Actually a revolution would be really easy right now. I think we outnumber cops by like 10,000:1 or something. But the state would bring in the military and then we’d be in trouble.
yep, Pearl Harbor was a sad moment, shame on FDR
The only reason it worked was that Germany was preoccupied with taking on all the other countries.
If they had succeeded, Sweden could not have withstood Germany later.
Sweden just stuck its head in the sand and hoped Germany wouldn’t win.
That is a ridiculous position.
If you are my friend and a thug comes to beat you up, are you suggesting I should just hang back and watch, while he hurts you and maybe kills you, when I have the ability to prevent him doing that? If it was the other way around, I would hope my Marine friends would be close by, and not you.
None of us wants war, but when do you stand up to protect your friends or the weak and innocent?
Does isolationist logic say we should disband all police forces?
Bullshit.
They hate America because it is the current global empire. They don’t hate the Swedes, or Dutch, or Mexicans. They hate Washington DC, which is today’s Rome.
If America is hated because it occupies foreigners’ land then obviously we should stop trespassing on them. But lets imagine that what you believe is true, that they hate America because they are simply “anti-American” and hate a just American Empire. What should be done? Should Washington DC invade that region, exposing the American Empire to danger ? Americans have much to lose and nothing to gain by being there…unless you consider the oil.
And no, Washington DC is not interested in oil because it wants to hand it out to the American people. It needs to control oil in order to keep the Dollar, which the American Empire sits on, the international currency. We are in the era of the Petrodollar, and the “Long War” is the American Governments declaration that it will destroy any country it needs to in order to keep the petrodollar alive.
Keep in the mind that the American people gain nothing from the Petrodollar(except welfare recipients, of course), it benefits the State alone.
You’re right. Good call.I was trying to argue cultures are different and have different values, but obviously did a poor job.
This is true, but I don’t think we ever stopped handling hijackings this way. The problem on 9/11 was we didn’t know before it was too late. Then what do you do? We asked Afghanistan to hand Osama over, but they refused, which is what led to the war in Afghanistan. Afghanistan was where the terrorist were training. Do you ignore that?
I know you believe that we fostered the terrorist with our actions, and that may be true, but it seems no matter what we do we are always going back to see what we did before to make the other side do what they did. If we pulled out, I don’t believe the terrorist would stop saying we did this, that or the other thing.
It’s similar to blaming ourselves for Japan bombing Pearl Habor. People say they did it because we shut off their oil. Well surely we shut off their oil for a reason, and I don’t think we just happen to always be in the wrong and people are always reacting to our actions. I’m sure they did something that caused us to shut off their oil, and before that we did something, and on and on you go.
As you can see, I’m trying to think through this, and you are making some very good points. I’m gonna have to read up private defense topic.
Misquote
There is no doubt that there are many practices and norms in the Islamic world that we would find repulsive, however will you reform them at the point of a gun? Is this not the problem that was described above as the source of their hatred and hositility toward the West? The harder we push to change these practices the more fundamental their societies will become.
Also, I happen to believe that a normal parent would be willing to strap a bomb to themselves if they believed that it would protect their children. Realisticly that is exactly what many of these “crazy people” do. Agree to stap bombs on themselves in exchange for money so that their family can have a better life. Some dont sacrifice themselves because they hate the West but because it will help their family. That, believe it or not, seems normal to me given thier extreme circumstances.
He couldnt cross the english channel how in the world could he have crossed the atlantic. It is unrealistic to say hitler posed any threat the US. Germany was a regional power not a global power. Germany even proved itself to be incapable of defeating the Soviet Union which they shared a border with.
So where are we as nation credibly threatened?
Bogus.
First, the Nazis were no threat to the Americas even if they wanted to be.
Second, this might be hard for you to believe, but there was a time when everyone liked the US. Even Nazis and Muslims!
Third, the Second World War didn’t achieve anything other than kick Hitler out and let Stalin move in. Wow, totally worth a few million deaths.
Fourth, even if the Third Reich had “won” its occupation of Europe would have been no more successful then the USSR’s.
