More relevant to me is that the politicans as well as many of the citizens that support those politicans are abandoning the very ideals upon which America was founded.
I would say the reason is that they support our aims in the region. We like countries that support what we want in an area and dislike those that dont. Right or wrong Isreal know which side its bread is buttered on.
<<< scratching head >>> This obviously leads to the question of what the heck are our aims in the region? We need oil from the Middle East but there has never been a real problem with purchasing it. Even when Iraq invaded Kuwait we could have purchased all of the oil we needed. Are our aims related to our role as an international leader? Wouldn't that entail our roles and responsibilities as a permanent member of the UN Security Council? If so then why do we allow Israel to ignore UNSC resolutions that we supported? Perhaps our aims are related to stopping nuclear weapons proliferation as a leading member of the NPT. There appears to be some validity to this as we have actively opposed even the possibility of Iran seeking nuclear weapons. That being the case then why do we ignore that Israel is a rogue nuclear weapons country? Are our aims related to our ideals as established by the Declaration of Independence and spreading those ideals that government are to be the protectors of the unalienable Rights of All People? If that is the case then why do we tolerate the violations of those Rights by the Israeli government? I must admit that I seem to be at a loss to figure out how Israel supports any possible US aims in the region.
Israel's importance in my view lies in its location. Being on the coast of the Med and in close proximity to the Suez canal is very important in case our relations with the EU deteriorate. We could if necessary keep a navel presence in Israel that could quickly get to the canal. Second it is also a potential base for our soldiers if our relations with Kuwait and the Suadi's go south. You are correct that getting oil now is easy. But the future cannot be seen and its best to have a friend in the area that owes us big time in case we need a base for foot troops. Third this would also save us the time it would take to go around the horn of Africa to get too the Middle East from the East coast if the Canal is blocked for any reason. These are just a few of the reasons I can think of off the top of my head at work. I am sure others here can think of more.
The Suez Canal isn't all that important to the United States as we can trade equally as well with both Europe and Asia because we have access to both the Pacific and Atlantic oceans from US Ports. The Panama Canal is far more important to US interests. Of course both of those canals are under the sovereign control of other nations and the US has no rights to use them without the consent of those nations. We also have no right to either Saudi or Kuwaiti oil. If ME countries turn of the oil tomorrow we have no justification to go to war over it. This type of belief is absurd and would have condoned such actions as the expansion of Japan into China and Asia and Germany's expansion into Europe by war in the 1930's both of which were about acquiring natural resources. Once agian the natural resources of a nation belong to that nation and we have no right to them. So since we, the United States, have no rights to the Suez (or Panama) Canal and we have no rights to the natural resources (oil) of other nations then what ligitimate aims does the US have in the Middle East? Why do we need to support a tyrannical nation that is clearly established based upon a political philosophy of aparthied that violates the unalienable Rights of People and the ideals upon which our nation was founded?
Right and wrong? We are talking about the strategic values of the location here not, right and wrong. No country has the right to exist, each must look after its people as best they can. That means they have to think beyond right and wrong and look towards survival of its people. All nation states must plan for the worst even as they hope for the best. The best case scenerio is that everything is going to settle down in the world and peace will reign. But the worst case scenerio is that as the world shrinks and countries grow that conflicts will apear that will endanger a nations states well being and people. As such it would be the worst form of carelessness for a nation not to prepare for the worst case scenerio and thus put their people at risk. Governments only true perpose is protecting its people. Everything else is secondary. I guess the question is, if a country has to do something that is "wrong" to protect its people should it do it or should that government alow its people to come to harm too do what is "right"? Its that kind of question that would keep me up at night as the leader of a country.
That is a valid question but I'm unable to come up with a situation where it would be applicable for the United States. We obviously have a nuclear capability that is more than enough to destroy virtually all life on Earth. We are reducing that capability but still no nation could actually threaten to invade and conquer the United States. We simply aren't threatened by any nation. My countering question is why does the United States engage in military and paramilitary interventionism in other countries which creates a threat of retalliation by individuals and not governments? That has been the only threat to the United States in the last 60 years and it doesn't threaten our nation but does threaten the citizens and residents of our nation. The WTC attack in 1993 and the 9/11 attacks were acts of retribution for US military involvement in the Middle East. Both the CIA and the NIE cited this fact. This is what Ron Paul and others refer to as "blowback" related to US actions. It is our military and paramilitary interventionism that presents a threat to the People of the United States even though the United States as a nation is not threatened.
Good question, I have not agreed with any of the interventions since kuwait. But at the same time I am not privy to the information given to our presidents. Look at our latest President, he went into the job promising all sorts of things like ending gitmo and getting out of alot of our interventions. But once in office he got all of the real info and I have noticed that the "changes" he advicated seemed to have become delayed or cancelled entirely. Now I can either assume one of two things either A: he never believed the things he said and always approved of the Bush policies, or B: he discovered that there were real reason for Bush's action and some of his policies had to be maintained if not increased. Frankly I am leaning more towards "B" but I will let others decide. So unfortionatly some times we have to trust our elected leaders to make the right decisions on these matters. But they also need to understand that they are responsable for the results and that many would prefer a diplomatic solution first. I am not for armed intervention but I have that luxery since I am not responsable for all the people of the United States. Obama and our other elected officials have a great burden. By the way vote Ron Paul 2012!
