You want to protect us? Stop starting wars, stop bombing people in other countries

[cali]

Last edited Fri Jun 7, 2013, 05:13 AM - Edit history (1)

with drones. Stop interfering in other nations' business. Stop the bullying. Stop overthrowing and assassinating leaders we don't like. Be a little more even handed with Israel/Palestine.

You know, had we not continuously done the above for the last 60+ years, we just might not need so much "protecting", but then again it's not really about protecting the American people. It's about using cool toys, providing business for corporations and cya.

[dougolat]

1. Yup, this defining "National Security" as the interests of war criminals is way past it's due date.

[geek tragedy]

2. So, which of those things lead to the first and second world trade center attacks and

the Oklahoma City bombing?

Related question:

How many US catholics engaged in domestic terrorism over our Ireland and latin America policy?

[Hissyspit]

4. First and second WTC attacks ?

These, in part: "Stop interfering in other nations' business. Stop the bullying. Stop overthrowing and assassinating leaders we don't like. Be a little more even handed with Israel/Palestine."

[geek tragedy]

5. So, we should have an official policy of not doing anything to upset

people like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Ramzi Yousef, and Osama bin Laden?

If people think that the first and second WTC attacks were about justice and stuff liberals care about, they're living in fantasy land.

[Hissyspit]

6. Liberal fantasy land

Got it.

Actually, I think it's about blowback. Which is how I predicted the second attack on WTC a month before it happened while standing at the WTC.

[geek tragedy]

7. What policies that antagonize radical Islamists would you maintain?

Or would you adopt a 100% policy of not offending them?

They were bombing us throughout the 1990s. In New York, off the coast of Yemen, in our embassies in Africa.

All of that was BEFORE the invasions of either Afghanistan or Iraq.

[sabrina 1]

14. Why are we involved in the business of other countries at all? Why did the US help to install

Saddam Hussein and encourage the toppling of their elected leader? Why did we interfere in Iran, in Chile to put a dictator in power, dictators are our allies in all of these places we interfere in. Mostly right wing dictators. Why do we love right wing dictators so much?

Let's try something, although I'm not hopeful.

Supposing some foreign government decided that the president elected by the American people was not someone they approved of, let's say it was a Democrat and they secretly conspired with some right wing groups, let's say the tea party, to assassinate that president and install someone like, say, Cheney. Then that government helped the Cheney-like puppet now our president, to kill and torture those of us who were supporters of the Democrat they assassinated and who refused to accept the new, installed Cheney-like character. Supposing over the course of many years, many of us Democrats who tried to restore an elected Democrat were tortured and murdered with the help of the foreign government?

What do you think we Americans would do in such a situation? Would we accept our fate and bend over for the foreign government's dictator, ignore the torture and murder of our friends and families?

Supposing this foreign government had made deals with the Cheney-like right wing dictator, now our president, to hand over our resources into the control of that foreign government? Would you call those of us who might try to resist the takeover of our government with the backing of a foreign government, 'radical terrorists' if we decided to try to fight for our country?

Why are most of our 'allies' always right wing dictators who torture and murder and imprison their own people?

Don't believe me? How about Bahrain? Uzbekistan? Azerbaijan? Colombia? Chile? Egypt, Tunisia, Iraq until our dictator got uppity with us? We are currently supporting several right wing dictators around the world who are imprisoning and torturing their own people.

Can you explain why citizens of any of those countries might not be angry at us for the suffering we have helped to impose on them?

Would we be angry at that foreign government who interfered with our elections and helped installed Dick Cheney who then tortured and imprisoned and murdered those of us who tried to resist this takeover of our government?

Are you so unaware of our 'foreign policy' that you have no idea why so many people all over the world are angry at us?

[cali]

17. gee, how about drone strikes in Pakistan and other countries?

And your abject ignorance of our history of interfering in countries in the mideast, going back continuously for 60+ years, renders anything you say, useless.

[geek tragedy]

33. I am fully aware of the US's history in the area

I am also aware that terror attacks will happen regardless of how nicely we behave.

[bvar22]

65. YEP! That is why the "Terrorists" are so busy attacking Canada too!

Oh Wait.
No they aren't..
.
.
My Bad.
Gee. Maybe our Foreign Policy and interfering with the internal affairs of sovereign nations DOES have something to do with it.

Ya THINK???
DUH.

[geek tragedy]

66. You were saying?

http://news.sky.com/story/1081584/canada-al-qaeda-train-terror-plot-foiled

Also note that the number of American victims of Islamist terrorism pales in comparison to the Muslim victims of Islamist terrorism.