Fifth, Europe was able to clean up its own mess during Napoleon. Why should Americans have do die because Europeans are too stupid to not keep their governments from constantly invading each other? Thats a great message to send to Europe, “Go ahead and invade your stronger neighbors, if Uncle Sam likes you enough he will send some Americans to die to achieve your political ends for you!”
Which leads us to sixth, the Allies declared war on Hitler knowing they couldn’t beat him and betting on being able to sucker the Americans into doing it for them.
I do not propose reforming them at the point of a gun. I do not propose reforming them at all. It is up to them to reform themselves. We have our own reforms to worry about.
Self sacrifice is different than sacrificing your children. People in the middle east are doing both.
One thing that would be good I think to minimize wars would be to end the Fed. If we had to pay for wars without printing money, it would make us much less likely to go to war by making the people feel the sacrifice before the war even begins and during the war. That would make many people question how necessary the war is to begin or to continue. When you print money, the effects of paying for the war hits after the fact via inflation.
This explains it. Planes are hijacked all the time. Even just hijackings between the US and cuba are very frequent.
Here. I’ll quote:
On December 5, 2007 French authorities filed preliminary charges against Guillaume Dasquié, a reporter for the daily Le Monde, for publishing state secrets related to the 9/11 hijackings. Dasquié’s April 16 article in Le Monde, titled “September 11: the French had long known” claimed the General Directorate of External Security (DGSE), had warned the U.S. of a possible terrorist plot that involved al-Qaeda hijacking planes and crashing them into buildings some eight months before 9/11. The article contained excerpts from a 328-page classified DGSE report on al-Qaeda activities which included maps, analyses, graphics, and satellite photos.[61]
Not going to bother to correct you on this. Its 1/8th true. Look it up yourself.
Talk is cheap. Terrorist organizations don’t do squat, especially nothing that justifies an infinite war against that region. 3000 of us die so 150,000 of them have gotta die. Whatever.
No you can still blame japan. Its just that if the attack is really easy to prevent and there is evidence of foreknowledge, you can blame the US government too.
Key word is “indefinitely”. Hitler had long term plans against the U.S., and was developing the means to accomplish those aims. It was the bombing of the German industrial complex by American bombers that prevented or delayed Hitler’s war effort. Germany already established a presence in South America, which would have been one natural point for gournd forces to invade from. While the U.S. has the separation of the Atlantic, it also has an extremely long border on two sides that are practically impossible to defend. While I don’t think invading the U.S. would have been a cake walk, I think it’s absurd to think Hilter would not have tried.
Hilter failed to defeat the USSR because he initiated a two-front war. That’s suicide and a display of his arrogance.
Let us not also forget that Britain was such a problem for Hitler because the U.S. provided support. That would not occur if the U.S. was an isolationist nation. It was the industrial production of the U.S. that kept the allies from folding. That’s not to discount the herioc efforts of the allies, but it is what it is.
Disagreeing on WWII is one thing, but not voting for Paul because of his “isolationism” that is on a whole different level of not getting it. It should be obvious to anyone that Pauls policies would make Americans a lot safer. He always reiterates he favours a strong national defense, which the US military would be able to provide much better if it werent tearing itself apart playing world policeman and fighting ever more enemies of US` own creation.
If you are sincere about learning more visit antiwar.com, most people seem to like the radio archives over there in particular.
Because if you embrace free markets completely, then you have to oppose taxation. And without taxation, there are no wars.
The anti-war stance is a necessary component of being a free marketer. It’s not just some random position. The Austro-Libertarian tapestry weaves all of these ideas together based on a core set of principles.
Aggressive war like invading Iraq is a war crime. Any aggression is immoral to a libertarian.
I don’t believe there should be a military.
Does it matter? If raping every enemy female under the age of 14 would stop suicide bombings in your country, would you do it? That is what all ends justify the means arguments lead to. Also, the use of the word isolationism is annoying. With the exception of America and Britain, nearly every country in the world by this standard, is isolationist. The Russians, the Germans, the Mexicans, the Brazilians, the Egyptians and so forth.
