Hi Woods, > woods: > Your sortive supporting what I said, and I see the concern when > it comes to WMD's. They could be here in a matter of minutes or so. > Thus, geographical positions shrink and it would be as if Iran was > on the U.S. border with tanks and they are building up their army on > the border. Do we wait for them to cross, thus, possibly killing > thousands of U.S. citizens or do we cross into their border? Tough > question. South Korea goes through this daily. > But it's the dabbling in foreign affairs that has lead the U.S. into > such > a position arguably. We were deeply involved with Iran in their > internal affairs and this has lead to opposition in Iran against the U.S. > Notice the current opposition in Europe (though totality different, > currently, > in how we negotiate and deal with each other, except the sanctions Andre > brought up, that's a break-down in how democracies deal with each other). > What about Afghanistan? We dabbled in their internal affairs and their > struggle against the Soviet Union. > It's all these dabblings early on that leads the U.S. into particular > dangers > that now the U.S. has to sit around and discuss what to do with Iran? > The U.S. via its' foreign affairs is bringing the U.S. citizens into > such > disastrous situations. So at this point, what else could we do if Iran > does get nuclear weapons. As if the U.S. doesn't have nuclear weapons, > and the U.S. is in over 100 countries around the world in an empire > strong-arm > position. This needs to be taken into account too. > I think the starting point for all of this includes a look into what > the U.S. > does in its' foreign affairs. What the impact of the U.S. is upon the > world? > Even in the preliminary rounds of non-violent foreign policies that suck > the > U.S. into these dangerous situations. With technology today, the U.S. > could > pull out of all their military stations around the world, arguably not in > Afgan. yet, > and if a country would threaten U.S. soil, then the U.S. could be there in > a matter > of minutes, hours, and with full force in a day or two. But again, this > all is > starting with why the U.S. feels a need to shove their intellectual > policies > around the world, even the non-military policies, for we know how the > giant > in any of the countries of the world might use such intellectual patterns > in a way > that was not intended.
I'm all in favor of trying isolationism again. There's only one problem. Who will defend the intellectual rights of free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, trial by jury, habeas corpus, government by consent, etc.? The rest of the world seems bent on appeasement, just as Europe did during the rise of Hitler and later while threatened by Russian communism. Even now Europeans stand idly by while Muslims, rejecting Western values and refusing to assimilate, occupy their countries. But, what the hell? If you're a multi-culturist, it makes no difference whose regime you live under. All are equally moral. Pirsig may be the only intellectual left who believes multi-culturism is bullcrap. "A culture that supports the dominance of social values over biological values is an absolutely superior culture to one that does not, and a culture that supports the dominance of intellectual values over social values is absolutely superior to one that does not." (Lila, 24) But, who pays any attention to Pirsig anyway? Just a few of us "cult" members. Platt Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