Tell me: what did those Muslims do to earn those terrorist attacks? Since, the theory on the left is that only people/states who deserve to be attacked get attacked by Islamist terrorism, and that if you do nothing wrong you have nothing to fear from Islamist terrorists.

[rhett o rick]

73. So you rationalize that we shouldnt "behave nicely" because terrorist would strike anyway?

First of all you dont know that and I dont believe it to be true. Second we should stop being a bully because it just isnt the moral way to be.

[geek tragedy]

74. No, what I am saying is that a moral foreign policy and preventing

terrorism should not be treated as exactly the same thing.

The rightwing cliche is "terrorists kill us becaues they hate us for our freedom."

The leftwing cliche is "terrorists kill us because we have done bad things."

In either case, there's very little examiniation into what actually motivates the terrorists. They're assumed to be mere projections of Western agendas and dynamics.

Leftwing Orientalism is no more enlightening than it's rightwing counterpart.

[rhett o rick]

75. While you may be correct that we cant know exactly why terrorists target us,

I would venture to say that if we treated peoples of the world better they would not be so inclined to hate us so.

But the OP is pointing out that we dont treat people of the world nicely. We are big bullies. Our venture into Iraq should be proof enough, but drone killing at will in whatever country we plez has got to set badly with people.

Some among us like the fact that the USofA is heavy handed, the top cock on the walk showing the rest of the world who is number one. I would hope no one posting in DU would be like that.

[geek tragedy]

78. We had done nothing bad to Saudi Arabia.

Had done nothing really but buy their oil.

Yet it was Saudis who conducted the 9.11 attacks.

The 1998 Embassy Bombings were in retaliation for . . . arresting and extraditing terrorists.

There is also little attention paid to the fact that Islamist terrorists kill more Muslims than they do Christians and Jews. The Islamist terror efforts are part of a wider game, with different motivations, than merely payback for historic western crimes.

Meanwhile, one didn't see a single Catholic-led bombings against the United States for the decades of humilitation, dictatorship, and genocide we helped commit against Latin America plus supporting the UK's crackdown in Northern Ireland.

So, yes, of course the US should have a more moral foreign policy that doesn't exploit, enslave, and destroy other societies. We have done way too much of that in the past.

At the same time, resolving to be less hard-hearted does not mean we should be soft-headed.

[rhett o rick]

79. Interesting that you use Saudi Arabia as an example. They were close family friends with the

Bush Crime Family. So why did they help OBL attack the WTC? Maybe to do the Bush Crime Family a big favor. I bet they were well rewarded.

[geek tragedy]

80. I'm sure their ultra-radical religous fanaticism had nothing to do with it. nt

[rhett o rick]

81. Well we have something to agree on then. It was all business IMHO. nm

[geek tragedy]

82. I was being sarcastic.

I don't view them as a cipher for Western political disputes, agendas, and viewpoints.

These guys flew themselves into planes. Citing Howard Zinn doesn't explain that shit.

[rhett o rick]

84. Of course the idiots that actually did the terrorism were fanatics but those that trained

them and sent them on their mission were not. Hundreds of billions of dollars changed hands because of these idiots that did the terrorism. They were used.

[Democracyinkind]

101. Lol. We installed their oligarchy.

Seriously, bro...

[geek tragedy]

102. Maybe you should read up, bro.

Kingdom was founded before oil was discovered, and US had no role in the former.

Also, area was former British and Ottoman colonies before kingdom was founded.

So, sorry to disappoint, but lack of freedom not America's fault.

Making shit up is generally a poor way to argue.

[Democracyinkind]

119. if you believe that the SAK as it exists today

is not a consequence of our foreign policy, then it is you who should be reading up.

[geek tragedy]

121. Yes, it's a lot richer than it otherwise would be due

to billions dollars of US and European and Japanese and Chinese oil purchases.

There's no alternative history where Saudi Arabia becomes a land of democracy and freedom absent US intervention. Same royal family in charge now as there was before oil was discovered.

[brush]

40. Ahh . . . we've been involved in coups, overthrows, invasions and assassinations . . .

. . . around the globe for over a century. For more info check out this book:

Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq by Stephen Kinzer.

We've been throwing our weight around since the 1890s when Navy gunboats backed a coup by ex-pat American growers against the Hawaiian monarchy. We've been at it since then in protecting "American interests".

That of course should read "corporate interests", which is why we were in Iraq. Remember the "no blood for oil" chant that we demonstrators shouted before the Iraq war began? We knew the deal then and we all should know it now.