Isolationism is when you adopt protectionism and limit immigration. It’s not when you fail to send predator drones around the world to slaughter innocent people in their own homes.
You need to watch THE SOVIET STORY.
That is where the geographic isolation comes in. Any attack on the United States itself would require a massive build up of naval, air, and ground forces. A build up that would dwarf anything that has been done before. The attack would be seen coming from a mile away. Also I would like to know who you think would have the capability of massing such a force? Again there are only 2 or 3 nation with the potential to do so. An actual military attack from another nation on the US is fantasy.
We were the 900 pound gorilla long before we maintained massive standing armies. It is our economy and resources that make us so formitable. Our military capabilities are a result of our economy. We remain strong economicly and no one will dare attack us. Maintaining such a large military is a drain on the economy. Raise armies when you are threatened and send the troops home when they are no longer needed. But wasting literaly trillions of dollars on an army that is not needed weakens us economicly making us more vunerable than we would otherwise be.
No one has advocated sticking their heads in the sand and pretending that it does not exist. What has been said is that islamic fundamentalism did not arise in a vacum. There are causes and effects. The fundamentalism is an effect. The causes are military and political intervention in the domestic affairs of islamic countries since the end of the Ottoman Empire. You simply declare that is a reality and we must continue to do what we do in order to elimiate it. But what we have been doing created it in the first place.
It is interesting to me that when the Turks were the ones ruling arab lands that the West was seen as friends and allies of the Arabs. Potential liberators. They did not know that they were trading one master for another.
What if they refuse to loosen thier grip on internal affairs and the people demand it. I think the threat is increased.
War is a product of the state. States go to war, individuals do not.
I believe people should not have to pay taxes if they do not want to…
Isolationism is related to the state. Do you think it is better for individuals to be violent or peaceful?
Even taxes aside, no other situation is used to make as much compromises on both free markets and individual liberty as war.
Factory owners are not allowed to pay wages higher than a certain amount in order to make sure that they don’t end up “stealing” workers away from the other industries fueling war. Consumers are told to make do with whatever semi-durable items they own or make do without, and are forced to use the same goods over and over and over again, such as being forced to drive old and barely serviceable cars during wartime. People who refuse to fight are jailed. Capital markets see all the competition for funds diverted away to high coupon bonds to fuel the war, with the money that is used for making investment in businesses and giving people jobs and houses gone. Value of domestic currency becomes determined by the government and its level of printing money rather than the actual market. Wartime inflation leads to everybody’s real income being reduced greatly, and yet with the lack of jobs created in the private sector due to raising of bonds and taxation, people don’t find much nominal income to be earned either.
The only good thing about it is that it’s not as bad as having to fight and be traumatised by war. Returning soldiers, of course, have to bear the brunt of both.
Are you suggesting they should not have declared war and allowed him to suck up everything around him, one at a time, and as each one was taken over and joined into his army, just wait until it was their turn to be attacked? Why not just ask him if he planned to attack them eventually and give up right there?
Is that how you would handle a local domestic fight, just let one gang take over until it was so big you couldn’t keep yourself safe? It is a complex problem.
Hitlers position in Europe was untenable in the long run. Germany’s resources were streached thin simply trying to occupy all of the conquered territory and an attack from the Soviets seemed to be only a matter of time. Hitler did all he could do to try and secure a peace with GB because GB at this time still had the most powerful navy on the planet and Germany would never have been able to launch a amphibious attack across the channel. When peace with GB failed he gambled on a preemptive strike against the Soviets. Germany never had a chance to win the war whether the US directly involved itself or not. Germany is a small nation with very limited resources, this limits what they could do militarialy not the plans of a madman. Conquering all of Europe, subduing the Soviets, then somehow gaining political control of South America as a jumping off point to conquering the US is simply beyond the capacity of a relatively small nation with limited resources in a modern world. The Germany military was very effective but the Soviets with their unlimited resources smashed it. What you describe was impossible to acheive.
Was he sucking up everything? Or just regions populated by german speaking people who had been forced into subjugation under non-german states by the Treaty of Versaille?