclined to that line of thinking, I think the interview is worth hearing -
http://antiwar.com/radio/2008/03/20/justin-raimondo-2/
-
@Baldie
(2) I specifically asked about fighting for our rights. That rules out the actions of the National Guard, though I did (and do) acknowledge the point. I never meant to suggest the Guard doesn't follow orders (another discussion going on at the time).
(3) Regarding my last comment, I realize that acting properly as the world's policeman is no less problematic than, say, achieving world peace without the use of arms. So, I do repudiate Bush's imperialistic stance specifically, but also all American imperialism. Still, some of our adventures have been understandable---just not in defense of American citizens' rights, and not worthy of fetishism.
-- Baldie McEagle
Somebody is playing fast and loose with the term "fight," wouldn't you agree? It is a vague term but until NG troops are armed with typewriters and trained to fight with them, you don't have much of a leg to stand on.
What does "world's policeman" have to do with this? That is rhetoric. We have a navy to protect U.S. shipping on the high seas. Do you understand that? If they happen to stop an act of piracy on the high seas involving a ship flying another nation's flag, that is just traditional law of the sea. You don't just sail by a ship in distress, no matter what flag it is flying. We have troops in case we have to protect some American interest around the world. We are not the only nation who does this.
Unfortunately we have a poor set of craftsmen in charge of the toolbox of state right now. American military force, including American troops, are a set of tools that can be misused and abused by a poor craftsman. You own tools, right? There are some people you do not lend them to. If you are like me, you probably don't lend them out at all. The last time I did that (to my best friend) I regretted it and that piece was trashed.
The debate about the size, control, purpose and use of the military is a political one but the primary purpose for their existence is the support and defense of the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).
American troops have been used to "fight" for some American's rights, to defend the constitution, since 1812, like the Civil War and the cases I cited. To assert otherwise is just false. If they have been used so infrequently in that role, it is a testament to the strength of our imperfect system, not proof that a standing army is absolutely unnecessary for that purpose. I grant you the tools are far too often misused and abused but we have elections every four years and sometimes we elect the duds, the dregs, the total losers who just have no respect for the tools of state or any idea how to use them properly. For your information, very few of the founders felt that way, afraid of a standing army, in spite of the propaganda and rhetoric you have read.
Primarily it was George Mason and he was laughed at and ridiculed for his position. It is true that we are not in danger of invasion. That does not mean we are not in danger of other hostile actions or intent, nor does it mean that tool can be tossed aside, or that it is the proper tool to use in every instance for defense of the constitution.
-
Well... this is where the conversation with Baldie got murky
You know what the real question is: Since the war of 1812 when have America's armed forces protected our liberties from external aggression that had a realistic prospect of overthrowing or invading our nation?
-- Aycharaych
As I said it would. Defining "national interest" is the problem.
All of a sudden it is in our "national interest" that the whole world be "democratized". Just like it used to be critical for the survival of America (it still is, Chavez is a commie!) that no other nation adopt a system that was in any way socialist leaning. Nationalizing Venezuelan industries is unAmerican. Castro didn't want to deal with the Soviets. He just wanted Cuba for Cubans. Ike fanned him and sent Nixon to meet with him. Another one of Ike's mistakes. We drove Fidel into the arms of the Soviets because he wouldn't play the game by the old rules. I'm not arguing with Baldie about the fact that our military is misused. I agree with him. I'm just saying it is a tool in the toolbox that can be used correctly to do the job it was designed for and that like any tool, it should only be used for the job it was designed for.
-
Hayden is on MTP now
But I suppose you East Coasters have already seen it, so you West Coasters take note.