We have, and I'll use a euphemism here, rubbed many countries the wrong way for a long time. We're not innocents on the world scene as we've made a lot of enemies so we shouldn't be naive to thing there won't ever be any retaliation. I think the current term that's in favor now is "blowback."

[cali]

10. Let's take a trip in the way back machine

starting here:

Mohammad Mosaddegh or Mosaddeq [a] (Persian: مُحَمَد مُصَدِق?; IPA: [mohæmˈmæd(-e) mosædˈdeɣ] ( listen) ; 16 June 1882 – 5 March 1967), was the democratically elected[1][2][3] Prime Minister of Iran from 1951 to 1953 when his government was overthrown in a coup d'état orchestrated by the British MI6 and the American CIA.

An author, administrator, lawyer, prominent parliamentarian, he became the prime minister of Iran in 1951. His administration introduced a wide range of progressive social and political reforms such as social security, rent control, and land reforms.[4] His government's most notable policy, however, was the nationalization of the Iranian oil industry, which had been under British control since 1913 through the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (APOC / AIOC) (later British Petroleum or BP).[5]

Mosaddegh was removed from power in a coup on 19 August 1953, organised and carried out by the CIA at the request of the British MI6 which chose Iranian General Fazlollah Zahedi to succeed Mosaddegh.[6]

While the coup is commonly referred to as Operation Ajax[7] after its CIA cryptonym, in Iran it is referred to as the 28 Mordad 1332 coup, after its date on the Iranian calendar.[8] Mosaddegh was imprisoned for three years, then put under house arrest until his death.

That was hardly a singular attempt.

For 60 years the U.S. has been interfering, assassinating and overthrowing. Do you think terrorism exists in a vacuum? Do you believe that they simply hate us for our freedoms?

[geek tragedy]

23. Let's also drop the idea that every terrorist attack

is caused by our own sins.

The all too common refrain on the left is that the primary cause of every terror attack on Americans is the evil of America, that we've brought every single attack upon ourselves, and that if we just behave ourselves, terrorists would never attack us.

Just do what the terrorists want us to do.

[cali]

24. sorry, I don't think in your simple binary manner.

I don't think any such thing. I think it's a complex interplay of many things, but to ignore the role that U.S. foreign policy has played, is something for fools to do.

[geek tragedy]

29. US foreign policy is the ONLY cause y'all ever discuss.

The only policy solution you advocate re: terrorism is for the US to stop deserving terrorist attacks.

Of course there is an element of blowback involved. But it's not the only factor--despite the prevailing belief around certain parts.

[cali]

36. you mean aside from abortion, state politics, ALEC and a dozen other topics?

And whatever else it is, our foreign policy history is a major factor in terrorism.

[geek tragedy]

43. ALEC and abortion cause terrorism? nt

[GoneFishin]

70. Well, sure many of them wear american logo T-shirts, listen to american music, watch american media.

But it's obvious "they hate our freedom".

The fact that we bomb the shit out of any country that won't hand over our oil, which they had the misfortune of being born on top of without whining is irrelevant.

[treestar]

106. Bottom line, they are saying we deserved it.

The people on the planes and in the towers deserved to die according to this "analysis." Any of us did. We are Americans and as such, deserve to be attacked due to our elected government's actions.

Evil, just plain evil.

[geek tragedy]

108. Life is much simpler when one state/country is to blame

for all bad things.

And, the role of religious extremism is something that must not be discussed unless it's Christianity being discussed.

[treestar]

110. And most people in those very states, and the Islamic religion

condemn the attacks of criminals like bin Laden. I wonder if OP can find a single Muslim or Arabic leader of note saying the same thing - that we brought these attacks on ourselves. Even Iran doesn't send terrorists here to attack us, and we did in fact interfere with their leadership (though it was 50 years ago).

Saudi Arabia, or wherever bin Laden is from, doesn't even come from a society that approves his actions - well, maybe right wingers believe that. Hmmmmm.

[geek tragedy]

112. It's left-wing Orientalism--the thinking is that

'the Muslims' will of course 'fight back' if we're fighting any Muslims anywhere.

Imagine if someone had claimed that by fucking over Central and South America, of course 'the Catholics will fight back' so better look out for terror cells in Bensonhurst.

[brush]

41. Cali, you are on it.

Please kept posting and educating. It seems many have forgotten the depths of our entanglement in other countries' affairs.

[cali]

44. thank you kindly, but I doubt I'm educating anyone or that I'm qualified

to do so.

