Checking my premises
I was unsure as to whether I would title this, "Unlearning what I have learned" or "Checking my premises", because in it, I have done both. A couple of recent posts by AmericanGreatness and Eudaimonia, along with a couple of posts from 1-2 weeks ago are relevant.
I have long thought that the US military was an agent for liberation from totalitarian regimes. Now should I think they are mere pawns of their political masters, most often performing altruism to societies that do not appreciate their presence?
I had long thought that having a strong military meant having a strong national defense. After seeing 67 out of 70 purposeful attempts by TSA employees to evade TSA screening in a "test" of TSA security, I know differently. Moreover, the strong military and even the border agents were unable to protect us from an invasion of illegal immigrants because the one holding the leash kept the military and border agents on so tight a leash that they were unable to do what used to be their job.
I had long thought (because I had thought that the US military was an agent for liberation from totalitarian regimes) that the US had the "moral high ground". I still think that abortion is not the best moral decision and have been criticized (perhaps rightly) within the Gulch for that opinion. Moreover, I see a commentator (sorry, but I forget whom) on FoxNews suggest that America has lost the "moral high ground" in light of the Planned Parenthood situation (The commentator said that Muslims must consider us barbarous for having so many abortions. The term barbarous ironically is derived from the Barbary Pirates in Libya.).
I'm just checking my premises.
I have long thought that the US military was an agent for liberation from totalitarian regimes. Now should I think they are mere pawns of their political masters, most often performing altruism to societies that do not appreciate their presence?
I had long thought that having a strong military meant having a strong national defense. After seeing 67 out of 70 purposeful attempts by TSA employees to evade TSA screening in a "test" of TSA security, I know differently. Moreover, the strong military and even the border agents were unable to protect us from an invasion of illegal immigrants because the one holding the leash kept the military and border agents on so tight a leash that they were unable to do what used to be their job.
I had long thought (because I had thought that the US military was an agent for liberation from totalitarian regimes) that the US had the "moral high ground". I still think that abortion is not the best moral decision and have been criticized (perhaps rightly) within the Gulch for that opinion. Moreover, I see a commentator (sorry, but I forget whom) on FoxNews suggest that America has lost the "moral high ground" in light of the Planned Parenthood situation (The commentator said that Muslims must consider us barbarous for having so many abortions. The term barbarous ironically is derived from the Barbary Pirates in Libya.).
I'm just checking my premises.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 9.
Cowardice can lead to poor choices in life.
An example would be fear of being belittled or disowned by one's peerage for being the reason to do something against one's conscience.
What they didn't know was the extent of Roosevelt's behind the scenes maneuvering to get into it. But Roosevelt wasn't antagonizing Japan because he wanted a war. Japan was already antagonistic, as illustrated by its atrocities in China. Roosevelt expected war with Japan, but wasn't relishing it as war for its own sake in the manner of a Hitler. He could have avoided it by withdrawing from Asia but did not want to abandon legitimate interests there and at least correctly saw that the growing Japanese empire was the evil. Secretly anticipating war with Japan in that context, he was only careful to avoid being the initiator; he wanted it to be clear that Japan was the attacker against the US.
He knew that Japan would attack but did not know where and was expecting it to be somewhere in the far east, not Hawaii. The Japanese codes had been broken but encrypted messages revealing Pearl Harbor were languishing in the bureaucracy.
Roosevelt's everlasting legacy of irresponsibility was in not being prepared for a major war he knew was coming and did not try to avoid, setting us up for the travesty of the Pearl Harbor attack wiping out most of the fleet. If the Japanese had started farther in the east without Hawaii, Roosevelt would have been just as unprepared.
You see the Socialists recognize what many of we Americans do not; viz. to destroy America it is not enough to control the schools, courts, borders, and Congress - they must also disarm us in the face of our enemies.
The problem is not with your premises, rather a failure to take a clear-eyed look at the nature of our common enemy and his plan for our future..
about the military conducting altruistic campaigns in countries
where we are not considered allies. . IMHO, we must consider
the political angles first, to understand Their Premises. -- j
.
But now by age 68, I do have regrets to look back upon.
The late great Baron von Richthofen (Snoopy's nemesis) once spoke of an "inner schweinehund" one must always overcome.
I think we can all agree that the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines constitute what most people think of as our active military dealing with armed conflict. The others you mention, however, are more police roles, such as the Coast Guard, Border Patrol, Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). That being said, ultimately ALL fall under the auspices of the President of the United States. If there are repeated failures of these institutions, one should rightly look to the Commander-in-Chief and upper echelons of authority for responsibility.
Should we use our military to engage in "peacekeeping" across the globe? I don't believe we should unless invited. In Desert Storm, we were invited by Kuwait to defend them and push back against the aggression of the neighboring Iraqis led by Saddam Hussein. We had an interest in protecting not only trade but our allies in the region, so we were not only defending against aggression, but strengthening trade ties. I believe this can be justified.
The more recent actions to overthrow regimes, however, I believe are not within a defensive role. Our recent actions to depose Saddam Hussein in Iraq, Bashar Assad in Libya, and Mohammed Morsi in Egypt lie outside our role as invited defenders. Further, it is highly questionable that the outcomes further our interests.
Ayn Rand said: "An informed society is a free society."
The same goes for an individual.
Over the past decade I have really been checking my premises. For me, it started with our response to 9/11. The American people were all behind a military response to attack our attackers. I turned on the tv one night to see our first military action...dropping food on Afghanistan. This confused me. Next, we invaded Iraq. Confused again. Look at what our actions have done to the world over the past 14 years. A million dead in Iraq, per some reports. A million.
Harvesting organs of 2nd trimester babies because you "want to buy a Lamborghini", in my opinion, exceeds what I would consider "rational self interest". Forcing medical treatment on people also is outside the bounds of rational self interest. These are just a couple recent examples.
Frankly, I think the American people are being duped. The other night when the media exploded over Trump's comments regarding Mexico I blurted out, "If we were really at war with terrorism, we'd control our borders." It, to me, is starting to feel like we're living in a big Truman Show. The general public is so easily distracted over stories like a trophy hunter killing a lion...it doesn't bode well. I've had people that I know to be very intelligent and educated regurgitate obvious falsehoods and it always makes me stop and say, "What's going on here?" Like I said...Truman Show...duped.
...Yeah, it's always good to check our premises. Sorry for my early-morning ramblings...
$
"And then conquer we must, when our cause it is just, and this be our motto, In God is Our Trust."
That is one step beyond defending your home from the war's desolation.
Jackson, too, is a mixed bag. We are supposed to hate central banks but the "pet banks" that Jackson chose were not a consistently moral solution. In fact, they were an example of his political strategy: to the victor go the spoils. That is no way to run a government. A government based on rational principles needs a permanent, independent bureaucracy.
Jackson defied the Supreme Court. Chief Justice Marshall chose discretion over valor and let the injustice against the Cherokee Nation be carried out. What choice did he have? He could have called on the federal marshals. He could enlarged their force and over-powered the White House guards and arrested Jackson. Where would that have led? Perhaps he should have, but alternate histories are problematic.
Life is change.
$
Load more comments...