Why does any polity create an empire? Why do the component elements in any empire accept their subordinate status? Why do empire's come to an end? These are the questions that should be asked. The answers are really quite straight forward.
You mean I need to think beyond looks, charisma, and empty promises when choosing my representatives? I think I'll just trust the t.v., they won't peddle any candidates that would work against Americans interests. Right?
Hmmm, someone named "Abu Sina" wants us to elect someone who will give Islamists exactly what they want. What a shock!
Lucky for us we don't let liberals pick our conservative candidates. In fact this is an argument for all primaries being closed so liberals can't vote in it.
Hmmm. Republicans can't even acknowledge that they were lied to about the reasons for attacking Iraq and are being fed a bunch of bull about reasons to establish a police state in America. Ron Paul is more fiscally conservative than any of your corporatists candidates. I'm sure you enjoy their partnerships with monopolies and war profiteering. Might as well vote for Obama, he's doing the same thing that Bush did.
Your speaking to the wrong person. I think we should've attacked Iraq because they were thumbing their noses at us and going "nyah nyah nyah you can't stop us." And therefore we needed to put a hurting on them to prove them wrong. I could care less what Bush's reason was I'm just glad he did it. And if his father had done it right in the first (*)(*)(*)(*) place he wouldn't of had to either.
Well then, lets run along and complain about the deficit which is largely due to vendettas against leaders of nations a world away from us. How nice of you to prefer to meddle in other countries rather than the future of your own nation.
So you believe attacking another nation for no other reason than they called you bad names is justifiable? Isn't that the tactic of the bully? Were you a bully at school?
This is interesting because I could find no logical reason for the US becoming involved in the Gulf War. It was a regional conflict between equally tyrannical regimes and the Royal Family of Kuwait had been raping the natural resources of the Kuwaiti oil fields for their personal financial gain as opposed to spending those revenues on national defense. Why would the US go to the aid of either the Kuwaiti Royal Family or the Saudi Royal Family? The answer certainly wasn't that either represented the values or ideals of America not was it about purchasing oil (we could have purchased "Kuwaiti" oil from Iraq). When every possible reason is evaluated the one that stands out was that the tyrannical leaders of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia were personal friends and former business associates of our President. Is that really a valid reason to send American troops to war? In reality when Obama was campaigning many missed that much of what he was saying was almost identical to Bush's policies. He never promised to get out of either Iraq or Afghanistan and, in fact, supported continued US military interventionism in both. He could have unilaterally closed GITMO and did not require the consent of Congress to do so. He had the authority to simply pack up all of the detainees and put them on a plane move them to a maximum security federal prison. I have no clue as to why he allowed this to become a political debate. He could also have had the Justice Dept file charges in a criminal court as opposed to using military tribunals for the detainees. The Justice Dept, not Congress, has sole authority over how it handles criminal prosecutions. No, I don't have to "trust" my elected officials and it would be both stupid and un-American to do so. The American People have the responsibility of always questioning the actions of our government. Every single time the American People have "trusted" our government we have lost liberties. A good healthy distrust of government is mandatory for Americans. I'm actually a registered Libertarian so I can't vote for Ron Paul in the primaries and while I support many of his principles I actually prefer Gary Johnson more but doubt either will be nominated by the Republican Party. The fundamentalist Christian extremists of the Republican Party basically control the primaries and they will not vote for Ron Paul who opposes the imposition of religion by statutory law.
With respect to Kuwait, it is the nature of every empire to respond to the attack on one of its satrapys. That is in the nature of things.
BELIEVE ME my friend, if I will be notified that he is on the ballot, I WILL vote for him. and I do not consider voting for anyone else that may pop out AS "sort of him" such as some tea party ass kisser or whatever. in 2008 I did not vote because he was destroyed by the media using very deceptive tactics that I will never ever forget (link 1 below) and not on the ballot despite his overwhealming popularity over McCain as shown in the SECOND link: [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jZTd9j6_yg&playnext=1&list=PL9259CE03CDCA9571"]Ron Paul - The Smear Campaign - YouTube[/ame] [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9nOIusbDwI"]Jerry Day on Ron Paul and the Media - YouTube[/ame]
Read these post. Paul was attacked.. Everyone else is crazy.. Paul is a loser..and all those who vote for the CLOWN are perpetuating a false promise he makes..to end something he cant end..do something he cant do. The anti- establishment ..HIPPY day ..pot smokin ..stick it to the man vote. Put some flowers in your hair..drink some cheap wine..and just go away. Leave the real world to real people. ROMNEY / insert name 2012
Does anyone really believe that the Christian extremists that basically control the Republican primaries are going to nominate Romney who's a Morman? He might as well be a Muslim as far as these extremist Christian bigots are concerned.