[brush]

63. Okay. But keep posting anyway. ny

Last edited Sat Jun 8, 2013, 09:18 AM - Edit history (1)

[markpkessinger]

12. Are you really so unaware . . .

. . . of the U.S.'s long and troubled history of supporting brutally repressive regimes so long as those regimes catered to the exploitation of those countries' natural resources by U.S. and British-based oil companies? You really think it was an accident that 19 of the 21 hijackers were Saudis, given that the Saudi government is one of the most egregious violators of human rights of its own citizens (those, that is, who weren't lucky enough to be born into the extended royal family)? Whatever the motives of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Ramzi Yousef, and Osama bin Laden, there was a fertile field of discontent from which to draw (or exploit) followers, and the fertilizer of that field was decades of U.S.'s own exploitative and hypocritical policies with regard to oil-rich countries in the Middle East.

[geek tragedy]

26. So 911 was our fault because we buy Saudi oil.

Do Islamist terrorists ever attack any country who hasn't deserved it, according to this theory?

Or is it just that the discontent of the dysfunctional states and societies of the post-colonial Muslim world (# of former US colonies=zero) is all the fault of the US along with India?

[cali]

27. again with the simple, binary "thought process"

and lol for the nonsense about how we weren't involved in colonialism in the middle east. We were only involved in regime change, starting wars, bombing people, etc. but no colonial territories. phew. we're so completely innocent, honey.

[geek tragedy]

32. What causes terror attacks against the US other than evil

behavior on the part of the US?

What should we do to prevent terrorism other than adopting Chomsky's foreign policy advice?

[Roland99]

88. The installation of US troops on Saudi soil in the early 90s is what sparked bin Laden >>>>

to start going after the "far enemy" (the US homeland) vs. just fighting the "near enemy" (fighting for fundamental Islamic rule in the middle east).

[geek tragedy]

89. Yes. But, that wasn't an invasion, or abuse, or anything of the sort.

It was the presence of infidels in the land of Mecca and Medina.

Which brings back the original point--how far out of our way do we need to go to avoid offending fundyclowns like bin Laden?

[Roland99]

91. It was in preparation for a war. I do believe that qualifies

it's not about not offending funda-mental cases...it's about stopping western imperialism.

[geek tragedy]

92. Heh, someone willing to go out there

and claim bin Laden as a fellow anti-imperialist. You can't make this shit up.

Here is what your heroic anti-imperialist said he wanted, btw:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver

The American Government and press still refuses to answer the question:

Why did they attack us in New York and Washington?

If Sharon is a man of peace in the eyes of Bush, then we are also men of peace!!! America does not understand the language of manners and principles, so we are addressing it using the language it understands.

(Q2) As for the second question that we want to answer: What are we calling you to, and what do we want from you?

(1) The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam.

(a) The religion of the Unification of God; of freedom from associating partners with Him, and rejection of this; of complete love of Him, the Exalted; of complete submission to His Laws; and of the discarding of all the opinions, orders, theories and religions which contradict with the religion He sent down to His Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). Islam is the religion of all the prophets, and makes no distinction between them - peace be upon them all.

It is to this religion that we call you; the seal of all the previous religions. It is the religion of Unification of God, sincerity, the best of manners, righteousness, mercy, honour, purity, and piety. It is the religion of showing kindness to others, establishing justice between them, granting them their rights, and defending the oppressed and the persecuted. It is the religion of enjoining the good and forbidding the evil with the hand, tongue and heart. It is the religion of Jihad in the way of Allah so that Allah's Word and religion reign Supreme. And it is the religion of unity and agreement on the obedience to Allah, and total equality between all people, without regarding their colour, sex, or language.

(b) It is the religion whose book - the Quran - will remained preserved and unchanged, after the other Divine books and messages have been changed. The Quran is the miracle until the Day of Judgment. Allah has challenged anyone to bring a book like the Quran or even ten verses like it.

(2) The second thing we call you to, is to stop your oppression, lies, immorality and debauchery that has spread among you.

(a) We call you to be a people of manners, principles, honour, and purity; to reject the immoral acts of fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling's, and trading with interest.

We call you to all of this that you may be freed from that which you have become caught up in; that you may be freed from the deceptive lies that you are a great nation, that your leaders spread amongst you to conceal from you the despicable state to which you have reached.

(b) It is saddening to tell you that you are the worst civilization witnessed by the history of mankind:

(i) You are the nation who, rather than ruling by the Shariah of Allah in its Constitution and Laws, choose to invent your own laws as you will and desire. You separate religion from your policies, contradicting the pure nature which affirms Absolute Authority to the Lord and your Creator. You flee from the embarrassing question posed to you: How is it possible for Allah the Almighty to create His creation, grant them power over all the creatures and land, grant them all the amenities of life, and then deny them that which they are most in need of: knowledge of the laws which govern their lives?

