FOREIGN: War and Oppression

The old adage "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter", still holds true. Even more so today, viewpoints in both the media and in political wrangling are arranged to force one point of view. Perhaps rather than casting the latest enemy to the US as yet another world evil and anyone who complains as a collaborationist, the US and Britain should take a careful look at the impression they are making on the people we are forcing into subjugation.

To some of the Iraqi people who have lost loved ones or been thrown out of their homes in the dead of night Americans are the terrorists. To some Northern Irish people who have lost loved ones or been thrown out of their homes in the dead of night the British are the terrorists. To a lot of French People I'm sure that the Germans were the terrorists in the two previous World Wars. To the revolutionaries in the American War of Independence the British were the terrorists.

In all these cases a powerful country dominating a less powerful country subjugated and terrorized the populace as they fought to maintain their way of life and maintain control. In each of these cases we can find stories of people being thrown from their houses in the dead of night and taken to prison without trial and squeezed for information. In each one of these wars the oppressor viewed the oppressed as evil, if not as evil as the true enemy that was hiding among them. This view is convenient for politicians as they can label everything as black and white.

In each one of these wars the Powerful country came out looking bad in the end and gaining a generations worth of animosity from those they set out to subjugate. This will again happen in Iraq. This is still happening in the North of Ireland.

Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
Isn't the ultimate mandate of the Constitution of the United States to allow for and even promote desenting opinions? Any politician that pretends we aren't using the same terrorist tactics that occupying forces have been using for centuries shouldnt be trusted, and shouldn't be voted back into office.

- Was


[edit on 8-20-2004 by Valhall]

Here's a couple of snippets from an article at Badnarik.org that succinctly sum up the Libertarian views:

A Libertarian president would not have sent the military trampling about the world, racking up a death count in the thousands, wasting tax money on destroying and re-building infrastructure, creating more enemies, and doing the kinds of things that led to 9/11 in the first place.

Libertarians understand the importance of adhering to the Constitution, because it is designed to limit the power of the state here and abroad. And we especially understand the danger of war, which expands the power of the government far beyond its constitutional limits.

We believe that we should scale back our international presence and focus on a strong national defense. Our interventionist policy does more to hurt national security than anything else in the world.

Originally posted by PistolPete

A Libertarian president would not have sent the military trampling about the world, racking up a death count in the thousands, wasting tax money on destroying and re-building infrastructure, creating more enemies, and doing the kinds of things that led to 9/11 in the first place.

Libertarians understand the importance of adhering to the Constitution, because it is designed to limit the power of the state here and abroad. And we especially understand the danger of war, which expands the power of the government far beyond its constitutional limits.

We believe that we should scale back our international presence and focus on a strong national defense. Our interventionist policy does more to hurt national security than anything else in the world.

I posted this reply in a previous Foreign Policy discussion and I think that it is relevant here as well.

The premise of this whole argument has its basis in the Monroe Doctrine

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

He argued and finally won over the Cabinet to an independent policy. In Monroe's message to Congress on December 2, 1823, he delivered what we have always called the Monroe Doctrine, although in truth it should have been called the Adams Doctrine. Essentially, the United States was informing the powers of the Old World that the American continents were no longer open to European colonization, and that any effort to extend European political influence into the New World would be considered by the United States "as dangerous to our peace and safety." The United States would not interfere in European wars or internal affairs, and expected Europe to stay out of American affairs.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


However, 1823 was a different time, a different world. Events occuring in Europe may not have impacted the America at all. Nor did we see the level of globalism that is the driving force of the global economy. What if America had held true to the Monroe Doctirne of Isolationism as people have advocated. Would Hitler have been stopped at France? Would SE Asia come under the spehre of Communism. Would Europe have suffered the same fate? While the interventions would have served our interest in the long term, but the Isolationist America may not have interfered untill a direct threat was presented.

People will argue that Americas war in Iraq was a different cause. I however feel the reasons for the war in Iraq mirror those in the above cases. The war ultimetly served Americas long term interests. (The debate about the reasons to go to war is a whole other topic IMHO). The Democrats will say that the war has made our security worse. Perhaps that is so at least in the short term, but taking the long view the change in Iraq will bring dividens in the future. Terrorism will require that the United States to take action far from its shores. This requires a global system of bases from which to defend our interests. The countries that the bases are located in recieve economic benifits from them. Its a sybiotic relationship. We cannot isolate ourselves and expect the terrorist to simply leave us alone. Nor will i sleep better knowing that fairweather allies like France and Germany are watching our backs.

America as the sole remaining superpower does need to take leadership on the global stage. However, the needs of the US needs to take priority over the needs of others. Bowing to the will of the UN or France is not the answer. I am not calling for PAX Americana, far from it. However, America can, should, and Has acted in its best interests when required.

It�s very difficult to see where attacking Iraq was in America�s best interest. At least the US had the proof of close ties with Afghanistan. In that case an Army was probably needed due to the scale. The idiotic notion that a country can fight essentially a limited clandestine war with a full army is just ludicrous. A set of well paid and well trained black ops and deep cover agents would have served the US much better. After all that�s who we are fighting against, black ops deep cover agents for the terrorists. Again the idea of trying to do brain surgery with a broadsword comes to mind.

Was it in America�s best interests to attack Iraq? None of the justifications for the war have panned out. Finally the US has had to fall back on rehashing Sadam�s old war crimes in an effort to provide some reason for the continued occupation and subjugation of the Iraqi people. With each innocent death and with each Iraqi family held at gunpoint in the middle of the night by US forces, another potential terrorist is created. The terrorists are winning the PR war in the Middle East and the US is helping them.

Osama�s main purpose was stated as being the escalation of a global conflict between Islam and the West. The current occupation and war is just helping Osama see his goals fulfilled. Both presidential candidates seem to want to reverse this path. Bush looks over those he has conquered and looks right past Saudi Arabia, which at the very least has as many connections to Osama�s terrorist friends as Afghanistan did. Kerry says the main thing he would do differently is he would have created a better coalition. Nothing about not attacking Iraq in the first. Nothing from either of them about it having been a big mistake on both their parts.

- Was

It depends on if you look at the whole picture

I believe it was in the U.S/Britians best intrest as Saddam did have weapons of mass destruction in the past (I also believe/have heard that they have found WMDs but due to the publics reaction it would look like a set up)

Europe also believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction but did not act on it (Many countries sold Iraq Weapons)

Also there will not be as much hostility in the future with Iraq as the Intern government will probly be "allies" with the west

Also Iran has caused a lot of problems to the U.S and Britain (The Hostage Embasys) and vice versa

The US and U.K can now deal with Iran with a more hands on approch if they cause any problems (as Iran is next door and also Iraq did/does not like Iran) and will most likley have the "Jump point" to "Minimize any hostility that Iran could cause to the west + have the resorces to carry it through)

Also Iran is now surrounded by U.S and "Western" Allies/Supporters so bragging about its "Nuclear Weapons program" is probly not going to hold as much weight as it did before if they are surrounded by "Enemys"

[edit on 26-8-2004 by Crash]

There is no addage that states one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. That is very new.

Here is my addage; "He who attacks the innocent people, who uses our mothers, fathers, sons and daughters as cruise missiles to destroy the lives of other sons, daughters, husbands and wives, should be tracked down and slaughtered; each and every one of them. Every group or nation that either assists in training, logistics or manpower, should have Hell on Earth War brought to their doorstep."

I know, my addage is a bit long, but does it get the point across?

Hit them hard, hit them wherever they can be found, so that they do not dare try and hit us again. Get the picture? Man, I would've thought the concept was simple and clear!