Infinite MonkeysI will respond to Chad's message out of order:
And what is your idea of a "defensive war" fought by the United States?Presuppositions mean a lot. I could have written the above lines, but I would have been trying to make the exact opposite point. I agree that the War of 1812 was likely our only defensive war. But I would argue that this is a horrible stain on our history. Who can really look back proudly on the Mexican-American War? The Filipinos still remember the 250,000+ of their people that we slaughtered trying to pacify that country after the Spanish-American War (another whopper). I think it is worth re-examining the dogma that engaging in the two World Wars was unquestionably the right thing to do.World War II? Most certainly not.
World War I? Hardly.
With the exception of the War of 1812, in the history of the United States there are no conflicts that I would classify as a "defensive war".
What about the North's efforts to preserve the Union in the Civil War? If Lincoln had elected to dig in and merely defend the North, the cession of the South would have been successful and the course of history very different.Don't get me started on That Tyrant Lincoln and the Civil War. Lincoln would not have had to "dig in" and "merely defend" the North, because the North was not invaded by the South. Quite the opposite - Lincoln assembled an army to murder his own countrymen because they exercised their right to secede so clearly articulated in the Declaration of Independence. The South wanted to be left alone - many of the states didn't even secede until they were invaded. "Preserve the Union" my ass. Lincoln cracked the Constitution over the head with a lead pipe, leaving it to twitch and quiver until FDR finally put it out of its misery. Lincoln destroyed the "America" he was trying to preserve.
I have to concur with David on the your absurd suggestions. Sometimes it's appealing to fantasize that we could pull back from the world, curl up in the fetal position, and hide in a protective cocoon, safe and secure from the dangers out there. Unfortunately, we are not children anymore and must face reality. It's a global economy with global markets and an increasingly interconnected global trade. Your suggestions would seriously restrict free and open trade, resulting in a downturn of the US economy as well as the rest of the world's to say nothing of the economic consequences of the world-wide destabilization that would result. What do you think the price of oil would be if your little scenario played out? It is an illusion to believe that if we only drilled in Anwar or got more oil from the Canadian oil sands our energy problems would be solved.Are we at war or not? Do we want to be safe and victorious or comfortable and wealthy in our self-imposed prison?
No, I don't think that drilling alone will solve our energy problems, but a combination of drilling (in ANWR as well as off the coast of California, etc.) along with the construction of several nuclear power plants will help dramatically. Also, a sharp upturn in fuel prices will probably influence (without ham-fisted government regulation) the development of alternate fuel scenarios.
P.S. I believe that Gingrich was talking about restricting civil liberties in the event of a future attack. Can you please cite specific civil liberties that you and your grandchildren are being denied today?1. I am not free to engage in a telephone or e-mail conversation without the possibility of government monitoring.
I could go on and on. Many of these liberties were gone before the INGSOC-inspired "Patriot Act", of course, but our current administration seems bent on expanding these government powers, asking us to "trust them" that they won't abuse them. We remember how that worked out with RICO, don't we?
Posted by RobbL at August 20, 2004 05:07 PM | TrackBack