(ii) You are the nation that permits Usury, which has been forbidden by all the religions. Yet you build your economy and investments on Usury. As a result of this, in all its different forms and guises, the Jews have taken control of your economy, through which they have then taken control of your media, and now control all aspects of your life making you their servants and achieving their aims at your expense; precisely what Benjamin Franklin warned you against.

(iii) You are a nation that permits the production, trading and usage of intoxicants. You also permit drugs, and only forbid the trade of them, even though your nation is the largest consumer of them.

(iv) You are a nation that permits acts of immorality, and you consider them to be pillars of personal freedom. You have continued to sink down this abyss from level to level until incest has spread amongst you, in the face of which neither your sense of honour nor your laws object.

Who can forget your President Clinton's immoral acts committed in the official Oval office? After that you did not even bring him to account, other than that he 'made a mistake', after which everything passed with no punishment. Is there a worse kind of event for which your name will go down in history and remembered by nations?

(v) You are a nation that permits gambling in its all forms. The companies practice this as well, resulting in the investments becoming active and the criminals becoming rich.

(vi) You are a nation that exploits women like consumer products or advertising tools calling upon customers to purchase them. You use women to serve passengers, visitors, and strangers to increase your profit margins. You then rant that you support the liberation of women.

(vii) You are a nation that practices the trade of sex in all its forms, directly and indirectly. Giant corporations and establishments are established on this, under the name of art, entertainment, tourism and freedom, and other deceptive names you attribute to it.

(viii) And because of all this, you have been described in history as a nation that spreads diseases that were unknown to man in the past. Go ahead and boast to the nations of man, that you brought them AIDS as a Satanic American Invention.

(xi) You have destroyed nature with your industrial waste and gases more than any other nation in history. Despite this, you refuse to sign the Kyoto agreement so that you can secure the profit of your greedy companies and*industries.

(x) Your law is the law of the rich and wealthy people, who hold sway in their political parties, and fund their election campaigns with their gifts. Behind them stand the Jews, who control your policies, media and economy.

[treestar]

107. So it was reasonable and fair of bin Laden to plan and carry out the 911 attacks?

We should have just done everything he wanted?

Pray tell, how are we supposed to decide which terrorists to obey? bin Laden was not in charge in S.A. a country that agreed to have us there at the time.

[Roland99]

117. another one that just doesn't get it...not even worth this reply

[treestar]

124. S.A. wanted us there

bin Laden did not.

Who are we to obey about how much we can do in the Middle East?

Osama bin Laden? Why? He was in a minority in his own country. S.A. itself considered him a terrorist. He planned attacks there, too.

It is not realistic that we will have no involvement or that our involvement will always be unwanted or evil. And unreasonable people, I.e. terrorists, will still strike out.

Of course it's not worth it. You are trying to convince me to agree with criminals and support their desires.

But you have helped me see the over-simplicity of the idea we would have no terrorist attacks if we had not interfered in the Middle East. There would be no Israel either. It's not that simple. And only Iran and Iraq would really be justified in attacking us. Not randoms like Al Qaeda and its members. They were not Iranian or Iraqi.

[bowens43]

103. a straw man argument ? really?

[geek tragedy]

104. People have claimed already

that we installed the government of Saudi Arabia and that Al Qaeda are anti-imperialists, so no such thing as a straw man.

[The Link]

3. 9/11...9/11...9/11....

Terror!

Why do you hate America?

[stupidicus]

8. you know it

it all goes to the need to eliminate the concept of american exceptionalism, since we're now number one in more things that hurt rather than help us, with what you noted included.

[ruffburr]

9. LIBERAL FANTASY LAND (REALLY ?)-

Look IF 9/11 was a terrorist attack, And i do mean "IF" ( see P.N.A.C. document) Then logic would dictate that we blow the hell out of the ACTUAL perpetrators NOT whole countries, GEE, I wonder why they hate our guts,The Idea that our fellow americans are dying etc. over this obviously Imperialistic / corporate Power grab is disgusting to say the least, As for the innocent civilians killed and maimed, I'm ashamed that i am powerless to stop this crap.

[FiveGoodMen]

90. 9/11 WAS a terrorist attack

The debate is about who the actual terrorists were.

[Egalitarian Thug]

11. K&R That's the bottom line, right there.

We're hemorrhaging from self-inflicted wounds and "our" leaders are prescribing a good-old-fashioned bleeding as treatment.

[cali]

15. I have a serious question:

Why do you think that otherwise intelligent, informed people, are so adamant in their denial that the elements I presented in my op, have had and continue to have, an enormous and deleterious impact on our national security?

