A Fatal Trajectory

Aaron wrote:This is one of the few times I do not agree with Thomas Sowell, even when taking into account that democrats have evolved into a combination cowardly lion/sea squirt.

I don't see Americans, no matter how socialist we've become or how much more so Obama and the left will take us, surrendering to a terrorist organization with little to no capabilities to match us militarily.

Aaron wrote:None that equates to a total surrender by the United States of America to a nuclear attack.

I just don't agree, but then that's my personal opinion.

And I base that on history. Americans were so upset after WW1 that we became an isolationist nation. On top of that, we put very little into our military. And with FDR's depression, things got pretty bad, so much so that after FDR lied to Americans and was complicit in Japan's attack on Pearl that we as a nation were pretty as close to out of it as we could be.

It took a couple of years for the tide to start turning but eventually it did and we were able to win 2 wars on 2 fronts.

Somehow I don't see Al Qaeda bringing us to our knees.

Stephanie wrote:I'm sick of all the scare tactics, and that's what this piece by Sowell is.

Aaron wrote:You seem convinced this is the truth because you say Bush and company called Islam the religion of peace. What you're leaving out is that he then proceeded to invade and occupy 2 Islamic countries. What should he have done, wiped all Islamist off the face of the earth?

In another sense, however, looming ahead of us-- and our children and their children-- are dangers that can utterly destroy American society. Worse yet, there are moral corrosions within ourselves that weaken our ability to face the challenges ahead.

One of the many symptoms of this decay from within is that we are preoccupied with the pay of corporate executives while the leading terrorist-sponsoring nation on earth is moving steadily toward creating nuclear bombs.

Does anyone imagine that we will care what anyone's paycheck is when we see an American city in radioactive ruins?

Yet the only serious obstacle to that happening is that the Israelis may disregard the lofty blather coming out of the White House and destroy Iran's nuclear facilities before the Iranian fanatics can destroy Israel.

How did we get to this point? It was no single thing.

The dumbing down of our education, the undermining of moral values with the fad of "non-judgmental" affectations, the denigration of our nation through poisonous propaganda from the movies to the universities. The list goes on and on.

Aaron wrote:Yes Stephanie I get the gist. And I agree. I think we as a nation need someone or something to fear. It's how Congress justifies all the money spent on national defense and the numerous government companies in their districts, not to mention the number of military bases we occupy not only in the US but around the world.

I believe it is past time for us to take on the mentality of those in Washington in the 20's and once again become an isolationist nation.

While no one can excuse Japan's belligerence in those days, it is also true that our government provoked that country in various ways — freezing her assets in America; closing the Panama Canal to her shipping; progressively halting vital exports to Japan until we finally joined Britain in an all-out embargo; sending a hostile note to the Japanese ambassador implying military threats if Tokyo did not alter its Pacific policies; and on November 26th — just 11 days before the Japanese attack — delivering an ultimatum that demanded, as prerequisites to resumed trade, that Japan withdraw all troops from China and Indochina, and in effect abrogate her Tripartite Treaty with Germany and Italy.

After meeting with President Roosevelt on October 16, 1941, Secretary of War Henry Stimson wrote in his diary: "We face the delicate question of the diplomatic fencing to be done so as to be sure Japan is put into the wrong and makes the first bad move — overt move." On November 25th, the day before the ultimatum was sent to Japan's ambassadors, Stimson wrote in his diary: "The question was how we should maneuver them [the Japanese] into the position of firing the first shot...."

The bait offered Japan was our Pacific Fleet. In 1940, Admiral J.O. Richardson, the fleet's commander, flew to Washington to protest FDR's decision to permanently base the fleet in Hawaii instead of its normal berthing on the U.S. West Coast. The admiral had sound reasons: Pearl Harbor was vulnerable to attack, being approachable from any direction; it could not be effectively rigged with nets and baffles to defend against torpedo planes; and in Hawaii it would be hard to supply and train crews for his undermanned vessels. Pearl Harbor also lacked adequate fuel supplies and dry docks, and keeping men far from their families would create morale problems. The argument became heated. Said Richardson: "I came away with the impression that, despite his spoken word, the President was fully determined to put the United States into the war if Great Britain could hold out until he was reelected."

Richardson was quickly relieved of command. Replacing him was Admiral Husband E. Kimmel. Kimmel also informed Roosevelt of Pearl Harbor's deficiencies, but accepted placement there, trusting that Washington would notify him of any intelligence pointing to attack. This proved to be misplaced trust. As Washington watched Japan preparing to assault Pearl Harbor, Admiral Kimmel, as well as his Army counterpart in Hawaii, General Walter C. Short, were completely sealed off from the information pipeline.

source

You seem convinced this is the truth because you say Bush and company called Islam the religion of peace. What you're leaving out is that he then proceeded to invade and occupy 2 Islamic countries. What should he have done, wiped all Islamist off the face of the earth?

Stephanie wrote:Look, I don't understand why you insist on calling a foreign policy that doesn't interfer with the internal operations of other countries "isolationist". When you have travel and trade and dialogue that isn't isolationist.

Isolationism is a foreign policy which combines a non-interventionist military policy and a political policy of economic nationalism (protectionism). In other words, it asserts both of the following:

Non-interventionism – Political rulers should avoid entangling alliances with other nations and avoid all wars not related to direct territorial self-defense.
Protectionism – There should be legal barriers to control trade and cultural exchange with people in other states.
Isolationism is not to be confused with the non-interventionist philosophy and foreign policy of the libertarian world view, which espouses unrestricted free trade and freedom of travel for individuals to all countries. The libertarian view is best defined as a policy of avoiding any involvement in realpolitik or power politics, opting instead for free trade and affability toward all people.

source

Aaron wrote:I call it that Stephanie because that it what I advocate. I do not advocate Dr. Paul's non-interventionist policy as I don't believe in "unrestricted" free trade.

Aaron wrote:Tainted dog food, lead in toy cars, our trade deficit with China.

A few examples right off the top of my head.