[Egalitarian Thug]

19. I think mainly it's just fear. If one is reasonably intelligent and well informed, you can't help

but to see so many of these things going on. In seeing these things a person will naturally start to question and once you question you are invariably confronted with really uncomfortable answers accompanied by the attendant losses. Loss of faith in people you trust, loss of the illusion of control and the belief that, even when we screw up, our intentions are good. Things like that.

Most of us like to think that the people in charge are better than we are, that they know more than we do, or at least that they have a clue about what they are doing. It is frightening to think that we really are on our own, that what happened to her actually could happen to me, that maybe no one is going to save us, or worse, that powerful people and the institutions they control don't even want to. Once you start down that path it quickly becomes impossible to un-see, so it's better to just not look.

That's one theory, anyway.


One thing I know for sure, trying to figure out why people do anything is usually pointless because most of the time they don't know themselves.

[cali]

20. I think that's a good answer. Thanks.

[Egalitarian Thug]

95. YVW. n/t

[brush]

46. Well reasoned post

I really appreciate you and Cali's posts on this thread.

[Egalitarian Thug]

96. TYVM. It is appreciated. n/t

[sabrina 1]

21. Blind partisanship? The Founding Fathers feared party politics across the board. From Jefferson to

Adams, to Washington among others, all were fearful of the potential for party politics to put party before country.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension … is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out
of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the
interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the
community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against
another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and
corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party
passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the
government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true;
and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor,
upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a
spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of
that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to
be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a
uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.

– George Washington, “Farewell Address,” 1796

I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in
religion, in philosophy, in politics, or
in anything else, where I was capable
of thinking for myself. Such an
addiction is the last degradation of a
free and moral agent. If I could not go
to heaven but with a party, I would
not go there at all.

– Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis
Hopkinson, March 13, 1789

There is nothing which I dread so
much as a division of the republic into
two great parties, each arranged under
its leader, and concerting measures in
opposition to each other.

– John Adams, letter to Jonathan
Jackson, October 2, 1780

Emphasis mine. I think they were very prescient. We are witnessing it, during the Bush era, and to the surprise of many, now as we watch our side suddenly approving of Bush policies they so vehemently opposed during the Bush years. No one changes their minds on such important issues as the destruction of civil rights overnight. The only explanation for these 'conversions' to me, is partisan politics. We must protect our 'own team' at all costs. As Washington said, this will destroy our civil liberties.

[Egalitarian Thug]

94. Not prescient, they had just seen it all before. We have this idea that we are more

sophisticated, more clever, than those who were here before us. The truth is that, toys and gadgets aside, very little has changed. The really clever people have advance their knowledge by building on what was learned before, and the specifics have shifted from this area to another, but the truth is that those men and women were almost exactly like we are.

The founders of this nation did an extraordinary thing in successfully breaking away from the status quo establishment and gave us a chance to free ourselves. We wasted it and let the same system recapture us within a generation. Now, we can try to do it all over again, provided enough of us come to understand that we are reliving the past.

[sabrina 1]

115. True, they had seen it all before and clearly understood human nature. And that is why they worked

so hard on the writing of the Constitution, to try to do all they could at that moment in time, to make it as difficult as possible to go back to what they just defeated.

But when Congress passes laws that are clearly in conflict with the Constitution, such as the revised FISA law, who is going to stop them, especially when we have people now on both sides trying to defend it?

[markpkessinger]

13. Well said, cali! n/t

[Kurovski]

16. They used to call us "Blame America First-ers"

Haven't heard it lately. Probably Rushie will recycle it soon.

That would be...so cool.

K&R

[LuvNewcastle]

18. They hate us because of our actions.

If another country was continually invading America and intervening in our choices of leaders and shooting and bombing people and destroying our property, we would be livid. People would be so desperate to stop it that they would employ any means necessary to make the invaders leave us alone.

America says that it doesn't negotiate with terrorists. You know why we don't? Because we're wrong and we know it and the people in charge are making untold billions, or maybe trillions, from doing the wrong thing. It's better for them to turn the country into a totalitarian state than to change our policies and give up all the money they're making from war and destruction.

All this misery and injustice is being done by a select few people who are reaping the lion's share of the profits. How bad does it have to get before the 99.9% chooses to relieve them of their power? I guess we're about to find out.

[brush]

47. Here here! nt

[Myrina]

50. Spot on!

I've been saying as much for 20 years.

[treestar]

109. Your first paragraph is not a fair description

Or, then we could be attacked by Iran and Chile and that would be "fair."

We are most notorious for, back in the 50s, interfering in Iran's choice of leadership. But note they did not send people to kill us on our soil.

Saudi Araba, OTOH, wanted us there, due to Saddam Hussein's earlier actions.

Indeed, we would be livid. We were livid after 911.

[LuvNewcastle]

113. We have continually been meddling in the Middle East

and all over the world. And which Saudis want us there? Are you talking about the royal family that we've propped up all these years? Take that apologist shit somewhere else.

[treestar]

114. What about reality?

So what happens if we don't "meddle."

Israel demands we meddle. So we step away and they are wiped off the map and chased into the sea as they've been saying they fear. That's OK with you?

Take your US is always bad shit somewhere else. Apologists for Iran - like its actions are just fine and dandy. Let's hope they get nukes and bust Israel off the map.

[LuvNewcastle]

116. I have to confess that one reason I react

so negatively to you, besides your posts where you constantly spin and advocate for the status quo and all the ugliness being done by our government, is your little posts the other day about gay people. Here's a link that talks about it:


http://www.democraticunderground.com/113727459


I don't like you, and I don't wish to have anymore conversations with you in the future, so I'd prefer you not to respond to me. Good day.

[a la izquierda]

22. This is the truth!

Well said, cali.

[Douglas Carpenter]

25. thank you for a little bit of common sense

[forestpath]

28. K&R

[marmar]

30. A simple truth that will forever go unheeded.

nt

[graham4anything]

31. Do you really think all bad people would disappear? What about Dr. Tiller's killer?

What about the gun hoarders in Waco that wanted to overthrow the government.
Would that stop Timid Mc V.?
How exactly would stopping wars stop the extremist who shot up a supermarket, a movie theatre?

How would stopping involvenemnt in war have stopped Hitler? (and shame on FDR for taking far too many years from
entering)

So, I don't really think the above would stop anything

After all, it didn't any other time now did it?

In fact, war has gone on since the big bang created the world and the dinasaurs who fought each
other too

BTW, I do agree the south shouldn't have started the war back in the old days that Rand Paul wants to return to.

so in one word-
I disagree with your post 100%.


btw3-what job do you propose all those under your scenario would work at? You are talking about a million or more jobs, aren't you?
(including the food stores that feed those that work in those industries, and all the other collateral business.

Where will those people go?
Just curious I guess.

of course imho, clearest way to end the bush age, is NOT to vote for someone that will lead to Jeb getting the job and bringing back the family that the revolution threw out.

[cali]

34. no and I said no such thing. and

and I disagree with every word you write here, honey.

[graham4anything]

35. we agree to disagree on everything but "After Midnight".

(assuming you liked After Midnight).

[brush]

37. I like

I'm with you, in fact our overthrowing and assassinating has gone on even longer than 60 years. We overthrew the Hawaiian monarchy in the 1890s at the behest of ex-pat American growers.

We were on our merry way then as we've been involved in arranging coups, overthrows, invasions and assassinations in foreign countries to protect "American interests" continuously since then.

The "American interests" part should actual read "corporate interests".

[Enrique]

38. it's either that, or our current approach

key word "forever"

[polly7]

39. It's always made perfect sense to me. K&R nt.

[Nye Bevan]

42. It's not easy to stop Islamists from viewing the US as the Great Satan.

For starters we would have to shut Hollywood down altogether. They view this as a cesspool spreading US immorality to the rest of the world.

[cali]

45. I doubt that is as much of a factor as our history of

interference. Imagine how you would feel if a foreign country was drone bombing us here.

[Nye Bevan]

49. So why did they bomb the World Trade Center in 1993?

Didn't that pre-date the drones?

[Myrina]

51. I didn't realize the World Trade Center was in Hollywood ...

... "spreading a cesspool of US immorality", as you put it.

[Nye Bevan]

53. LOL. Per your sig line, I'll leave it at that (nt)

[cali]

57. Of course. Didn't our interference in the mideast far far pre-date 1993?

[Nye Bevan]

59. We should have let Saddam keep Kuwait?

There was quite the international consensus to kick him out after he invaded that country.

[cali]

60. I think you need to read a wee bit more about that

why don't you start with April Glaspie?

and go back to our overthrowing the democratically elected government of Mossadegh.

We've been playing nasty games in that region for 60 years.

[Myrina]

48. Yep, that's it, in a nutshell.

n/t

[malaise]

52. Excellent post

as in wow!! There is hope

[Bryn]

54. K&R

[Daniel537]

55. Sorry, not possible.

The MIC needs to make its dollars. Gotta bomb, gotta kill, gotta spy. Brought to you by the RNC/DNC Corp.

[Poll_Blind]

56. +1

PB

[Zorra]

58. They only care about protecting transnational corporate interests. We mean nothing to them,

and they want to keep us under control.

Arab Spring and Occupy scared the bejeezus out of the 1%, and now they are cracking down on us in order to prevent democracy from manifesting.

[Change has come]

61. K&R

[Dreamer Tatum]

62. I'll buy THIS for a dollar! nt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

64. If anyone should be claiming "Mission Accomplished" it would be Al Queda.

We've fought two useless and lost wars, nearly bankrupted ourselves fighting them and arming for more, spawned mi9llions of new enemies, and given up our civil liberties.

[leftstreet]

67. Looks like they got our freedomz after all! n/t

[GoneFishin]

71. True. If as Junior said "they hate our freedom", then their beef with us has been put to rest.

Conflict resolved.

[leftstreet]

68. DURec

[kenny blankenship]

69. Can't have an empire without a police state

Pushing the frontiers out to envelope the globe has the effect of erasing borders for The Homeland. For the glory of Rome, Rome sets out to conquer the rest of Italy, then to bring home the spoils of Europe, Asia and Africa. Before you can say Septimius Severus though, you have all kinds of people from the periphery of the Empire floating around the Homeland and even the Capital! It becomes impossible to feel sure about who is a Roman anymore, and who is a loyal subject, and who is plotting treason? Some are even rising within the military to powerful positions in the government itself. A silent transformation takes place, wherein the people of the Homeland are regarded not just as the most vulnerable spot, as they were before, to be guarded, but also as the likely source of greatest danger to the state. You just can't trust them if they aren't part of the Security Apparatus with a background check and a clearance! Society divides between the watched -who have no right to know, but of whom everything is known- and the all-powerful watchers. It is necessary, they argue, for the watchers to have every imaginable power to keep those they watch over safe. But who will watch the watchers?

[raouldukelives]

72. You got it. It's not about protecting anything but profits. Killing for dollars.

And if you aren't lucky enough to be making the big bucks off it from the top, fear not, it still trickles down to those with retirement accounts in the stock market and those who enlist to take part in defending that profit flow.

[orpupilofnature57]

76. We cause more than we cure, for sure .

[DeSwiss]

77. K&R

Wakeup Crew

[WillyT]

83. HUGE K & R !!! - Thank You !!!

[indepat]

85. But Cali, this has mostly been our modus operandi since the national security state was created

circa 1947: that the CIA has effectively ridded the world of regimes not leaning far enough to the right is testament to the efficiency of the national security state apparatus. Unfortunately what you suggest we stop is what we now routinely do. Keeping us safe is mostly about keeping the national security state and the right-wing agenda intact imo.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

86. "Be a little more even handed with Israel/Palestine."

Where have I heard that before?

Oh, right.

HOWARD DEAN.

[pnwmom]

87. That won't help us against the attacks by religious fundamentalists

who have a competing vision of the world that they are willing to die for.

[cali]

98. and what about the role that the U.S. played in the rise and formation

of fundamentalist groups like A-Q?

[pnwmom]

118. We're stuck living with that huge mistake. n/t

[woo me with science]

93. K&R

[Spider Jerusalem]

97. One thing I really love about the reaction to the NSA revelations?

The attitude that "oh it's okay if we give our government and intelligence agencies carte blanche to spy on foreigners! But not on Americans!" That's absolutely hilarious in its inherent hypocrisy. Would you be okay with British MI6, or the Russian SVR, doing the same sort of thing in the US? Probably not. And you have to be incredibly naive to presume that a government with that ability at its disposal isn't going to use it against its own citizens.

[boilerbabe]

100. yes that is what bugs me. people are ok with this if they think americans are exempt, the

rest of the world isn't as worthy. talk about pompous and arrogant.

[Jasana]

99. So simple. nt

[treestar]

105. After 911, 80% of the populace wanted to do just that

as a form of "protection." It's going to be a hard sell.

But once again, there is no justification for 911, no matter how much "interfering" in the business of - Saudi Arabia, presumably, the U.S. did.

We interfered in Iran and Guatemala and Nicaragua and they didn't attack innocent citizens in a terrorist attack. This is really no argument.

[Puglover]

111. Thanks Cali.

Right after 9-11 Arundahti Roy wrote an astounding essay "The Algebra of Infinite Justice"
Treat yourself. It is an amazing read.
http://www.commondreams.org/views01/1003-09.htm

[dougolat]

120. Thanks for the link, clearer thoughts from before "ground zero" cooled enough to walk on

Sobering, indeed.

[Ilsa]

123. What Cali said! nt